- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Annoyed
- Aug 30, 2006, 01:35 AMIf you don't like the posts then write a dissenting opinion (on military.com). There is a much wider audience there and you will already have some credibility due to your veteran's status.
The best way for you guys to make a difference is increase awareness.
The best way for you guys to make a difference is increase awareness.
Posted by fatman1955
- Aug 29, 2006, 09:45 PMAnnoyed, based on your above link http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5360072930001/m/4950034480001 I am not sure what your original point was. From reading the post on this link at Militry.com there are conspiracy theories being suggested but it is not at anitpolygraph.org. As a former soldier, I am really offended by some of the posts, not just with issues concerning the polygraph. The posts from the above link clearly illustrates the arrogance by what I fear are active duty soldiers. I would recommend you go back and take another look at what you wrote and compare it with the link you referenced. Do you see something wrong with this picture? Don't say one thing on this site and post a conflicting post on another website that is inflammatory. You can always agree to disagree. Don't make this an issue about your credibility! Your subject title was correct, "How about some kind of warning?" 
Posted by digithead
- Aug 29, 2006, 08:26 PMQuote from: Annoyed on Aug 29, 2006, 08:06 PMNational security versus your reputation and career - that is what this whole thing boils down too. I have a feeling national security will prevail.
If you had read the National Academy of Sciences report on the polygraph, then you would know that not only does the polygraph destroy reputations and careers, it is also is a threat to national security...
Posted by Annoyed
- Aug 29, 2006, 08:06 PMListen, I do believe you guys have a case here. However, this whole site exhibits a "conspiracy theory" vibe and that hurts your credibility.
I reccomend you find someone to redesign your website and give it a more professional finish.
It would also help if the members of the board did not label everyone who comes on here with a differing view point as polygraphers. I am not a polygrapher.
National security versus your reputation and career - that is what this whole thing boils down too. I have a feeling national security will prevail.
I reccomend you find someone to redesign your website and give it a more professional finish.
It would also help if the members of the board did not label everyone who comes on here with a differing view point as polygraphers. I am not a polygrapher.
National security versus your reputation and career - that is what this whole thing boils down too. I have a feeling national security will prevail.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 29, 2006, 02:49 PMAnnoyed,
The topic of whether a "warning" about the information on this website should be provided has been previously raised on this message board. The reasons I stated then for not providing such a "warning" remain valid today:
Like you, I am also a veteran of the armed forces (U.S. Army and Army Reserve), and I once sought to make a career in a federal agency that relies on polygraph screening. A false positive outcome precluded that and ultimately cut short my military career. Given what I now know about polygraphy, I would much rather have gone into my pre-employment polygraph examination informed than ignorant. For details, see my public statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph".
To answer your question, yes, federal polygraphers who work for agencies that require polygraph screening are indeed required to submit to polygraph screening themselves. But it is unheard of for a polygrapher to flunk another polygrapher. Please forgive the vulgar analogy, but polygraphers polygraphing polygraphers is an exercise in mutual masturbation.
The topic of whether a "warning" about the information on this website should be provided has been previously raised on this message board. The reasons I stated then for not providing such a "warning" remain valid today:
Quote1) polygraphy has not yet been demonstrated to reliably differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels under field conditions, even if the subject is unaware of polygraph procedure;
2) while the polygrapher will be unable to "set" the "control" questions with an informed subject, that subject will also understand that the whole procedure has no scientific basis, and that the truly "important" questions (the ones to which he must show a stronger reaction in order to pass) are in fact the "control" questions. This might well tend to increase rather than decrease the significance of the "control" questions for the subject, and perhaps increase involuntary reactions to them, even absent the conscious use of countermeasures. This might especially be the case in situations where the subject has made his/her best effort to answer the "control" questions as candidly as possible and would otherwise be relatively unconcerned by them vis-a-vis the relevant questions;
3) persons who decide that they will not use countermeasures without first understanding polygraph procedure have made an uninformed choice that they might not have made if presented with the truth about polygraphy;
4) it is a fair assumption that people who visit this website are seeking the truth truth about polygraphy;
5) a "warning" such as you have suggested is likely to be received as melodramatic at best and as cheap gimmickry intended to pique the curiosity of readers at worst.
Like you, I am also a veteran of the armed forces (U.S. Army and Army Reserve), and I once sought to make a career in a federal agency that relies on polygraph screening. A false positive outcome precluded that and ultimately cut short my military career. Given what I now know about polygraphy, I would much rather have gone into my pre-employment polygraph examination informed than ignorant. For details, see my public statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph".
To answer your question, yes, federal polygraphers who work for agencies that require polygraph screening are indeed required to submit to polygraph screening themselves. But it is unheard of for a polygrapher to flunk another polygrapher. Please forgive the vulgar analogy, but polygraphers polygraphing polygraphers is an exercise in mutual masturbation.
Posted by Annoyed
- Aug 29, 2006, 09:54 AMhttp://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5360072930001/m/4950034480001
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/514195148/m/6750034480001
Wow, first link above got my military.com account suspended and the second one was simply removed with no explanation.
This is the message I got when trying to login back to the military.com discussion boards:
Maybe you guys should go share your stories.
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/514195148/m/6750034480001
Wow, first link above got my military.com account suspended and the second one was simply removed with no explanation.
This is the message I got when trying to login back to the military.com discussion boards:
Quote
Error Login/JoinWelcome, [Logout]
-- Account Suspended: Your account has been suspended for the following reason:
Suspended 40 days for spamming the boards with antipolygraph propaganda. By Forums Admin
Continue
Maybe you guys should go share your stories.
