- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by shattereddreams
- Mar 11, 2009, 06:58 PMI was considering RCMP, but no longer, this is too much man. My VPD poly was cancelled 2 hrs in due to issues that i should have disclosed earlier in the week-id hate to see what would have happened if the poly went through.
Does anybody know of a polie agency that doesnt do a polygraph?
Does anybody know of a polie agency that doesnt do a polygraph?
Posted by Guest
- Feb 05, 2009, 06:47 PMIf you were rejected by Buffalo Cabs because of a failed poli, and they actually were dumb enough to tell you that was the reason, then you can easily wipe out poli testing in the True North by filing a federal human rights tribunal complaint.
Oh, yeah, the moment the complaint is filed and you get a file number, issue a press release, with your whole story in writing and the references to how bogus Polis are. All news days in Canada are, by comparison to anywhere else "slow news days". Count on a lot of coverage. Finally, as soon as the media has the bit in their teeth, call your MP, make a complaint, and attach all of the news clippings. Then, sit back and watch the fun.
You will create many miserable days for ever red coat recruiter. Revenge will be sweet.
Oh, yeah, the moment the complaint is filed and you get a file number, issue a press release, with your whole story in writing and the references to how bogus Polis are. All news days in Canada are, by comparison to anywhere else "slow news days". Count on a lot of coverage. Finally, as soon as the media has the bit in their teeth, call your MP, make a complaint, and attach all of the news clippings. Then, sit back and watch the fun.
You will create many miserable days for ever red coat recruiter. Revenge will be sweet.
Posted by Rental Unit
- Jan 10, 2009, 08:07 PMpeople are intimidated by it, and are more likley to spill their guts because of this reason. [highlight][/highlight]
This admission from a polygrapher wraps up this thread in a nice fancy bow. Isn't it just ducky? What a bunch of lying tools. Ugh.
This admission from a polygrapher wraps up this thread in a nice fancy bow. Isn't it just ducky? What a bunch of lying tools. Ugh.
Posted by TC
- Nov 16, 2008, 03:36 PMBecause there is no ability to review or scrutinize the examination and its results, the examiner can take a dislike to you or feel personally you are not good enough for the department and make sure you do not get hired. All that has to be done is for him to report you are deceptive on some question and you are toast.
They do not want you to research the polygraph beforehand or they will scratch you for trying to beat it. Aldrich Ames passed more than one examination during his time in the CIA. Real reliable. From the card trick to the last ditch "I guess we both know the truth now" pitch, its no wonder the courts do not recognize it.
For the RCMP to use this junk science on aspiring applicants is beneath them. To hide the results and refuse scrutiny contradicts their open and transparent claims. It is a star chamber at its worst, it is contrary to the Charter, and a poor substitute for good interview skills and in depth investigation for hiring people.
They do not want you to research the polygraph beforehand or they will scratch you for trying to beat it. Aldrich Ames passed more than one examination during his time in the CIA. Real reliable. From the card trick to the last ditch "I guess we both know the truth now" pitch, its no wonder the courts do not recognize it.
For the RCMP to use this junk science on aspiring applicants is beneath them. To hide the results and refuse scrutiny contradicts their open and transparent claims. It is a star chamber at its worst, it is contrary to the Charter, and a poor substitute for good interview skills and in depth investigation for hiring people.
Posted by Mr. Bellemont
- Nov 13, 2008, 07:55 AMDear B rabs,
I am a U.S. citizen with different experiences. So I will use that perspective in commenting on your blurb.
How on this good earth could a polygrapher "conclude your entire history" from a polygraph? It is an excellent tool for intimidation, we can agree on that. But does that yield truth? That depends. It is important to keep in mind that the device's only value is through it's potential power of intimidation. As an instrument, it has no validity. Therefore, it falls upon the polygrapher to "read" the polygraphee to obtain the "results". If interrogators held Ph.D's in psychology and understood not only how severe stress and other factors affected a the polygraphee's psychology, but also how their own biases came to play in making a "decision", I would be more inclined to accept the polygraph's usefulness as stage prop. But a Ph.D. requires a high level of training, and a high degree of intelligence, and a high degree of emotional intelligence. Finally, it would also require that the polygrapher worked in an environment where polygraphers were rewarded equally for false positives as for false negatives. In other words, where employment incentives were aligned with morality. In my own experience, I would wager such is generally not now the case.
