- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Public Servant
- Aug 06, 2003, 02:51 AMDRUGSAREBAD,
Sounds to me like you passed the exam. Everything I heard from your previous posts and the fact that you're moving on in the process tells me you did fine.
Orolan,
Sounds like every government (national security or LE) agency to me. They don't intend to publicize anything, victories or failures. But we hold our government accountable, so it's hard to keep the failures under wraps.
Take the war on terrorism for example. Do you think successful attacks are the only ones that were ever planned; or do you believe your government might have thwarted many more?
Sounds to me like you passed the exam. Everything I heard from your previous posts and the fact that you're moving on in the process tells me you did fine.
Orolan,
QuoteIf what you're saying is true, it would imply that the 3-letter agencies want to let the public know every time they screw up, but keep things quiet when they get it right. Doesn't sound like any government agency I've ever had to deal with.
Sounds like every government (national security or LE) agency to me. They don't intend to publicize anything, victories or failures. But we hold our government accountable, so it's hard to keep the failures under wraps.
Take the war on terrorism for example. Do you think successful attacks are the only ones that were ever planned; or do you believe your government might have thwarted many more?
Posted by DRUGSAREBAD
- Aug 05, 2003, 10:05 PMAgain sorry to hijack the thread...
I called HR today to check up on my polygraph results and the lady told me that the next step for me was the BI and that I should sit tight and wait to be contacted by an investigator if I am selected. She said it could be at anytime but if I am not hired by May of 2004 to call them and reapply.
Any insight as to what just happened? I am guessing it is good news but at the same time I am not sure what to make out of the conversation. I guess that's the whole hurry up and wait game. Any opinions? Please feel free, I am open to any. :-/
I called HR today to check up on my polygraph results and the lady told me that the next step for me was the BI and that I should sit tight and wait to be contacted by an investigator if I am selected. She said it could be at anytime but if I am not hired by May of 2004 to call them and reapply.
Any insight as to what just happened? I am guessing it is good news but at the same time I am not sure what to make out of the conversation. I guess that's the whole hurry up and wait game. Any opinions? Please feel free, I am open to any. :-/Posted by orolan
- Aug 01, 2003, 01:21 AMQuoteI can say with good confidence polygraph has indeed uncovered espionage cases in the US.Care to elaborate? Or would you have have to kill us all after divulging these national security issues?
If what you're saying is true, it would imply that the 3-letter agencies want to let the public know every time they screw up, but keep things quiet when they get it right. Doesn't sound like any government agency I've ever had to deal with.
Posted by Anonymous
- Aug 01, 2003, 01:19 AMSaidme,
Feel free to enlighten us with what espionage matter was uncovered with a polygraph exam. Don't make the mistake you usually do by not reading before you comment...much has been discussed over the last few years on this message board and much of the polygraph community's claims regarding this topic have been previously debunked. That having been said, again, feel free to enlighten us...give it your best shot...
Feel free to enlighten us with what espionage matter was uncovered with a polygraph exam. Don't make the mistake you usually do by not reading before you comment...much has been discussed over the last few years on this message board and much of the polygraph community's claims regarding this topic have been previously debunked. That having been said, again, feel free to enlighten us...give it your best shot...
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 31, 2003, 11:11 PMAnonymous
I really get tired of hearing the same whine from you guys. Tell me how you know polygraph has never uncovered a spy or espionage. Do you think that every spy and espionage case ends up on the front page of the Chicago Tribune? I can say with good confidence polygraph has indeed uncovered espionage cases in the US. You sound like another George M who failed his CSP.
Drugsarebad
I know it was a while ago but you stated in your earlier thread the examiner showed you the stim chart and you said "there was no indication of you lying" although you did. Did you evaluate the chart? Did the examiner tell you there was no indication you were lying? Just curious because the average examinee doesn't have chart evaluation experience.
I really get tired of hearing the same whine from you guys. Tell me how you know polygraph has never uncovered a spy or espionage. Do you think that every spy and espionage case ends up on the front page of the Chicago Tribune? I can say with good confidence polygraph has indeed uncovered espionage cases in the US. You sound like another George M who failed his CSP.
