- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 30, 2006, 07:13 PMNoName01,
I don't know what agency has granted your security clearance, or whether you're a government employee or a contractor. To protect your anonymity, you might not want to post that information.
I do know that if you're a DoD employee or contractor, if your clearance is revoked, you can file an appeal with the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). If you're a contractor, the decision of the DOHA judge will be binding on DoD. If you're a DoD employee, it won't be. (A blatant double standard, don't you think?) I do not know what avenues of appeal may be available to you with other agencies.
You might want to reference Security Clearances and National Security Information: Law and Procedures by Sheldon I. Cohen. Chapter 8, which deals with the polygraph, is available here:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/security-clearances.shtml
You can download the entire book as a 17.5 mb PDF file here:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/security-clearances.pdf
I don't know what agency has granted your security clearance, or whether you're a government employee or a contractor. To protect your anonymity, you might not want to post that information.
I do know that if you're a DoD employee or contractor, if your clearance is revoked, you can file an appeal with the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). If you're a contractor, the decision of the DOHA judge will be binding on DoD. If you're a DoD employee, it won't be. (A blatant double standard, don't you think?) I do not know what avenues of appeal may be available to you with other agencies.
You might want to reference Security Clearances and National Security Information: Law and Procedures by Sheldon I. Cohen. Chapter 8, which deals with the polygraph, is available here:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/security-clearances.shtml
You can download the entire book as a 17.5 mb PDF file here:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/security-clearances.pdf
Posted by NoName01
- Jan 30, 2006, 03:33 PMGeorge, I agree that "subconscious countermeasures" was pretty far fetched. The question was posed to me by my Security Officer who asked if I felt it was possible. I told them that it sounded absurd to me.
The polygraher actually asked if I had researched polygraphy AFTER the exam was over. Says he knows for a fact that I utilized countermeasures and that until I admitted to as much, he would not give me another.
This is my career and my future on the line here. What recouse would I have if my TS/SCI is pulled as a result of this mess?
The polygraher actually asked if I had researched polygraphy AFTER the exam was over. Says he knows for a fact that I utilized countermeasures and that until I admitted to as much, he would not give me another.
This is my career and my future on the line here. What recouse would I have if my TS/SCI is pulled as a result of this mess?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 30, 2006, 09:53 AMNoName01,
The notion that you may have employed countermeasures "subconsciously" seems pretty far-fetched to me. I don't think there is anything wrong with you. The problem lies elsewhere.
Your admitted knowledge of polygraph procedure completely invalidated the already dubious assumptions on which CQT polygraphy is based. The fact that your polygrapher went ahead and polygraphed you anyway is testament to the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the polygraph community.
Until the polygraph community publicly articulates how polygraphers are to handle those who understand "the lie behind the lie detector," those who are subject to polygarph screening will be wise to deny having researched this pseudoscience. The only exception might be those who are invited back for a "re-test" after an initial polygraph "failure." In such circumstances, a polygrapher might have a hard time believing that a subject will not have researched polygraphy, and adopting the "complete honesty" approach outlined in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector might be taken as a sign of honesty.
The notion that you may have employed countermeasures "subconsciously" seems pretty far-fetched to me. I don't think there is anything wrong with you. The problem lies elsewhere.
Your admitted knowledge of polygraph procedure completely invalidated the already dubious assumptions on which CQT polygraphy is based. The fact that your polygrapher went ahead and polygraphed you anyway is testament to the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the polygraph community.
Until the polygraph community publicly articulates how polygraphers are to handle those who understand "the lie behind the lie detector," those who are subject to polygarph screening will be wise to deny having researched this pseudoscience. The only exception might be those who are invited back for a "re-test" after an initial polygraph "failure." In such circumstances, a polygrapher might have a hard time believing that a subject will not have researched polygraphy, and adopting the "complete honesty" approach outlined in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector might be taken as a sign of honesty.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 30, 2006, 01:32 AMQuote from: NoName01 on Jan 30, 2006, 01:07 AM Probably be subjected to many poly's in my immediate future. Joy....
