- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 13, 2018, 05:54 AMThe March 2018 Public Summary of the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General's Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Response to Unresolved Results in Polygraph Examinations notes, among other things:
It would seem that Peter Strzok was allowed continuing SCI access despite not having "passed a polygraph examination within a specified period."
QuoteSecond, we found that the FBI did not always comply with its own policy governing employee access to Sensitive Compartmented Information, classified national intelligence information concerning or derived from sensitive intelligence sources, methods, or analytical processes, which is to be handled exclusively within formal access control systems established by the Director of National Intelligence. The FBI's policy generally prohibits access to Sensitive Compartmented Information for FBI employees who have not passed a polygraph examination within a specified period. We identified instances in which employees unable to pass multiple polygraph examinations were allowed to retain access to sensitive information, systems, and spaces for extended periods of time without required risk assessments — potentially posing a security risk to the FBI.
It would seem that Peter Strzok was allowed continuing SCI access despite not having "passed a polygraph examination within a specified period."
Posted by quickfix
- Jul 12, 2018, 05:21 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Jul 12, 2018, 03:53 PMThere is no evidence John M. lied regarding any of the relevant questions on his polygraph screening "test."And there's no evidence that he didn't.
Posted by quickfix
- Jul 12, 2018, 05:20 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Jul 12, 2018, 05:15 PMIn a House of Representatives joint committee hearing today, Peter Strzok explained that an employee's polygraph being "out of scope" means that the employee is overdue for a periodic polygraph examination. He affirmed that he has not failed any FBI polygraph examination."Out of scope" means the last polygraph taken has expired. It has nothing to do with the scope of the relevant questions. The DOD standard is 5 years, 7 for some agencies.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 12, 2018, 05:15 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Jul 08, 2018, 01:20 PMThe Federal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook does not include any such term as "out of scope" to describe polygraph results. Has anyone heard of such phraseology before? What precisely is that supposed to mean? And why would the FBI polygraph unit use that term instead of the standard polygraph outcomes of "significant response," "no significant response," or "inconclusive?"
In a House of Representatives joint committee hearing today, Peter Strzok explained that an employee's polygraph being "out of scope" means that the employee is overdue for a periodic polygraph examination. He affirmed that he has not failed any FBI polygraph examination.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 12, 2018, 03:53 PMQuote from: quickfix on Jul 12, 2018, 03:16 PMQuoteJohn M. wrote Today at 3:17pm:
How can you justify your budget if you're not finding liars?
We found you!
There is no evidence John M. lied regarding any of the relevant questions on his polygraph screening "test."
QuoteQuoteJohn M. wrote Today at 3:17pm:
They never did accuse me of actually doing anything wrong, I just spiked the charts.
That's called deception.
There are a multiplicity of factors that could cause a person's polygraph tracings to "spike" that have nothing to do with deception.
It would appear that someone in the FBI's upper management understands this, because they have not been automatically suspending the security clearances of employees who don't pass the polygraph.
The time is now for the FBI to heed the National Research Council's advice and end polygraph screening. It's a pseudoscientific fraud that never caught a spy, is easily beaten by simple countermeasures that we have now documented you cannot detect, and it has caused needless, irreparable harm to the careers of countless honest applicants and employees.
Posted by quickfix
- Jul 12, 2018, 03:18 PMQuote from: sammorter on Jul 12, 2018, 11:17 AMFACT: According to DOD policy, individuals with mental, psychological or emotional conditions should be exempted from examinations.Oh Really? In the real world, there is no such policy.
Posted by quickfix
- Jul 12, 2018, 03:16 PMQuote
author=5E4C4040425F59485F2D0 link=1531070425/9#9 date=1531408632] I will be happy to work beside you in any capacity that I can.
And now that you have been neutralized as a national security threat, you have plenty of time on your hands to help out.
Quote from: sammorter on Jul 12, 2018, 11:17 AMHow can you justify your budget if you're not finding liars?
We found you!
Quote from: sammorter on Jul 12, 2018, 11:17 AMThey never did accuse me of actually doing anything wrong, I just spiked the charts.
That's called deception.
Posted by John M.
- Jul 12, 2018, 11:17 AMQuote from: danmangan on Jul 11, 2018, 07:47 PMSuccess, such as it is, hinges mainly on theatre
Dan, I've read enough of your posts to know that you are a fellow crusader. I sincerely appreciate your candor and always value your input. I will be happy to work beside you in any capacity that I can.
The polygraph is a theater - a parlor trick as I've come to call it. The really insidious part, is that the polygraphist is in the business of finding liars. How can you justify your budget if you're not finding liars? Especially, in the highly funded Offices of Security throughout the government. The Insider Threat Task Force that Obama created, is a DEEPSTATE asset and has become a threat to our individual liberties. They operate with impunity, and no one is willing or able to stop them – I believe either they're afraid, or they're paid off. I've blown the whistle to all of the Inspectors General in my chain of command. I've contacted my Congressmen and my Senators. I've filed complaints with the Congressional Oversight Committees. How do you get someone to hear the damn whistle when you blow it?