Drugsarebad
I know it was a while ago but you stated in your earlier thread the examiner showed you the stim chart and you said "there was no indication of you lying" although you did. Did you evaluate the chart? Did the examiner tell you there was no indication you were lying? Just curious because the average examinee doesn't have chart evaluation experience.
Posted by DRUGSAREBAD
- Jul 31, 2003, 07:20 PMSorry to counterhijack this already hijacked thread (still following me...good:) ). I was wondering (from past experiences) typically how long does it take before a police department gets back to you after you have completed the polygraph? Is there a whole overall evaluation thing done or is the poly examiner's report taken literally and then they decide? It has only been a week since my poly and I was just wondering so as to not seem like an eager pest when I call HR Monday. Any insights? :-/
Thanks
DAB
Thanks
DAB
Posted by Anonymous
- Jul 26, 2003, 12:08 PMSaidme,
You write in part:
Those who perform counterintelligence-type polygraph screening are performing no less (or should I say no more) than voodoo--quackery that has no scientific underpinnings, no theoretical basis, and has allowed major spies to continue their nefarious activities, never revealed a spy, and injured numerous innocent examinees (many of whom have chronicled their experiences over the past few years on this site. I would maintain that those who conduct such exams are clearly blameworthy...they are either willfully ignorant, in disgrace (don't care about the damage they cause), or are cowardly (afraid to tell their employers of the inherent weaknesses and dangers of what they do for a living).
You write in part:
Quote...The fact he accused someone of CM's hardly warrants the term disgrace. That would then label every polygraph examiner as disgraceful...
Those who perform counterintelligence-type polygraph screening are performing no less (or should I say no more) than voodoo--quackery that has no scientific underpinnings, no theoretical basis, and has allowed major spies to continue their nefarious activities, never revealed a spy, and injured numerous innocent examinees (many of whom have chronicled their experiences over the past few years on this site. I would maintain that those who conduct such exams are clearly blameworthy...they are either willfully ignorant, in disgrace (don't care about the damage they cause), or are cowardly (afraid to tell their employers of the inherent weaknesses and dangers of what they do for a living).
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 25, 2003, 06:40 PMGeorge
The writer of that letter discusses many things Renzelman did but doesn't elaborate on details. The fact he accused someone of CM's hardly warrants the term disgrace. That would then label every polygraph examiner as disgraceful. Is that what you're trying to do? I would agree that discussing a specific examinee's polygraph outside of the office is inappropriate but I would have to hear the conversation before I could make a judgement on it. If there's more to the story then I would need to see it before placing the big D word on him. If you have additional info maybe you should share it with us. Just wanted to be fair to the guy.
The writer of that letter discusses many things Renzelman did but doesn't elaborate on details. The fact he accused someone of CM's hardly warrants the term disgrace. That would then label every polygraph examiner as disgraceful. Is that what you're trying to do? I would agree that discussing a specific examinee's polygraph outside of the office is inappropriate but I would have to hear the conversation before I could make a judgement on it. If there's more to the story then I would need to see it before placing the big D word on him. If you have additional info maybe you should share it with us. Just wanted to be fair to the guy.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 25, 2003, 06:16 PMSaidme,
I would agree that not all persons who are forced to resign from government positions have necessarily done anything blameworthy. Indeed, in some cases, the opposite is true. But I think "disgraced" is a fair characterization of Mr. Renzelman, considering the reasons for which he was forced out as head of the DOE polygraph program, which you will find reviewed in the message thread, DOE Polygraph Chief David M. Renzelman Sacked. Do you disagree?
I would agree that not all persons who are forced to resign from government positions have necessarily done anything blameworthy. Indeed, in some cases, the opposite is true. But I think "disgraced" is a fair characterization of Mr. Renzelman, considering the reasons for which he was forced out as head of the DOE polygraph program, which you will find reviewed in the message thread, DOE Polygraph Chief David M. Renzelman Sacked. Do you disagree?
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 25, 2003, 06:02 PMGeorge
I don't want to get into the nuts and bolts of screening programs. As I've stated before, I'm not a big fan of polygraph screening programs. People are forced to resign from government and private positions on a daily basis. I doubt we could characterize each person as disgraceful or being disgraced. My point is you used the term disgraced to characterize a polygraph examiner and program because it happens to suit your little view of the world. By labeling the examiner and the program (which you did by implication) it helps you place an unfair label on the practitioners. So I guess you've come to the conclusion that if you can't get rid of polygraph, maybe you can help get rid of polygraph examiners! Hmmmm.
