- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Dec 24, 2006, 08:43 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 14, 2006, 02:13 PMNo need to get all snippity, Sarge. I just never heard of a polygraph examiner running a screening exam with the relevant drug use question narrowed down to include only cocaine without good reason. Especially since you admitted using marijuana a couple of times--the examiner should have wanted the drug question to include any additional marijuana use, so it makes no sense that he would then ask the relevant drug use question, focusing on cocaine, without marijuana included.It is interesting to me that the part of my polygraph exam you feel "makes no sense" is that the examiner would focus on cocaine during drug questioning.
What would jump out at me as making no sense is that I was telling the complete truth throughout the entire process and I was deemed "deceptive" and failed the test.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Dec 23, 2006, 02:44 AMLBCB,
Again you make the point, about skirting or changing the requirements. George and most of the other folks, myself included, on this board who have been burned by the polygraph, never once tried to change the process and went in with the attitude to get through it honestly. Only to be told that we were liars, cheats, dishonest or disloyal. Especially by someone who is without any knowlege what so ever of our backgrounds. And its symantics to say that working in one capacity is different than the other. Just a different agency on the paycheck. Except the FBI and various other agencies contend to be little fifedoms and play only by their own rules, and without accountability to anyone. This is dangerous and wrong in all cases.
Regards ....
Again you make the point, about skirting or changing the requirements. George and most of the other folks, myself included, on this board who have been burned by the polygraph, never once tried to change the process and went in with the attitude to get through it honestly. Only to be told that we were liars, cheats, dishonest or disloyal. Especially by someone who is without any knowlege what so ever of our backgrounds. And its symantics to say that working in one capacity is different than the other. Just a different agency on the paycheck. Except the FBI and various other agencies contend to be little fifedoms and play only by their own rules, and without accountability to anyone. This is dangerous and wrong in all cases.
Regards ....
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 15, 2006, 05:13 PMBill,
I'm surprised you weren't thorough in your reading and just selectively chose that one sentence to quote. You should have read this one that I wrote to George in this thread:
Now, about your having served on a task force, that's also different from becoming an FBI agent. If they had wanted to suddenly polygraph you as a task force officer, after you had been serving them well in that position of trust, that would have been wrong too. But when you decided you wanted to be an FBI agent, suddenly you had to comply with all of the processes that entailed, including taking a polygraph. Sure, you had proven your trustworthiness working with the task force. But no one is going to let someone circumvent the requirements for an agent position simply because they didn't have to go through the same hiring process to be part of the task force.
I'm surprised you weren't thorough in your reading and just selectively chose that one sentence to quote. You should have read this one that I wrote to George in this thread:
Now, about your having served on a task force, that's also different from becoming an FBI agent. If they had wanted to suddenly polygraph you as a task force officer, after you had been serving them well in that position of trust, that would have been wrong too. But when you decided you wanted to be an FBI agent, suddenly you had to comply with all of the processes that entailed, including taking a polygraph. Sure, you had proven your trustworthiness working with the task force. But no one is going to let someone circumvent the requirements for an agent position simply because they didn't have to go through the same hiring process to be part of the task force.
Posted by Bill Crider
- Dec 15, 2006, 11:20 AMQuote
But periodic testing of people who have already proven their trustworthiness by working shoulder to shoulder with you is wrong
You mean like what happened to George?
Have you read his personal story?
People like me, who just came off the street to try to join the FBI and got run out is one thing, but George was already doing the work for years in other capacities.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 14, 2006, 02:13 PMNo need to get all snippity, Sarge. I just never heard of a polygraph examiner running a screening exam with the relevant drug use question narrowed down to include only cocaine without good reason. Especially since you admitted using marijuana a couple of times--the examiner should have wanted the drug question to include any additional marijuana use, so it makes no sense that he would then ask the relevant drug use question, focusing on cocaine, without marijuana included.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Dec 14, 2006, 07:14 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 13, 2006, 06:26 PMStill waiting on a reply from the Sergeant. Why was your relevent drug question narrowed down to only cocaine?How on earth would I know that? This was in 1989, perhaps cocaine use was more common then. Since I had already admitted to smoking marijuana a couple of times perhaps he felt he ought to take a stab at something else. You would have to ask him.
Given the fact that the idiot conducting the test looked me straight in the eye and told me he knew, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I was being deceptive about using and selling cocaine, why do you believe anything he said or did should make any sense?
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 13, 2006, 06:26 PMStill waiting on a reply from the Sergeant. Why was your relevent drug question narrowed down to only cocaine?
