- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by troll_of_truth
- Oct 17, 2020, 12:14 AMThis article was published on October 14, 2020
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2020/10/14/use-of-polygraph-countermeasures-results-in-clearance-denial-doha-dose/
A relevant quote from this article is copied below.
"In this case, an individual undergoing a polygraph for a position with the Department of Defense relied on his 'athletic training' to control his breathing in an attempt to control the responses the polygraph machine would register. Clearly the applicant in question was not a good liar at all, because he later admitted to attempting to controlling his breathing, as well as admitting to information related to mishandling of protected information that hadn't been previously disclosed" (Clearancejobs.com, 2020).
It is important to note that the applicant was not "caught" using countermeasures. He was only suspected and accused of this act which is standard procedure in polygraph sessions. Polygraphers cannot accurately detect countermeasures, so they just accuse people of using them just like they accuse people of hiding crimes or other information to see if the person will make a confession. In the case of the aforementioned article, the applicant gave the polygrapher just what he wanted . . . a confession . . . TWO confessions in this case. Those confessions are what sunk the applicant.
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2020/10/14/use-of-polygraph-countermeasures-results-in-clearance-denial-doha-dose/
A relevant quote from this article is copied below.
"In this case, an individual undergoing a polygraph for a position with the Department of Defense relied on his 'athletic training' to control his breathing in an attempt to control the responses the polygraph machine would register. Clearly the applicant in question was not a good liar at all, because he later admitted to attempting to controlling his breathing, as well as admitting to information related to mishandling of protected information that hadn't been previously disclosed" (Clearancejobs.com, 2020).
It is important to note that the applicant was not "caught" using countermeasures. He was only suspected and accused of this act which is standard procedure in polygraph sessions. Polygraphers cannot accurately detect countermeasures, so they just accuse people of using them just like they accuse people of hiding crimes or other information to see if the person will make a confession. In the case of the aforementioned article, the applicant gave the polygrapher just what he wanted . . . a confession . . . TWO confessions in this case. Those confessions are what sunk the applicant.
Posted by el mal arte
- Sep 15, 2020, 04:32 AMYes. But in trying to justify polygraphy, they do end up providing solid advice:
Reminds me of video put out several years back by the Indiana State Police in which applicants were discouraged from researching polygraph. If any employer discourages you from researching anything about its organization, an ethical person sees this as a big red flag. I wouldn't want to work for any such organization. Nor would I want to work with anyone who would consider following this type of advice.
And yes, it appears to be a retread of an old article, with a new date designed to boost SEO.
QuoteOnce an admission of disqualifying conduct is made, the actual polygraph test results are unnecessary.Wise readers should take note, remembering the #1 rule of anti polygraph: make no damaging admissions!
QuoteDon't ask anyone who has taken a polygraph what theirs was like.Makes sense coming from an operator. Polygraph is based in fear, not science. Anyone who would consider advice like this needs to take a serious look inside as to who they are as a person.
Reminds me of video put out several years back by the Indiana State Police in which applicants were discouraged from researching polygraph. If any employer discourages you from researching anything about its organization, an ethical person sees this as a big red flag. I wouldn't want to work for any such organization. Nor would I want to work with anyone who would consider following this type of advice.
And yes, it appears to be a retread of an old article, with a new date designed to boost SEO.
Posted by troll_of_truth
- Sep 10, 2020, 08:25 AMOn August 25, 2020, the popular website for people with security clearances to look for a job, ClearanceJobs.com, published an article entitled How to Prepare for a Security Clearance Polygraph Examination.
I will comment on just a few things in the article.
Guideline 1: Don't ask anyone who has taken a polygraph what theirs was like. Hmmm, why not? What difference does it make? Are they scared we will be more prepared to NOT make confessions and beat the polygraphers at their own game?
Guideline 2: Don't spend time soul searching your life thinking of things that may be asked during the test. They seem to not want us to know what questions will be asked because then we will be prepared for those questions and not crumble during the polygraph interrogation, which is what it is. The polygraph is not an "exam."
Guideline 3: Don't be influenced by any anti-polygraph websites. Which websites are they talking about here? Certainly not George Maschke's Antipolygraph.org site.
Guideline 4: Don't anticipate what questions will be asked. Again, why not? It seems like they don't want us to be prepared. What is wrong with being prepared? Does that mean we will more likely pass and not make disqualifying confessions?
I find it interesting that the first four guidelines are against websites like this one and try to convince the public not to research the polygraph. To me, this means the Antipolygraph.org message is being disseminated thoroughly and people are doing their research, meaning less disqualifying admissions are being made, and more people are passing. Just look at the recent Chinese spy cases in the U.S. in the last decade or two since this website has been up. Many Chinese spies worked for the U.S. government, passed polys, got clearances, before being arrested and/or convicted by the FBI for espionage. There are also articles about other polygraph-cleared federal employees who were arrested and/or convicted of crimes they committed before their polygraphs and were therefore able to conceal these crimes during the poly and beat it. The word is getting out. The poly is going down!
One thing strange about the article though, the publication date is August 25, 2020, but the Disqus comments are up to nine years old! I guess maybe the article was published first in 2011, then the publication date was change to "bump" the article into present day to revive its relevancy (or more like irrelevancy since the polygraph is garbage).
I will comment on just a few things in the article.
Guideline 1: Don't ask anyone who has taken a polygraph what theirs was like. Hmmm, why not? What difference does it make? Are they scared we will be more prepared to NOT make confessions and beat the polygraphers at their own game?
Guideline 2: Don't spend time soul searching your life thinking of things that may be asked during the test. They seem to not want us to know what questions will be asked because then we will be prepared for those questions and not crumble during the polygraph interrogation, which is what it is. The polygraph is not an "exam."
Guideline 3: Don't be influenced by any anti-polygraph websites. Which websites are they talking about here? Certainly not George Maschke's Antipolygraph.org site.
Guideline 4: Don't anticipate what questions will be asked. Again, why not? It seems like they don't want us to be prepared. What is wrong with being prepared? Does that mean we will more likely pass and not make disqualifying confessions?
I find it interesting that the first four guidelines are against websites like this one and try to convince the public not to research the polygraph. To me, this means the Antipolygraph.org message is being disseminated thoroughly and people are doing their research, meaning less disqualifying admissions are being made, and more people are passing. Just look at the recent Chinese spy cases in the U.S. in the last decade or two since this website has been up. Many Chinese spies worked for the U.S. government, passed polys, got clearances, before being arrested and/or convicted by the FBI for espionage. There are also articles about other polygraph-cleared federal employees who were arrested and/or convicted of crimes they committed before their polygraphs and were therefore able to conceal these crimes during the poly and beat it. The word is getting out. The poly is going down!
One thing strange about the article though, the publication date is August 25, 2020, but the Disqus comments are up to nine years old! I guess maybe the article was published first in 2011, then the publication date was change to "bump" the article into present day to revive its relevancy (or more like irrelevancy since the polygraph is garbage).