- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Jul 20, 2011, 12:36 AMSergeant1107,
The FBI reviewed the polygraph prior to Ames being arrested, they had taken the case as a joint venture with the CIA.
"Quote"
In 1993, when the FBI opened an intensive CI investigation of Ames, the Agency was fully cooperative and provided excellent support to the FBI's investigation. CIA deferred to the FBI's decisions regarding the investigation and allowed Ames continued access to classified information in order to avoid alerting him and to assist in developing evidence of his espionage. The common goal was to apprehend Ames, while safeguarding evidence for a successful prosecution. As has been stated earlier, the CIA/FBI working relationship during the FBI phase appears to have been a model of cooperation.
I have no personal knowledge of all the facts. It appears polygraph did assist in the investigation, years after the original polygraph. This was when the FBI assisted the CIA in investigating this case. There are other cases where polygraph was instrumental in catching spies also.
The FBI reviewed the polygraph prior to Ames being arrested, they had taken the case as a joint venture with the CIA.
"Quote"
In 1993, when the FBI opened an intensive CI investigation of Ames, the Agency was fully cooperative and provided excellent support to the FBI's investigation. CIA deferred to the FBI's decisions regarding the investigation and allowed Ames continued access to classified information in order to avoid alerting him and to assist in developing evidence of his espionage. The common goal was to apprehend Ames, while safeguarding evidence for a successful prosecution. As has been stated earlier, the CIA/FBI working relationship during the FBI phase appears to have been a model of cooperation.
I have no personal knowledge of all the facts. It appears polygraph did assist in the investigation, years after the original polygraph. This was when the FBI assisted the CIA in investigating this case. There are other cases where polygraph was instrumental in catching spies also.
Posted by stefano
- Jul 19, 2011, 09:26 PMQuoteI have to take a polygraph for a potential job.I am very nervous.Why would you consider a job that makes you feel terrified and nervous? You have the power of choice friend.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jul 19, 2011, 08:38 PMQuote from: Bill_Brown on Jul 19, 2011, 10:40 AMGeorge,
Further research revealed the following:
An Assessment of the Aldrich H. Ames Espionage Case and Its Implications for U.S. Intelligence
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 01 November 1994 Part One
Full text of both parts and appendices can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C. 20402. Phone (202) 512-1800 (Stock Number 052- 070-069-77-5). The cost is $5.00.
"Quote"
1986 Polygraph Examination:
At the conclusion of language training and prior to departing for Rome, Ames was required to take a routine polygraph examination on May 2, 1986. This was his first polygraph since 1976. Ames would subsequently state that he might not have made the decision to commit espionage in April of 1985 if he had known that he was going to be polygraphed the next year. Ames recalls being "very anxious and tremendously worried" when he was in formed that he was scheduled for a polygraph exam in May of 1986, one year after he had begun his espionage activity for the KGB.
Ames was tested on a series of issues having to do with unauthorized contacts with a foreign intelligence service, unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and financial irresponsibility.
Ames gave consistently deceptive responses to issues related to whether he had been "pitched" (i.e. asked to work for) by a foreign intelligence service. The CIA examiner noted Ames's reaction to the "pitch" issue but apparently detected no reaction to the other counterintelligence issues covered by the test. When Ames was asked about his reaction during the session, he explained that he was indeed sensitive to the "pitch" issue because, he stated, "we know that the Soviets are out there somewhere, and we are worried about that."
Next the CIA examiner asked a follow on series of questions relating to the "pitch" issue, in order to ascertain why Ames had appeared to give a deceptive response. Ames responded that since he had worked in CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe (SE) Division, he had been involved in pitches to potential assets. Also, he hypothesized that he might be known to the Soviets because of a recent defector. He further stated that he thought he might be reacting because he was preparing to go to Rome in July 1986, and had some concerns that he might be pitched there. From this, the polygrapher surmised that Ames had gotten his concerns off his chest, and there was nothing more to tell. Once again, the polygrapher went through the CI questions on the polygraph machine, focusing on the pitch issue. This time, the CIA examiner deemed Ames truthful and concluded the examination, characterizing Ames as "bright [and] direct." The examiner's supervisors concurred with the assessment that Ames was non-deceptive.
According to the FBI, which examined Ames's polygraph charts in June 1993, the deception indicated in Ames's response to the pitch issue in 1986 was never resolved, even though the CIA examiner passed Ames on this exam. Also in the opinion of the FBI, significant deceptive responses by Ames were detectable to questions dealing with unauthorized disclosure of classified material. No additional testing or explanations for these deceptive responses, however, were noted in Ames's polygraph file.