You know, as do many other readers of this website - It's not difficult to take an unsuspecting individual and get them to "spike the charts". And, it doesn't matter who else "interprets" the charts, a spike is a spike.
For some innocent souls, it's impossible to control the fear response once they've been accused of, or suspected of, doing something wrong. In this case, telling a lie. These aren't calm and orderly accusations, they are the get-right-up-in-your-face kind of intimidating accusations. They threaten to take your job, your good name and who knows what else.
My story is no different than those of countless others. I started spilling my guts on every "dangerous to security" practices that we did in my office. Apparently, that wasn't what they we looking for, so they hauled me in again and again, over and over. They never did accuse me of actually doing anything wrong, I just spiked the charts.
Before the last interrogation, I presented rational medical evidence that should have exempted me. Instead, they ignored my request to be excused, and claimed that they didn't know of any policy that would exempt me. After another TDY to DC, I was seen immediately afterward by two DIA psychologists who talked me down. I was sent home and told to resume treatment with my doctors in Tampa.
My doctors advised me apply for Workers' Compensation and Disability due to the inescapable and unavoidable stress involved with my duties and responsibilities. I was granted disability retirement based on my physician's diagnoses, but senior officials lied to the DOL and said that five polygraphs in there years is not excessive and that all of their actions were legitimate, and not in violation of any other policies or regulations (I have the letter).
It wasn't the number or the frequency of the examinations that I complained about, rather the fact that they were exacerbating my disorders.
FACT: According to DOD policy, individuals with mental, psychological or emotional conditions should be exempted from examinations.
Posted by Doug Williams
- Jul 12, 2018, 07:36 AMQuote from: danmangan on Jul 11, 2018, 07:47 PMIn my professional opinion, polygraph "testing" is a pseudo-scientific guessing game. In other words, a crap shoot.
In terms of accuracy, the results are close to flipping a coin.
But the polygraph, when artfully applied as a prop, is one hell of an investigative tool.
Bottom line:
Squeeze the lemon hard enough, and you'll get some juice.
Success, such as it is, hinges mainly on theatre -- and applies to both the examiner and the examiner.
Dan, you are quite correct. The polygraph, when used as a "lie detector", is no more accurate than the toss of a coin - 50%. That was the terminology i used in my very first manual HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH written in 1979 and it was used by the US Supreme Court in the Scheffer case where they refused to allow polygraph results into evidence.
And if the polygraph has any value at all - which is a dubious proposition – it is as a psychological billy club that is used to coerce a person into a confession – it is a great prop for an interrogator. But at such a terrible cost. Many of those confessions are false confessions which are obtained after hours and hours of grueling interrogation. And all too often the admissions supposedly made by the person being tested are exaggerated by the polygraph operator or made up out of whole cloth.
In short, the polygraph has no redeeming social value and should be banned forever. The thugs and charlatans who are perpetrating this evil fraud are doing so just so they can unjustly enrich themselves – and they don't give a damn how many people get hurt in the process.
Posted by John M.
- Jul 11, 2018, 11:05 PMQuote from: danmangan on Jul 11, 2018, 07:47 PMSqueeze the lemon hard enough, and you'll get some juice.Or squeeze it too hard and you cause someone to suffer a nervous breakdown. Five interrogations in three years is abuse. They disabled retired me from federal service due to PTSD that I acquired from this abusive treatment. Now, I can't even get them to pay my doctors' bills.
Someone needs to be held accountable. Allowing this abuse to continue is unconscionable.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jul 11, 2018, 07:47 PMIn my professional opinion, polygraph "testing" is a pseudo-scientific guessing game. In other words, a crap shoot.
In terms of accuracy, the results are close to flipping a coin.
But the polygraph, when artfully applied as a prop, is one hell of an investigative tool.
Bottom line:
Squeeze the lemon hard enough, and you'll get some juice.
Success, such as it is, hinges mainly on theatre -- and applies to both the examiner and the examinee.
In terms of accuracy, the results are close to flipping a coin.
But the polygraph, when artfully applied as a prop, is one hell of an investigative tool.
Bottom line:
Squeeze the lemon hard enough, and you'll get some juice.
Success, such as it is, hinges mainly on theatre -- and applies to both the examiner and the examinee.
Posted by John M.
- Jul 10, 2018, 09:57 AMQuote from: beat_the_system on Jul 09, 2018, 11:14 PMSeems like a waste of time. Sounds like they wanted to keep the guy Strzok on board so they just ignored his spikey poly charts.It would only seem a waste of time for those who know the secret. It is in fact, a violation of National policy to take unfavorable actions against an existing employee based solely with their polygraph chart results, readings, interpretations, or whatever.
Has anyone ever actually seen the FBI's "internal" directives, instructions, or regulations on this policy? Surely they exist, but they keep them hidden from the public. If this secret gets out, it will be a MAJOR blow to the polygraph and the security industries. Only applicants for NEWLY adjudicated clearances will be subjected to the abuse and humiliation. Periodic re-polygraph testing would be useless if everyone knew that there would be no punishment for "flunking" it.
