- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by AMM (Guest)
- Jun 29, 2001, 04:55 PMGentlemen:
Yes, George is right. The whole purpose is to produce admissions or information to disqualify you with. I realized that way too late however. The good thing is that the information I gave them contains nothing detrimental to me. It was just something I innocently forgot. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
As for print media, I'm laying low while my appeal is processed. I did however send Senator Alarcon a letter asking for him to initiate new legislation banning pre-employment polygraphs in CA.
AMM
Yes, George is right. The whole purpose is to produce admissions or information to disqualify you with. I realized that way too late however. The good thing is that the information I gave them contains nothing detrimental to me. It was just something I innocently forgot. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
As for print media, I'm laying low while my appeal is processed. I did however send Senator Alarcon a letter asking for him to initiate new legislation banning pre-employment polygraphs in CA.
AMM
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 29, 2001, 05:00 AMFred,
You wrote:
Obtaining damaging admissions is the whole point of the polygraph interrogation. If agencies that rely on polygraphy really believed that truth vs. deception could be divined from polygraph charts, then there would be no need for post-test interrogations (polygraphers prefer to call them "interviews" when speaking to non-polygraphers). Those who whose charts are read as deceptive would be simply be shown to the door.
You wrote:
QuoteThe post-test interview should not be grounds for dismissal.
Obtaining damaging admissions is the whole point of the polygraph interrogation. If agencies that rely on polygraphy really believed that truth vs. deception could be divined from polygraph charts, then there would be no need for post-test interrogations (polygraphers prefer to call them "interviews" when speaking to non-polygraphers). Those who whose charts are read as deceptive would be simply be shown to the door.
Posted by Fred F.
- Jun 29, 2001, 12:04 AMAMM,
I hope that you put that information into your letter to Phyllis the Personnel Chief. That is totally uncalled for and you should be reinstated. The post-test interview should not be grounds for dismissal.
How are you doing with contacting the local print media? any good contacts made
Keep up the fight
Fred F.
I hope that you put that information into your letter to Phyllis the Personnel Chief. That is totally uncalled for and you should be reinstated. The post-test interview should not be grounds for dismissal.
How are you doing with contacting the local print media? any good contacts made
Keep up the fight
Fred F.
Posted by AMM (Guest)
- Jun 28, 2001, 05:45 PMGentlemen:
Has anyone forwarded a copy of Captain Jones' statement to the LA Times? The staff writer should have done some real research on polygraphs before writing her story. Specifically, researching the hundreds of honest law enforcement applicants falsely accused of lying. She wouldn't have to look too far since the LAPD just initiated polygraphs in February. I'll bet they've falsely branded a hundered or so by now.
I was told I failed, but later informed that I had in fact passed my polygraph. (How can that happen?) Unfortunately, my explanations during my post-test interrogation were spun against me and I was removed from the selection process for not disclosing an incident involving a family member. The ommission was completely innocent and I fortunately have the chance to appeal my removal.
My appeal is being processed as I write this. I consider myself lucky in more ways than one. I initially applied to the FBI while still on active duty and passed "phase one" of the Special Agent Selection Process. I was excited and ready for the interview, but was told a hiring freeze had just been enacted. As a back up, I started processing for the LAPD. I can only imagine the horrible spot I would be in if I had made it to the FBI poly and become one of the many false positives. Not only would I have been screwed at the federal level, but also at the local, since the FBI shares their poly information.
AMM
Has anyone forwarded a copy of Captain Jones' statement to the LA Times? The staff writer should have done some real research on polygraphs before writing her story. Specifically, researching the hundreds of honest law enforcement applicants falsely accused of lying. She wouldn't have to look too far since the LAPD just initiated polygraphs in February. I'll bet they've falsely branded a hundered or so by now.
I was told I failed, but later informed that I had in fact passed my polygraph. (How can that happen?) Unfortunately, my explanations during my post-test interrogation were spun against me and I was removed from the selection process for not disclosing an incident involving a family member. The ommission was completely innocent and I fortunately have the chance to appeal my removal.
My appeal is being processed as I write this. I consider myself lucky in more ways than one. I initially applied to the FBI while still on active duty and passed "phase one" of the Special Agent Selection Process. I was excited and ready for the interview, but was told a hiring freeze had just been enacted. As a back up, I started processing for the LAPD. I can only imagine the horrible spot I would be in if I had made it to the FBI poly and become one of the many false positives. Not only would I have been screwed at the federal level, but also at the local, since the FBI shares their poly information.
AMM
Posted by False +
- Jun 27, 2001, 09:56 PMThis tape and the statements made are such an insult. The tape might find a sympathetic listener in general public, but anyone having gone through a federal polygraph knows full well it's a propaganda.
I hope there will come a time when these individuals will be prosecuted for defrauding the government.
I hope there will come a time when these individuals will be prosecuted for defrauding the government.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 27, 2001, 08:17 PMJack Trimarco is the subject of an article by Anna Gorman titled "Getting at the Truth of It" in the Ventura County edition of today's (27 June 2001) Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/editions/ventura/20010627/t000053111.html
The following passage from this article caught my attention in particular:
Compare Trimarco's "gladiator mentality" quip with what he said in the DOE polygraph video:
One doesn't need a polygraph to detect a lie.
http://www.latimes.com/editions/ventura/20010627/t000053111.html
The following passage from this article caught my attention in particular:
Quote
A retired FBI agent, Trimarco spends his days asking questions, watching the lines of the lie detector machine rise and fall. In an unrelenting search for the truth, he cajoles suspects to confess and convinces witnesses to divulge key information.
