- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by xenonman
- Jul 16, 2015, 01:02 AMQuote from: quickfix on Nov 05, 2011, 10:54 AMWhere have you been? the movement started 10+ years ago, and in that time, at least three more federal agencies have added polygraph programs. Get real! We're not going away; but idiots who attempt countermeasures ARE!
It's you pathetic jerks who are the true idiots!
Posted by xenonman
- Nov 19, 2013, 05:59 PMQuote from: Twoblock on Jul 12, 2012, 03:09 AMquickfix
Do you think Obama could pass a polygraph? He has a built-in countermeasure. Uh oh. Maybe you shouldn't answer that. He just might be your boss. LMAO
Well, I'm quite certain that his drug use alone would make him a very problematic candidate for CIA employment!
Posted by Ex Member
- Sep 03, 2013, 12:29 AMQuote from: xenonman on Sep 01, 2013, 12:34 PMI hope that if someone knows your identity, they provide it to the SVR and the DGI.xenonman, calm down. Quickfix has a right to post here without being attacked.
You are a vile insult to the American taxpayer.
Posted by xenonman
- Sep 01, 2013, 01:13 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Nov 09, 2011, 02:16 PMexcellent advice, George!Quote from: No More Poly on Nov 04, 2011, 10:56 PMSee this new Oct. 2011 article. It says if you fail a poly, you're career is basically done everywhere!
http://www.sheldoncohen.com/publications/SCI%20Access%20Article%20sec.02.pdf
And the OP in this other forum has apparently felt the full blow. I think it is time we all start writing letters to congress/senate. Seriously. If you've ever had your career ruined by a poly, especially if it was recent, please write a letter. Time to really start a movement and end this crap. Polygraph has to go!
No More Poly,
Thank you for sharing this information. The policy that Sheldon Cohen describes in his article is of tremendous significance. In view of this information, I think it would be prudent for anyone seeking a career in public service, or with a government contractor, to avoid applying for any position that requires polygraph screening.
PS: Owing to an ongoing wave of attempted spam postings to this forum, guest posting has been indefinitely suspended.
I speak from experience, having wasted too much time and effort on applying to the f*cking CIA.
Posted by xenonman
- Sep 01, 2013, 12:34 PMQUICKFIX:
I wasted a lot of time applying to the f*cking CIA.
Their whole damned application process is a farce.
I hope that if someone knows your identity, they provide it to the SVR and the DGI.
You are a vile insult to the American taxpayer.
I wasted a lot of time applying to the f*cking CIA.
Their whole damned application process is a farce.
I hope that if someone knows your identity, they provide it to the SVR and the DGI.
You are a vile insult to the American taxpayer.
Posted by Doug Williams
- Jun 07, 2013, 05:25 PMQuote from: quickfix on Nov 05, 2011, 10:54 AMWhere have you been? the movement started 10+ years ago, and in that time, at least three more federal agencies have added polygraph programs. Get real! We're not going away; but idiots who attempt countermeasures ARE!
Actually I started that "movement" about 35 years ago and back then, all the polygraph operators also said they were not going away - right up until December of 1988 when the Employee Polygraph Protection Act became a federal law - then about 10,000 of them did just that - they went "away"!
Click on this to get a complimentary copy of my book - FROM COP TO CRUSADER - THE STORY OF MY FIGHT AGAINST THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF "LIE DETECTION". It tells all about what I have done and continue to do in this "movement".
https://www.polygraph.com/index.php?store&a=download_products&client_uuid=833b097e68f486fdeb50dd89f146c4f9
And 35 years ago, I also invented what you refer to as "countermeasures". Regardless of what you call them, they have not gone away! Click here to see what I have to say about that.
http://www.polygraph.com/index.php?i-don-t-teach-countermeasures
And thanks to the millions of victims, and especially to victims like George who are fighting back, I still have faith this movement will grow and prevail, and that those who terrorize and abuse people with the insidious Orwellian instrument of torture called the polygraph will all be stopped for good.