No one is asking for perfection. Furthermore, there is no right to obtaining a security clearance. But governments do have a solemn obligation to protect their citizens and a duty not to waste taxpayers money. Can a system that capriciously denies large numbers of highly qualified applicants accomplish this?
Alternatively, if the polygraph was not used for screening, but merely to "encourage" folks to share more information, this would also seem understandable. Perhaps this is more like what happened in your experience?
I was extremely truthful in my application as well. Furthermore, I did not need to be intimidated to be totally forthcoming. The polygrapher was only able to get extra dribs and drabs as a result of what was essentially an interrogation. I told the truth to the best of my ability. Yet I was rejected.
Mr. Bellemont
I am a U.S. citizen with different experiences. So I will use that perspective in commenting on your blurb.
QuoteMy overall point being, that its easy to draw conclusions and most people do. So what I think is if the RCMP could conclude your entire history from a polygraph, than why would there be a background check.Just by looking at this evidence alone I would conclude that the polygraph is not perfect and nothing in this world is.I do think that it is a wonderful tool for the RCMP to use because people are intimidated by it, and are more likley to spill their guts because of this reason.
How on this good earth could a polygrapher "conclude your entire history" from a polygraph? It is an excellent tool for intimidation, we can agree on that. But does that yield truth? That depends. It is important to keep in mind that the device's only value is through it's potential power of intimidation. As an instrument, it has no validity. Therefore, it falls upon the polygrapher to "read" the polygraphee to obtain the "results". If interrogators held Ph.D's in psychology and understood not only how severe stress and other factors affected a the polygraphee's psychology, but also how their own biases came to play in making a "decision", I would be more inclined to accept the polygraph's usefulness as stage prop. But a Ph.D. requires a high level of training, and a high degree of intelligence, and a high degree of emotional intelligence. Finally, it would also require that the polygrapher worked in an environment where polygraphers were rewarded equally for false positives as for false negatives. In other words, where employment incentives were aligned with morality. In my own experience, I would wager such is generally not now the case.
No one is asking for perfection. Furthermore, there is no right to obtaining a security clearance. But governments do have a solemn obligation to protect their citizens and a duty not to waste taxpayers money. Can a system that capriciously denies large numbers of highly qualified applicants accomplish this?
Alternatively, if the polygraph was not used for screening, but merely to "encourage" folks to share more information, this would also seem understandable. Perhaps this is more like what happened in your experience?
I was extremely truthful in my application as well. Furthermore, I did not need to be intimidated to be totally forthcoming. The polygrapher was only able to get extra dribs and drabs as a result of what was essentially an interrogation. I told the truth to the best of my ability. Yet I was rejected.
Mr. Bellemont
Posted by TC
- Nov 09, 2008, 03:49 PMThe use of the polygraph for RCMP recruitment has been structured uniquely in the law enforcement field. There is the right way, the wrong way and then there is the RCMP way. Other PD's have been utilizing the polygraph for years with excellent results. The RCMP have only recently begun using it. The RCMP interview/examination is a 5+ hour process done by mostly retired polygraphists. The unfortunate part is that it is really a 5 hour interrogation, replete with all the interview and interrogation techniques applied to heinous criminals. From bonding to minimizing, nothing is left out. Zeroing in on anything they might perceive as a "suspicious" the entire weight and experience of the examiner in gaining confessions to crimes is brought to bear on a naive young person or 40 year old seasoned adult in an effort to get the "confession".
Experienced outside examiners given the RCMP training to do the "RCMP way" have walked away from the $500 per exam lure as they do not believe in the method used. Their extensive experience was not listened to or even respected.
There is a reason that the polygraph is not admissible in court. At least however, the court would be able to examine the methodology and accuracy of the procedure. The RCMP hides behind a wall of secrecy and you cannot even examine your own results or have them examined by an expert and neutral third party. You have to ask yourself why that is. Interviews and interrogations on criminals are closely examined in court to assure fairness to any person accused of criminal activity. If the RCMP process is fair and reasonable, why would you not be given the results?
The use of the examination in the recruitment process is also ill timed. One can only speculate that it is done to save shoe leather in the good old fashioned background checks. In criminal activity the polygraph is voluntary and only done after exhaustive research and background. So another question to ask is why in the RCMP way is it used before they have even interviewed employers, mates, teachers, neighbors? If there was something untoward in the persons past, it would come to light and be addressed further in the interview for veracity and content.