Posted by bilsul
- Dec 12, 2006, 12:16 AMGiven that narrow margin of acceptibility are 1/2 the guilty innocent or 1/2 the innocent guilty?
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 11, 2006, 07:57 PMBilsul,
I hope you realize that Bill was being sarcastic. He doesn't think that everyone should be polygraphed; he thinks that no one should be. And if you have taken that many polygraphs in that short a time, I will agree with Bill's true sentiment: that's wrong. I've never agreed with periodic testing for anyone but child molesters. With those bastards, it is a good deterrent at the very least, a good interrogation tool, and, in my opinion as a polygrapher, a good way to detect additional criminal behavior. But periodic testing of people who have already proven their trustworthiness by working shoulder to shoulder with you is wrong. There are many agencies who have people working for them who never had to take a polygraph because the polygraph wasn't a component of the hiring process when they were hired. Those people aren't now going to be polygraphed. Neither should people who have already taken a polygraph, nor people who already are in positions of trust within their agency.
I hope you realize that Bill was being sarcastic. He doesn't think that everyone should be polygraphed; he thinks that no one should be. And if you have taken that many polygraphs in that short a time, I will agree with Bill's true sentiment: that's wrong. I've never agreed with periodic testing for anyone but child molesters. With those bastards, it is a good deterrent at the very least, a good interrogation tool, and, in my opinion as a polygrapher, a good way to detect additional criminal behavior. But periodic testing of people who have already proven their trustworthiness by working shoulder to shoulder with you is wrong. There are many agencies who have people working for them who never had to take a polygraph because the polygraph wasn't a component of the hiring process when they were hired. Those people aren't now going to be polygraphed. Neither should people who have already taken a polygraph, nor people who already are in positions of trust within their agency.
Posted by bilsul
- Dec 11, 2006, 07:48 PMQuote from: Bill Crider on Dec 11, 2006, 03:34 AMThese police have nothing to fear. Its 98% accurate. Also, even if a few good cops get run out of the force undesevedly, its acceptable collateral damage. No test is perfect. Its the best we got. I say polygraph them all!
I have taken 8 tests in 5 years with the followling results.
1 fail
2 pass
3 pass
4 pass
5 Inc
6 fail
7 inc
8 pass
Looks like 50-50 to me
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 11, 2006, 06:50 PMSorry guys. It seems we are stepping on each other's toes while we are all online at the same time. Sergeant, see my previous post that I edited while you were writing your last.
Also, I maintain that these task force people do not know that the polygraph is unreliable any more than you "anti-" people do, even if you were--as some of you claim--false positives. But you are right about one thing, Sergeant: When dealing with a process that is, undeniably, not 100%, perhaps they do have more to lose than to gain by submitting themselves to that risk, however slight.
Also, I maintain that these task force people do not know that the polygraph is unreliable any more than you "anti-" people do, even if you were--as some of you claim--false positives. But you are right about one thing, Sergeant: When dealing with a process that is, undeniably, not 100%, perhaps they do have more to lose than to gain by submitting themselves to that risk, however slight.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Dec 11, 2006, 06:44 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 11, 2006, 06:34 PMI disagree, George. They don't know anything of the sort. No more than any of you inexperiened anti-polygraphites know for certain what you so arrogantly claim to know. Calling the polygraph unreliable may be a convenient excuse for these task force men and women, and I would probably use that excuse too, if I were in their position, as part of my argument. But the real issue is that FBI is showing that it doesn't trust its own. There are few betrayals of friendship or the spirit of teamwork more devastating than saying or implying, as is the case here, that you don't trust those who are already serving you well.The FBI doesn't trust any local cops they work with. That's a given. Local cops know that going in and that's definitely not a surprise that would cause them to be as offended as you make them out to be.
The issue is, as George writes, the complete inaccuracy of the polygraph. Many cops know that they could pass a polygraph tomorrow and fail one the day after, even if they answer all the questions the same way and never tell a lie. They also know the stigma that can be attached to a person who fails a polygraph, so they are understandably reluctant to roll those dice when they already have a successful career.
Many local cops view a polygraph requirement for the JTTF as a gamble; if the coin lands face up you get to work with the FBI and put a feather in your cap. If it lands face down you could lose some or all of what you already have, and for no reason more compelling than the guesstimate of a polygraph examiner who is going to meet with you for a few hours and then hold your future in his or her hands.
I have not spoken with many of my peers who feel that would be a worthwhile gamble.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 11, 2006, 06:34 PMI disagree, George. They don't know anything of the sort. No more than any of you inexperienced anti-polygraphites know for certain what you so arrogantly claim to know. Calling the polygraph unreliable may be a convenient excuse for these task force men and women, and I would probably use that excuse too, if I were in their position, as part of my argument. But the real issue is that FBI is showing that it doesn't trust its own. There are few betrayals of friendship or the spirit of teamwork more devastating than saying or implying, as is the case here, that you don't trust those who are already serving you well.