And, speaking of George, he has been fighting for quite awhile too - about 13 years now. I think he is getting tired and needs some encouragement! I am going to make a donation to help keep him going and I challenge everyone to join me in donating too
donate
Posted by xenonman
- Jun 07, 2013, 04:37 PMNo, Obama has too much drug history (at least for CIA purposes)
Posted by Twoblock
- Jul 12, 2012, 03:09 AMquickfix
Do you think Obama could pass a polygraph? He has a built-in countermeasure. Uh oh. Maybe you shouldn't answer that. He just might be your boss. LMAO
Do you think Obama could pass a polygraph? He has a built-in countermeasure. Uh oh. Maybe you shouldn't answer that. He just might be your boss. LMAO
Posted by No More Poly
- Jul 11, 2012, 07:05 PMYou will need to include the standard url prefix for that web address to work. I couldn't post a link since I'm a guest
Posted by No More Poly
- Jul 11, 2012, 07:01 PMRe: If you are fail a poly and are denied SCI, you get a "Loss of Jurisdiction" in JPAS, and you're FUCKED...
Here is another article explaining the infamous "Loss of Jurisdiction" that one will see in JPAS. This can happen due to a failed poly putting an "Incident Report" (red flag) in your file and screw you like a hooker.
clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/609/security-clearance-loss-of-jurisdiction-and-incident-reports
There are a couple of key statements here:
...many prospective employers may be reluctant to extend a job offer for a cleared position when a pending Incident Report and Loss of Jurisdiction are in your JPAS record. It's usually faster for them to obtain a Secret clearance or an interim Top Secret clearance for an applicant who didn't previously have a clearance.
and
When Loss of Jurisdiction occurs in conjunction with an Incident Report, the person usually doesn't become aware of the problem until they apply for another job that requires a clearance. Unfortunately the only way to resolve the problem is to find a prospective employer who is willing to sponsor the clearance and wait until the Incident Report is adjudicated.
Here is another article explaining the infamous "Loss of Jurisdiction" that one will see in JPAS. This can happen due to a failed poly putting an "Incident Report" (red flag) in your file and screw you like a hooker.
clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/609/security-clearance-loss-of-jurisdiction-and-incident-reports
There are a couple of key statements here:
...many prospective employers may be reluctant to extend a job offer for a cleared position when a pending Incident Report and Loss of Jurisdiction are in your JPAS record. It's usually faster for them to obtain a Secret clearance or an interim Top Secret clearance for an applicant who didn't previously have a clearance.
and
When Loss of Jurisdiction occurs in conjunction with an Incident Report, the person usually doesn't become aware of the problem until they apply for another job that requires a clearance. Unfortunately the only way to resolve the problem is to find a prospective employer who is willing to sponsor the clearance and wait until the Incident Report is adjudicated.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 09, 2011, 02:16 PMQuote from: No More Poly on Nov 04, 2011, 10:56 PMSee this new Oct. 2011 article. It says if you fail a poly, you're career is basically done everywhere!
http://www.sheldoncohen.com/publications/SCI%20Access%20Article%20sec.02.pdf
And the OP in this other forum has apparently felt the full blow. I think it is time we all start writing letters to congress/senate. Seriously. If you've ever had your career ruined by a poly, especially if it was recent, please write a letter. Time to really start a movement and end this crap. Polygraph has to go!
No More Poly,
Thank you for sharing this information. The policy that Sheldon Cohen describes in his article is of tremendous significance. In view of this information, I think it would be prudent for anyone seeking a career in public service, or with a government contractor, to avoid applying for any position that requires polygraph screening.
PS: Owing to an ongoing wave of attempted spam postings to this forum, guest posting has been indefinitely suspended.
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Nov 09, 2011, 11:37 AMhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=1
"Only seven polygraph field studies passed our minimal criteria for review. All involved examination of polygraph charts from law enforcement agencies' or polygraph examiners' case files in relation to the truth as determined by relatively reliable but nevertheless imperfect criteria, including confession by the subject or another party or apparently definitive evidence. The seven datasets include between 25 and 122 polygraph tests, with a median of 100 and a total of 582 tests. Figure 5-3 displays results in the same manner as in Figure 5-1. The accuracy index values (A) range from 0.711 to 0.999, with a median value of 0.89, which, given sampling and other variability, is statistically indistinguishable from the median of 0.86 for the 52 datasets from laboratory studies."
Sergeant1107,
Above are the figures from the NAS Study we were discussing. I hope this helps elucidate how the "median" was determined. I don't feel attacked, and the clarification is requisite for individuals literate in statistical analyses.
