- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by fatman1955
- Apr 27, 2009, 07:54 PMIt has been a long time since I have ventured back to relook at this story. I do periodically look at some of the stories of similar people who have has the same or worst experiences than I had. Then you have idiots like "milguy" for whatever reasons want to provoke an argument. I am not sure what his agenda is, but I am sure he or possibly she has. I have no problem with anyone believing in this worthless voodoo science, but don't question the facts of my experience. Two points are evident; "milguy" has a failure to comprehend and has poor math skills. I have taken great pride being a government employee for now almost 35 years. To do the math for you "milguy" that is including my military time, which I have retired, and being a government employee. Yes, I have had my security clearance renewed again since the original story. I never said I was applying for an FBI agent position, but was a support position. At the time of failing the polygraph it did bother me because I told the truth. The good news is when one door closes another one opens. I was promoted and now make more money than I could have ever made with the FBI and better benefits. My job still brings me times to work with our local FBI and because of my unpleasant experience continue to respect them. Many of them have expressed their distaste for the need of the polygraph. There is no use to keep beating this dead horse because for me it is what is. I am sure a good person was finally found for the position that I was selected for. In the end it all did work out. I would like to thank AntiPolygraph. Org anf George for helping me through this. There were times I was really pissed off, but reading others stories really helped me get through the ordeal. So "milguy" what is your story? 
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 11, 2009, 08:46 AMmilguy,
According to the FBI website, the maximum age for newly appointed special agents is 37. But the Bureau has other jobs, such as intelligence analyst and language specialist, that don't have such a low age cap.
According to the FBI website, the maximum age for newly appointed special agents is 37. But the Bureau has other jobs, such as intelligence analyst and language specialist, that don't have such a low age cap.
Posted by milguy
- Mar 11, 2009, 07:55 AMof course, fatmans whole story is bogus to begin with, and it is easily provable. you can't begin active duty service till AT LEAST 17, more likely 18. almost 25 years of military experience...that equals about 43 years old. the MAX age for application to the FBI is 39...not wonder you got turned down....do your research next time before you post crap like this. and before you try to apply for a job you don't qualify
Posted by 1904
- May 30, 2007, 12:33 PMQuote from: EosJupiter on Jul 27, 2006, 03:33 PMfatman1955,
By all means take what steps have to be done to protect yourself. Like most of us here on this medium we have been wronged by a polygrapher playing judge, jury, and executioner. And I know I still bristle at the thought of a neophyte deciding my veracity and honor.
But learn from this and help spread the word on this website.
The part of your tale that I found interesting is, they were still using the old analog polygraphs. Has anyone else noted the use of this ?, as I thought and know firsthand that they mostly use the new digital polygraphs. Hmmm, I wonder if their is any correlation to hiring and use of a specific polygraph. IE non-hires get the old analog ones, hires get the new ones. Just some grist for the mill. As I believe that they already know who is going to get hired long before they ever get to the polygraph. I wish you much success.
Regards ....
Mmmm. not surprising that those b****ds still use analog p/g. The examiner can manipulate the chart
ANYWAY he wants to, by making his Q & A (pen) marks anywhere he wants to. He can produce pass or
fail charts at will. It is far more difficult to manipulate a digital p/g but not impossible. And if the subject
did not sign and date the charts before the paper was torn, then he's really screwed - if in the hands of
a dishonest egomaniacal p/g examiner.
Shit, these guys who do P/E's for the bureau's really do play at being God.
Posted by fatman1955
- Mar 12, 2007, 09:51 PMWell it finally came today, my FBI polygraph result request under the Freedom of information Act. The results really surprised me to the point of anger. Three areas were inconclusive which were has any group or organization directed you to seek employment with the FBI, have I ever been in contacted by a representative of a non US intelligence service, and have I ever provided classified information to an unauthorized individual. In the second series, I was accused of deception for selling illegal drugs, violating the FBI guidelines for illegal drugs, and deliberately withholding important information on my application. The end of the report stated, "during the post test interview, the applicant made no admission." There is a reason for this, because there was nothing to admit. I did not do any of the alleged allegations because they are not true. What a paradox! I guess my only recourse is to submit a formal letter to the Director of the FBI to contest these results and have a copy placed in my official FBI folder. What really saddens me is that after dedicating almost 30 years of my life to the military and US government, one test tarnishes my reputation and credibility and there is very little that can be done. The battle over the validity of the polygraph will continue for a while I suspect, but for me I am just another statistic of junk science known as the polygraph.
