- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by fatman1955
- Oct 12, 2007, 10:23 PMRevenoir, I would recommend find out what the detention facility polygraph appeal process is. Contact the Human Resource Office to get pointed in the right direction. Follow whatever their procedures are. Also request a copy of the polygraph results were under the Freedom of Information Act. This is not a fast process, but it will eventually come. The results will most likely be useless. If the polygraph was the only pre-employment disqualifier you can attempt to see if another one can be administered by a different tester. Don't be surprised if you fail this one even if you do tell the truth. The success rate for passing additional polygraphs by the same agency does not have a very good track record. If you apply for another agency that requires a polygraph you will be asked if you have ever taken a polygraph and failed. It is a coin toss to pass future ones, but not impossible. As you can see having a Top Secret security clearance was little help. The polygraph is a poor pre-employment tool, but like it or not is part of the employment process for most law enforcement and federal intelligence position. The polygraph are like locks, it keeps the honest people honest, but does little to deter the criminal because the test can be beat. If you honestly told the truth during the test and failed you know how reliable the test is. If this is the type of work you desire keep pursuing it. Good luck. Also did you admit to anything you were accused of lying?
Posted by 1904
- Oct 12, 2007, 08:44 AMQuote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 11, 2007, 05:35 PM
BTW what agency sends 'post cards'?
Maybe Rev got an early xmas card form the St Claus agency...?
(I know. It's not my best work)
Posted by Wonder_Woman
- Oct 11, 2007, 05:35 PMRevenoir, no one here has claimed polys to be 100% perfect and the BI should do an investigation if there are areas of concern on the poly. Look at your supposed situation. You came here because you got a 'post card' that said you failed your test. Later you found out it was sent by mistake. I think Polys get blamed for a lot that isn't the poly or examiners fault. Maybe people get letters indicating they failed the poly becuase of admissions made in the poly that disqualified them (not by the poly test itself). BTW what agency sends 'post cards'?
Posted by Revenoir
- Oct 11, 2007, 04:51 PMThank you Wonder Woman for you insight. I did get an answer back finally from the detention facility and it turns out that "Post Card" informing of my failed test was an administrative error. I did confirm that I pass the polygraph test (No, I did not use CM). Their decision to not hire me was based on the fact that I am also a police applicant and did not want to hire/train me and lose me to the police department few month down the road.
I know there is a big debate and controversy over the polygraph testing. I am a trained interrogator (MI / CI / Reid). I see polygraph as a ONE of the many tools in investigating the truth. I do not believe it is 100% accurate and produce false positives and false negatives. But as one of the posters pointed out, NONE of the methods are 100% by itself. However, I believe we can assertain the truth if we employed all tools available and not rely solely on one method.
In the intelligence collection field, we employ HUMINT, SIGINT, and IMINT. Each discipline must confirm the information or it is not considered reliable intelligence. When the head of the agency overlook this, we get something like "We KNOW you have WMD, we just can't find it!" Why should it be any different in any sector? I do think it is very unfair that many LE applicants are rejected based upon a failed polygraph, and not given any further attention to whether or not other background investigation confirm the result. I think polygraphers should be the first recognize that polygraph is not a foolproof discipline and advocate further investigation by the agency.
Just my opinion, flames are not warranted.
Revenoir
I know there is a big debate and controversy over the polygraph testing. I am a trained interrogator (MI / CI / Reid). I see polygraph as a ONE of the many tools in investigating the truth. I do not believe it is 100% accurate and produce false positives and false negatives. But as one of the posters pointed out, NONE of the methods are 100% by itself. However, I believe we can assertain the truth if we employed all tools available and not rely solely on one method.
In the intelligence collection field, we employ HUMINT, SIGINT, and IMINT. Each discipline must confirm the information or it is not considered reliable intelligence. When the head of the agency overlook this, we get something like "We KNOW you have WMD, we just can't find it!" Why should it be any different in any sector? I do think it is very unfair that many LE applicants are rejected based upon a failed polygraph, and not given any further attention to whether or not other background investigation confirm the result. I think polygraphers should be the first recognize that polygraph is not a foolproof discipline and advocate further investigation by the agency.
