- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Evan S
- Dec 22, 2007, 10:50 PMThanks for the warm welcome.
Regarding the message box, is there a spelling checker, synonym list, and dictionary lookup? It seems the icons do not support these functions.
I want to commend George Maschke for starting this website. I regard the purpose of this website is to educate the public exactly what a polygraph is and what it is not.
Yes I am aware of the book by John Sullivan. Recently the Book Review segment on CSPAN featured John defending his book in front of a small audience at a bookstore (or maybe it was a library). I would have thought the CIA cleared his book prior to publication, as this is standard operating procedure for individuals employed on classified programs or who work in classified organizations. John acknowledged the existence of the AntiPolygraph.org website and mentioned George by name. I wish I recorded this program.
Regarding the statement that security screening polygraphs have not caught a single spy, we have to define what this means. Here is my take: Did a problematic security screening polygraph set off a sequence of events that led to an indictment/conviction of an individual on charges of espionage? In other words, had it not been for the polygraph, the indictment/conviction would not have happened.
I assume the polygraph by itself would not be admissible in a federal court, but a problematic polygraph might trigger an investigation in which hard evidence is uncovered, admissible in court.
Also is it correct to assume that suspected cases of espionage must be referred to the FBI? If an individual fails a sufficient number of polygraphs (maybe four or so), must the security managers refer this case to the FBI for further investigation?
Regards,
Evan S
Regarding the message box, is there a spelling checker, synonym list, and dictionary lookup? It seems the icons do not support these functions.
I want to commend George Maschke for starting this website. I regard the purpose of this website is to educate the public exactly what a polygraph is and what it is not.
Yes I am aware of the book by John Sullivan. Recently the Book Review segment on CSPAN featured John defending his book in front of a small audience at a bookstore (or maybe it was a library). I would have thought the CIA cleared his book prior to publication, as this is standard operating procedure for individuals employed on classified programs or who work in classified organizations. John acknowledged the existence of the AntiPolygraph.org website and mentioned George by name. I wish I recorded this program.
Regarding the statement that security screening polygraphs have not caught a single spy, we have to define what this means. Here is my take: Did a problematic security screening polygraph set off a sequence of events that led to an indictment/conviction of an individual on charges of espionage? In other words, had it not been for the polygraph, the indictment/conviction would not have happened.
I assume the polygraph by itself would not be admissible in a federal court, but a problematic polygraph might trigger an investigation in which hard evidence is uncovered, admissible in court.
Also is it correct to assume that suspected cases of espionage must be referred to the FBI? If an individual fails a sufficient number of polygraphs (maybe four or so), must the security managers refer this case to the FBI for further investigation?
Regards,
Evan S
Posted by nopolycop
- Dec 22, 2007, 09:32 AMQuote from: evans on Dec 22, 2007, 07:53 AM[ Also, if countermeasures are so effective and undetectable, why then would a polygraph master fail his test?
Once more, why would they even bother testing him? His potato would have been 100 times hotter than yours, so to speak.
Answer to #1. Because one cannot subjectively "pass" or "fail" a polygraph test, but instead an opinion only is rendered by the trade school graduate known as a polygrapher. That opinion is subject to all human pressures, (such as a boss telling him to "fail this jerk." }
Answer #2. So they could"Fail" him and discredit his work. Duh, that one was a real tough one...
Posted by EJohnson
- Dec 22, 2007, 07:53 AMQuote from: evans on Dec 22, 2007, 07:33 AMEvan,
Welcome to the message board. You'll find information on how to use the message board software on the help page. Regarding the Washington Post article you mentioned, you may be aware that David Vermette is a registered user on these forums. See his post, Govt uses threats to obtain sex info on kids.
I also second Eric Johnson's recommendation of retired CIA polygrapher John Sullivan's memoir Gatekeeper. The CIA's polygraph division was so displeased with Sullivan's airing of dirty laundry that it retaliated by flunking him on a polygraph examination that he sat for in connection with post-retirement contract work.
Pure speculation George. Testing John on whether he was dislosing intelligence for having written a book with several hundred pages of notes----it must have been a very difficult exam indeed---for both John and his Examiner. Also, if countermeasures are so effective and undetectable, why then would a polygraph master fail his test? Once more, why would they even bother testing him? His potato would have been 100 times hotter than yours, so to speak.
To further make matters more complicated, the CIA is not known for being on the up and up about ANYTHING. They admit as much.Regardless, the book demonstrates for the first time in the CIA's history, that polygraph has caught thousands of intrepid baddies---versus this site's claim that not one has been caught. And if you accuse spies as being gullible or naive regarding polygraph post test interrogation, you are grossly mistaken.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 22, 2007, 07:33 AMEvan,
Welcome to the message board. You'll find information on how to use the message board software on the help page. Regarding the Washington Post article you mentioned, you may be aware that David Vermette is a registered user on these forums. See his post, Govt uses threats to obtain sex info on kids.
