- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Administrator
- Jun 02, 2009, 11:42 PMQuote from: shigatsuhirimoto on Jun 02, 2009, 06:47 PMMr./Mrs. Administrator:
Did you get mad because I said that I respect polygraphers for the job they do? Is that why you banned me before? Is this not a web site where people can talk good things about the polygraph not just a web site where people have to agree with everything everyone else says? If not then this web site is a waste of time.
Mr. Van Arsdale,
You were banned because of your history of trolling these forums.
Posted by shigatsuhirimoto
- Jun 02, 2009, 06:47 PMMr./Mrs. Administrator:
Did you get mad because I said that I respect polygraphers for the job they do? Is that why you banned me before? Is this not a web site where people can talk good things about the polygraph not just a web site where people have to agree with everything everyone else says? If not then this web site is a waste of time.
Did you get mad because I said that I respect polygraphers for the job they do? Is that why you banned me before? Is this not a web site where people can talk good things about the polygraph not just a web site where people have to agree with everything everyone else says? If not then this web site is a waste of time.
Posted by Shigatsu
- May 31, 2009, 10:45 PMThanks to this website I found out about John F. Sullivan's excellent book, Gatekeeper. I love it. It makes me have a whole new profound respect for polygraphy and the men and women who combine art and science so well. What a hard and often unappreciated job! Sullivan wrote-
We gatekeepers have taken much criticism for our failures and have received very little recognition for our successes.
I cannot say I believe that the polygraph is perfect but I think it is a big mistake for some people to discount it. As Sullivan wrote-
In their attacks on polygraph, anti-polygraph factions have used distortions, misrespresentations, and lies to try and meke their points and have callously disregarded the efforts and accomplishments of a highly dedicated group of professionals.
I recommend this book to people who like and who do not like the polygraph. Read it and you will increase your respect for it at least.
We gatekeepers have taken much criticism for our failures and have received very little recognition for our successes.
I cannot say I believe that the polygraph is perfect but I think it is a big mistake for some people to discount it. As Sullivan wrote-
In their attacks on polygraph, anti-polygraph factions have used distortions, misrespresentations, and lies to try and meke their points and have callously disregarded the efforts and accomplishments of a highly dedicated group of professionals.
I recommend this book to people who like and who do not like the polygraph. Read it and you will increase your respect for it at least.
Posted by Cletus Wilbury
- May 17, 2009, 10:28 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 10, 2007, 09:20 AMI have at long last received my copy of retired CIA polygraph examiner John Sullivan's book, Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner (Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books, 2007), ..... See the personal statements of some recent CIA applicants for some recent examples.
Thanks for typing that from the book. Very interesting. I can see why polygraphers don't like any light being shown on their activities, as it appears it's primary function is to encourage confessions by people who believe it works.
Posted by GuardDog
- Jun 26, 2007, 03:44 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Jun 26, 2007, 01:47 PMHaving read, learned from, and enjoyed both of Sullivan's books, I have to say that I bear him no ill will. On the contrary, although I don't always agree with him, I'm thankful for his uncommon willingness to think critically about polygraphy, an uncommon trait indeed among federal polygraph operators. The retaliation he encountered as a result of his candor is not "karma" or poetic justice. Such retaliation, worthy only of a police state, should be troubling to all Americans who cherish civil liberties, and I for one wish Mr. Sullivan all success in his lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency.
I agree with you George... I wish him success with the litigation. Sorry it took a wrongful failing of a "polygraph" for him to figure it out... :-/
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 26, 2007, 01:47 PMHaving read, learned from, and enjoyed both of Sullivan's books, I have to say that I bear him no ill will. On the contrary, although I don't always agree with him, I'm thankful for his uncommon willingness to think critically about polygraphy, an uncommon trait indeed among federal polygraph operators. The retaliation he encountered as a result of his candor is not "karma" or poetic justice. Such retaliation, worthy only of a police state, should be troubling to all Americans who cherish civil liberties, and I for one wish Mr. Sullivan all success in his lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency.
Posted by Lethe
- Jun 26, 2007, 01:32 PMQuote from: 1904 on Jun 25, 2007, 10:01 AMQuote from: Lethe on Jun 24, 2007, 12:56 PMA polygrapher being screwed by the polygraph? What goes around comes around, Johnny. If you start shoveling shit, don't cry when you get covered in crap.
Just a tad nasty - but too true.
The Karma shark bites again.
If he was bitten by karma it was a minnow, not a shark. The bastard got off easy--his career was already over. If he'd been flunked at the start of his career, aborting it entirely, that would be even. That'd be about square.
Posted by 1904
- Jun 25, 2007, 10:01 AMQuote from: Lethe on Jun 24, 2007, 12:56 PMA polygrapher being screwed by the polygraph? What goes around comes around, Johnny. If you start shoveling shit, don't cry when you get covered in crap.
