- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by xenonman
- Jul 25, 2016, 01:45 AMQuote from: AuntyAgony on Jul 25, 2016, 01:36 AMQuote from: xenonman on Jul 25, 2016, 01:01 AMDid alchemists have a particular garb for their "profession"? If they did, that might make a suitable costume for polygraphers!
Yes -- the duty uniform of a polygrapher should be a pointy cap with stars and comets and orbs all over it, and a long robe with voluminous sleeves. Wand optional.
That would certainly show them as the "mad scientists" which those high-tech voodoo charlatans certainly are!
Posted by Aunty Agony
- Jul 25, 2016, 01:36 AMQuote from: xenonman on Jul 25, 2016, 01:01 AMDid alchemists have a particular garb for their "profession"? If they did, that might make a suitable costume for polygraphers!
Yes -- the duty uniform of a polygrapher should be a pointy cap with stars and comets and orbs all over it, and a long robe with voluminous sleeves. Wand optional.
Posted by xenonman
- Jul 25, 2016, 01:01 AMQuote from: notguilty1 on Apr 30, 2008, 10:33 AMQuote from: notguilty1 on Apr 30, 2008, 12:59 AMNG,
Maybe they should start wearing white lab coats?
I think it would make for a good "visual" to go along with their charade of pseudo-scientistic respectability.
TC
Hey TC, Yes!! white lab coats would help their comparison to doctors that way they would at least look like doctors, but then again barbers wear white coats and....... they are still barbers.
I still can't believe they think that comparison makes any sense but, I guess to keep thier BS alive they have to hold on to that.
Did alchemists have a particular garb for their "profession"? If they did, that might make a suitable costume for polygraphers!
Posted by xenonman
- Jul 25, 2016, 12:53 AMQuote from: VenturousOne on Jan 20, 2016, 08:02 AMChild pornography is rarely interpreted as viewing nude 16 or 17 years olds, which I suspect is what occurred here. Many examiners define child pornography as "pre-pubescent," truly children. If a cell phone shot of a high school female being passed around is the issue, Bluestang has nothing to worry about (except maybe from the one who was photographed!). But again, he must voice the concern to his examiner. Far too many otherwise qualified applicants go down in flames because they withhold info that the hiring agency could not care less about. But trying to hide that conduct, which likely results in a failed exam, will typically exclude that person.
I believe that any pornographic photography involving persons under 18 years of age is criminalized in the USA. I doubt very much that leniency would be shown toward an offender if the photographic images depicted involved 16 and/or 17 year olds. :-/
Posted by xenonman
- Apr 11, 2016, 07:15 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on Apr 28, 2008, 10:08 PMand many of those lurkers may be from the IC.QuoteCom'mon! There's five of you here! Probably 2 are the same person... I'm here to add balance to your diatribe
Lot's of people post here.
There are "newbees" recently tested, like Ohio99, Speed204..etc who come here on a steady basis, looking for answers as to why they failed the polygraph while telling the truth. We answer their questions, then they leave.
Then there are the 5 or so, "regulars" who post on a long term basis.
It is probably no different at "Polygraphplace", minus the "snowjob" answers, of course.
Then there are the "lurkers". Note this thread has had 328 views, but only 20 posts.
TC
I personally don't care, because I have nothing to lose anymore!
Posted by xenonman
- Apr 11, 2016, 07:09 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on Apr 22, 2008, 02:56 PMGM,When I was polygraphed by NSA in 1982, I was accused, out of the blue, by the butch polygrapher of concealing homosexual activity and maintaining contact with foreign intelligence services.
When I tested at NSA, the four counter-intelligence questions did have a "low base rate of guilt".
Further, the polygraphers explained the questions thoroughly. For example, with the disclosure of classified info question. They explained they were talking about PURPOSELY removing classified info from a secure space with the INTENT of doing something untoward with it. IOW, pulling a Sandy Burglar.
With regard to the "foreign contact" question. They explained they were talking about KNOWINGLY maintaining a relationship with a KNOWN agent of a foreign government, with the intent of PASSING INFORMATION, or doing something otherwise unauthorized...etc.
