- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by cesium_133
- Jul 20, 2006, 04:22 PMI might guess that herdman is a polygrapher or is somehow connected yet today with the box.
No matter what the connection between the ploygraph, er, polygraph and employment opportunities in government is, it's off base. What this site demonstrates, and very well, is that the box simply doesn't do what is advertised.
Herdman actually concedes this in his opening post: that the poly is not a lie detector. That it measures only physiological responses and biofeedback, and does so without regard as to why said biofeedback occurs. That it cannot tell why such BFB occurs, anyhow. Thank you, QED.
That leaves me puzzled as to the veracity and sincerity of the pro-poly side: cui bono? That is, why is herdman defending something that he admits is falsely labeled and understood, while we expose it for what it is? We, the concerned public, have more reason to be concerned about misuse of this device than does someone incestuously connected with the poly and who apparently has profited from its use.
Herdman thus is left with arguing for the indirect, value-based, imprecise, and defeatable "benefit" of the magic box: the post-test interrogation. This 3rd degree is, of course, based on speculation and blind guesswork assessment on the part of Polyman. He must speculate what the lines mean; speculate what kind of lie, if any, is being told; and then come up with something to try to force a confession of something, old Soviet-style. All the while relying on nothing more than BFB that could, and often does, come from fear, upset, revulsion at a question, or even negative stimulus by the polyman's tone of voice.
What kind of a sick joke is this?
Enough people have come forward in this one thread alone with their experiences of disqualification from jobs based only on poly results to make me believe that those scores make all the difference. I simply do not buy that a "DI" or "SR" response is just thrown away or mixed into the calculations (unless the government chooses to do so). This is a tool, all right: a tool utilizing the same deception and misinformation and half-truths that it allegedly attempts to prevent. Sounds kind of like the breaking wheel, if you ask me.
The end does not justify the means, people. That is the apologists' excuse for totalitarianism. Maybe we can re-open Lubyanka Prison and put the poly in there as the newest torture method...
No matter what the connection between the ploygraph, er, polygraph and employment opportunities in government is, it's off base. What this site demonstrates, and very well, is that the box simply doesn't do what is advertised.
Herdman actually concedes this in his opening post: that the poly is not a lie detector. That it measures only physiological responses and biofeedback, and does so without regard as to why said biofeedback occurs. That it cannot tell why such BFB occurs, anyhow. Thank you, QED.
That leaves me puzzled as to the veracity and sincerity of the pro-poly side: cui bono? That is, why is herdman defending something that he admits is falsely labeled and understood, while we expose it for what it is? We, the concerned public, have more reason to be concerned about misuse of this device than does someone incestuously connected with the poly and who apparently has profited from its use.
Herdman thus is left with arguing for the indirect, value-based, imprecise, and defeatable "benefit" of the magic box: the post-test interrogation. This 3rd degree is, of course, based on speculation and blind guesswork assessment on the part of Polyman. He must speculate what the lines mean; speculate what kind of lie, if any, is being told; and then come up with something to try to force a confession of something, old Soviet-style. All the while relying on nothing more than BFB that could, and often does, come from fear, upset, revulsion at a question, or even negative stimulus by the polyman's tone of voice.
What kind of a sick joke is this?
Enough people have come forward in this one thread alone with their experiences of disqualification from jobs based only on poly results to make me believe that those scores make all the difference. I simply do not buy that a "DI" or "SR" response is just thrown away or mixed into the calculations (unless the government chooses to do so). This is a tool, all right: a tool utilizing the same deception and misinformation and half-truths that it allegedly attempts to prevent. Sounds kind of like the breaking wheel, if you ask me.
The end does not justify the means, people. That is the apologists' excuse for totalitarianism. Maybe we can re-open Lubyanka Prison and put the poly in there as the newest torture method...
Posted by alterego1
- Jul 20, 2006, 01:25 AMQuote from: herdman14 on Jan 30, 2006, 07:31 PMYou're statement,"But I also know from multiple sources that applicants to the CIA, NSA, FBI, U.S. Secret Service, DEA, and other agencies that require pre-employment polygraph screening may be denied employment based on polygraph results alone, even in the absence of any disqualifying admissions" is false. I don't need to rely on sources. I worked there and know how it works. You obviously do not.
You're next statement, "As a recruiter, she needn't have been a security officer to have gained an understanding of CIA hiring practices, including applicant vetting, and the extent to which polygraph results are relied upon," is as asinine as the first. The polygraph has nothing to do with the hiring process. It has to do with the clearance process. It's a security procedure.
