- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by sssss5
- Jun 09, 2004, 08:12 PMQuote from: I-SMELL-BS-2 on Jun 04, 2004, 12:27 AM
They don't want your heart, your soul, or your ass either for that matter. Get over it! You are nothing but a loser just like George and the rest of the crybabies on this site. What is amazing and very humorous is how long you guys can cry and howl over the loss of your "dream job".
If you weren't so pathetic you would be a real hoot.
Yes, I do whine a little bit about it, until I get paid every two weeks (I'm a GS-12 equiv, and soon to be a GS-13 equiv in late '05 or early '06, if I stay where I'm at). Also, the whole quality of life thing must be considered as well. Now, I CAN go to Law School part time, and easily slide into either a county prosecutors office or the AG (NJ) office when I graduate... Funny how they don't require polygraphs (at least in NJ). Then again, maybe I'll want to pursue another avenue...
In any case, I don't "cry" about my situation, in terms on not getting the job, but rather it's some of the rift raft (yourself?) that are less qualified, but are able to "pass" the polygraph, and are hired. Perhaps you're the next Aldrich Ames? Or maybe the next Robert Philip Hansen? "Passing" a polygraph is meaningless...it doesn't prove that you aren't a dirtbag...
As for the other poster asking about me, please re-read my previous text. I qualified my answer that you quoted in parenthesis in the actual post with something to the effect that I had nothing to lie about in the first place...
Also, it was "PA" who concluded to me that showing deception on any part of the polygraph led her to question the loyalty of the person she was examining, despite the fact that the areas I "showed deception" were "lifestyle issues." It seemed strange to me that that was how she chose to illustrate the importance of the polygraph, but then again, who am I to question her? After all, she's the "expert."
The whole expereince was a farce, and I knew it would be a waste of time, but my panel interviewers were adamant that I continue (and yes, I told them I had taken one before, and failed, to which they explained to me that you don't "fail" a polygraph, you merely "show deception." I would've gone down that road just as easily as the path I am now on, and would've invested the same "ownership" for which I now put in my current career (although when I graduate, new doors will open, and life will again force me to choose new paths).
My only regret, as I kind of alluded to earlier, is that so much faith is put into the polygraph, despite the assurances that it's the "total person" that's looked at. How many qulaified people are we turning away b/c of this? And how many that shouldn't be there are slipping through (i.e. the obvious ones; Ames and Hansen, but what about the Florida USSS agents who were stealing money a few years ago? Or the FBI agent with the Chinese girlfriend, who was his informant, and his girlfriend, and passing secrets on to China). I'm sure there are more, but we'll never know until after the damage is done.
One last thing about the poly that I find interesting: the military is at the forefront of polygraph research and usage (I think they "own" the school, for the most part, for the Feds). In any case, even they were duped (MANY TIMES) by former regime members in Iraq. So much for the experts...
Posted by Marty
- Jun 06, 2004, 04:25 AMQuote from: pillpopper on Jun 02, 2004, 02:54 AMi would pay the FBI to run my background check and I'd give the investigator $1,000 for every person in my past that said I had ever used drugs. I'd give them $10,000 for every person they found that said I sold drugs.
I would be ecstatic if I could be afforded a background check to "prove" my deception on drug questions.
pillpopper,
I read your posts on polyplace and the responses you achieved. They were more forthcoming than with most. I particularly liked the discussion on control questions and informed examinees. Your points and insights were clearly stated and the responses provided additional information in an area that particularly interests me. Thanks.
You might be interested in the fact that Matte adamantly opposes the DLCQT. I was pleased to see a more positive take on it at polyplace. Still, If polygraphers widely believed the DLCQT was as good as the PLCQT I suspect it would be the format of choice.
Both Kleiner and Matte are good references. Matte focuses on his techniques - largely taylored for specific incident tests. Kleiner's book is a compendium of diverse polygraph advocates as well as a decent critique though the NAS's is more comprehensive on screening polys.