Posted by Squeaky_Clean
- Sep 03, 2006, 10:53 PMJust know that you're not the only good, enthusiastic candidate who has been flushed because of a failed poly. I had a similar experience with the US Secret Service and also a local agency in Virginia. Despite being truthful, I was told that there were problems on the drug question with my Secret Service poly. On the local department's poly in Virginia, I was told that there was a problem with my breathing and that I was trying to use countermeasures (I was not).
There's no telling how many bright, educated, excellent candidates lose their chance to serve in a law enforcement capacity because they're being subjected to this ridiculous test.
There's no telling how many bright, educated, excellent candidates lose their chance to serve in a law enforcement capacity because they're being subjected to this ridiculous test.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Aug 14, 2006, 12:57 PMQuoteMy first so-called exam was conducted with a computerized version of the instrument, but the follow-up utilized the analog version. Who knows if it even worked or not? What difference would it make since the FBI doesn't pass applicants on retests?
Before technology can increase accuracy of the process, an exclusive relationship between things measured during polygraphy and deception will have to be established.
Until then, the use of computerized instruments amounts to nothing more than "Garbage In, Garbage Out."
The only advantage that computerized polygraph instruments bring to the table is that they may intimidate some examinees who lack knowledge of polygraphy but still doubt accuracy of the process.
The examiner can take the tack that "yes, we had issues in the past, but the new computerized instruments have addressed them."
Still, none of this will fool those familiar with the materials on this Website.
Posted by polyfool
- Aug 01, 2006, 11:59 PMEos,
My first so-called exam was conducted with a computerized version of the instrument, but the follow-up utilized the analog version. Who knows if it even worked or not? What difference would it make since the FBI doesn't pass applicants on retests?
Fatman1955,
Your hunch about FBI hiring managers hating the use of the polygraph in the hiring process seems on target. A former mgr. told me he hated not being able to hire top notch job candidates all because of the polygraph. He said he'd had run-ins with the head of the poly dept. over this very thing, whom by the way, he said is a complete idiot--go figure.
Good luck to you. Just be glad you don't work for an entity foolish enough to rely on the polygraph to choose "the best and the brightest."
My first so-called exam was conducted with a computerized version of the instrument, but the follow-up utilized the analog version. Who knows if it even worked or not? What difference would it make since the FBI doesn't pass applicants on retests?
Fatman1955,
Your hunch about FBI hiring managers hating the use of the polygraph in the hiring process seems on target. A former mgr. told me he hated not being able to hire top notch job candidates all because of the polygraph. He said he'd had run-ins with the head of the poly dept. over this very thing, whom by the way, he said is a complete idiot--go figure.
Good luck to you. Just be glad you don't work for an entity foolish enough to rely on the polygraph to choose "the best and the brightest."
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jul 31, 2006, 03:56 PMQuote from: polyfool on Jul 30, 2006, 05:49 PMEos Jupiter,
I thought I saw a post by you either on this thread or another about the FBI using computer and analog polygraph machines. They still use both, unless things have recently changed. I had an exam with each--digital and analog. Analog is probably being phased out gradually, likely budget issues. Too bad the agency didn't use a little common sense and scrap its pre-employment screening program instead of investing taxpayer $$ in the digital versions of the absurd, worthless machines.
Polyfool,
I thought they did in all of there analog devices, and your absolutely right, a waste of mine and yours tax dollars.
Regards ...
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jul 31, 2006, 12:36 AMfatman1955,
You are right on so many levels from your post that to try and point out any one would be an injustice. I do feel for you now though, that you have a file on record with the FBI. Unfortuately it really won't hurt you if you are going to retire from the military. But it will haunt you afterwards. But do spread the word on this site and the voodoo that is the polygraph. Contrary to certain polygraphers who visit us here, you more than prove the bad choices the feds are making. Much success and thanks for serving.
Regards ...
You are right on so many levels from your post that to try and point out any one would be an injustice. I do feel for you now though, that you have a file on record with the FBI. Unfortuately it really won't hurt you if you are going to retire from the military. But it will haunt you afterwards. But do spread the word on this site and the voodoo that is the polygraph. Contrary to certain polygraphers who visit us here, you more than prove the bad choices the feds are making. Much success and thanks for serving.
