Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is the last name of the first U.S. president?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Sep 05, 2009, 07:40 PM
Quote from: landers on Aug 28, 2009, 07:06 PMYou must realize that police officer are pathological liars.
That's an ignorant statement.

It is no more accurate to say "police officer are pathological liars" than it is to say tall people are pathological liars, or plumbers are pathological liars, or any other group of diverse individuals are pathological liars.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Sep 02, 2009, 02:34 AM
QuoteLanders

Indeed, I haven't read such a hate filled post since my old friend, Lethe, last spewed venom.  Will the brute, evil deceiver and godless soul Sergeant1107 reply?  Wait, he is a police officer and thus, a pathological liar!

Getting a little emotional aren't we?

Not all polygraph interrogators are pathological liars.  But polygraphers DO routinely lie and ARE deceptive, while conducting polygraphs (most interrogators DO resort to lying and deception when they deem it necessary). In fact, the term "deception indicated" to describe autonomic fluctuations depicted  on a polygraph chart IS DECEPTIVE.  And probably the biggest lie told in a polygraph interrogation room.

SA Hacking's (LieBabyCryBaby), or was it Mr. Van Arsdale's (Sancho Panza), claim that polygraphers do don't use that term was also a pathological lie. 

Mr. Louis Rovner's (former APA higher up) claim, that GM works directly for Iran, which was made to a polygraph subject during a freaking polygraph,  was also a pathological lie.

What's the old saying?  Pot calling the kettle "black".

Used car salesmen, lawyers, politicians, con men, all have a reputation for being liars.  It's not entirely fair, but there is some truth to it.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Aug 31, 2009, 11:44 PM
No apology necessary!

Remember, we've all been there.

TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Aug 31, 2009, 09:59 PM
Quote from: estrellita on Aug 28, 2009, 06:47 PMYes he wrote a statement that said that I might have done it one more time. He made me doubt myself. When I finished signing it he told me, so where did you do it?! I told him I told you I didn't do it. I now realize how stupid it was on my part to sign this. I know there was not another incident, I would remember. He even told me I was probably drunk that is why I don't remember, I reminded him that I don't drink. I called the lady in charge of my application, I explained to her what happened I already submitted an appeal, but it will take a while she said before I hear back. What do I have to lose nothing but my reputation

Estrella,

Indeed it was a terrible mistake to sign that statement. When your polygrapher told you that "it would be best to make a statement," what he didn't say was that it would be best for him, not for you. Your polygrapher will no doubt have represented it as corroboration of his polygraph results: you failed the polygraph and then "confessed" to having been less than fully candid regarding your marijuana use.

Unfortunately, there is little recourse. Your appeal will certainly be rejected, and you'll be barred for life from FBI employment. You'll want to file a Privacy Act request for your FBI records.
Posted by estrella
 - Aug 31, 2009, 08:14 PM
I sincerely apologize:)
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Aug 31, 2009, 07:55 PM
Estrella,

My post was a joke!

I was a "tongue in cheek" imitation of some of the standard and lame answers polygraphers have given on this and other boards.

TC
Posted by estrella
 - Aug 31, 2009, 07:19 PM
Mr. Cullen, at no moment do I feel a sense of entitlement to any job nor have I ever thought I am better than anyone else. It is obvious you on the other hand have the "cop mentality" I have worked with many like you. NO I did not lie, I repeat I DID NOT LIE. While I have given up hope for this job, I also feel it is not worth losing any more sleep over it. My family knows me and my friends know me, that is all that matters. I have told the truth and I don't know how else to prove it, just that it could very well be the examiner who was not trained as he should have been.
Posted by landers
 - Aug 30, 2009, 10:54 AM
To Estrella:

I posted the note below to 'Off-Topic Posts' after posting here. Please read it in the light of the post from 'T.M. Cullen'.

'At the top of most article pages, there is the wisely posted statement: 'Be aware that polygraph operators also read the discussions on this message board. Participants of this forum should also be aware that: Be aware that polygraph operators may also reply to the discussions on this message board with deceptive, misleading comments.'