Just my opinion, flames are not warranted.
Revenoir
Posted by rice80
- Oct 10, 2007, 07:24 PMps good luck with your date 
rice
rice
Posted by tbld
- Oct 10, 2007, 07:23 PMMaybe WW wont be so bitchy now that shes finally got a date! 
-------> 
-------> Posted by rice80
- Oct 10, 2007, 07:23 PMYea whatever WW, I just find it amusing how when 1904 makes a logical observation (or any other person on this site for that matter) and a relatively excellent point you examiners always rush in to the poly's defense. You and all the other examiners gotta amit the poly is flawed and if you think it is not then you sister are full of sh*t.
rice
rice
Posted by Wonder_Woman
- Oct 10, 2007, 07:17 PMRice go crawl back under the rock you came from. We are just having a conversation and it looks like I got a date for Saturday night. 
Posted by rice80
- Oct 10, 2007, 07:13 PMI'll be Damned if they didn't make quick action of gangin' up on you 1904. holy shit! 
rice
rice
Posted by 1904
- Oct 10, 2007, 11:55 AMQuote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 10, 2007, 11:36 AM
(edited by 1904 )
Polygraph examiners are as morally corrupt as a drug dealer
Hey. Stop being so nice. Its turning me on. got any plans for Sat night ?
Posted by 1904
- Oct 10, 2007, 11:51 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 10, 2007, 11:29 AMQuote from: 1904 on Oct 10, 2007, 11:02 AM
The big issue for me is - and i'm sure you expect nothing diff from me by now except the same old song - is that p/g is just wrong. It is nothing more than a prop used to obtain confessions.
It would be morally more acceptable to say, "lets use the old p/g trick on this perp to get a confession"
(Edited by 1904) .. so I don't rn those tests anymore. I have a feeling that you could be more inclined to specificlly target polygraph in applicant screening for LE, rather than the whole field---but I could be wrong. I secretly look forward to 100% methods and due to not being in love with any career per se, I will welcome better methods as it will make my kids safer yet.
regards
Paradiddle
As usual, you put up such a goddam good presentation. Shit PD, you could probably get a lizard to confess that its a crocodile.
I agree with you in principle. I only differ with the methodology. I dont have the answers and certainly dont know who does. We can only agree to disagree.
Peace
Posted by Wonder_Woman
- Oct 10, 2007, 11:36 AMPolygraph is a tool to assist in the pre-employment back ground investigation. APA states the polygraph should not be the sole decision to hire or not and the LE agencies I have worked with are of the same opinion. I have worked with great background investigators and if an area of concern comes out of a polygraph, the BI investigates further. Plain and simple. The individual can pass a polygraph but may not meet the requirements of the agency. The GD agency should have balls enough to state that vs. blaming it on the polygraph.
To be quite honest, I would rather test the perpetrators to make the streets safer. However, I have found several perpetrators during pre-employment exams for LE's! Now how is the investigator going to find out that this person sexually abused 'Sally' when Sally isn't interviewed or even listed as a personal reference?
Polygraph examiners are as morally corrupt as a drug dealer...wow, you and I both know who is BS'n and making a production?
To be quite honest, I would rather test the perpetrators to make the streets safer. However, I have found several perpetrators during pre-employment exams for LE's! Now how is the investigator going to find out that this person sexually abused 'Sally' when Sally isn't interviewed or even listed as a personal reference?
Polygraph examiners are as morally corrupt as a drug dealer
...wow, you and I both know who is BS'n and making a production?Posted by Paradiddle
- Oct 10, 2007, 11:29 AMQuote from: 1904 on Oct 10, 2007, 11:02 AMWW: Perhaps you are in the opinion of your peers, an excellent examiner.