Now, about your having served on a task force, that's also different from becoming an FBI agent. If they had wanted to suddenly polygraph you as a task force officer, after you had been serving them well in that position of trust, that would have been wrong too. But when you decided you wanted to be an FBI agent, suddenly you had to comply with all of the processes that entailed, including taking a polygraph. Sure, you had proven your trustworthiness working with the task force. But no one is going to let someone circumvent the requirements for an agent position simply because they didn't have to go through the same hiring process to be part of the task force.
A question for the Sergeant: How in the world did your relevant questions specifically ask about cocaine? I don't know of any agency whose drug question would be isolated to cocaine unless there were some reason to suspect that particular drug and none other.
Now, about your having served on a task force, that's also different from becoming an FBI agent. If they had wanted to suddenly polygraph you as a task force officer, after you had been serving them well in that position of trust, that would have been wrong too. But when you decided you wanted to be an FBI agent, suddenly you had to comply with all of the processes that entailed, including taking a polygraph. Sure, you had proven your trustworthiness working with the task force. But no one is going to let someone circumvent the requirements for an agent position simply because they didn't have to go through the same hiring process to be part of the task force.
A question for the Sergeant: How in the world did your relevant questions specifically ask about cocaine? I don't know of any agency whose drug question would be isolated to cocaine unless there were some reason to suspect that particular drug and none other.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Dec 11, 2006, 06:29 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 11, 2006, 05:26 PM...Job applicants have no history with the agency where they've applied.True, but that's hardly a sufficient reason to treat them like suspects. If we continue treating applicants like perps we will soon have less desirable applicants with which to fill our ranks.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 11, 2006, 05:26 PM...It's a matter of pride and feeling that their honor and integrity are now being questioned when neither was questioned before.Perhaps this will help illustrate the frustration people like me have felt after a failed polygraph:
After sailing through the written test, the physical agility test, the psychological test, the oral boards, and the background investigation, I was number one on the list. I had a very good school record, terrific references, an outstanding military record, no criminal history, and had only a couple of minor blemishes in my past, none of which were considered even remotely serious by anyone I spoke to in authority at the department. I was absolutely confident that I was going to be offered a job, because I had nothing at all to hide and had excelled in every aspect of the testing process. All I had to get by was the polygraph.
Despite a background investigation that didn't turn up anything (because there was nothing to turn up) I was disqualified because the polygraph examiner decided I was being deceptive about selling cocaine and using cocaine. The examiner, and only the examiner, thought I was lying when I stated that I had never used cocaine and had certainly never sold cocaine. The background investigator could have spoken with every person I had ever met in my entire life, no matter how brief my contact had been with them, and they would never have been able to find anyone who could honestly say that I had ever had anything to do with cocaine. But that didn't happen because one person, out of all the people involved in my background investigation and my application process, said that in his opinion I was lying. One person who spoke with me for a couple of hours at the most had questioned my honesty and my integrity and had torpedoed my chances of getting hired by that department.
I had gone through the application process with complete honesty and not withheld any information whatsoever. At no point was my honor and integrity questioned until the polygraph examiner did so with his 100% erroneous conclusions.
If I had the opportunity to work with the JCTF I would certainly consider it. However, if they said a requirement of working with them was to take a polygraph I would tell them to take their Task Force and shove it up their ass. And the reason would not be: "It's a matter of pride and feeling that their honor and integrity are now being questioned when neither was questioned before."
My honor and integrity have been questioned before, and it was by the polygraph process, which is required for all police applicants in Connecticut. Since passing my fourth polygraph and getting hired by my current department, my honor and integrity are beyond question with everyone who knows me. Just as they were when I failed my first three polygraph exams.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 11, 2006, 06:24 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 11, 2006, 05:26 PM...Job applicants have no history with the agency where they've applied. They haven't been working with the agencies and put in positions of trust, only to then have the agencies turn around and imply that perhaps they can't be trusted after all....
In my experience, I had previously been detailed to three different Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) and received letters of appreciation from two different FBI directors before an FBI polygrapher falsely branded me as a liar.
If polygraph screening were truly a valid means of screening out spies and saboteurs, then no one serving on a JTTF who is not involved in espionage or sabotage against the United States should have any objection to it. On the contary, they should welcome, nay demand it. The reason local police officers on JTTFs are balking at polygraph screening is that increasingly, they know it's unreliable.