You're whole argument against the polygraph and your whole website for that matter is based on hearsay and nothing more. Furthermore, you have about as much expertise in the polygraph as I have in building moon rockets.
There are companies out there that hire Staff Security Officers who have no concept of the usage of your/you're?
Good to see people's lives are at the mercy of such competent individuals.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Feb 01, 2006, 02:45 AMQuote from: herdman14 on Jan 30, 2006, 01:07 PMI happen to be the Personnel Security Manager for a large defense contractor and I have not had one person ask to file a complaint.
Herdsman14,
I gave your post some scrutiny, my analysis and estimates on why you are here, are as follows:
1. Why would a Personnel Security Manager take time to be on this site?
Answer: This website is causing real havoc with both recruiting new folks and existing employees. I would be willing to bet that your current scientists and engineers know this website exists and are either quitting or finding ways around your polygraphing. Trying to conn technical people is a recipe for failure, as most of us can smell BS. I am sure you get some who don't but those folks are either young or naive. New hires do research on your company and find out they have to be polygraphed and say "No thanks". Or they admit to having researched polygraphy and they are failed by the polygrapher and your jobs go unfilled.
2. Why would a security manager even bother with this website if the information was worthless.
Answer: Your getting heat from both your seniors and the government on why you can't get personnel. And why your seriously deficient on your polygraph exams in your security files of cleared people. Your customers are threating to pull contracts if you don't do something. Don't feel bad, not much you can do to stop the truth. Most scientists and engineers I know that work govt. contracting are quite informed on how to use countermeasures and this website.
3. Why would a security manager try and downgrade this website and also why are there no complaints on the polygraphers
Answer: Because its the only way you have to respond right now. There are way too many of us who don't believe versus those who push the BS that the polygraph works. I am sure that if anyone complained, they would be fired or at least suffer some type of retribution. Sorry corporations are not people friendly.
But do come back again ... I find analysis of your posts most stimulating.
Regards .....
Posted by Johnn
- Jan 31, 2006, 04:54 PMMe too. I didn't get a position with the FBI because according to them, I "failed" the polygraph. My offer was rescinded. That was the only reason the FBI gave me - because I did not fall within the range of their acceptable "polygraphic" parameters. :-/
Posted by polyscam
- Jan 31, 2006, 02:37 PMQuote from: herdman14 on Jan 30, 2006, 01:07 PMI've been reading some of the crap posted on this website and all I see are a bunch of uninformed babies crying about their polygraph experience. Having been an adjudicator of security clearances for a number of years, I can say that you people have no idea what you are talking about. First off, there are 4 different calls SPR (significant physiological response), NSPR (no significant physiological response), Inconclusive (meaning they couldnt get a good read), and Incomplete (meaning they didnt get to, or didnt finish the question). The polygraph machine is 100% accurate. All it does is measures physiological responses. That's it! It's not a lie detector, it's just a machine that measures physiological reactions. That being said, I can't speak on behalf off all agencies but the CIA does not tell you whether you passed or failed. So, anyone who claims they have would be lying. I read one man's personal statement that stated "If I had access to a video recording of my polygraph examination, I could simply sit back, hit the Play button, and let the wheels of justice turn," well genius, if you felt you were treated unfairly, why didn't you complain to your company security officer, who could then file a former complaint against the polygrapher? Then the tape would be reviewed to corroborate what your saying is true. It's amazing the number of feel sorry for me stories I've read on here. I happen to be the Personnel Security Manager for a large defense contractor and I have not had one person ask to file a complaint. Also, I wouldn't get too hung up on the calls of SPR and NSPR, if you bother to read the DCID 6/4 guidelines, you won't find in them anywhere were it states the calls can be used against you. It's only what you admit in your session. I could spend the rest of the day ripping holes in the statements that have been made on this website, but I have better things to do than read sob stories.
Firstly, I can tell you that I was denied further processing due to an unfavorable polygraph result for a local PD. Secondly, all complaints I initiated seemed to garner little interest among the particular agency and the state's polygraph association. The examiner was shielded by departmental policy of releasing no information to third parties.
That being said, I invite you to attempt to rip a hole in my story. In the end you will find only one hole, the one between your ears.