Posted by fatman1955
- Aug 27, 2006, 02:58 PMAnnoyed, you are right! You most likely have screwed yourself out of an intelligence career with an outside agency. I gather you are in the military working within the intelligence community since you have passed two prior CI scoped polygraphs or just had the bad luck of being suspected of doing something wrong. So now you are educated on the polygraph and feel guilty? The polygraph has nothing to do with the truth, but is only used as a crude interrogation tool. People who pass could care less about the polygraph until they are on the receiving end of its injustice. The polygraph is kind of like taking a urinalysis test; it's randomly given after being hired. Unfortunately, the urinalysis test is medically based and can be challenged scientifically. Just imagine yourself initially passing the polygraph and get your dream job. You have a periodic test or follow up and fail for telling the truth. I am sure your choice of wanting to remain ignorant will change. I may not always agree with all the posts (anti & pro) on this site, but I do understand where they are coming from. I do honestly believe the polygraph program causes more harm than good. I hope you do not have a rude awakening when you take your pre-employment polygraph, but good luck.
Posted by polyscam
- Aug 27, 2006, 02:51 PMI failed one polygraph before I had any idea how the test is conducted. Shameless examiner misconduct that went unaddressed by that examiner's agency and peers caused that failure. Since that time I have completed additional exams with a passing mark. In those circumstances the examiner was well informed of my knowledge of polygraph procedure. The examiner was familiar with this site and its content.
So there you have it, someone who has successfully completed more than one polygraph while having informed the examiner of knowledge of polygraph procedure and purpose.
If you would have preferred to remain ignorant why did you read on? That would be akin to "I didn't want to get drunk but I just kept drinking." Then afterward calling the distributor to complain.
So there you have it, someone who has successfully completed more than one polygraph while having informed the examiner of knowledge of polygraph procedure and purpose.
If you would have preferred to remain ignorant why did you read on? That would be akin to "I didn't want to get drunk but I just kept drinking." Then afterward calling the distributor to complain.
Posted by Bill Crider
- Aug 27, 2006, 01:05 PMExactly what did you think you were going to find on a site called Antipolygraph.org? We are upset about being falsely branded by some idiotic test and a self righteouos government agent who doesnt know us from Adam and yet smugly assures himself that his machine is infallible.
Now there may be some truth to the fact that reading all of this material and knowing how it works may decease your chances of passing, depending on a lot of circumstances, but that is the fault of the polygraph test, not this site.
If it were truly a scientifically based test, knowledge of the format would not affect you. If you learn chemisty and biology, the DNA test is still the same. If you learn physics, gravity is still gravity. That is science. Polygraph is more like a card trick. If you know whats really going on, its not the same for better or worse.
Now there may be some truth to the fact that reading all of this material and knowing how it works may decease your chances of passing, depending on a lot of circumstances, but that is the fault of the polygraph test, not this site.
If it were truly a scientifically based test, knowledge of the format would not affect you. If you learn chemisty and biology, the DNA test is still the same. If you learn physics, gravity is still gravity. That is science. Polygraph is more like a card trick. If you know whats really going on, its not the same for better or worse.
Posted by Twoblock
- Aug 27, 2006, 10:47 AMAnnoyed
If you read "posts of righteous indignation", then you know that you are not going to be treated ethically or professionally so why do you feel that you have to be ethical with them? If you passed two polys before, why are you checking out this site?
Come on polyboy. Have your coworkers bend over and pound sand there. You people are not smart enough to go undected here for very long.
If you read "posts of righteous indignation", then you know that you are not going to be treated ethically or professionally so why do you feel that you have to be ethical with them? If you passed two polys before, why are you checking out this site?
Come on polyboy. Have your coworkers bend over and pound sand there. You people are not smart enough to go undected here for very long.
Posted by Annoyed
- Aug 27, 2006, 08:09 AMThanks. From reading the various anecdotes and posts of righteous indignation I can gather that I have just screwed myself out of an intel career because of everything I have read on here in the last couple of hours. I have been on active duty for over 12 years and was looking forward to getting out and pursuing a career with one of the agencies.
Ethically I will have to tell the polygraphers that I have knowledge of how the poly is conducted and the rationale behind it. I will also have to disclose that I now have knowledge of counter-measures and how to employ them. That will not sit well with my future polygraphers I am sure.
As far as I can tell from this site, no one who has disclosed a working knowledge of the polygraph system has passed. This forum is littered with failure after failure. Where are the posts of the people who passed?
To be quite honest I would have preferred to have remained ignorant. I have passed two CI polys before with no problems. I have nothing to hide and would prefer a 50/50 chance at passing the poly vice what is now almost assuredly a foregone conclusion of failure.
Thanks for nothing.
P.S. Are polygraphers required to undergo polygraphs?
Ethically I will have to tell the polygraphers that I have knowledge of how the poly is conducted and the rationale behind it. I will also have to disclose that I now have knowledge of counter-measures and how to employ them. That will not sit well with my future polygraphers I am sure.
As far as I can tell from this site, no one who has disclosed a working knowledge of the polygraph system has passed. This forum is littered with failure after failure. Where are the posts of the people who passed?
To be quite honest I would have preferred to have remained ignorant. I have passed two CI polys before with no problems. I have nothing to hide and would prefer a 50/50 chance at passing the poly vice what is now almost assuredly a foregone conclusion of failure.
Thanks for nothing.
P.S. Are polygraphers required to undergo polygraphs?