DoD does have such a policy - DODI 5210.91. The ODNI has even provided clarification with SEAD-4. They both direct that no unfavorable actions shall be taken using only the polygraph "results". There must be some evidence of an act of misconduct to substantiate the suspicion of a wrong doing - as defined by the 13 National Security Adjudicative Guidelines.
The secret is out and big polygraph is scared.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 10, 2018, 06:04 AMQuote from: beat_the_system on Jul 10, 2018, 05:49 AMThe quoted point that I raised IS relevant to Strzok's polygraph. They grilled him on having an affair.
There is no public evidence that Strzok's polygraph interrogation included any question about any extramarital affair. The FBI Personnel Security Polygraph Program is focused on counterintelligence matters and not so-called "lifestyle" questions:
https://antipolygraph.org/documents/fbi-psp-leaflet.shtml
Posted by beat_the_system
- Jul 10, 2018, 05:49 AM]
I don't care if people want to fuck mules. I don't have to accept or support anything. I don't understand why people don't keep their sex life to themselves. I find homos disgusting and I find it deplorable that they are now a protected class. Nobody should be given special privileges. We can go on about the history of discrimination, but here in the 21st century we should not be protecting anyone. Not to get off topic, but you can google stories about transgendered people winning athletic events because they are biologically male competing with females. What is next? If I say someone is too FAT to be a swimsuit model, is that discriminating too? But I digress, back to the point...
The quoted point that I raised IS relevant to Strzok's polygraph. They grilled him on having an affair. My point is that we don't grill queers on being queer anymore, so why grill normal people for sleeping around? It is irrelevant. Anyone can be open about their sexual lifestyle and not subject to blackmail, so who gives a fuck. Unless someone is caught giving away national secrets to foreigners, then nothing else in their life matters. Leave Strzok's sexual life, and everyone's sexual life, out of the polygraph.
I stand by everything I said here, quote me, buy me a t-shirt, give me a tattoo on my forehead. Down with polygraphs, down with invading people's personal lives, and down with protected classes.
Quote from: beat_the_system on Jul 09, 2018, 11:14 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Jul 10, 2018, 05:27 AMQuote from: beat_the_system on Jul 09, 2018, 11:14 PMFunny how a heterosexual affair is frowned upon, but a homosexual lifestyle is accepted, supported, and even accommodated. I know of couples with open marriages and their security clearance goes in jeopardy because of it. However, the flaming faggots can run free. What a fucked up world we live in.
I find the bigotry you've expressed here deplorable. Some people are gay. Get over it.
The notion that homosexuals enjoy some privileged status over heterosexuals in government service is risible. On the contrary, they have faced institutional discrimination for decades not only in the intelligence community but elsewhere in government and in society at large.
Lastly, the quoted point you raised is irrelevant to the matter of Peter Strzok's "out of scope" polygraph results.
Lastly, the quoted point you raised is irrelevant to the matter of Peter Strzok's "out of scope" polygraph results.
I don't care if people want to fuck mules. I don't have to accept or support anything. I don't understand why people don't keep their sex life to themselves. I find homos disgusting and I find it deplorable that they are now a protected class. Nobody should be given special privileges. We can go on about the history of discrimination, but here in the 21st century we should not be protecting anyone. Not to get off topic, but you can google stories about transgendered people winning athletic events because they are biologically male competing with females. What is next? If I say someone is too FAT to be a swimsuit model, is that discriminating too? But I digress, back to the point...
The quoted point that I raised IS relevant to Strzok's polygraph. They grilled him on having an affair. My point is that we don't grill queers on being queer anymore, so why grill normal people for sleeping around? It is irrelevant. Anyone can be open about their sexual lifestyle and not subject to blackmail, so who gives a fuck. Unless someone is caught giving away national secrets to foreigners, then nothing else in their life matters. Leave Strzok's sexual life, and everyone's sexual life, out of the polygraph.
I stand by everything I said here, quote me, buy me a t-shirt, give me a tattoo on my forehead. Down with polygraphs, down with invading people's personal lives, and down with protected classes.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 10, 2018, 05:27 AMQuote from: beat_the_system on Jul 09, 2018, 11:14 PMFunny how a heterosexual affair is frowned upon, but a homosexual lifestyle is accepted, supported, and even accommodated. I know of couples with open marriages and their security clearance goes in jeopardy because of it. However, the flaming faggots can run free. What a fucked up world we live in.
I find the bigotry you've expressed here deplorable. Some people are gay. Get over it.
The notion that homosexuals enjoy some privileged status over heterosexuals in government service is risible. On the contrary, they have faced institutional discrimination for decades not only in the intelligence community but elsewhere in government and in society at large.
Lastly, the quoted point you raised is irrelevant to the matter of Peter Strzok's "out of scope" polygraph results.