- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jul 17, 2007, 06:16 PMQuote from: quickfix on Jul 17, 2007, 02:17 PMQuote from: EosJupiter on Jul 14, 2007, 02:10 AMPalerider,
As usual your ability to botch facts and truths is endless. First off, the Army MOS's that interest NSA are in the 98 series. With the exception of the interrogators, with at least a 3/3 in their chosen language, most 97's are not even of interest to most of the agencies. The exception are the Area Specialists in the 97 series MOS's. Most CI types consider themselves to be another incarnation of James Bond. With the egos to match. Then they send the real maniacs to DACA (formerly DODPI), to become even bigger ego maniacs known as polygraphers. A certain Army polygrapher named Castleberry comes to mind after that last statement. Maybe he's a buddy of yours. He could even be QuickFix another one of our resident polygraphers. But again all I really ask is you get your facts straight. Its way to easy to hammer on you.
Regards ....
Eos:
Thanks for remembering me!!
Actually I prefer to be "Q" or "M" instead of "007".
QuickFix,
I find your posts generally well thought out and with viable content. And I suspect too that your not one of these great big ego types, being military or former military, the regular beatings keep you humble. And my issue is never with the person, its with the process and the potential for disasterous results because of a bad opinion. Someone losing it and going postal (in, out, or after the polygraph suite experience) has a chance of happening, especially when your messing around with peoples minds and emotions.
I just want the cool gadgets and Cars that Bond has !!! My reference to you was you were the first name I typed.
Regards ...
Posted by quickfix
- Jul 17, 2007, 02:17 PMQuote from: EosJupiter on Jul 14, 2007, 02:10 AMPalerider,
As usual your ability to botch facts and truths is endless. First off, the Army MOS's that interest NSA are in the 98 series. With the exception of the interrogators, with at least a 3/3 in their chosen language, most 97's are not even of interest to most of the agencies. The exception are the Area Specialists in the 97 series MOS's. Most CI types consider themselves to be another incarnation of James Bond. With the egos to match. Then they send the real maniacs to DACA (formerly DODPI), to become even bigger ego maniacs known as polygraphers. A certain Army polygrapher named Castleberry comes to mind after that last statement. Maybe he's a buddy of yours. He could even be QuickFix another one of our resident polygraphers. But again all I really ask is you get your facts straight. Its way to easy to hammer on you.
Regards ....
Eos:
Thanks for remembering me!!
Actually I prefer to be "Q" or "M" instead of "007".
Posted by 1904
- Jul 17, 2007, 11:42 AMQuote from: CasualBystander on Jul 16, 2007, 05:51 AMQuote from: palerider on Jul 14, 2007, 11:45 PMMost diagnostic tools have a standard deviation regarding "accuracy."OK, if you can tell me what the STANDARD deviation regarding accuracy is for the polygraph, I will be a believer.
Good Day Mr CB,
I am a casual and usually non-participating observer on this site.
As Palerider has taken a short leave of absence, please allow me to answer
your question.
Ahem. (Clearing throat)
I declare, the standard deviation does not exist. The polygraph does exactly
what it was designed to do by the manufacturer. It collects physiological data
and it does that with extreme accuracy.
What certain individuals (ref: polygraphists) do with that data is altogether
another activity. One which incorporates gross deviations and leads to widely
divergent opinions.
Hows that grab ya Mr Pedestrian..?
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jul 16, 2007, 07:13 PMCasualBystander,
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer. Thats because you have to have a real, proven, valid instrument with which to randomly sample and do the (honest) statistics on. That includes the false positive & negative rates as part of the samples. Which our friendly neighborhood polygraphers studies (which they love to quote above 90% accuracy), is removed from their analysis, which makes any study they produce seriously flawed. When you control the information going into it, without independent validation and verification, and no data integrity controls = (Garbage in, garbage out ....).
Enough said, but again don't hold your breath ...
Regards ....
PS:
And I am still waiting for Palerider to answer the big question above ... How many wrong decisions ... hmmmm
I will be waiting a long time for that, as we all know they never make a wrong decision, or at least have balls to admit it !!!