Good luck on your appeal. If you don't make it you have a good future in the private sector as we are always in need of people who can think and problem solve.
-Marty
Posted by Ray
- Jun 04, 2004, 03:20 AMsssss5,
After reading your previous posts, I'm having trouble understanding why you're complaining about issues related to national security. From your descriptions, it appears you cleared the issues related to national security. Again, based on your descriptions, those issues were not the cause of your application being denied.
Although you deny making any admissions, it appears that you may have made disqualifying admissions at some point in the process. These don't sound good to me...
1.
Those admissions, coupled with the fact that you provided three written statements, lead me to believe that you were dq'd based on lifestyle issues.
I don't think anyone is questioning your dedication to your country. I think you just did a few things in your personal life that the ATF did not approve of.
After reading your previous posts, I'm having trouble understanding why you're complaining about issues related to national security. From your descriptions, it appears you cleared the issues related to national security. Again, based on your descriptions, those issues were not the cause of your application being denied.
Although you deny making any admissions, it appears that you may have made disqualifying admissions at some point in the process. These don't sound good to me...
1.
QuoteWhy would I admit to some questionable things2.
QuoteI told her everything that i even thought might be a problem, so that when I did take the polygraph, it would be with a clear conscience. Unfortunately, I may have been too honest.
Those admissions, coupled with the fact that you provided three written statements, lead me to believe that you were dq'd based on lifestyle issues.
I don't think anyone is questioning your dedication to your country. I think you just did a few things in your personal life that the ATF did not approve of.
Posted by I-SMELL-BS-2
- Jun 04, 2004, 12:27 AMQuote from: sssss5 on Jun 03, 2004, 01:39 AMI would've put my heart and soul into my career as a SA with ATF.
They don't want your heart, your soul, or your ass either for that matter. Get over it! You are nothing but a loser just like George and the rest of the crybabies on this site. What is amazing and very humorous is how long you guys can cry and howl over the loss of your "dream job".
If you weren't so pathetic you would be a real hoot.
Posted by sssss5
- Jun 03, 2004, 01:39 AMMany many years ago, I had to endure polygraph examinations with federal law enforcement agencies as well as the military. Was I skeptical of the polygraph machine, of course I was.
Did I fail any exams, you damm right I did. You know why, because I witheld alot of things from the examiner.
Even if the instrument did not pick it up, a good field background investigation would have uncovered it and guess what, I would still be screwed.
Fortunately, I told everything to the examiner and explained why I showed a reaction to a particular question and he worked with me. Whoa La, I showed no reaction on the second test.
I just want to reply to the portion of that post. Its been a while since I've been to this site -- last time was right after the good ole ATF said I wasn't honest enough to be a SA with them.
One of the things that really bothered me about the polygraph was when the woman (her intitals were "P.A.") said to me that I needed to pass this, b/c as an Agent I would have access to classifed material vital to US security. That really botered me, b/c that was right after 9-11, and I was still on active duty. As a matter of fact, I had just gotten back from a classified overseas location, where I was working directly with a number of "OGA's," not to mention some of the typical 3 letter orgs we're all familiar with here.
Anyway, I thought to myself, when she said that to me that she was one of the most ignorant and arrogant persons in the world. There I was, with my Top Secret Clearance (DCID 1/14 and SCI eligible), with direct access to the then SIOP (talk about national security secrets directly affecting the security of the US), and I had just returned from overseas on a mission directly related to 9-11! As a matter of fact, it's safe for me to say that I was one of the first US military members to react and deploy for 9-11, and what they wanted us to do (which BTW we never did do) was unbeleivable. Yet, this woman, b/c she could hide behind her all knowing machine, could smugly insinuate that my loyalty and my dedication to this country was at stake b/c her machine said so. I remember that specific feeling...it was surreal.