Regards ...
Posted by fatman1955
- Jul 30, 2006, 11:53 PMThanks for all the constructive and insightful inputs from new and senior members. There is more to this story that now may be a good time to disclose. I was somewhat knowledgeable with the use of the polygraph test prior to my test. As a former counterintelligence agent, I saw the polygraph used on several occasions on individuals, both foreign and domestic, concerning situations involving national security. Even then, most polygraphists viewed the device as an effective interrogation tool versus a barometer of truth. I presently work at a major military installation providing intelligence support toward the war on terrorism. I sit on various joint anti-terrorism working, many times sponsored by the FBI. Although I have the utmost respect for my local FBI counterparts, it is hard to look them in the eyes now without some disgust at the way I was treated. My application was in the FBI system for almost a year with comments saying, "pending background investigation." After I called requesting my status, I was notified two days later to schedule my polygraph. The location I hade to go was over 360 miles where I lived and cost me around $250.00 out of my pocket. What really disturbs me is the FBI blatantly disregard of applicants with special skills that would enhance the countries ability to proactively defend against foreign terrorist threats. There has to be a point where Congress and the President order oversight of this shortcoming which has a direct impact on national security. The problem existing throughout State and Federal agencies are budget constraints. Work forces are being reduced only to put more responsibilities on less trained existing personnel within these organizations. The only thing the polygraph has done is exclude good and competent employees based on voodoo Cold War/Post 911 paranoia. In the end there are no winners, but losers, the FBI (to include other Federal agencies) and scared victims of the polygraph. I am curious to wonder how polygraph operators feel playing career Gods, not knowing they are contributing to degraded national security. I would like to see the polygraph ended. Not because I did not get a job with the FBI, but it is a waste of my tax dollars. I agree there must be a stringent standard to work within the intelligence and law enforcement community. A better option is conducting through background investigations and pre-employment interviews. I have no desire to take another polygraph because I did not trust it in the first place and who would want to work for an agency that advocates that kind of treatment of employees. I guess in America you are innocent until proven guilty unless you have a polygraph, you are guilty until. You have no expectation for appeal, but are branded a liar for life. It is awful that not one Congress man/woman or House of Representative member has used this argument as a campaign issue. If polled, I would venture that most FBI personnel feel the polygraph is not accurate and feel threaten by it.
Posted by polyfool
- Jul 30, 2006, 05:49 PMFatman1955,
Is is quite a shock to learn the government is using such an unreliable tool as the polygraph to screen its applicants. Not to mention the insult of telling the truth and then having an FBI polygraph examiner look you in the eye, point his finger at you and call you a liar. There are lots of people on this board who know exactly how you feel. Don't expect to get much answers when you recieve your polygraph charts and report--a lot of it is redacted. However, that should not discourage you from requesting every file the agency has on you as well as asking for a retest. If everyone they wrongly failed did so and contacted their representatives in Congress, it would be much harder for the agency to get away with what it's doing to honest, innocent people.
Eos Jupiter,
I thought I saw a post by you either on this thread or another about the FBI using computer and analog polygraph machines. They still use both, unless things have recently changed. I had an exam with each--digital and analog. Analog is probably being phased out gradually, likely budget issues. Too bad the agency didn't use a little common sense and scrap its pre-employment screening program instead of investing taxpayer $$ in the digital versions of the absurd, worthless machines.
Is is quite a shock to learn the government is using such an unreliable tool as the polygraph to screen its applicants. Not to mention the insult of telling the truth and then having an FBI polygraph examiner look you in the eye, point his finger at you and call you a liar. There are lots of people on this board who know exactly how you feel. Don't expect to get much answers when you recieve your polygraph charts and report--a lot of it is redacted. However, that should not discourage you from requesting every file the agency has on you as well as asking for a retest. If everyone they wrongly failed did so and contacted their representatives in Congress, it would be much harder for the agency to get away with what it's doing to honest, innocent people.
Eos Jupiter,
I thought I saw a post by you either on this thread or another about the FBI using computer and analog polygraph machines. They still use both, unless things have recently changed. I had an exam with each--digital and analog. Analog is probably being phased out gradually, likely budget issues. Too bad the agency didn't use a little common sense and scrap its pre-employment screening program instead of investing taxpayer $$ in the digital versions of the absurd, worthless machines.