"Only seven polygraph field studies passed our minimal criteria for review. All involved examination of polygraph charts from law enforcement agencies' or polygraph examiners' case files in relation to the truth as determined by relatively reliable but nevertheless imperfect criteria, including confession by the subject or another party or apparently definitive evidence. The seven datasets include between 25 and 122 polygraph tests, with a median of 100 and a total of 582 tests. Figure 5-3 displays results in the same manner as in Figure 5-1. The accuracy index values (A) range from 0.711 to 0.999, with a median value of 0.89, which, given sampling and other variability, is statistically indistinguishable from the median of 0.86 for the 52 datasets from laboratory studies."
Sergeant1107,
Above are the figures from the NAS Study we were discussing. I hope this helps elucidate how the "median" was determined. I don't feel attacked, and the clarification is requisite for individuals literate in statistical analyses.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Nov 09, 2011, 08:57 AMQuote from: Bill_Brown on Nov 09, 2011, 01:40 AMand an analysis of seven field studies involving specific incidents showed a median accuracy of 89 percentBill Brown,
My post was not intended to be an attack on you. You wrote that an analysis of seven studies involving specific incidents showed a median accuracy of 89 percent. My response was entirely correct and on point. Providing the median accuracy of a set of tests is meaningless, since the median is nothing more than the middle number of a set. A median of 89 percent could mean three tests were 88% accurate, three were 90% accurate, and one was 89% accurate, or it could mean three were 1% accurate, three were 100% accurate, and one was 89% percent accurate. The median of both sets is 89%, but you can see how meaningless that number is.
Providing the average accuracy of the seven studies would be informative, as would providing the actual accuracy of each study. Providing the median really does nothing except imply that the median was higher than the average (otherwise the average would have been used, since it is much more informative.)
Posted by Bill_Brown
- Nov 09, 2011, 08:35 AMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Nov 09, 2011, 06:43 AMRegarding Bill Brown's post, I don't believe it is possible to verify whether a test subject is untrained in countermeasures, which appears to be part of the "given" set of data in the cited study. Also, a median accuracy of 89 percent in seven studies is irrelevant unless the scores of each are given, since "median" simply means it was the middle number in a list of accuracy scores.
Possible Accuracy Scores:
Test #1= 1% accurate
Test#2= 2% accurate
Test#3 = 3% accurate
Test#4= 89% accurate
Test#5= 90% accurate
Test#6= 91% accurate
Test#7= 92% accurate
That would give you a "median" accuracy of 89%, but an average accuracy (assuming each test contained the same number of data points) of 52.5%, which would be a far more accurate description of the data.
Sergeant1107,
I quoted from the NAS Study that you have access to online. You are aware of the study and know they did not use the type analysis you suggested. Your "POSSIBLE ACCURACY SCORES" were not used. This same NAS Study is used on this site to show polygraph is a coin toss with 50% accuracy.
Their analysis of the 30 most recent polygraph data sets showed an overall accuracy of 85 percent
You can work the same magic with the 30 other studies showing 85% accuracy, however the NAS did not. They are scientists and looked at the studies and data.
Polygraph will be around for a long time.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Nov 09, 2011, 06:43 AMQuote from: quickfix on Nov 08, 2011, 03:06 PMThis site is chock full of boo-hoo-hooers, who cry that they were denied employment because they were "accused" of engaging in countermeasures;these "accusations" are well-founded, and they deserve their fate.And what about the people like myself who did not attempt countermeasures and were wrongly accused of lying? Do I and others like me deserve that fate as well?
The answer, of course, is no. Anyone who answers all questions truthfully and does not withhold any information during a polygraph examination should NEVER fail. It really is that simple.
Regarding Bill Brown's post, I don't believe it is possible to verify whether a test subject is untrained in countermeasures, which appears to be part of the "given" set of data in the cited study. Also, a median accuracy of 89 percent in seven studies is irrelevant unless the scores of each are given, since "median" simply means it was the middle number in a list of accuracy scores.
Possible Accuracy Scores:
Test #1= 1% accurate
Test#2= 2% accurate
Test#3 = 3% accurate
Test#4= 89% accurate
Test#5= 90% accurate
Test#6= 91% accurate
Test#7= 92% accurate
That would give you a "median" accuracy of 89%, but an average accuracy (assuming each test contained the same number of data points) of 52.5%, which would be a far more accurate description of the data.