- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Poly-Killer
- Jul 01, 2003, 05:05 AMOnesimus,
I agree 100%...although I had the upper hand in knowing about the games they play, none of my 3 polys were any fun at all. I found the examiners to be rude and very accusatory. I work with alot of officers that have only had one polygraph, and that was enough for them. I have even talked to people that would like to switch agencies, but they don't want to have to sit through the poly again, most say it is too stressful and they are afraid of the repercussions if they are found deceptive while currently employed as a Police Officer. Most just decide it isn't worth the gamble.
I generally just tell them to do some research on the subject and the ones who take my advice and do some research are usually very surprised. The reactions are usually a mix of disbelief, anger and embarrassment when they realize they were duped by these examiners who seem to thoroughly enjoy playing the bully role. It's a little ironic to think these hypocrits have the nerve to squawk about being "completely honest" during these "tests", meanwhile they are lying through their teeth almost from the moment you meet them...gimme a break.
Best,
PK
I agree 100%...although I had the upper hand in knowing about the games they play, none of my 3 polys were any fun at all. I found the examiners to be rude and very accusatory. I work with alot of officers that have only had one polygraph, and that was enough for them. I have even talked to people that would like to switch agencies, but they don't want to have to sit through the poly again, most say it is too stressful and they are afraid of the repercussions if they are found deceptive while currently employed as a Police Officer. Most just decide it isn't worth the gamble.
I generally just tell them to do some research on the subject and the ones who take my advice and do some research are usually very surprised. The reactions are usually a mix of disbelief, anger and embarrassment when they realize they were duped by these examiners who seem to thoroughly enjoy playing the bully role. It's a little ironic to think these hypocrits have the nerve to squawk about being "completely honest" during these "tests", meanwhile they are lying through their teeth almost from the moment you meet them...gimme a break.
Best,
PK
Posted by Onesimus
- Jun 29, 2003, 07:22 PMQuote from: Eastwood on Jun 29, 2003, 02:47 PM- those who pass don't bitch
Almost everyone I have worked with at my first job, and everyone at my current job has passed one or more polygraphs. Most of them "bitch" about their experience. They'll complain about their polygrapher's wild mood swings, accusations about drug use or controlled breathing, etc. Some have been sufficiently traumatized that they won't even talk about it.
Quote from: Eastwood on Jun 29, 2003, 02:47 PMAnd please, don't give us the standard "I told the complete truth and the machine said I was lying". I won't buy it.
The machines don't accuse people of lying, they just record physiological measurements. Its the polygraphers that accuse people of lying.
Posted by orolan
- Jun 29, 2003, 04:26 PMEastwood,
How quickly you forget
How quickly you forget
QuoteIf any polygraph examiner made a joke about the pneumo tubes and the size of a pecker, he should be fired on the spot - and have his name broadcast on every internet site available. It's assholes like that who give all examiners a bad name. And I guarantee he's had problems before.Do you not remember posting this message a mere 20 days ago in response to Suethem's post
Posted by Eastwood
- Jun 29, 2003, 02:47 PM"Suethem" - why don't you tell us what happened in your poly - those who pass don't bitch - what were you hiding? And please, don't give us the standard "I told the complete truth and the machine said I was lying". I won't buy it.
Posted by suethem
- Jun 29, 2003, 03:41 AMEastwood,
"the polygraph community should not be criticized as a whole because of one rotten turd..."
I think what you when read what has happened to many posters here on this site you will see that it is just not 'one turd.'
Even if you wipe away Renzelman and Dr. Gelb there would still be a big pile of turds left.
"the polygraph community should not be criticized as a whole because of one rotten turd..."
I think what you when read what has happened to many posters here on this site you will see that it is just not 'one turd.'
Even if you wipe away Renzelman and Dr. Gelb there would still be a big pile of turds left.
Posted by Eastwood
- Jun 28, 2003, 09:08 PMThe polygraph community should not be criticized as a whole because of one rotten turd.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 22, 2003, 07:00 PMIt should also be remembered that Renzelman lied to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph regarding the outcome DOE's 23 December 1998 polygraph examination of Dr. Wen Ho Lee. See the message thread DOE Polygraph Chief Renzelman Caught in a Lie for documentation.
Posted by suethem
- Jun 22, 2003, 06:51 PMA polygrapher making inappropriate comments?
Now that sounds familiar!
You would think that such a high ranking 'professional' would know better!
But maybe we shouldn't be surprised. The polygraph community tends to attract the lowest common denominator.
Posted by orolan
- Jun 22, 2003, 02:42 PMNow if they'll just sack the whole program...