Posted by triple x
- Jul 29, 2006, 09:32 PMDrew,
Make no mistake about it; we are both on the same side here. I'm certainly not by any means a proponent of polygraph testing. I would first like to clarify a couple of points that I feel you misquoted me on, and/or taken completely out of context.
--------------------------------------
You quoted me as saying:
"The FBI actually has a computer-based program at the FBI DC Polygraph lab that they run all polygraphs through trying to detect polygraph countermeasures. The bureau is trying to establish a method for detecting countermeasures...."
-------------------------------------
I never said that the FBI DC Polygraph lab has a "reliable" computer based program for detecting polygraph countermeasures.
What I said is:
The FBI does have a computer-based program at the FBI DC Polygraph lab that they run all polygraphs through "trying" [key word] to detect polygraph countermeasures. The bureau is "trying" to establish a method for detecting countermeasures.
This is true, as my polygraph charts were ran through the referenced computer program approximately a full week after completing my FBI pre-employment polygraph exam. I was already working with a bureau SOG field unit at the time of my polygraph exam.
The polygraph examiner had already been contacted via phone [by his own admission] by my SSA and Unit Chief prior to my scheduled poly exam. When I reported to the field office to take the polygraph, the polygraph examiner was very friendly and supportive of the SSA and UC that had previously contacted him.
We sit and talked at great length about some of the SA's, SSA's and SOG support personnel that we both knew. The polygraph examiner eventually started the exam, and I was tested on three or four different sets of charts all consisting of the same questions simply rearranged on each set of charts.
There was no post test interview or interrogation; no questions at all, and the polygraph examiner told me that he did not see any problems on any of the charts that he tested me on. The examiner actually told me that I did extremely well on the polygraph exam, and he told me that in his "personal opinion" I passed the polygraph exam with flying colors. However, he did tell me that the charts would have to be mailed to the FBI DC Polygraph lab for QA purposes.
The examiner walked me back out to the application coordinator's area, and announced that I did beautifully on the polygraph and gave my application coordinator and myself the "thumb's up", further indicating that I had passed the exam.
At approximately a week and a half later, I received a call from the application coordinator asking me if I could return for a retest, and volunteered that there must have been something wrong with the polygraph machine. He/she did not provide me with any more details at that time. Not thinking anything about the phone call, reported to the field office as instructed. Upon arrival to the field office, I was then informed by the same polygraph examiner that administered my first polygraph exam, that the DC lab had checked my charts to confirm his findings, and was told that I actually did "too good to be true" and that "nobody does that good". The rest is history as detailed in my previous posts describing my personal experience.
Therefore, regardless of what some people may think or believe about the DC lab having a computer-based program that all charts are ran through, they certainly have one. Whether or not the program is accurate with regard to detecting countermeasures, you have already stated your opinion. However, the program definitely detected or rather "suspected" cm's on my charts regardless whether or not it was right or wrong.
Regardless of who believes what, I did not get hired by the bureau because of that DC lab computer program... not because of the polygraph examiner that administered my polygraph.
I don't mind being quoted on anything I post on this message board. However, in the future I only ask that you not take what I post out of context.
v/r
triple x
Make no mistake about it; we are both on the same side here. I'm certainly not by any means a proponent of polygraph testing. I would first like to clarify a couple of points that I feel you misquoted me on, and/or taken completely out of context.
--------------------------------------
You quoted me as saying:
"The FBI actually has a computer-based program at the FBI DC Polygraph lab that they run all polygraphs through trying to detect polygraph countermeasures. The bureau is trying to establish a method for detecting countermeasures...."
-------------------------------------
I never said that the FBI DC Polygraph lab has a "reliable" computer based program for detecting polygraph countermeasures.
What I said is:
The FBI does have a computer-based program at the FBI DC Polygraph lab that they run all polygraphs through "trying" [key word] to detect polygraph countermeasures. The bureau is "trying" to establish a method for detecting countermeasures.
This is true, as my polygraph charts were ran through the referenced computer program approximately a full week after completing my FBI pre-employment polygraph exam. I was already working with a bureau SOG field unit at the time of my polygraph exam.
The polygraph examiner had already been contacted via phone [by his own admission] by my SSA and Unit Chief prior to my scheduled poly exam. When I reported to the field office to take the polygraph, the polygraph examiner was very friendly and supportive of the SSA and UC that had previously contacted him.