Good luck even getting into the polygraph rooms. The polygraph community is pretty tight knit and once they feel you are a non-believer you might not even get another polygraph. You might get one or two only to prove they are right and you are wrong (the results are in before you even step into the door).
Almost all examiners ask if you have ever taken a polygraph before. When you say yes and you did not pass "the parameters" the hair goes up on the back of their necks and you might as well walk out the door.
Sorry to see that one more innocent applicant's reputation is ruined by this infernal machine.
Regards.
Posted by NoName01
- Jan 30, 2006, 01:07 AMWell, lesson learned. As I stated previously, I have nothing to hide and figured that honesty would be the best policy (gullible, I know).
While I had browsed around the site prior to this admission, I had not dived into it deep enough to read the consequences of divulging my newfound info. I had not yet seen this message board either.
Not quite sure where this goes from here. Supposed to find something out some time early this week. Probably be subjected to many poly's in my immediate future. Joy....
While I had browsed around the site prior to this admission, I had not dived into it deep enough to read the consequences of divulging my newfound info. I had not yet seen this message board either.
Not quite sure where this goes from here. Supposed to find something out some time early this week. Probably be subjected to many poly's in my immediate future. Joy....
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 30, 2006, 12:41 AMQuote from: polyfool on Jan 29, 2006, 09:07 PM...honesty doesn't get one through the poly. ...
The most truthful statement about the use of polygraphs is also one of the most ironic. What a paradox, in order to find the "Truth" one must be dishonest. Heck of a way to run a government program!
Regards.
Posted by polyfool
- Jan 29, 2006, 09:07 PMNoname01,
If you had researched polygraphs on this site before taking one, then why on earth did you admit it to your examiner? Did you not pay any attention to the advice given here? Did your completely disregard the numerous posters on this site who researched the poly, told the truth and failed their polys anyway? They too had nothing to hide, just as you assert in your post. Eosjupiter is not kidding when he says that examiners don't think this site is funny. In fact, they are very paranoid about its existence. Sounds like, unfortunately for you, that you didn't take this poly stuff very seriously. Admitting that you've visited this site is a sure fire way to get accused of countermeasures. Even if you had employed countermeasures, your examiner wouldn't have known for sure. He was just bluffing to see if you'd bite. I hate to keep repeating myself, but if examiners could detect cms, they would not accuse examinees of using them who don't know they exist. While your honesty is admirable, honesty doesn't get one through the poly. This is an example of learning a lesson the hard way.
If you had researched polygraphs on this site before taking one, then why on earth did you admit it to your examiner? Did you not pay any attention to the advice given here? Did your completely disregard the numerous posters on this site who researched the poly, told the truth and failed their polys anyway? They too had nothing to hide, just as you assert in your post. Eosjupiter is not kidding when he says that examiners don't think this site is funny. In fact, they are very paranoid about its existence. Sounds like, unfortunately for you, that you didn't take this poly stuff very seriously. Admitting that you've visited this site is a sure fire way to get accused of countermeasures. Even if you had employed countermeasures, your examiner wouldn't have known for sure. He was just bluffing to see if you'd bite. I hate to keep repeating myself, but if examiners could detect cms, they would not accuse examinees of using them who don't know they exist. While your honesty is admirable, honesty doesn't get one through the poly. This is an example of learning a lesson the hard way.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jan 29, 2006, 05:46 PMQuote from: NoName01 on Jan 29, 2006, 04:42 PM
Again, I ask if this is an unheard of event. Polygraphers are supposed to look for these changes in your breathing, heart rate, etc. However, if someone comes out and says that they researched polygraphy, does this somehow change how someone's readings should appear?
I did not consciously alter my breathing during control questions, but the polygrapher says otherwise. I do not believe in the validity of the polygraph (at least not anymore) after being as forthright as one could possibly be and still not "passing" the test.