But then all the ex's that post here claim not to exercise the behaviours that the AP folk
continually complain about.
The big issue for me is - and i'm sure you expect nothing diff from me by now except the same old song - is that p/g is just wrong. It is nothing more than a prop used to obtain confessions.
It would be morally more acceptable to say, "lets use the old p/g trick on this perp to get a confession"
But then suspects would all get to know the trick and it wouldnt work anymore and so the p/g club
trot out BS research etc etc to continue trying to fool society that the p/g can reliably be utilised to detect deception. but it can't. Therein lies the rub. 86%, 88%, 92% 96%, (i think the APA has a %
generator) is simply not good enough. Only 100% reliability is good enough.
Yes I know you put sickos and pillpoppers away - but you could do even better with solid investigation
techniques and solid scientific, hard evidence. Polygraph is the lazy mans detective tool.
If you're gonna BS folks, why make such a production out of it??
Just use the card trick without the poly. Or magic lie-powder. Or Oscar.
I wish that you and your posse could put away a 1000 drug dealers and sexual deviants every single day. But, when you falsely accuse 1 person, then your methodology is flawed and you are as morally
corrupt as a drug dealer.
Human collateral is unacceptable.
If you think that you've never called a false positive, then you're just plain stupid. Sorry.
Sure, p/g is a career. It gives some a good living. So does loan-sharking.
Has my rant made you think? I hope so. Even a micron of doubt would be promising.
Fact----falsely accused and convicted criminals are incarcerated as a result of "solid scientific evidence and techniques" without polygraph---make no mistake about that '04. Fingerprints?--not 100% Eye witness accounts?---please, the worst and most unreliable yet. DNA---this is great but the contamination factor is overwelming, not to mention that many crimes are ill-suited for DNA. What's left 1904? Interrogation---also filled with treachery, and fortunately, American courts are giving less and less credibility toward confessions each year. Physical Anthropology?---a great science if applicable in post mordum cases, but far from perfect. Forensic Dentistry----again, priceless in murder cases. What's left----chemical analysis and a few others that are valuable in certain forensic dterminations. But what about the following crimes;
Frotage---eye witness
Molestation (small digital, rubbing) (eye witness and rarely medical tests concurr)
Rape with condom---eye witness (medical does little for intent of rape)
Peepers and flashers ------(eye witness)
Fraud----eye witness, phone records (soft target investigation points) and distorted video on occasion.
Assault----eye witness, medical, weapon possession (rarely obtained before disposal)
Kidnap-----eye witness
Internal theft-----possession of stolen property evidence (rarely found before conversion)/eye witness
Espionage---------eye witness (very rare----or possession of contraband---rarely found before conversion)
Unauthorized release of classified docs-----see above
All of the above crimes and many more have very little stand alone "solid scientific investigative evidence techniques." I can appreciate your disappointment in polygraph ----but it is yet a strong tool of investigation, and touting it as a prop or otherwise chips away at the field of preventing residivistic crimes---it hurts people. I too am very concerned with applicant screening polygraph modalities---and I am inclined to be suspicious of those modalities, so I don't rn those tests anymore. I have a feeling that you could be more inclined to specificlly target polygraph in applicant screening for LE, rather than the whole field---but I could be wrong. I secretly look forward to 100% methods and due to not being in love with any career per se, I will welcome better methods as it will make my kids safer yet.
regards
Paradiddle
Posted by 1904
- Oct 10, 2007, 11:02 AMWW: Perhaps you are in the opinion of your peers, an excellent examiner.
But then all the ex's that post here claim not to exercise the behaviours that the AP folk
continually complain about.
The big issue for me is - and i'm sure you expect nothing diff from me by now except the same old song - is that p/g is just wrong. It is nothing more than a prop used to obtain confessions.
It would be morally more acceptable to say, "lets use the old p/g trick on this perp to get a confession"
But then suspects would all get to know the trick and it wouldnt work anymore and so the p/g club
trot out BS research etc etc to continue trying to fool society that the p/g can reliably be utilised to detect deception. but it can't. Therein lies the rub. 86%, 88%, 92% 96%, (i think the APA has a %
generator) is simply not good enough. Only 100% reliability is good enough.