We sit and talked at great length about some of the SA's, SSA's and SOG support personnel that we both knew. The polygraph examiner eventually started the exam, and I was tested on three or four different sets of charts all consisting of the same questions simply rearranged on each set of charts.
There was no post test interview or interrogation; no questions at all, and the polygraph examiner told me that he did not see any problems on any of the charts that he tested me on. The examiner actually told me that I did extremely well on the polygraph exam, and he told me that in his "personal opinion" I passed the polygraph exam with flying colors. However, he did tell me that the charts would have to be mailed to the FBI DC Polygraph lab for QA purposes.
The examiner walked me back out to the application coordinator's area, and announced that I did beautifully on the polygraph and gave my application coordinator and myself the "thumb's up", further indicating that I had passed the exam.
At approximately a week and a half later, I received a call from the application coordinator asking me if I could return for a retest, and volunteered that there must have been something wrong with the polygraph machine. He/she did not provide me with any more details at that time. Not thinking anything about the phone call, reported to the field office as instructed. Upon arrival to the field office, I was then informed by the same polygraph examiner that administered my first polygraph exam, that the DC lab had checked my charts to confirm his findings, and was told that I actually did "too good to be true" and that "nobody does that good". The rest is history as detailed in my previous posts describing my personal experience.
Therefore, regardless of what some people may think or believe about the DC lab having a computer-based program that all charts are ran through, they certainly have one. Whether or not the program is accurate with regard to detecting countermeasures, you have already stated your opinion. However, the program definitely detected or rather "suspected" cm's on my charts regardless whether or not it was right or wrong.
Regardless of who believes what, I did not get hired by the bureau because of that DC lab computer program... not because of the polygraph examiner that administered my polygraph.
I don't mind being quoted on anything I post on this message board. However, in the future I only ask that you not take what I post out of context.
v/r
triple x
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jul 29, 2006, 01:23 PMtriple x,
You write in part:
The Bureau can neither reliably detect truth nor deception in the absence of countermeasures with its polygraph screening programs. The notion that it has a computer-driven algorithm that can reliably detect countermeasure application (a function secondary to the failed primary function) is so ludicrous as to defy imagination. This, of course, has nothing to do with any willingness that might exist to blindly accuse any given examinee of countermeasure use in the midst of such ignorance.
You write in part:
Quote...
The FBI actually has a computer-based program at the FBI DC Polygraph lab that they run all polygraphs through trying to detect polygraph countermeasures. The bureau is trying to establish a method for detecting countermeasures....
The Bureau can neither reliably detect truth nor deception in the absence of countermeasures with its polygraph screening programs. The notion that it has a computer-driven algorithm that can reliably detect countermeasure application (a function secondary to the failed primary function) is so ludicrous as to defy imagination. This, of course, has nothing to do with any willingness that might exist to blindly accuse any given examinee of countermeasure use in the midst of such ignorance.
Posted by triple x
- Jul 29, 2006, 02:28 AMmatlambert,
The FBI actually has a computer-based program at the FBI DC Polygraph lab that they run all polygraphs through trying to detect polygraph countermeasures. The bureau is trying to establish a method for detecting countermeasures.
That said, if a set of polygraph charts look too good to be true, the FBI looks for the tale-tale signs of countermeasures. Such as controlled breathing rates, "spikes" on the charts at the moment an examinee is told a test has began, and again when being told the test is over. Also, they look for trends on all control question responses, thus this is why you should follow the directions in "TLBTLD" and not produce too strong of a response on the second and third set of charts.
Sometimes a particular polygraph examiner may think an examinee actually passed a polygraph exam, only to have the DC lab come back and suspect countermeasures were employed.
v/r
triple x
The FBI actually has a computer-based program at the FBI DC Polygraph lab that they run all polygraphs through trying to detect polygraph countermeasures. The bureau is trying to establish a method for detecting countermeasures.
That said, if a set of polygraph charts look too good to be true, the FBI looks for the tale-tale signs of countermeasures. Such as controlled breathing rates, "spikes" on the charts at the moment an examinee is told a test has began, and again when being told the test is over. Also, they look for trends on all control question responses, thus this is why you should follow the directions in "TLBTLD" and not produce too strong of a response on the second and third set of charts.
Sometimes a particular polygraph examiner may think an examinee actually passed a polygraph exam, only to have the DC lab come back and suspect countermeasures were employed.
v/r
triple x