One last observation. In every large corporation the human resources department is staffed by formally trained and experienced personnel. Some firms utilize head hunting companies to hire. Why is the front line RCMP recruiting / staffing not fully trained, or even staffed exclusively by senior experienced personnel?
Experienced outside examiners given the RCMP training to do the "RCMP way" have walked away from the $500 per exam lure as they do not believe in the method used. Their extensive experience was not listened to or even respected.
There is a reason that the polygraph is not admissible in court. At least however, the court would be able to examine the methodology and accuracy of the procedure. The RCMP hides behind a wall of secrecy and you cannot even examine your own results or have them examined by an expert and neutral third party. You have to ask yourself why that is. Interviews and interrogations on criminals are closely examined in court to assure fairness to any person accused of criminal activity. If the RCMP process is fair and reasonable, why would you not be given the results?
The use of the examination in the recruitment process is also ill timed. One can only speculate that it is done to save shoe leather in the good old fashioned background checks. In criminal activity the polygraph is voluntary and only done after exhaustive research and background. So another question to ask is why in the RCMP way is it used before they have even interviewed employers, mates, teachers, neighbors? If there was something untoward in the persons past, it would come to light and be addressed further in the interview for veracity and content.
One last observation. In every large corporation the human resources department is staffed by formally trained and experienced personnel. Some firms utilize head hunting companies to hire. Why is the front line RCMP recruiting / staffing not fully trained, or even staffed exclusively by senior experienced personnel?
Posted by b rabs
- Oct 06, 2008, 09:24 AMIf you want my two cents worth, here it is. There is much debate about polygraphs and rightly so. Has anybody ever heard of "if it walks like a chicken and talks like a chicken than most likley its a chicken"? My overall point being, that its easy to draw conclusions and most people do. So what I think is if the RCMP could conclude your entire history from a polygraph, than why would there be a background check. Just by looking at this evidence alone I would conclude that the polygraph is not perfect and nothing in this world is. I do think that it is a wonderful tool for the RCMP to use because people are intimidated by it, and are more likley to spill their guts because of this reason. I know I did. Its a serious career choice for me and I do not want to give them a reason to reject my application. As a result I told them about the drugs I have done, the things I have stolen and the lie's that I have told. If there presumabley was no polygraph examination than I probably wouldnt have been as forth coming as what I have been. But its good that I did. It makes me feel like I am more fit going into this profession. for the polygraph I think you should let it all out, whether you shoot yourself in the foot or not, at least you owned your mistakes.
What do you all think about my little blurb?
What do you all think about my little blurb?
Posted by notguilty1
- Sep 24, 2008, 12:12 PMQuote from: admin on Sep 24, 2008, 08:32 AMI am in the application process.... I am a good, sound person... why would they set up a machine to fail you?? I am going to be honest when i get mine... and make sure i have a clear head. If he/ she is intimidating.. that is something that they will have to be... i have dealt with alot of people like that.. dont care... i do have a question for you though,,,, i have smoked some wackie very lightly and now I am waiting to take the testing for alteast 6 more months as I want to tell the truth and say that i havent been around drugs and havent done them in a year... is this the righht approach??
Hey Wanda, Keeping to the standard of the job your seeking is ALWAYS the best bet. Waiting the proper time frame before applying can only help your process though it won't guarantee a pass.
Posted by wanda loo
- Sep 24, 2008, 08:32 AMI am in the application process.... I am a good, sound person... why would they set up a machine to fail you?? I am going to be honest when i get mine... and make sure i have a clear head. If he/ she is intimidating.. that is something that they will have to be... i have dealt with alot of people like that.. dont care... i do have a question for you though,,,, i have smoked some wackie very lightly and now I am waiting to take the testing for alteast 6 more months as I want to tell the truth and say that i havent been around drugs and havent done them in a year... is this the righht approach??
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 11, 2008, 12:09 AMQuote from: admin on Jun 10, 2008, 08:29 PMQuote from: admin on Jun 10, 2008, 03:57 PMT.M.,
Hi Buddy / I'm Back !, I saw your posting to this guy Wes99, and just wanted to assure you personally that I am NOT Wes99, and that I have no problem writing you directly and addressing your posts. I was complimented that you saw my shadow in those posts which agreed with me in some way, but that I am not that person / poster. I'm glad to see you missed me though !!!!