"Quote"
Ames polygraph tests were invalid because the process was flawed by examiners who had not establish the proper psychological mind set in Ames because they were overly friendly. As a result, Ames's physiological reactions were unreliable.
I am sure Ames was called "Truthful" and the FBI disagreed with the results.
Reading the above quote, it seems clear that the CIA polygraph examiner and his or her supervisor examined the charts and both judged that Ames had answered the questions truthfully.
Years later, after Ames was found to have been spying for the Soviet Union, polygraph examiners in the FBI looked at the charts and stated they would have scored them as "deceptive."
It is absurdly easy for the FBI to declare, years after the fact, that they found Ames' charts indicated deception on specific questions. I don't find their claim at all credible. This is not meant to suggest they are lying, rather, that with the answer in mind as they examined the charts, they were able to interpret the charts to agree with the answer they already had.
Posted by TerrifiedinCali
- Jul 19, 2011, 06:44 PMI have to take a polygraph for a potential job. I am very nervous. It's not that I am a criminal or anything but I have some things in my past that I am not eager to share that truly have no bearing on my ability to perform this job. . . 
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Jul 19, 2011, 10:40 AMGeorge,
Further research revealed the following:
An Assessment of the Aldrich H. Ames Espionage Case and Its Implications for U.S. Intelligence
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 01 November 1994 Part One
Full text of both parts and appendices can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C. 20402. Phone (202) 512-1800 (Stock Number 052- 070-069-77-5). The cost is $5.00.
"Quote"
1986 Polygraph Examination:
At the conclusion of language training and prior to departing for Rome, Ames was required to take a routine polygraph examination on May 2, 1986. This was his first polygraph since 1976. Ames would subsequently state that he might not have made the decision to commit espionage in April of 1985 if he had known that he was going to be polygraphed the next year. Ames recalls being "very anxious and tremendously worried" when he was in formed that he was scheduled for a polygraph exam in May of 1986, one year after he had begun his espionage activity for the KGB.
Ames was tested on a series of issues having to do with unauthorized contacts with a foreign intelligence service, unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and financial irresponsibility.
Ames gave consistently deceptive responses to issues related to whether he had been "pitched" (i.e. asked to work for) by a foreign intelligence service. The CIA examiner noted Ames's reaction to the "pitch" issue but apparently detected no reaction to the other counterintelligence issues covered by the test. When Ames was asked about his reaction during the session, he explained that he was indeed sensitive to the "pitch" issue because, he stated, "we know that the Soviets are out there somewhere, and we are worried about that."
Next the CIA examiner asked a follow on series of questions relating to the "pitch" issue, in order to ascertain why Ames had appeared to give a deceptive response. Ames responded that since he had worked in CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe (SE) Division, he had been involved in pitches to potential assets. Also, he hypothesized that he might be known to the Soviets because of a recent defector. He further stated that he thought he might be reacting because he was preparing to go to Rome in July 1986, and had some concerns that he might be pitched there. From this, the polygrapher surmised that Ames had gotten his concerns off his chest, and there was nothing more to tell. Once again, the polygrapher went through the CI questions on the polygraph machine, focusing on the pitch issue. This time, the CIA examiner deemed Ames truthful and concluded the examination, characterizing Ames as "bright [and] direct." The examiner's supervisors concurred with the assessment that Ames was non-deceptive.
According to the FBI, which examined Ames's polygraph charts in June 1993, the deception indicated in Ames's response to the pitch issue in 1986 was never resolved, even though the CIA examiner passed Ames on this exam. Also in the opinion of the FBI, significant deceptive responses by Ames were detectable to questions dealing with unauthorized disclosure of classified material. No additional testing or explanations for these deceptive responses, however, were noted in Ames's polygraph file.
"Quote"
Ames polygraph tests were invalid because the process was flawed by examiners who had not establish the proper psychological mind set in Ames because they were overly friendly. As a result, Ames's physiological reactions were unreliable.
I am sure Ames was called "Truthful" and the FBI disagreed with the results.
Further research revealed the following:
An Assessment of the Aldrich H. Ames Espionage Case and Its Implications for U.S. Intelligence
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 01 November 1994 Part One
Full text of both parts and appendices can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C. 20402. Phone (202) 512-1800 (Stock Number 052- 070-069-77-5). The cost is $5.00.
"Quote"
1986 Polygraph Examination:
At the conclusion of language training and prior to departing for Rome, Ames was required to take a routine polygraph examination on May 2, 1986. This was his first polygraph since 1976. Ames would subsequently state that he might not have made the decision to commit espionage in April of 1985 if he had known that he was going to be polygraphed the next year. Ames recalls being "very anxious and tremendously worried" when he was in formed that he was scheduled for a polygraph exam in May of 1986, one year after he had begun his espionage activity for the KGB.