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer. Thats because you have to have a real, proven, valid instrument with which to randomly sample and do the (honest) statistics on. That includes the false positive & negative rates as part of the samples. Which our friendly neighborhood polygraphers studies (which they love to quote above 90% accuracy), is removed from their analysis, which makes any study they produce seriously flawed. When you control the information going into it, without independent validation and verification, and no data integrity controls = (Garbage in, garbage out ....).
Enough said, but again don't hold your breath ...
Regards ....
PS:
And I am still waiting for Palerider to answer the big question above ... How many wrong decisions ... hmmmm
I will be waiting a long time for that, as we all know they never make a wrong decision, or at least have balls to admit it !!!
Posted by CasualBystander
- Jul 16, 2007, 05:51 AMQuote from: palerider on Jul 14, 2007, 11:45 PMMost diagnostic tools have a standard deviation regarding "accuracy."OK, if you can tell me what the STANDARD deviation regarding accuracy is for the polygraph, I will be a believer.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jul 15, 2007, 08:33 PMDear Posters,
The very people the federal government needs most right now are technology oriented people. The hard chargers "out of the the box" thinkers are exactly the ones most likely to question the "polygraph model" for validity. In questioning the model in any way, they doom themselves to failure by operators who automatically dismiss anyone who does not accept and validate their existence.
The best are logical and mathmatically driven. Almost all of science has been derived from math. Almost all of science can be explained by math. The practice of polygraph analysis cannot be proven by math but more by "hunches" and "gut-feelings' of operators who condiser themselves "artist" in their fields rather than scientist.
I cannot appeal a "hunch" or "gut-feeling" when falsely accused. I cannot argue math with someone who will not accept the validity of studies performed by the NAS.
We are preventing thousands of people from being employed by our government strictly based on polygraph results alone which at this point, are not without serious doubt by science and proven not acceptable in a court of law as reasonable proof in and of itself.
The king has no clothes but everyone involved is employed by the king and refuses to open up their minds or eyes to reality.
Regards.
The very people the federal government needs most right now are technology oriented people. The hard chargers "out of the the box" thinkers are exactly the ones most likely to question the "polygraph model" for validity. In questioning the model in any way, they doom themselves to failure by operators who automatically dismiss anyone who does not accept and validate their existence.
The best are logical and mathmatically driven. Almost all of science has been derived from math. Almost all of science can be explained by math. The practice of polygraph analysis cannot be proven by math but more by "hunches" and "gut-feelings' of operators who condiser themselves "artist" in their fields rather than scientist.
I cannot appeal a "hunch" or "gut-feeling" when falsely accused. I cannot argue math with someone who will not accept the validity of studies performed by the NAS.
We are preventing thousands of people from being employed by our government strictly based on polygraph results alone which at this point, are not without serious doubt by science and proven not acceptable in a court of law as reasonable proof in and of itself.
The king has no clothes but everyone involved is employed by the king and refuses to open up their minds or eyes to reality.
Regards.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jul 15, 2007, 12:23 AMPalerider,
I have stated many times on this website, that I don't have a problem with LEO's using the polygraph to nail criminals (a good prop is a good prop), as long as they get the right person. Lately they seem to put innocents away and are wrong in the quess. The use and abuse must stop in the hiring process. And yes the information on this website is a double edged sword. Stupid criminals (redundant I know), always get caught. But the mindset that the ends justifies the means, lends credence that the destruction of one persons reputation, honor and veracity is just the cost of doing business, in the hiring process. When all it really does is protect a bunch of bureaucrats from making a decision that they can be held accountable for. I have to think that you don't mind ruining someones life based on a guess. The consequences of this have a far more insidious result, as the wrong person accused, may not take this result laying down. At a minimun this website at least gives a place to defuse the anger and frustration brought on by the polygraph process. How many people have you been wrong with ? Dare to answer that question. I am willing to bet that you don't even bat an eyelash at your decisions. And as someone has to fail, its your choice, because if everyone passed you wouldn't be doing your job. Even one wrong result on your part, does in any correct guesses. Where is the apologies, the corrective actions, the alternatives to fighting a wrong guess. Their are none, nada, zilch. You just have to take it and like it. Being judge, jury and executioner is a pretty heady position. I for one have made the deicsion that I will not take it, and will do everything legal to help eliminate this abusive practice. If you feel threatened by this, then I suggest you look for a profession that is more socially accepted and has a proven track record on integrity. And in closing I would find the opinion of a medical professional far more acceptable than anything your process or machine are capable of rendering. You should check ebay out and see the number of polygraphs for sale in any given week. I think many of your brethern are leaving the con/BS business.