In any case, I wanted to respond to what was written above (I hope I quoted it properly). The previous author says that a good background check would reveal whatever someone is trying to hide anyway, so don't lie on the polygraph. I just want to point out, that not only did I have my military clearance -- take that for whatever it's worth, but the ATF had already completed my BI, and FOUND NOTHING, B/c THERE WAS/IS NOTHING FOR ME TO HIDE! Not only was my BI completed, but it was done by a former ATF agent who was one of the...shall we say "most senior" agents when he retired.
To me, the polygraph is pure BS, and it's ahame that so much faith is put into it. How many other Aldrich Ames are out there? How many other George Gwaltneys (the CHP officer who murdered a woman he pulled over in the late 70's or early 80's?).
I would've put my heart and soul into my career as a SA with ATF. I put my life on the line for this country twice before, directly during Operation DESERT STORM (and I have the two separate awards -- both with "V" devices to prove it -- one for entering a minefield with one other guy to rescue a wounded American and then helping to extract the body of another). I've continued to do it since then as well (I still work for the US Gov't, but in another capacity now). For P.A. to question my commitment, and my honesty, when I had already put my money where my mouth is, is crazy. It's even more so when one realizes that she drew that conclusion based solely on the results of her "magic box." The ultimate absurdity, however, rests with the ATF, as they decided not to hire me, despite my previous clearances, awards for Valor, and their own BI completed by a former, VERY SENIOR (retired) Agent.
So, to the author of that post: you're advice is meaningless.
Did I fail any exams, you damm right I did. You know why, because I witheld alot of things from the examiner.
Even if the instrument did not pick it up, a good field background investigation would have uncovered it and guess what, I would still be screwed.
Fortunately, I told everything to the examiner and explained why I showed a reaction to a particular question and he worked with me. Whoa La, I showed no reaction on the second test.
I just want to reply to the portion of that post. Its been a while since I've been to this site -- last time was right after the good ole ATF said I wasn't honest enough to be a SA with them.
One of the things that really bothered me about the polygraph was when the woman (her intitals were "P.A.") said to me that I needed to pass this, b/c as an Agent I would have access to classifed material vital to US security. That really botered me, b/c that was right after 9-11, and I was still on active duty. As a matter of fact, I had just gotten back from a classified overseas location, where I was working directly with a number of "OGA's," not to mention some of the typical 3 letter orgs we're all familiar with here.
Anyway, I thought to myself, when she said that to me that she was one of the most ignorant and arrogant persons in the world. There I was, with my Top Secret Clearance (DCID 1/14 and SCI eligible), with direct access to the then SIOP (talk about national security secrets directly affecting the security of the US), and I had just returned from overseas on a mission directly related to 9-11! As a matter of fact, it's safe for me to say that I was one of the first US military members to react and deploy for 9-11, and what they wanted us to do (which BTW we never did do) was unbeleivable. Yet, this woman, b/c she could hide behind her all knowing machine, could smugly insinuate that my loyalty and my dedication to this country was at stake b/c her machine said so. I remember that specific feeling...it was surreal.
In any case, I wanted to respond to what was written above (I hope I quoted it properly). The previous author says that a good background check would reveal whatever someone is trying to hide anyway, so don't lie on the polygraph. I just want to point out, that not only did I have my military clearance -- take that for whatever it's worth, but the ATF had already completed my BI, and FOUND NOTHING, B/c THERE WAS/IS NOTHING FOR ME TO HIDE! Not only was my BI completed, but it was done by a former ATF agent who was one of the...shall we say "most senior" agents when he retired.
To me, the polygraph is pure BS, and it's ahame that so much faith is put into it. How many other Aldrich Ames are out there? How many other George Gwaltneys (the CHP officer who murdered a woman he pulled over in the late 70's or early 80's?).
I would've put my heart and soul into my career as a SA with ATF. I put my life on the line for this country twice before, directly during Operation DESERT STORM (and I have the two separate awards -- both with "V" devices to prove it -- one for entering a minefield with one other guy to rescue a wounded American and then helping to extract the body of another). I've continued to do it since then as well (I still work for the US Gov't, but in another capacity now). For P.A. to question my commitment, and my honesty, when I had already put my money where my mouth is, is crazy. It's even more so when one realizes that she drew that conclusion based solely on the results of her "magic box." The ultimate absurdity, however, rests with the ATF, as they decided not to hire me, despite my previous clearances, awards for Valor, and their own BI completed by a former, VERY SENIOR (retired) Agent.