Yet, they will then take something you say that doesn't come even close to that and blow it out of all proportion.
In my case, they made a big deal about some translation work I did for the Taiwan Coordination Counsel in Hawaii. I met an officer there when applying to attend a seminar in Taiwan. I was on active duty. My command knew about it, even wanted to pay for it and label it foreign language training.
I had to go to that office about three times. To apply, to get a visa, and to pick up a seminar packet prior to departing.
Of course I practiced my chinese during the visits. On the last visit, the officer suckered me into translating a 12 page fax just in from Taipei. It was a new directive explaining the new law pertaining to foreigner (americans) wanting to work in Taiwan. This officer needed it translated to have it available in english for people inquiring at his office about working in Taiwan. Too cheap to send it to a translation company.
Now, does that come anywhere near what they explained the "foreign contact" question really means? No? THEY BLEW IT OUT OF ALL PROPORTION!
This is what I mean, when I say don't mention insignificant shit concerning a relevant question. Don't speculate at all. They explained the question quite clearly, I understood it. Should have said No, I haven't DONE anything like THAT. End of story! Anything short of that and you're just giving them ammo!
This is precisely how you end up with a false positive.
TC
Those bizarre accusations were the final confirmation for me of the absurdity of the polygraph, except as a tool to intimidate the unaware!
Posted by xenonman
- Apr 11, 2016, 07:01 AMQuote from: speed204 on Apr 21, 2008, 03:39 PMI've always wanted to be in law enforcement as a police officer. A police officer friend of mine was telling me that you have to pass a polygraph test and in his list of things they ask you, he included child pornography. I am 18 and graduated high school now, but all during high school pictures of naked girls in high school (probably age 15-18) were all over the place being circulated to me through text messages as well as email. Also, I still have media of me with old girlfriends from a year or two ago and we both were not 18 at the time. I guess most of these pictures could technically be classified as child pornography.Also very important: Now that you're 18, stay well away from any girl that isn't!
Its been on my mind 24/7 now......
Does this mean I can no longer become a police officer since technically I have been both in possession of and have distributed child porn?
Posted by Aunty Agony
- Mar 15, 2016, 12:08 AMQuoteI am in the same boat as the original poster, however Nude pictures (it was a nip slip) were posted to a girls facebook page when we were both in high school and I saved the images for viewing later. And years later after I turned 18, I stumbled upon nude photos of an actress who was 17 at the time they were taken and I saved them too. I have since deleted them from my computer since I have realized that it was a terrible thing to do and look at. I have never seeked out any Child Porn, but I am afraid that I will not only fail the polygraph, (I intend to fully disclose what I've said here) but also be arrested and charged with child pornography. Can anyone help ease my mind or warn me off applying?
Well obviously you are guilty of possessing and viewing child pornography. Whether you can be prosecuted for it depends on where you live, but the laws of most states are unbelievably stupid on this subject so don't count on common sense or judicial discretion to save you.
This means that if you do disclose what you've said here to any public authority, you will be arrested and charged. Any public servant who credibly knows that you are a sex offender and does not forward your confession to the police becomes guilty of abetting your offense. So no one will dare fail to report you, due to fear of being arrested himself.
You see, in too many cases, fear of prosecution under stupid law prevents a person from exercising common sense. For example, Aunty is forbidden to tell you to forget about temporarily saving illegal pictures when in high school and don't bother recruiters with petty crap, because that would be the same as telling you to lie. Which, like looking at a jail bait nip slip pic, is a terrible thing to do.
So because Aunty does not want to entertain Federal Agents at 3:30 AM, she is not able to give you the best benefit of her years of accumulated wisdom and maturity. Instead, Aunty must tell you that a career in law enforcement is forever closed to you. Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all.
-Aunty.