Regards ...
I have stated many times on this website, that I don't have a problem with LEO's using the polygraph to nail criminals (a good prop is a good prop), as long as they get the right person. Lately they seem to put innocents away and are wrong in the quess. The use and abuse must stop in the hiring process. And yes the information on this website is a double edged sword. Stupid criminals (redundant I know), always get caught. But the mindset that the ends justifies the means, lends credence that the destruction of one persons reputation, honor and veracity is just the cost of doing business, in the hiring process. When all it really does is protect a bunch of bureaucrats from making a decision that they can be held accountable for. I have to think that you don't mind ruining someones life based on a guess. The consequences of this have a far more insidious result, as the wrong person accused, may not take this result laying down. At a minimun this website at least gives a place to defuse the anger and frustration brought on by the polygraph process. How many people have you been wrong with ? Dare to answer that question. I am willing to bet that you don't even bat an eyelash at your decisions. And as someone has to fail, its your choice, because if everyone passed you wouldn't be doing your job. Even one wrong result on your part, does in any correct guesses. Where is the apologies, the corrective actions, the alternatives to fighting a wrong guess. Their are none, nada, zilch. You just have to take it and like it. Being judge, jury and executioner is a pretty heady position. I for one have made the deicsion that I will not take it, and will do everything legal to help eliminate this abusive practice. If you feel threatened by this, then I suggest you look for a profession that is more socially accepted and has a proven track record on integrity. And in closing I would find the opinion of a medical professional far more acceptable than anything your process or machine are capable of rendering. You should check ebay out and see the number of polygraphs for sale in any given week. I think many of your brethern are leaving the con/BS business.
Regards ...
Posted by palerider
- Jul 14, 2007, 11:45 PMJesus H Christ. Are you serious? Don't bother going to the oncologist, as they are far from 100% accurate in cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Why bother going to those clowns?------it's all a scam Eos, all a sinister scam. The oncologist "guesses" while you get the bill$.
Most diagnostic tools have a standard deviation regarding "accuracy." Perhaps a better comparison is polysomnography-----a.k.a. "sleep analysis". 100% accurate? nah. Problems and caveats with the science? yea, some------but make no mistake, a talented polysomnographer will be able to, in most cases, diagnosis properly, any of the known sleep disorders with very basic instrumentation. You really need to get out of that chair once in a while Eos.
I'll be off the site for a while. Keep telling yourself that you are not the hero of child molesters and that this site isn't visited by far more sexual predators than wanna-be cops, cia, fbi-----and that you are actually only empowering those great under-valued applicants for those much-needed jobs------as you you've indicated to exist in such large numbers. Your actual disciples aren't beating the polygraph examiner, they are fooled into believing that they can have sex with more children. I am afraid that you haven't the foggiest idea as to what the consequences of your advocacy actually creates.
Most diagnostic tools have a standard deviation regarding "accuracy." Perhaps a better comparison is polysomnography-----a.k.a. "sleep analysis". 100% accurate? nah. Problems and caveats with the science? yea, some------but make no mistake, a talented polysomnographer will be able to, in most cases, diagnosis properly, any of the known sleep disorders with very basic instrumentation. You really need to get out of that chair once in a while Eos.
I'll be off the site for a while. Keep telling yourself that you are not the hero of child molesters and that this site isn't visited by far more sexual predators than wanna-be cops, cia, fbi-----and that you are actually only empowering those great under-valued applicants for those much-needed jobs------as you you've indicated to exist in such large numbers. Your actual disciples aren't beating the polygraph examiner, they are fooled into believing that they can have sex with more children. I am afraid that you haven't the foggiest idea as to what the consequences of your advocacy actually creates.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jul 14, 2007, 09:45 PMPalerider,
Lets put it right out there then, the polygraph is nothing more an cheap way to eliminate people for no more than your hunch or opinion that there is something bad going on. Without the subject giving an admission you have nothing. If you can con the information out of them, then eliminate them. I don't disagree with elimination of individuals like this. But I do disagree with the elimination of people with no recourse or alternative to dispute a highly questionable process, especially when the result is 100% wrong. And anything less than 100% accuracy is just a guess. And I am highly sure that you can't dispute that result.