So, to the author of that post: you're advice is meaningless.
Posted by anxietyguy
- Jun 02, 2004, 03:37 PMSherypolygraph,
It's amazing that you know how much I spent at the Mall on my credit card last week! I have heard of credit score checks but I doubt what you are claiming. Do you think you can read my mind when I use mental countermeasures to beat your "machine"?? Maybe you need to do some more research. You are not Jesus, get real and wake up from your dream.
-Anxietyguy
It's amazing that you know how much I spent at the Mall on my credit card last week! I have heard of credit score checks but I doubt what you are claiming. Do you think you can read my mind when I use mental countermeasures to beat your "machine"?? Maybe you need to do some more research. You are not Jesus, get real and wake up from your dream.
-Anxietyguy
Posted by Bill Crider
- Jun 02, 2004, 02:54 AMi would pay the FBI to run my background check and I'd give the investigator $1,000 for every person in my past that said I had ever used drugs. I'd give them $10,000 for every person they found that said I sold drugs.
I would be ecstatic if I could be afforded a background check to "prove" my deception on drug questions.
I would be ecstatic if I could be afforded a background check to "prove" my deception on drug questions.
Posted by sherpolygraph
- Jun 02, 2004, 01:26 AMAnonymous,
I sympathize with you. I truly hope you get on board with an agency. Judging by your post, you are certainly a passionate and persistent person. I wish you the best in all your endeavors.
Like I said in earlier posts, I will not and cannot comment on other examiner's examinations on individual. I can only comment on the examinations I have conducted as well as my collegues.
To everyone on this board, I know it must be disheartening to be eliminated and DQ when you are so close.
I want to tell all of you a true story. My eldest son just came back last year from Iraq in the Army. He was extremely motivated and applied to a local law enforcement agency. My son has never used drugs in his life. When he took the polygraph exam, he was labeled deceptive and subsequently disqualified from the process. He felt as if his life was shattered.
When I talked to my son and asked why he would react to the drug question and he then told me that one of his good friend died of a drug overdose.
When he applied to another department, he told this to the polygraph examiner and the examiner worked with him. He is currently in the academy.
Lastly, to respond to one of the postings, do some polygraph examiners do a poor job on examinations which inadvertently effect the outcome of examination of individual and consequently effect their career, of course.
Dont blame the whole profession for the actions of the few. I have been in this business for over a decade and I make it a point to work with individuals during examinations.
Stay motivated gentleman, all things will work out in the end.
John B.
I sympathize with you. I truly hope you get on board with an agency. Judging by your post, you are certainly a passionate and persistent person. I wish you the best in all your endeavors.
Like I said in earlier posts, I will not and cannot comment on other examiner's examinations on individual. I can only comment on the examinations I have conducted as well as my collegues.
To everyone on this board, I know it must be disheartening to be eliminated and DQ when you are so close.
I want to tell all of you a true story. My eldest son just came back last year from Iraq in the Army. He was extremely motivated and applied to a local law enforcement agency. My son has never used drugs in his life. When he took the polygraph exam, he was labeled deceptive and subsequently disqualified from the process. He felt as if his life was shattered.
When I talked to my son and asked why he would react to the drug question and he then told me that one of his good friend died of a drug overdose.
When he applied to another department, he told this to the polygraph examiner and the examiner worked with him. He is currently in the academy.
Lastly, to respond to one of the postings, do some polygraph examiners do a poor job on examinations which inadvertently effect the outcome of examination of individual and consequently effect their career, of course.
Dont blame the whole profession for the actions of the few. I have been in this business for over a decade and I make it a point to work with individuals during examinations.
Stay motivated gentleman, all things will work out in the end.
John B.