Posted by nolehce
- Jan 31, 2006, 03:16 AMHerdman,
Um, it sounds like you are the one crying. Listen to tone of your posts. You are an angry, hurt -- and frightened man. Or do you always carry yourself about in such a state of emotional disrepair?
Yes, frightened, because you came across this site and saw all that you had believed in challenged, and I dare say, challenged quite compellingly by those who have posted about their polygraph experiences.
A message board is not a lie detector, but the levels of stress reactions I am reading off your posts tell me that your career and life are built on lies.
I'd say you are showing quite a SIGNIFICANT PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE to what you are reading here.
You pull the standard spook cloak and dagger crap: everyone here is SOOOOO uninformed -- yet you then tell us your magical wizard books are CLASSIFIED!
Mr. Herdie, you live in closed world of security sycophants and you just cannot handle it to see your precious world view torn down and destroyed by what you read herein.
After all, a herd is a pack, and lies come in packs.
Um, it sounds like you are the one crying. Listen to tone of your posts. You are an angry, hurt -- and frightened man. Or do you always carry yourself about in such a state of emotional disrepair?
Yes, frightened, because you came across this site and saw all that you had believed in challenged, and I dare say, challenged quite compellingly by those who have posted about their polygraph experiences.
A message board is not a lie detector, but the levels of stress reactions I am reading off your posts tell me that your career and life are built on lies.
I'd say you are showing quite a SIGNIFICANT PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE to what you are reading here.
You pull the standard spook cloak and dagger crap: everyone here is SOOOOO uninformed -- yet you then tell us your magical wizard books are CLASSIFIED!
Mr. Herdie, you live in closed world of security sycophants and you just cannot handle it to see your precious world view torn down and destroyed by what you read herein.
After all, a herd is a pack, and lies come in packs.
Posted by polyfool
- Jan 31, 2006, 12:10 AMherdman14,
It seems the only one who is misinformed around here is you. FBI applicants who don't pass their polygraphs without making admissions NEVER make it to the background investigation and adjudication processes. Failed polygraph results are most certainly held against them as their conditional employment offers are rescinded based solely on "not within acceptable parameters." Just because the rules are one way in the agency you dealt with doesn't mean they're the same everywhere, so why the generalizations and hostility? You say you're no longer in the adjudication business? What do you do for a living, now? Hmmm...Let me guess.....
It seems the only one who is misinformed around here is you. FBI applicants who don't pass their polygraphs without making admissions NEVER make it to the background investigation and adjudication processes. Failed polygraph results are most certainly held against them as their conditional employment offers are rescinded based solely on "not within acceptable parameters." Just because the rules are one way in the agency you dealt with doesn't mean they're the same everywhere, so why the generalizations and hostility? You say you're no longer in the adjudication business? What do you do for a living, now? Hmmm...Let me guess.....
Posted by herdman14
- Jan 30, 2006, 08:29 PMIt's in the adjudications manual handed out to all new adjudicators. Unfortunately it's classified, and since I'm not longer a staff security officer, I no longer have access to this.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 30, 2006, 07:53 PMherdman14,
Thank you for the clarification. What you're saying is consistent with my understanding of DoD practices, but not the CIA's with regard to applicants for Agency employment. Could you direct me to any published policy or regulation in this regard?
Thank you for the clarification. What you're saying is consistent with my understanding of DoD practices, but not the CIA's with regard to applicants for Agency employment. Could you direct me to any published policy or regulation in this regard?
Posted by herdman14
- Jan 30, 2006, 07:41 PMAs long as the BI and NACs are favorable, yes. A subject can not be disapproved on the calls alone. The poly is a tool, just like the BI, NAC, credit report and SF-86.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 30, 2006, 07:37 PMherdman14,
Are you saying that if a CIA applicant makes no disqualifying admission(s), then a failed polygraph will not result in denial of a security clearance and hence, employment?
Are you saying that if a CIA applicant makes no disqualifying admission(s), then a failed polygraph will not result in denial of a security clearance and hence, employment?
Posted by herdman14
- Jan 30, 2006, 07:31 PMYou're statement,"But I also know from multiple sources that applicants to the CIA, NSA, FBI, U.S. Secret Service, DEA, and other agencies that require pre-employment polygraph screening may be denied employment based on polygraph results alone, even in the absence of any disqualifying admissions" is false. I don't need to rely on sources. I worked there and know how it works. You obviously do not.