Regards ....
Lets put it right out there then, the polygraph is nothing more an cheap way to eliminate people for no more than your hunch or opinion that there is something bad going on. Without the subject giving an admission you have nothing. If you can con the information out of them, then eliminate them. I don't disagree with elimination of individuals like this. But I do disagree with the elimination of people with no recourse or alternative to dispute a highly questionable process, especially when the result is 100% wrong. And anything less than 100% accuracy is just a guess. And I am highly sure that you can't dispute that result.
Regards ....
Posted by palerider
- Jul 14, 2007, 08:37 PMGee-wiz batman, thanks for the lesson. I love when someone gives me lessons on my specialty. Glass tube, with mercury, in a semi-vacuum---they call it a thermometer. See, I can do it too.
You insist that there are droves of highly qualified and ideal candidates for classified duties---all of whom are summarily denied for no good reason. No good reason at all. I think that you should take that one opinion of yours and rethink it.
I agree that there have been a stream of neo-cons who couldn't lead ducks, much less a great nation.
But your opinion regarding wasted resources is grossly exaggerated. I love the fact that you dismiss the empirically-based challenge that it is becoming more difficult to find people who are not former heavy drug users, sex addicts (cannot decline a sexual opportunity) or have stolen so many things of value that it appears quite habitual. There is no question that many of these "DQ" types have valuable skills----it's just that they also have skills that we don't necessarily need---like constructing bongs out of baby bottles, or picking up new sketchy men or women for sex every weekend. You know ..... extremely secretive activities that they tend to lie about to everyone---and are nearly always the types of behaviors that are at the heart of most security violations going back to the beginning of foreign intel. Don't forget personal finance irresponsibility----another red flag.
You write well. You seem well informed. But you, like the other anti-pool blame the Examiners for what is essentially, HR's ills. Perhaps your ire should focus on HR. As a comparison, you are ultimately blaming the white house security guard for poor foreign policy---and to take the analogy further, you are saying that there should be no security guard(s) at the White House as way too many good people are being forbidden to enter the oval office because of those hard-on types--------types who are getting in the way of good people ready to help the country out.
Incidently, if you dare remark about needing better Background checks, I will know that your are actually a child pretending to be a grown-up....as those "better" checks, while valuable, are not thorough enough (just like poly isn't enough.) With all due respect Eos, your polygraph protest is a symptom of moronism and my inexplicable curiosity with this comedy of errors website is wearing thin. To be sure, I am really hooked on the graphics, multi-subject boards, and the ease of which to log in though. Polygraph place should copy the decor.
You insist that there are droves of highly qualified and ideal candidates for classified duties---all of whom are summarily denied for no good reason. No good reason at all. I think that you should take that one opinion of yours and rethink it.
I agree that there have been a stream of neo-cons who couldn't lead ducks, much less a great nation.
But your opinion regarding wasted resources is grossly exaggerated. I love the fact that you dismiss the empirically-based challenge that it is becoming more difficult to find people who are not former heavy drug users, sex addicts (cannot decline a sexual opportunity) or have stolen so many things of value that it appears quite habitual. There is no question that many of these "DQ" types have valuable skills----it's just that they also have skills that we don't necessarily need---like constructing bongs out of baby bottles, or picking up new sketchy men or women for sex every weekend. You know ..... extremely secretive activities that they tend to lie about to everyone---and are nearly always the types of behaviors that are at the heart of most security violations going back to the beginning of foreign intel. Don't forget personal finance irresponsibility----another red flag.