Posted by Anonymous
- Jun 02, 2004, 01:09 AMJohn B. (sherpolygraph),
You mentioned
So, in an extremely general blanket statement, are you indicating that each and every account shared on this board regarding polygraph false positives is a lie? Are you actually expecting everyone to believe that for EVERY SINGLE PERSON that has failed a polygraph exam yet claimed to have been truthful (myself included), a full-fledged, in-depth background investigation would uncover the issue that we were all supposedly being deceptive on?
Understand this - I don't for a second believe that everyone here who has claimed to be a false positive is actually a false positive. That would be stupid. But, there is one person that I can be sure of - myself. I disclosed every instance of drug use I had been involved with (don't be misled - it wasn't much). Yet, I was accused of lying about being within the agency's drug use policy INCLUDING the sale of illegal drugs! Absolute lunacy. So tell me - how would a background investigation uncover that? It never happened...
On another note, and I really don't mean disrespect here as I am not yet understanding of your intentions in posting, would you explain why all of your posts seem to display very poor usage of the English language almost to the point of unfamiliarity? Maybe I missed this in another post - are you of another country? The only Sher Polygraph Services I'm finding is in Las Vegas, Nevada USA. So what is the deal with your English difficulties? I ask only because it tends to distract as well as call your credibility in question - you are trying to relate to the readers of this site as though you were "one of us" yet you struggle with English?
Explain...
You mentioned
QuoteOur company has conducted a combined polygraph examination of 4,000. Of all the deceptive exams, you know how many were "false positive?" None.
So, in an extremely general blanket statement, are you indicating that each and every account shared on this board regarding polygraph false positives is a lie? Are you actually expecting everyone to believe that for EVERY SINGLE PERSON that has failed a polygraph exam yet claimed to have been truthful (myself included), a full-fledged, in-depth background investigation would uncover the issue that we were all supposedly being deceptive on?
Understand this - I don't for a second believe that everyone here who has claimed to be a false positive is actually a false positive. That would be stupid. But, there is one person that I can be sure of - myself. I disclosed every instance of drug use I had been involved with (don't be misled - it wasn't much). Yet, I was accused of lying about being within the agency's drug use policy INCLUDING the sale of illegal drugs! Absolute lunacy. So tell me - how would a background investigation uncover that? It never happened...
On another note, and I really don't mean disrespect here as I am not yet understanding of your intentions in posting, would you explain why all of your posts seem to display very poor usage of the English language almost to the point of unfamiliarity? Maybe I missed this in another post - are you of another country? The only Sher Polygraph Services I'm finding is in Las Vegas, Nevada USA. So what is the deal with your English difficulties? I ask only because it tends to distract as well as call your credibility in question - you are trying to relate to the readers of this site as though you were "one of us" yet you struggle with English?
Explain...
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Jun 02, 2004, 12:59 AMBut wait! Let's hear more about how you are going to run credit card checks.
Posted by sherpolygraph
- Jun 02, 2004, 12:50 AMKona,
I appreciate your opinion. The polygraph instrument is one of many investigative tool that law enforcement agencies use the screen applicants. I agree it should not be the one all end all process.
Many many years ago, I had to endure polygraph examinations with federal law enforcement agencies as well as the military. Was I skeptical of the polygraph machine, of course I was.
Did I fail any exams, you damm right I did. You know why, because I witheld alot of things from the examiner.
Even if the instrument did not pick it up, a good field background investigation would have uncovered it and guess what, I would still be screwed.
Fortunately, I told everything to the examiner and explained why I showed a reaction to a particular question and he worked with me. Whoa La, I showed no reaction on the second test.
The moral of the story is, when I and my collegues give examinations, we are not out there to screw any of you, we were there done it, been through hell ourselves. So it behooves each and everyone of you to be straight.
You are trying to get onboard with a law enforcement agency. Basically, using countermeasures is cheating. Why not cheat at the academy if the ends justify the means, why not sell out your partner if it benefits your career in the long run, why not betray your country.