Regards,
PATRICK T. COFFEY
TheNoLieGuyForYou
Weren't you banned?
Why would you come back and post on a board that has already banned you? Do you feel the rules of polite behavior on the Internet do not apply to you?
Sergeant1107 (and all),
I invited Mr. Coffey to register and post in a non-anonymous fashion.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jun 10, 2008, 08:29 PMQuote from: admin on Jun 10, 2008, 03:57 PMT.M.,
Hi Buddy / I'm Back !, I saw your posting to this guy Wes99, and just wanted to assure you personally that I am NOT Wes99, and that I have no problem writing you directly and addressing your posts. I was complimented that you saw my shadow in those posts which agreed with me in some way, but that I am not that person / poster. I'm glad to see you missed me though !!!!
Regards,
PATRICK T. COFFEY
TheNoLieGuyForYou
Weren't you banned?
Why would you come back and post on a board that has already banned you? Do you feel the rules of polite behavior on the Internet do not apply to you?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jun 10, 2008, 04:33 PMYeah, we've missed you here like we miss a case of hemorrhoids
Posted by TheNoLieGuyForYou
- Jun 10, 2008, 03:57 PM T.M.,
Hi Buddy / I'm Back !, I saw your posting to this guy Wes99, and just wanted to assure you personally that I am NOT Wes99, and that I have no problem writing you directly and addressing your posts. I was complimented that you saw my shadow in those posts which agreed with me in some way, but that I am not that person / poster. I'm glad to see you missed me though !!!!
Regards,
PATRICK T. COFFEY
TheNoLieGuyForYou
Hi Buddy / I'm Back !, I saw your posting to this guy Wes99, and just wanted to assure you personally that I am NOT Wes99, and that I have no problem writing you directly and addressing your posts. I was complimented that you saw my shadow in those posts which agreed with me in some way, but that I am not that person / poster. I'm glad to see you missed me though !!!!
Regards,
PATRICK T. COFFEY
TheNoLieGuyForYou
Posted by Administrator
- Jun 04, 2008, 03:43 AMFurther posts to this thread should substantively address the original topic (the RCMP polygraph screening program).
Posted by Digger
- Jun 04, 2008, 02:26 AMCHECK IT OUT DUDE !!! GROGAN GOT HIS KARMA AS YOU PREDICTED !!!! HE IS IN A FAR DIFFERENT LEAGUE THAN THE OTHER PRO-POLY POSTERS HERE.
GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE DOCUMENTED TRUTH ABOUT JOHN L. GROGAN & THE TROJAN HORSE ORGANIZATION PEOA.
http://www.truthaboutgrogan.org/index.htm
FIRST EXPOSE ON JOHN L. GROGAN / POLYGRAPH PARASITE
http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/issue138.htm#1
SECOND EXPOSE ON JOHN L. GROGAN / PSEUDO-POLYGRAPH EXAMINER
http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/issue142.htm#1
GROGAN WAS EXPOSED ON THE (33 Minute & 28 Second Mark) TOM LEYKIS SHOW
http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/956464.mp3
http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/956500.mp3
YouTube.com VIDEOS OF GROGAN DOING PSEUDO-TESTS
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1otdXn-WGYM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4sPeD5FizTY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3lPefCNKGbE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tqoJIoPtfwg
GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE DOCUMENTED TRUTH ABOUT JOHN L. GROGAN & THE TROJAN HORSE ORGANIZATION PEOA.
http://www.truthaboutgrogan.org/index.htm
FIRST EXPOSE ON JOHN L. GROGAN / POLYGRAPH PARASITE
http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/issue138.htm#1
SECOND EXPOSE ON JOHN L. GROGAN / PSEUDO-POLYGRAPH EXAMINER
http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/issue142.htm#1
GROGAN WAS EXPOSED ON THE (33 Minute & 28 Second Mark) TOM LEYKIS SHOW
http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/956464.mp3
http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/956500.mp3
YouTube.com VIDEOS OF GROGAN DOING PSEUDO-TESTS
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1otdXn-WGYM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4sPeD5FizTY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3lPefCNKGbE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tqoJIoPtfwg