You're next statement, "As a recruiter, she needn't have been a security officer to have gained an understanding of CIA hiring practices, including applicant vetting, and the extent to which polygraph results are relied upon," is as asinine as the first. The polygraph has nothing to do with the hiring process. It has to do with the clearance process. It's a security procedure.
You're whole argument against the polygraph and your whole website for that matter is based on hearsay and nothing more. Furthermore, you have about as much expertise in the polygraph as I have in building moon rockets.
You're next statement, "As a recruiter, she needn't have been a security officer to have gained an understanding of CIA hiring practices, including applicant vetting, and the extent to which polygraph results are relied upon," is as asinine as the first. The polygraph has nothing to do with the hiring process. It has to do with the clearance process. It's a security procedure.
You're whole argument against the polygraph and your whole website for that matter is based on hearsay and nothing more. Furthermore, you have about as much expertise in the polygraph as I have in building moon rockets.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 30, 2006, 06:07 PMherdman14,
Regarding my credentials, I'm former active duty U.S. Army interrogator and military intelligence reserve officer. You can read more about my background and how I came to my current positions regarding polygraphy here:
http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml
I well understand that in DoD, DOE, and no doubt elsewhere in government, once an employee has been hired and granted a security clearance, that clearance may not be revoked based on polygraph chart readings alone. But I also know from multiple sources that applicants to the CIA, NSA, FBI, U.S. Secret Service, DEA, and other agencies that require pre-employment polygraph screening may be denied employment based on polygraph results alone, even in the absence of any disqualifying admissions.
And yes, I would like to see national security vetting depend on thorough background investigations and record checks, and not on pseudoscience such as polygraphy. Reliance on unreliable polygraphs actually undermines national security rather than strengthening it. The value of any admissions obtained by means of the polygraph must be weighed against the negative utility associated with relying on an inherently unreliable procedure. But security managers rarely consider this negative utility. For more in this regard, see Chapters 1 and 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
I find your suggestion that Mahle's obsevervations on CIA polygraph policy should somehow be discounted because "she is not security officer and has nothing to do with the clearance process" unpersuasive. As a recruiter, she needn't have been a security officer to have gained an understanding of CIA hiring practices, including applicant vetting, and the extent to which polygraph results are relied upon.
Regarding my credentials, I'm former active duty U.S. Army interrogator and military intelligence reserve officer. You can read more about my background and how I came to my current positions regarding polygraphy here:
http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml
I well understand that in DoD, DOE, and no doubt elsewhere in government, once an employee has been hired and granted a security clearance, that clearance may not be revoked based on polygraph chart readings alone. But I also know from multiple sources that applicants to the CIA, NSA, FBI, U.S. Secret Service, DEA, and other agencies that require pre-employment polygraph screening may be denied employment based on polygraph results alone, even in the absence of any disqualifying admissions.
And yes, I would like to see national security vetting depend on thorough background investigations and record checks, and not on pseudoscience such as polygraphy. Reliance on unreliable polygraphs actually undermines national security rather than strengthening it. The value of any admissions obtained by means of the polygraph must be weighed against the negative utility associated with relying on an inherently unreliable procedure. But security managers rarely consider this negative utility. For more in this regard, see Chapters 1 and 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
I find your suggestion that Mahle's obsevervations on CIA polygraph policy should somehow be discounted because "she is not security officer and has nothing to do with the clearance process" unpersuasive. As a recruiter, she needn't have been a security officer to have gained an understanding of CIA hiring practices, including applicant vetting, and the extent to which polygraph results are relied upon.
Posted by herdman14
- Jan 30, 2006, 04:31 PMI'm just curious as to what your credentials are? What information are you basing your statements on? You're misinformed to think people are disqualified on calls alone. They are not. Yes, the vast majority of people are disapproved because of the polygraph, but not because of their calls, only the information they provide can be used to make a decision on their case. Would you like national security to depend on a background investigation and a records check? And you're not helping your case by quoting an agency recruiter, she is not a security officer and has nothing to do with the clearance process.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 30, 2006, 02:11 PMQuote from: Persil_White on Jan 30, 2006, 02:01 PMI think Mahle probably intended to indicate that information that came out of the polygraph interview was utilized in reaching a negative finding during adjudication. Just an opinion...
No. She didn't indicate that it was the necessarily the applicants' admissions that disqualified them. No doubt, some applicants do make disqualifying admissions during the polygraph. But others don't. In Mahle's assessment, "the security disqualification rate is outside the bounds of reasonable assessment."