Lastly, I cannot comment on statistics that is currently published because I was not a part of those statistics. Our company has conducted a combined polygraph examination of 4,000. Of all the deceptive exams, you know how many were "false positive?" None. How do we know this, for all the deceptive exams, we got full fledge confession which were corroborated by a full field background investigation.
John B.
Sher Polygraph Services
I appreciate your opinion. The polygraph instrument is one of many investigative tool that law enforcement agencies use the screen applicants. I agree it should not be the one all end all process.
Many many years ago, I had to endure polygraph examinations with federal law enforcement agencies as well as the military. Was I skeptical of the polygraph machine, of course I was.
Did I fail any exams, you damm right I did. You know why, because I witheld alot of things from the examiner.
Even if the instrument did not pick it up, a good field background investigation would have uncovered it and guess what, I would still be screwed.
Fortunately, I told everything to the examiner and explained why I showed a reaction to a particular question and he worked with me. Whoa La, I showed no reaction on the second test.
The moral of the story is, when I and my collegues give examinations, we are not out there to screw any of you, we were there done it, been through hell ourselves. So it behooves each and everyone of you to be straight.
You are trying to get onboard with a law enforcement agency. Basically, using countermeasures is cheating. Why not cheat at the academy if the ends justify the means, why not sell out your partner if it benefits your career in the long run, why not betray your country.
Lastly, I cannot comment on statistics that is currently published because I was not a part of those statistics. Our company has conducted a combined polygraph examination of 4,000. Of all the deceptive exams, you know how many were "false positive?" None. How do we know this, for all the deceptive exams, we got full fledge confession which were corroborated by a full field background investigation.
John B.
Sher Polygraph Services
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jun 01, 2004, 10:51 PMDear Sherpolygraph,
Your statement is very correct. Most of the polygraph examiners in government are experienced investigators. I would trust more of their investigative experience without hiding behind "the machine." Allow me to defend my honor by investigating what you believe to be false on your hunch and let the chips fall where they may but do not hide behind the results of a polygraph examination and hold it up as the "Golden Grail of Truth."
I respect a good interrogator. I think anyone who has to hide behind "the machine" is weak in his skills. The Emperor has no clothes. He is naked. Only an observer holding his eyes closed can argue otherwise in pre-screening polygraph examination.
Regards.
Your statement is very correct. Most of the polygraph examiners in government are experienced investigators. I would trust more of their investigative experience without hiding behind "the machine." Allow me to defend my honor by investigating what you believe to be false on your hunch and let the chips fall where they may but do not hide behind the results of a polygraph examination and hold it up as the "Golden Grail of Truth."
I respect a good interrogator. I think anyone who has to hide behind "the machine" is weak in his skills. The Emperor has no clothes. He is naked. Only an observer holding his eyes closed can argue otherwise in pre-screening polygraph examination.
Regards.
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Jun 01, 2004, 01:06 AMJust how stupid do you think people are? Run a credit card check? On what or on whom, moron? Can't you at least come up with something more realistic or believeable? Your "war on countermeasures" is a lot like the military - it trains as if it were going to fight its last war. Who needs an "anal sphincter countermeasure detection pad?" You do, apparently. Clue for you: one does not need to use that method to spike your test.
Posted by Kona
- May 31, 2004, 06:30 PMQuote from: sherpolygraph on May 31, 2004, 05:48 PM1) Most law enforcement polygraph examiners are skillful detectives/officers prior to becoming an examiner. Do you think we need a polygraph machine to know someone is lying.
This is the only part of your post that isn't total BULLSHIT.
Skillful interrogation techniques, and the examinee's ignorance are the two biggest things that the polygrapher have going for them. You're absolutly right, they don't need a stupid machine to know when someone is lying.
Now is your chance to prove how right you are about countermeasures being so easily detectable. Why don't you sign up for Dr. Drew Richardson's challenge, and make us all look bad?
Anal sphincter pad...........hahahahah, another worthless piece of techno junk. But it does look very intimidating
Kona