Yes I know you put sickos and pillpoppers away - but you could do even better with solid investigation
techniques and solid scientific, hard evidence. Polygraph is the lazy mans detective tool.
If you're gonna BS folks, why make such a production out of it??
Just use the card trick without the poly. Or magic lie-powder. Or Oscar.
I wish that you and your posse could put away a 1000 drug dealers and sexual deviants every single day. But, when you falsely accuse 1 person, then your methodology is flawed and you are as morally
corrupt as a drug dealer.
Human collateral is unacceptable.
If you think that you've never called a false positive, then you're just plain stupid. Sorry.
Sure, p/g is a career. It gives some a good living. So does loan-sharking.
Has my rant made you think? I hope so. Even a micron of doubt would be promising.
But then all the ex's that post here claim not to exercise the behaviours that the AP folk
continually complain about.
The big issue for me is - and i'm sure you expect nothing diff from me by now except the same old song - is that p/g is just wrong. It is nothing more than a prop used to obtain confessions.
It would be morally more acceptable to say, "lets use the old p/g trick on this perp to get a confession"
But then suspects would all get to know the trick and it wouldnt work anymore and so the p/g club
trot out BS research etc etc to continue trying to fool society that the p/g can reliably be utilised to detect deception. but it can't. Therein lies the rub. 86%, 88%, 92% 96%, (i think the APA has a %
generator) is simply not good enough. Only 100% reliability is good enough.
Yes I know you put sickos and pillpoppers away - but you could do even better with solid investigation
techniques and solid scientific, hard evidence. Polygraph is the lazy mans detective tool.
If you're gonna BS folks, why make such a production out of it??
Just use the card trick without the poly. Or magic lie-powder. Or Oscar.
I wish that you and your posse could put away a 1000 drug dealers and sexual deviants every single day. But, when you falsely accuse 1 person, then your methodology is flawed and you are as morally
corrupt as a drug dealer.
Human collateral is unacceptable.
If you think that you've never called a false positive, then you're just plain stupid. Sorry.
Sure, p/g is a career. It gives some a good living. So does loan-sharking.
Has my rant made you think? I hope so. Even a micron of doubt would be promising.
Posted by Wonder_Woman
- Oct 10, 2007, 10:26 AM1904, I sure don't run an exam like that.
Revenoir, if you failed one or more portions of the polygraph you should have been questioned and possibly had another polygraph administered to clear up that particular issue. Drug use 22 years ago shouldn't be a problem unless you used more than the allotted amount specified by your local POST. POST has the standards that the LE's have to comply with or the individual cannot be certified.
Additionally, your juvenile behaviors are juvenile behaviors. I have seen many officers hired that were 'hell on wheels' when they were juveniles and they are damn good cops.
If the Polygraph Examiner didn't question you after the exam, I would tend to believe it has something to do with the hiring agencies back ground investigation. However, if you used CM's on the polygraph, that may be an entirely different story and hopefully you didn't take that route.
Keep trying, if that is all you have in your back ground, someone will pick you up.
Revenoir, if you failed one or more portions of the polygraph you should have been questioned and possibly had another polygraph administered to clear up that particular issue. Drug use 22 years ago shouldn't be a problem unless you used more than the allotted amount specified by your local POST. POST has the standards that the LE's have to comply with or the individual cannot be certified.
Additionally, your juvenile behaviors are juvenile behaviors. I have seen many officers hired that were 'hell on wheels' when they were juveniles and they are damn good cops.
If the Polygraph Examiner didn't question you after the exam, I would tend to believe it has something to do with the hiring agencies back ground investigation. However, if you used CM's on the polygraph, that may be an entirely different story and hopefully you didn't take that route.
Keep trying, if that is all you have in your back ground, someone will pick you up.