I also second Eric Johnson's recommendation of retired CIA polygrapher John Sullivan's memoir Gatekeeper. The CIA's polygraph division was so displeased with Sullivan's airing of dirty laundry that it retaliated by flunking him on a polygraph examination that he sat for in connection with post-retirement contract work.
Welcome to the message board. You'll find information on how to use the message board software on the help page. Regarding the Washington Post article you mentioned, you may be aware that David Vermette is a registered user on these forums. See his post, Govt uses threats to obtain sex info on kids.
I also second Eric Johnson's recommendation of retired CIA polygrapher John Sullivan's memoir Gatekeeper. The CIA's polygraph division was so displeased with Sullivan's airing of dirty laundry that it retaliated by flunking him on a polygraph examination that he sat for in connection with post-retirement contract work.
Posted by EJohnson
- Dec 22, 2007, 06:56 AMQuote from: 293A2D223F4C0 on Dec 21, 2007, 11:26 PMDear fellow posters:
I have actively read the AntiPolygraph.org website from my office PC since its inception (2000), but was reluctant to respond with my own postings until I finally got a home computer. Please forgive me if I have difficulties learning to use this message board, as it will take time to gain proficiency with YaBB.
My first name is Evan, last initial S. I work for a large aerospace company in Southern California. The security clearance requires my periodically taking and passing a CSP-type polygraph. My first CSP polygraph was in 1994 (two visits), my second in 2000 (four visits). The federal polygraphers may be able to deduce my identity from the information I post here, and I wish to engage them in a civilized discussion of the CSP polygraph. I do not regard them as my adversaries; they are simply following orders.
I am deeply concerned about the usage of polygraphs for the purposes of security clearance adjudications. I have read the 2002 NAS report, and have read personal statements from posters to this website. Also I was disturbed by the June 20, 2006 article from the Washington Post located under the link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901415_pf.html
More postings to follow.
Regards,
Evan S
Welcome Evan. I would like to recommend some additional reading, other than the antipolygraph literature. Scientists should always attempt a more full-bodied approach when engaging in epistemic dialogue about a given subject. Although I realize you do not work for the CIA, a good read would be John Sullivan's book on national security polygraphing---here is the amazon link to read some snips;
http://www.amazon.com/Gatekeeper-Memoirs-CIA-Polygraph-Examiner/dp/159797045X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198324182&sr=1-1
Happy Holidays!
E
Posted by Evan S
- Dec 21, 2007, 11:26 PMDear fellow posters:
I have actively read the AntiPolygraph.org website from my office PC since its inception (2000), but was reluctant to respond with my own postings until I finally got a home computer. Please forgive me if I have difficulties learning to use this message board, as it will take time to gain proficiency with YaBB.
My first name is Evan, last initial S. I work for a large aerospace company in Southern California. The security clearance requires my periodically taking and passing a CSP-type polygraph. My first CSP polygraph was in 1994 (two visits), my second in 2000 (four visits). The federal polygraphers may be able to deduce my identity from the information I post here, and I wish to engage them in a civilized discussion of the CSP polygraph. I do not regard them as my adversaries; they are simply following orders.
I am deeply concerned about the usage of polygraphs for the purposes of security clearance adjudications. I have read the 2002 NAS report, and have read personal statements from posters to this website. Also I was disturbed by the June 20, 2006 article from the Washington Post located under the link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901415_pf.html
More postings to follow.
Regards,
Evan S
I have actively read the AntiPolygraph.org website from my office PC since its inception (2000), but was reluctant to respond with my own postings until I finally got a home computer. Please forgive me if I have difficulties learning to use this message board, as it will take time to gain proficiency with YaBB.
My first name is Evan, last initial S. I work for a large aerospace company in Southern California. The security clearance requires my periodically taking and passing a CSP-type polygraph. My first CSP polygraph was in 1994 (two visits), my second in 2000 (four visits). The federal polygraphers may be able to deduce my identity from the information I post here, and I wish to engage them in a civilized discussion of the CSP polygraph. I do not regard them as my adversaries; they are simply following orders.
I am deeply concerned about the usage of polygraphs for the purposes of security clearance adjudications. I have read the 2002 NAS report, and have read personal statements from posters to this website. Also I was disturbed by the June 20, 2006 article from the Washington Post located under the link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901415_pf.html
More postings to follow.
Regards,
Evan S