NoName01,
OK, you admitted to researching polygraphy, the polygrapher got suspicious, he failed you because he couldn't trust that you hadn't been using countermeasures. Which he couldn't have detected anyways. You modified the model and the rules, so there is not much else to be said, but you screwed up. Never ever, ever admit to coming to this site. The polygraph community at large has no sense of humor at all on this site, The polygrapher took the safe route and failed you, because to pass would have ment that he never would have known what you were doing. Failure is always the default in this case. Look at some of the other threads and read the results of others who have admitted to researching polygraphy. Good luck
Regards ...
Posted by NoName01
- Jan 29, 2006, 04:42 PMNo, I assure you that I am not a polygrapher in disguise. I am just as I said I am. The polygrapher let in on the control questions when I stated that I had researched polygraphy and knew what they were and stated a couple of examples of the control questions he had utilized.
My question is a valid one. I do think that polygraphs can be beaten with someone using the countermeasures as described on this site. I, however, chose not to use them, as I did not have anything to hide nor did I want to risk. My confusion stems from the fact that there were changes in my breathing at certain points within the poly exam. Whey I asked at what point they were changing, he stated that they were only during "control questions."
Again, I ask if this is an unheard of event. Polygraphers are supposed to look for these changes in your breathing, heart rate, etc. However, if someone comes out and says that they researched polygraphy, does this somehow change how someone's readings should appear?
I did not consciously alter my breathing during control questions, but the polygrapher says otherwise. I do not believe in the validity of the polygraph (at least not anymore) after being as forthright as one could possibly be and still not "passing" the test.
My question is a valid one. I do think that polygraphs can be beaten with someone using the countermeasures as described on this site. I, however, chose not to use them, as I did not have anything to hide nor did I want to risk. My confusion stems from the fact that there were changes in my breathing at certain points within the poly exam. Whey I asked at what point they were changing, he stated that they were only during "control questions."
Again, I ask if this is an unheard of event. Polygraphers are supposed to look for these changes in your breathing, heart rate, etc. However, if someone comes out and says that they researched polygraphy, does this somehow change how someone's readings should appear?
I did not consciously alter my breathing during control questions, but the polygrapher says otherwise. I do not believe in the validity of the polygraph (at least not anymore) after being as forthright as one could possibly be and still not "passing" the test.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 29, 2006, 03:21 PMThis post sounds and feels mighty suspicious to me. Most polygraph examiners are not going to get into detailed descriptions of control questions. Sounds like a person trying to convince readers that polygraph operators can "detect countermeasures", even "subconcious ones." This would be mind reading at its best. If you read this poster's writings over several threads, I think you will get the drift.
I might have to change my call sign to "SKEPTIC" on this one.
I might have to change my call sign to "SKEPTIC" on this one.
Posted by NoName01
- Jan 29, 2006, 02:31 PMRecently had a poly where the polygrapher accused me of employing countermeasures. While I realize that this site says to DENY RESEARCHING THE POLY, I felt no need in hiding this fact, as I had nothing to hide.
After all was said and done, the polygrapher would not give me a passing grade because he was sure that I had employed countermeasures, regardless of my denials. The countermeasures in question were an apparent altering of my respirations.
Now, while I know what countermeasures are and know how/when to use them, I decided early on that this was not the route that I was going to go. Especially considering that from the moment I found this site, I told myself that I would not hide the fact that I had researched polygraphy if asked.
My question is this, while I can say with 100% certainty that I did not intend to employ any type of countermeasure, is it possible that my subconscious decided to do otherwise? I thought he was bluffing me til he showed me the charts that depicted a clear change in my breathing during control questions.
Comments??
After all was said and done, the polygrapher would not give me a passing grade because he was sure that I had employed countermeasures, regardless of my denials. The countermeasures in question were an apparent altering of my respirations.
Now, while I know what countermeasures are and know how/when to use them, I decided early on that this was not the route that I was going to go. Especially considering that from the moment I found this site, I told myself that I would not hide the fact that I had researched polygraphy if asked.
My question is this, while I can say with 100% certainty that I did not intend to employ any type of countermeasure, is it possible that my subconscious decided to do otherwise? I thought he was bluffing me til he showed me the charts that depicted a clear change in my breathing during control questions.
Comments??