In regards to the accusation above by pailryder concerning my post: 'Police and prosecutors:', I will make this statement also. 'Participants of this forum should also be aware that: Be aware that police officers and prosecutors may also reply to the discussions on this message board with deceptive, misleading comments.'

What do you have to loose by heeding my posts above? Nothing.
What do you have to loose by not heeding my posts above? You freedom, as well as possibly family, friends, and material possessions.

Wishing you all the best, Landers
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Aug 29, 2009, 09:40 PM
Estrella,

Here is the standard polygrapher reply to people such as yourself, who come here for answers after having come up false positive on the polygraph:

"Well, there is a ton of research that shows polygraphs are 98% accurate.  So I don't know what happened in your case.  You must have had a bad examiner.  Are you sure you were telling the truth?  How can you be sure?

At any rate, no test is perfect.  Even X-rays, MRIs and atomic anti-discombobulation regulators have error rates.  So give polygraphy a break.  Besides, nobody is entitled to a job.  I can help but sense a tone of "entitlement" on your part.   Maybe you are lying about telling the truth, and have just come here to bitterly complain and tarnish the good name of polygraphy!  Have a nice day!"

TC

Posted by estrella
 - Aug 29, 2009, 06:27 PM
Dear Mr. or Ms. Pailryder my intention was not to be mean to anyone, I am new to this website and only found out about it after I did my polygraph as I wanted answers (I guess) as to why I would fail such, and opinions and experiences on others who took it.
Posted by Katelyn Sack
 - Aug 29, 2009, 03:37 PM
Estrella,

I sent you a personal message through this website, but also wanted to post here in case you don't check that inbox.  I'll modify my remarks to address you and everyone else. 

First, I'm so sorry about your bad polygraph experience.  This is a tough thing to get "fixed" and a tougher thing to get over, and I wish you luck. 

Second, I'm wondering if you're anywhere near me (I live in Virginia), because I'm making a documentary on polygraphs and I would love to interview you.  I'm a completely independent film-maker, compiling stories just like yours because I don't want anyone else to be victimized by this process.  I believe you, and I think your voice is very important. 

Please let me know if you'd like more information about my documentary project, or if you're anywhere nearby and would like to get together to chat. 

As for Pailryder and other polygraph examiners who read these boards:  I continue to extend the same offer to you.  If you plan to be in Virginia and would like to talk with me on film, please send me your qualifications and story. 

Thanks and take care,
Katelyn

katelyn.sack@gmail.com
www.katelynsack.com
Posted by pailryder
 - Aug 29, 2009, 03:21 PM
landers

Indeed, I haven't read such a hate filled post since my old friend, Lethe, last spewed venom.  Will the brute, evil deceiver and godless soul Sergeant1107 reply?  Wait, he is a police officer and thus, a pathological liar!
Posted by landers
 - Aug 29, 2009, 07:05 AM
 Thats the spirit. Assertively take control of what they did to you and spit it back in their contentious, arrogant faces. They drive off the good, so now all they can hire is another Robert Hanssen and suffer another embarrassment.
Posted by estrella
 - Aug 29, 2009, 03:20 AM
Thank you for your posts, I am feeling a bit better today I know I will get over it sooner or later. I feel more betrayed than depressed now. I don't know how these people can sleep at night.
Last night when I didn't get any sleep thinking about it, I even thought of paying for my own poly. I even called the Poly place they said they could do it for 250.00.
But then I thought what is it really going to solve, nothing. If I know I didn't do anything; if I know I told the truth; then the  FBI could suck it (excuse my language) really.
They are the ones that don't deserve me. :P
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Aug 28, 2009, 09:07 PM
QuoteI will not consent to being given a polygraph test.

"I  do not consent to being subject to a polygraph interrogation".  It is NOT a test, it is an INTERROGATION. 

Ed Van Arsdale (Ponca City, OK), who is a retired police detective and current private polygrapher, recommends to his defense attorney clients that anybody sent to a police polygraph should NOT submit to a post test interrogation.  Also, that they should terminate the polygraph and leaved is the an examiner becomes "aggressive", or "accusatory".

There you have it, right from the "horse's mouth"!

TC