"You have to go in there with a gladiator mentality," said Trimarco, 53, who lives in Camarillo. "It's a competition, and you have to win."
Compare Trimarco's "gladiator mentality" quip with what he said in the DOE polygraph video:
Quote
DIANE ANDERSON: So it's really not an interrogation? Because I think that that would make most people pretty nervous.
JACK TRIMARCO: It's not an interrogation at all....
One doesn't need a polygraph to detect a lie.
Posted by G Scalabr
- May 10, 2001, 05:46 PMMake that two thumbs down...
More like, "Most of what we tell you will be misinformation--starting with the content of this very tape..."
Doug Williams put it very eloquently when he said something to the effect of "I find it amazing that people involved in what is known as the 'lie-detector' industry have so little regard for the truth."
QuoteWell, most of the misinformation regarding polygraph is going to be found on the Internet.LOL...
More like, "Most of what we tell you will be misinformation--starting with the content of this very tape..."
QuoteYou know Jack, there have been some rumors, some concern, about the reliability of the polygraph.Perhaps this should have been "The DOE scientists are too intelligent to let us slip this by them and have basically called us out. Therefore, we have made this neat little propaganda video using taxpayer money with the [nearly non-existent] hope that it will allay some of their [very well founded] concerns."
Doug Williams put it very eloquently when he said something to the effect of "I find it amazing that people involved in what is known as the 'lie-detector' industry have so little regard for the truth."
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 10, 2001, 08:53 AMAt the January public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Study to Review the Scientific Evidence on Polygraphs, Department of Energy Polygraph Program chief David M. Renzelman, having claimed "we don't have the funds and the resources to go out and... and... and banter with the people who don't like polygraph," went on to state:
AntiPolygraph.org has obtained that video under the Freedom of Information Act, and you can now read a transcript of it at:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/doe-polygraph-video.shtml
Here is how the Department of Energy Office of Counterintelligence addresses what Mr. Renzelman termed the "many fears and misconceptions of people who read the Internet":
In another exchange, Mr. Trimarco assures Diane Anderson that polygraph "tests" are not interrogations.
The video ends with Jack Trimarco telling Diane Anderson (with a straight face):
QuoteWe made a videotape. This videotape is... is untitled other than "Counterintelligence Polygraph Test." I hired what I consider to be one of the, one of the better polygraph examiners from the FBI, and I gave him the title "Inspector General." He's retired FBI, his name is Jack Trimarco, you can meet him, you can chat with him. His only job is to come in whenever he wants to and inspect whatever it is we do. He narrated part of this along with the anchorwoman for channel 7 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. This is a professionally prepared videotape. Took me about a year to get it to the point it is now, and I just sold -- showed it to [name unclear] and she approved it and we're going to send it back and put a trailer on it. I'll give you a copy of that. But it tells people what to expect, Êwhat will happen, what won't happen, when you come to take the polygraph test.
We believe this will allay many fears and misconceptions of people who read the Internet -- and that's all -- before they come in to take the polygraph test.
AntiPolygraph.org has obtained that video under the Freedom of Information Act, and you can now read a transcript of it at:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/doe-polygraph-video.shtml
Here is how the Department of Energy Office of Counterintelligence addresses what Mr. Renzelman termed the "many fears and misconceptions of people who read the Internet":
QuoteDIANE ANDERSON: You know Jack, there have been some rumors, some concern, about the reliability of the polygraph.See Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector before deciding whether Jack Trimarco told the truth when he said "Everything that you need to know about polygraph testing will be covered with you by our examiners."
JACK TRIMARCO: Well, most of the misinformation regarding polygraph is going to be found on the Internet. Everything that you need to know about polygraph testing will be covered with you by our examiners, who are, by the way, the best in the world.
In another exchange, Mr. Trimarco assures Diane Anderson that polygraph "tests" are not interrogations.
QuoteDIANE ANDERSON: So it's really not an interrogation? Because I think that that would make most people pretty nervous.You may wish to review the DoDPI Interview and Interrogation Handbook (1.6 mb PDF file) and decide for yourself whether a polygraph "test" is "not an interrogation at all."
JACK TRIMARCO: It's not an interrogation at all....
The video ends with Jack Trimarco telling Diane Anderson (with a straight face):
QuoteDiane, I want you to remember that no one's questioning your loyalty or your patriotism to the United States. Polygraph is just one means by which the Department of Energy can determine that their faith and confidence in you is well placed.Hmm. If no one is questioning the loyalty or patriotism of those who are required to submit to counterintelligence-scope polygraph interrogations, then why are they being required to answer questions regarding these very issues? Jack Trimarco's assertion is an exercise in Orwellian doublethink. Those who can think for themselves might contemplate what faith and confidence they can safely place in those who are requiring them to submit to pseudoscientific polygraph "tests" while lying to them about the nature of the procedure.