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 22, 2003, 06:10 AM
Former DOE Polygraph Program Chief David M. Renzelman
On 26 February 2003, David M. Renzelman resigned under pressure as chief of the Department of Energy's polygraph program. Renzelman's ouster came following an investigation of derogatory remarks about DOE laboratory employees that he made at DOE's CNA-250 counterintelligence staff course in January.
On 3 March 2003, National Nuclear Security Administration Director Linton F. Brooks was sent an anonymous fax congratulating him on his decision to oust Renzelman:
QuoteMarch 3, 2003
Linton F. Brooks
DOE/NNSA
Washington D.C.
SUBMIT VIA FAX: 202-586-4892
Dear Mr. Brooks:
We at Sandia National Labs want to thank you for your leadership and professionalism in dealing with David Renzelman who has been a long-standing embarrassment to the Department.
His derogatory reference to our employees and scientists, especially Dr. Zelicoff, in public forums and meetings is inexcusable and not forgiven by a mere false apology. In his resignation memo (attached), he continues to express his rash of insults by stating one of our employees used countermeasures in a polygraph examination. We also understand Renzelman and his clerk [Anne] Reed have addressed national and state polygraph association gatherings at DOE expense to refute the results of the NAS study, and in doing so, made inflammatory remarks regarding Dr. Zelicoff and Sandia employees who have had problems with polygraph.
Kathy Eberwein recognized the problems with Renzelman years ago but was rebuffed by DOE OCI leadership as they failed to properly address the ethical and contract fraud issues involving Renzelman from his association with [Anne] Reed to his attempt to illegally move the contract to another contractor. Your decision to remove Renzelman from his position as Director of the Inspection and Polygraph Program was met with elation among all ranks within DOE.
As we prepare for the next inspection, we do so with more confidence that we will not be crucified by someone who has lost their objectivity. I beg your pardon for this anonymity, but we still are not trusting. Again, Mr. Brooks, thank you.
The following is the text of Renzelman's resignation memo:
QuoteFrom: Renzelman, David M
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:05 PM
To: Daniel.Baur@CN.DOE.GOV; Stephen.Dillard@CN.DOE.GOV; Doug.Watson@CN.DOE.GOV; nousend@nv.doe.gov; Charlie.Costa@CN.DOE.GOV; Jim.Judge@CN.DOE.GOV; bill.durika@CN.DOE.GOV; Duffin, Andrew J; Anne.Reed@CN.DOE.GOV; Heysel, Avitus J; Leifheit, Frank; Kitchen, David V; Ries, David V; Hanson, Deborah K; Stukey, Donald E; Driver, Douglas D; Loturco, Frank A; Sherman, James J; McCartney, Janice I; Torrence, Larry E; Redmond, Paul J; Corbin, Richard L; Wade, Robert B; Hyatt, Victoria A (Vikki); Deanes, William L; Bedoya, Alex; Killeen, Daniel C; Hendrick, Donald R; Phillips, Donald M; Hoffman, Edward L; Melton, Jerry L; Mata, John P; Fox, Ronald L; Montague, Roy C; Gille, Steven C; Hilton, Tracey J; Vinskey, Wolfgang; caroline.barnes@CN.DOE.GOV; DAN.BRUNO@CN.DOE.GOV; douglas.hinckley@CN.DOE.GOV; THOMAS.HARPER@CN.DOE.GOV; Tod.Brown@CN.DOE.GOV; Tricia.Brown@CN.DOE.GOV; Zandra.Acree@CN.DOE.GOV
Subject: My resignation
All,
In background, during January of this year, I inappropriately referred to a female person who had been practicing countermeasures in one of our polygraph examinations, with inappropriate terms and also related some anecdotes about Scientists at NNSA Laboratories in their attempts to demean polygraph testing, during my presentation at a CNA 250 Course.
A person in this class complained about me in writing and it was referred up to the highest levels of management in DOE and NNSA and it has been decided that I should not and cannot continue as Director of either Program.
While I could try and explain this all day, it would be to no avail and I have this date, voluntarily stepped down as Program Director for both the Polygraph Program and the Inspections Program and will most likely retire in the very near future.
Effective today and until further notice, Anne Reed has been appointed as Acting Director, of both Programs. Dan Baur will be in contact with John Mata for matters pertaining to polygraph cases and Larry Torrence for matters pertaining to inspections.
I have enjoyed working with each and every one of you and will miss the relationships we have enjoyed, (or at least I did) and I will cherish them forever.
I urge your support for Anne Reed in the interim and I thank you for the past.
Semper Fidelis
Dave
Both the anonymous memo to NNSI director Brooks and Renzeman's farewell memo may be downloaded in PDF format here:
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-038.pdf