Posted by BottleKidz
- Mar 13, 2016, 10:02 PMI am in the same boat as the original poster, however Nude pictures (it was a nip slip) were posted to a girls facebook page when we were both in high school and I saved the images for viewing later. And years later after I turned 18, I stumbled upon nude photos of an actress who was 17 at the time they were taken and I saved them too. I have since deleted them from my computer since I have realized that it was a terrible thing to do and look at. I have never seeked out any Child Porn, but I am afraid that I will not only fail the polygraph, (I intend to fully disclose what I've said here) but also be arrested and charged with child pornography. Can anyone help ease my mind or warn me off applying?
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jan 20, 2016, 08:20 PMWandersmann, indeed polygraph is a CA$H COW.
Posted by Wandersmann
- Jan 20, 2016, 01:33 PMQuote from: VenturousOne on Jan 20, 2016, 08:02 AMFar too many otherwise qualified applicants go down in flames because they withhold info that the hiring agency could not care less about. But trying to hide that conduct, which likely results in a failed exam, will typically exclude that person.
So, in other words, if there is anything on your conscience at all, like breaking your grandmother's favorite dish when you were 10 years old and then lying by blaming it on your brother, you need to get it off your chest 30 years later when you are taking a polygraph for a sensitive position. Maybe it's easy to get that confused with spying for the former Soviet Union. Really ? This is polygraph practice is absurd. The only good thing about the use of the polygraph is that it shows how low some people will stoop to make a buck.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 20, 2016, 09:59 AMQuote from: VenturousOne on Jan 20, 2016, 08:02 AMChild pornography is rarely interpreted as viewing nude 16 or 17 years olds, which I suspect is what occurred here. Many examiners define child pornography as "pre-pubescent," truly children.
Since when do polygraph examiners have the discretion to define what is and what isn't child pornography?
The polygrapher's job is to collect potentially disqualifying information, and any admission to having viewed nude images of a person under the age of 18 is potentially disqualifying. Under Florida law, for example, transmission of a picture of the kind Bluestang01 described is a 3rd degree felony:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0847/Sections/0847.0137.html
And minors have been criminally prosecuted for transmitting such pictures:
http://www.wired.com/2009/01/kids/
Quote If a cell phone shot of a high school female being passed around is the issue, Bluestang has nothing to worry about (except maybe from the one who was photographed!).
I don't see how you can provide such assurance with any confidence.
QuoteBut again, he must voice the concern to his examiner. Far too many otherwise qualified applicants go down in flames because they withhold info that the hiring agency could not care less about.
How do you know this to be true?
QuoteBut trying to hide that conduct, which likely results in a failed exam, will typically exclude that person.
Again, how do you know that trying to hide potentially embarrassing but non-relevant information is likely to result in a failed exam? And if such is indeed the case, what does that have to say about the validity of polygraphy?
Posted by VenturousOne
- Jan 20, 2016, 08:02 AMChild pornography is rarely interpreted as viewing nude 16 or 17 years olds, which I suspect is what occurred here. Many examiners define child pornography as "pre-pubescent," truly children. If a cell phone shot of a high school female being passed around is the issue, Bluestang has nothing to worry about (except maybe from the one who was photographed!). But again, he must voice the concern to his examiner. Far too many otherwise qualified applicants go down in flames because they withhold info that the hiring agency could not care less about. But trying to hide that conduct, which likely results in a failed exam, will typically exclude that person.
Posted by Ex Member
- Jan 19, 2016, 03:19 PMVenturousOne, I appreciate you jumping in and giving Blustang01 some advice from your perspective. I think the prevailing concern is that since he viewed a picture of a nude classmate, would the examiner consider such an admission to viewing child pornography? May I solicit your input on this?
Posted by VenturousOne
- Jan 19, 2016, 02:27 PMBluestang01, you haven't done anything that I haven't heard a thousand times before. If it's all truthful, don't sweat it. Examiners know everybody has concerns. Often the concerns are of no relevance to the examiner, such as what you've described. You absolutely DO want to tell your examiner about this, and anything else that's worrying you. We don't expect you to present being physically relaxed (and we don't want you to try to relax!), but we DO want you to be mentally relaxed, if that makes sense to you. Discussing your concerns is the best way to "let go" of those issues that may give you problems in your exam.