Just a tad nasty - but too true.
The Karma shark bites again.
Posted by Lethe
- Jun 24, 2007, 12:56 PMA polygrapher being screwed by the polygraph? What goes around comes around, Johnny. If you start shoveling shit, don't cry when you get covered in crap.
Posted by 1904
- Jun 12, 2007, 11:35 AMVery Very Scary. For so many years a CIA's P/G darling. Because one has the temerity to leave and write innocent memoirs - the Old Boys Club turns nasty. Very very scary.
Imagine what would have happened to J Sullivan had he not been pro-polygraph in his memoirs...
Another life ruined by BS psuedo science.
Imagine what would have happened to J Sullivan had he not been pro-polygraph in his memoirs...
Another life ruined by BS psuedo science.
Posted by triple x
- May 10, 2007, 07:19 PMGeorge,
I find this very interesting, although not surprising that the polygraph would be used "against" an individual that administered according to the post below... more polygraph exams than any other polygraph examiner within the CIA community.
Great post George, and thanks for sharing this with us.
triple x
I find this very interesting, although not surprising that the polygraph would be used "against" an individual that administered according to the post below... more polygraph exams than any other polygraph examiner within the CIA community.
Great post George, and thanks for sharing this with us.
triple x
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 10, 2007, 09:20 AMI have at long last received my copy of retired CIA polygraph examiner John Sullivan's book, Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner (Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books, 2007), publication of which was delayed as as result of foot-dragging by CIA censors whose nihil obstat was required. Eager to learn anything more about events leading up to the author's recently filed lawsuit against the CIA, I began reading at the end. In his epilogue, Sullivan writes how he, who conducted more polygraph examinations than anyone else in the Agency's history, came to fail a CIA polygraph examination to which he submitted after his retirement from the CIA. Sullivan writes (pp. 262-63):
Well, of course Mr. Sullivan's last polygraph test is an example of how the CIA's Polygraph Division is doing business! And Mr. Sullivan is far from the only person to have been falsely accused of deception and wrongly denied a security clearance following a failed polygraph. But those without a 31-year history of CIA employment are generally not so successful in appealing such wrongful denials. See the personal statements of some recent CIA applicants for some recent examples.
Quote...In November 2003 I had submitted an application for a contract position with the Agency. My security clearances were due to expire in May 2004, and they would have to be updated in order for me to take the job. To update my clearances, I would have to take a polygraph test.
I had no anxiety about taking a test, but I thought it was strange that I was instructed to go to a site in Northern Virginia and not to the Agency's polygraph facility. When I mentioned this to two of my former supervisors in PD [the CIA's Polygraph Division], both suggested that something was amiss, and one said, "John, they're coming after you for your book."
During the pretest of my polygraph examination, when the examiner previewed the question on removals of classified material, he qualified the question by advising me that OS [the Office of Security] wanted to know if I had removed materials to make money, either to sell classified information to a foreign intelligence service or to write a book. That got my attention.
The test did not go well, and I left the session thinking I would be brought back for more testing within a few days. That didn't happen, and on March 25, 2004, I had a meeting with someone from Clearance Division who, among other things, told me that I was concealing information about my book and that the results of my test were "unresolved reactions to all issues." This is PD speak for deception indicated to all issues. I was surprised, angry, and a little bit frightened.
At a subsequent retirement party in November 2004 that I attended at PD, I saw a former friend and colleague coming toward me. I said hello and stuck out my hand. He turned his back and walked away without saying a word.
Three months later, on February 14, 2005, I was notified that my request for a security clearance had been denied. The comments made by two former colleagues prior to my polygraph test, the way the test was conducted, the interview with the Clearance Division reprenestative, and the incident at the retirement party left me with no doubt that OS/PD had in fact come after me for my book. I immediately appealed the decision.
Appeals of OS security clearance denials are rarely upheld, and I was completely taken by surprise when on June 27, 2005, I was notified that "the security decision to deny me a clearance had been overturned." Any satisfaction I derived from that decision is tempered by my knowledge that between the time I took my polygraph test and the time I had my clearance restored, two job offers were withdrawn, my reputation was damaged, and my chances working as an Agency contractor are slim to none.
Throughout my career I believed in and advocated the Agency's polygraph program. If my last polygraph test is an example of how PD is now doing business, I can no longer advocate the division, and that saddens me....
Well, of course Mr. Sullivan's last polygraph test is an example of how the CIA's Polygraph Division is doing business! And Mr. Sullivan is far from the only person to have been falsely accused of deception and wrongly denied a security clearance following a failed polygraph. But those without a 31-year history of CIA employment are generally not so successful in appealing such wrongful denials. See the personal statements of some recent CIA applicants for some recent examples.