Ames was tested on a series of issues having to do with unauthorized contacts with a foreign intelligence service, unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and financial irresponsibility.
Ames gave consistently deceptive responses to issues related to whether he had been "pitched" (i.e. asked to work for) by a foreign intelligence service. The CIA examiner noted Ames's reaction to the "pitch" issue but apparently detected no reaction to the other counterintelligence issues covered by the test. When Ames was asked about his reaction during the session, he explained that he was indeed sensitive to the "pitch" issue because, he stated, "we know that the Soviets are out there somewhere, and we are worried about that."
Next the CIA examiner asked a follow on series of questions relating to the "pitch" issue, in order to ascertain why Ames had appeared to give a deceptive response. Ames responded that since he had worked in CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe (SE) Division, he had been involved in pitches to potential assets. Also, he hypothesized that he might be known to the Soviets because of a recent defector. He further stated that he thought he might be reacting because he was preparing to go to Rome in July 1986, and had some concerns that he might be pitched there. From this, the polygrapher surmised that Ames had gotten his concerns off his chest, and there was nothing more to tell. Once again, the polygrapher went through the CI questions on the polygraph machine, focusing on the pitch issue. This time, the CIA examiner deemed Ames truthful and concluded the examination, characterizing Ames as "bright [and] direct." The examiner's supervisors concurred with the assessment that Ames was non-deceptive.
According to the FBI, which examined Ames's polygraph charts in June 1993, the deception indicated in Ames's response to the pitch issue in 1986 was never resolved, even though the CIA examiner passed Ames on this exam. Also in the opinion of the FBI, significant deceptive responses by Ames were detectable to questions dealing with unauthorized disclosure of classified material. No additional testing or explanations for these deceptive responses, however, were noted in Ames's polygraph file.
"Quote"
Ames polygraph tests were invalid because the process was flawed by examiners who had not establish the proper psychological mind set in Ames because they were overly friendly. As a result, Ames's physiological reactions were unreliable.
I am sure Ames was called "Truthful" and the FBI disagreed with the results.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 19, 2011, 04:03 AMBill,
The text you've quoted (from Ames' Wikipedia entry) is doubletalk. Ames passed his polygraphs while he was spying for the Russians. No ifs, ands or buts. As I've mentioned before, retired CIA polygrapher John Sullivan, who was a senior examiner at the Agency's polygraph division during the relevant time period, states unequivocally: "In 1986, almost a year after Ames began passing classified documents to the Soviets, he beat a polygraph test. In 1991, after spying for the Soviets for six years, Ames beat another test." (Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner, p. 185)
The text you've quoted (from Ames' Wikipedia entry) is doubletalk. Ames passed his polygraphs while he was spying for the Russians. No ifs, ands or buts. As I've mentioned before, retired CIA polygrapher John Sullivan, who was a senior examiner at the Agency's polygraph division during the relevant time period, states unequivocally: "In 1986, almost a year after Ames began passing classified documents to the Soviets, he beat a polygraph test. In 1991, after spying for the Soviets for six years, Ames beat another test." (Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner, p. 185)
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Jul 19, 2011, 12:36 AMAldrich Ames.
Google him. One of the greatest traitors this country has ever seen, and he sailed through every poly. How can that be?[/quote]
He was called truthful by the examiner, look at the explanation he was actually deceptive:
"In 1986 and 1991, Ames passed two polygraph examinations while spying for the Soviet Union and Russia, respectively. Ames was initially "terrified" at the prospect of taking the test, but he was advised by the KGB "to just relax." Ames's test demonstrated deceptive answers to some questions but the examiners passed him, perhaps in the later opinion of the CIA because the examiners were "overly friendly" and therefore did not induce the proper physiological response."
Posted by polybunk
- Jul 18, 2011, 07:17 PMQuote from: John Brown on Jun 13, 2011, 12:16 AMThe polygraph exam is as good as the polygraph examiner. You all have obviously duped some poor hapless excuse for a polygraph examiner who has had no training in detecting countermeasures. If you had a REAL examiner your a** would be grass. All that rubbish about controlled breathing and thinking happy thoughts would've been identified by a really good examiner and you all would've been thrown out of the polygraph suite. How would then would that have looked on your part? BUNCH A CRAP
Aldrich Ames.
Google him. One of the greatest traitors this country has ever seen, and he sailed through every poly. How can that be?