You write well. You seem well informed. But you, like the other anti-pool blame the Examiners for what is essentially, HR's ills. Perhaps your ire should focus on HR. As a comparison, you are ultimately blaming the white house security guard for poor foreign policy---and to take the analogy further, you are saying that there should be no security guard(s) at the White House as way too many good people are being forbidden to enter the oval office because of those hard-on types--------types who are getting in the way of good people ready to help the country out.
Incidently, if you dare remark about needing better Background checks, I will know that your are actually a child pretending to be a grown-up....as those "better" checks, while valuable, are not thorough enough (just like poly isn't enough.) With all due respect Eos, your polygraph protest is a symptom of moronism and my inexplicable curiosity with this comedy of errors website is wearing thin. To be sure, I am really hooked on the graphics, multi-subject boards, and the ease of which to log in though. Polygraph place should copy the decor.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jul 14, 2007, 05:20 PMQuote from: palerider on Jul 14, 2007, 01:41 PMeos said "First off, the Army MOS's that interest NSA are in the 98 series. [except 97 interros]"
You are wrong, and I don't need to prove it. The NSA is quite interested in everybody chief.
Well lets see, NSA is a SIGINT organization. 98 series MOS's are geared toward that vocation. 97's are HUMINT types, and 96's are OP INT types, lets see if that covers it. yes it does. Navy wise, CT types are also SIGINT types. And your right as of late the NSA is interested in everybody, especially to spy on them. But common sense and the FISA rules prevailed, much to GW's and his NEOCON fascists dissapointment. Please spare me your insights into organizations, that you have very limited foresight and knowlege about. I may be anitpolygraph, but the charters of our intel organizations I truly support. The folks that do this work are the unsung hereos, in either war or peace. We would have more and better staff in these organizations with the demise of the polygraph as a vector in the hiring process. Just how many good people have been eliminated with very needed skills by the likes of you. Too much power in the hands of one person, and its also a way of skirting the EEO laws period. And most CI types such as yourself have no understanding of SIGINT and the technical aspects of the discipline. It will always remain out of your reach. Hence why engineers, scientists, technical analysts, will continue to balk and disbelieve in your polygraph. I can spot schlock a mile away. Oh lets see, a computer polygraph. 4-7 channels, with analog sensors, attached to an A-to-D (analog to digital converter), connected to a serial or USB port (determined by the manufacturer). With wonderful graphing software. And if you use the scoring algorithms devised by Johns-Hopkins (which are seriously flawed, both mathmatically and operationally). You have the machine called a polygraph. Ancient technology for nothing more than an interrogation prop. And as I have stated many times, once you know how and why it works, no fear, no work. IF this is way to technical for you, I will understand.
Regards ....
Posted by palerider
- Jul 14, 2007, 01:41 PMeos said "First off, the Army MOS's that interest NSA are in the 98 series. [except 97 interros]"
You are wrong, and I don't need to prove it. The NSA is quite interested in everybody chief.
You are wrong, and I don't need to prove it. The NSA is quite interested in everybody chief.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 14, 2007, 03:15 AMluminous_kentucky,
You write:
In federal language proficiency ratings, a "3" means general professional proficiency and a "5" means the proficiency level of a well-educated, native speaker. The first number indicates listening proficiency, the second, reading. So to have characterized yourself as being at a 3/5 level in Arabic when you cannot even read it was a gross misrepresentation.
Although I'm no expert on CIA hiring practices, I don't doubt but that you are entitled to re-apply. Your previous application is a matter of permanent record, and you should mention it if asked about any earlier applications for employment.
palerider,
My Army MOS was not 97D, but rather 97E (then "Interrogator," nowadays re-dubbed "Human Intelligence Collector"). In any event, I would not recommend that anyone join the military as a stepping stone to CIA employment. I think it would be much wiser for those interested in working for the CIA to seek international experience by such means as studying and/or working abroad. They'll generally earn more, enjoy better working conditions, and gain a deeper understanding of foreign cultures than they would in the military. Plus, they'll have more generally useful career experience should they end up (as will most applicants) not being hired by the CIA.
Those considering CIA employment should bear in mind that in 2001, some two-thirds of CIA applicants for whom security clearances were requested did not receive them. According to former CIA recruiter Melissa Boyle Mahle, the "vast majority were rejected on the basis of the polygraph."
You write:
Quote from: luminous_kentucky on Jun 28, 2007, 10:12 PMMy work experience was complicated and I believe that the agency felt that I misrepresented myself on my application with my foreign language proficiency (i.e. 3/5 on arabic when i can understand a good majority, can speak a little bit, but cannnot read or write, but i'm learning)...and I told the interviewer that my (4/5 in german) has gone to 3/5 in recent months because i had not spoken it in some time...he wrote this down enthusiastically. but i wanted to be honest and express my attitude of "candor" with them :-?
In federal language proficiency ratings, a "3" means general professional proficiency and a "5" means the proficiency level of a well-educated, native speaker. The first number indicates listening proficiency, the second, reading. So to have characterized yourself as being at a 3/5 level in Arabic when you cannot even read it was a gross misrepresentation.
Although I'm no expert on CIA hiring practices, I don't doubt but that you are entitled to re-apply. Your previous application is a matter of permanent record, and you should mention it if asked about any earlier applications for employment.
palerider,
My Army MOS was not 97D, but rather 97E (then "Interrogator," nowadays re-dubbed "Human Intelligence Collector"). In any event, I would not recommend that anyone join the military as a stepping stone to CIA employment. I think it would be much wiser for those interested in working for the CIA to seek international experience by such means as studying and/or working abroad. They'll generally earn more, enjoy better working conditions, and gain a deeper understanding of foreign cultures than they would in the military. Plus, they'll have more generally useful career experience should they end up (as will most applicants) not being hired by the CIA.
Those considering CIA employment should bear in mind that in 2001, some two-thirds of CIA applicants for whom security clearances were requested did not receive them. According to former CIA recruiter Melissa Boyle Mahle, the "vast majority were rejected on the basis of the polygraph."
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jul 14, 2007, 02:10 AMPalerider,
As usual your ability to botch facts and truths is endless. First off, the Army MOS's that interest NSA are in the 98 series. With the exception of the interrogators, with at least a 3/3 in their chosen language, most 97's are not even of interest to most of the agencies. The exception are the Area Specialists in the 97 series MOS's. Most CI types consider themselves to be another incarnation of James Bond. With the egos to match. Then they send the real maniacs to DACA (formerly DODPI), to become even bigger ego maniacs known as polygraphers. A certain Army polygrapher named Castleberry comes to mind after that last statement. Maybe he's a buddy of yours. He could even be QuickFix another one of our resident polygraphers. But again all I really ask is you get your facts straight. Its way to easy to hammer on you.
Regards ....
As usual your ability to botch facts and truths is endless. First off, the Army MOS's that interest NSA are in the 98 series. With the exception of the interrogators, with at least a 3/3 in their chosen language, most 97's are not even of interest to most of the agencies. The exception are the Area Specialists in the 97 series MOS's. Most CI types consider themselves to be another incarnation of James Bond. With the egos to match. Then they send the real maniacs to DACA (formerly DODPI), to become even bigger ego maniacs known as polygraphers. A certain Army polygrapher named Castleberry comes to mind after that last statement. Maybe he's a buddy of yours. He could even be QuickFix another one of our resident polygraphers. But again all I really ask is you get your facts straight. Its way to easy to hammer on you.
Regards ....
Posted by palerider
- Jul 14, 2007, 12:09 AMYou speak some Arabic but can't write it (virtually useless as a well-rounded collector). You flunked the foreign dynamic politics test (you didn't know ANY hot-zone leaders----don't you read the newspapers?). I would suggest going into the Army---97B (military intel)or if you want to be like this site's owner, 97D (latrine swaby-----ha, just kidding Georgie [Military Interrog]). You can sharpen your skills, make a little money for grad school, go to California and/or Arizona for cool Army training "stuff." Then 6 yrs (minimum sign-up for the 97's)) later you would be more fit for the agency-----provided that you aren't completely disinterested in foreign intel by then. Alternatively, you could be transferred fromArmy to NSA before serving the whole 6, as the Army and NSA are good buddies. However, if you screw up tests and botch estimations of abilities in the Army, you might end up slinging scrambled eggs in the green zone (if your lucky.) Just my opinion.