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Jul 11, 2011, 12:50 PMQuote from: Chris Brown on Jul 11, 2011, 04:23 AMYou know what I detect on this site? BS, that's what. Almost every post on this site seems to be written by the same person. Same writing style, same intelligence level, same tone, very few writing errors (and let's remember... some of the writers on here are supposed to be dumb ass criminals.) Very respectful.
I am on FB every day with thousands of friends, I am a full time college student, and I have seen literally thousands of writing styles. One thing is for sure, it is very plain that they are all different and people these days are stupid... they make a LOT of grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. It is VERY unusual to find someone who writes intelligently and is easy to follow.
Once again, I call BS. What do you have to say about that?
I have a writing error?
And you're a full-time college student? You must have a wealth of life experience and wisdom to share. Please do.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 11, 2011, 08:29 AMChris,
As a forum administrator with access to log files, I can assure you that the great majority of posts are indeed by different individuals. While many of the participants here are college educated, it's not unusual to encounter posts with less than stellar spelling and/or grammar. It should also be noted that this forum is moderated. (See our posting policy.)
Nonetheless, in the ten years that this forum has been active, we have experienced a trolling campaign, sock puppetry, and disinformation by polygraphers. But such behavior is not the norm.
If you continue reading (you can use the advanced search function to look for posts on topics of interest), I think you'll find a diversity of views and experiences.
As a forum administrator with access to log files, I can assure you that the great majority of posts are indeed by different individuals. While many of the participants here are college educated, it's not unusual to encounter posts with less than stellar spelling and/or grammar. It should also be noted that this forum is moderated. (See our posting policy.)
Nonetheless, in the ten years that this forum has been active, we have experienced a trolling campaign, sock puppetry, and disinformation by polygraphers. But such behavior is not the norm.
If you continue reading (you can use the advanced search function to look for posts on topics of interest), I think you'll find a diversity of views and experiences.
Posted by Chris Brown
- Jul 11, 2011, 04:23 AMYou know what I detect on this site? BS, that's what. Almost every post on this site seems to be written by the same person. Same writing style, same intelligence level, same tone, very few writing errors (and let's remember... some of the writers on here are supposed to be dumb ass criminals.) Very respectful.
I am on FB every day with thousands of friends, I am a full time college student, and I have seen literally thousands of writing styles. One thing is for sure, it is very plain that they are all different and people these days are stupid... they make a LOT of grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. It is VERY unusual to find someone who writes intelligently and is easy to follow.
Once again, I call BS. What do you have to say about that?
I am on FB every day with thousands of friends, I am a full time college student, and I have seen literally thousands of writing styles. One thing is for sure, it is very plain that they are all different and people these days are stupid... they make a LOT of grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. It is VERY unusual to find someone who writes intelligently and is easy to follow.
Once again, I call BS. What do you have to say about that?
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Jun 14, 2011, 06:38 PMFair Chance,
Watch it all the time. And really like Bill. I know I should be ashamed, but...............
Watch it all the time. And really like Bill. I know I should be ashamed, but...............
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jun 13, 2011, 08:59 PMDear Bill Brown,
Are we watching the FOX news network? I think I might get nauseous
. I could not resist! You cannot let a response like that go unanswered!
Regards.
Are we watching the FOX news network? I think I might get nauseous
. I could not resist! You cannot let a response like that go unanswered!Regards.
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Jun 13, 2011, 04:13 PMTo pontificate also means to speak in dogmatic or inflexible terms.
Some of this on both sides, so I guess it's fair and balanced.
Some of this on both sides, so I guess it's fair and balanced.
Posted by Chuckles
- Jun 13, 2011, 05:18 AMQuoteYou all have obviously duped some poor hapless excuse for a polygraph examiner who has had no training in detecting countermeasures.
Oh John Brown,
Every time someone talks about beating a polygraph test, someone who believes in polygraph technology pops up to say the examiner must have been a bum and a real examiner would have found them deceptive. Someone said the same thing to me when I passed my last polygraph examination, but my guy was one of the top guys in my state with many years of teaching other examiners and getting them certified.
If there were any such thing as a good polygraph examiner who could detect countermeasures, then he would have taken the countermeasure detection challenge. As it is now many of the people who are accused of using countermeasures don't have a clue what a countermeasure is and many of the people who use countermeasures pass their examinations with flying colors.
The thing I like about this board is how both sides have an equal opportunity to present their points of view. The anti-polygraph people usually make intelligent arguments based on facts and experience, while the pro-polygraph people usually resort to personal attacks and emotional reasoning. "BUNCH A CRAP" LOL