I don't want to get into the nuts and bolts of screening programs. As I've stated before, I'm not a big fan of polygraph screening programs. People are forced to resign from government and private positions on a daily basis. I doubt we could characterize each person as disgraceful or being disgraced. My point is you used the term disgraced to characterize a polygraph examiner and program because it happens to suit your little view of the world. By labeling the examiner and the program (which you did by implication) it helps you place an unfair label on the practitioners. So I guess you've come to the conclusion that if you can't get rid of polygraph, maybe you can help get rid of polygraph examiners! Hmmmm.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 25, 2003, 05:18 PMDavid Renzelman was disgraced by being forced to resign as head of the DOE polygraph program. (Had he not resigned, he would have surely been fired.) I can add to his credit, however, that in his farewell note to his colleagues, he offered no excuses for his conduct and accepted responsibility for the inappropriate remarks he made.
Also to David Renzelman's credit, he provided a candid explanation of what polygraph screening consists of. (See my citation above.) Do you disagree with his characterization?
Also to David Renzelman's credit, he provided a candid explanation of what polygraph screening consists of. (See my citation above.) Do you disagree with his characterization?
Posted by Saidme
- Jul 25, 2003, 05:06 PMGeorge
Although I'm not a big Renzleman fan I do take offense to your characterization of him. You seem to try and take the high road on most of your posts but every now and then your true feeling bleed through. You wrote: "David Renzelman, the disgraced former head of the DOE polygraph program, gave a candid explanation of this at the first public meeting held by the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph."
How was he "disgraced"? Because he was asked to retire/resign? Or is that just your interpretation of the turn of events?
Again, I'm not here to defend the guy, but you try to pull off that I'm too good to get in the mud with the rest of you routine and then try to weasel that statement in. What a loser.
Although I'm not a big Renzleman fan I do take offense to your characterization of him. You seem to try and take the high road on most of your posts but every now and then your true feeling bleed through. You wrote: "David Renzelman, the disgraced former head of the DOE polygraph program, gave a candid explanation of this at the first public meeting held by the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph."
How was he "disgraced"? Because he was asked to retire/resign? Or is that just your interpretation of the turn of events?
Again, I'm not here to defend the guy, but you try to pull off that I'm too good to get in the mud with the rest of you routine and then try to weasel that statement in. What a loser.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 25, 2003, 05:18 AMPublic Servant,
You wrote in part:
That a person consistently shows a physiological response to a question is no clear indication that the person has not been completely truthful. As Professor John Furedy has observed, the polygraph is "virtually useless for differentiating the anxious-but-innocent person from the anxious-and-guilty one."
David Renzelman, the disgraced former head of the DOE polygraph program, gave a candid explanation of this at the first public meeting held by the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. He said:
The polygraph cannot tell why a question "bothers" a person, and there is no scientific basis for assuming that because a person physiologically responds when answering a question, he/she has not been completely truthful. Conversely, lack of a consistent physiological response to a question is no clear indication that the subject has been completely truthful.
You wrote in part:
QuoteRunning three charts and asking questions again, is part of the examination process. It's a way of determining consitency. One response might have been a fluke; consitent response indicates the question truly concerns you (ie not completely truthful).
That a person consistently shows a physiological response to a question is no clear indication that the person has not been completely truthful. As Professor John Furedy has observed, the polygraph is "virtually useless for differentiating the anxious-but-innocent person from the anxious-and-guilty one."
David Renzelman, the disgraced former head of the DOE polygraph program, gave a candid explanation of this at the first public meeting held by the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. He said:
QuotePolygraph is only a means of...of...of looking at emotion that is taking place at the time a person listens to, thinks about, answers a question that the examiner and the person taking the test has agreed upon originally. And if the answer to that question bothers the person taking the test, then it tends to bother us. And then it's our job to find out, 'Why did that bother you?'
The polygraph cannot tell why a question "bothers" a person, and there is no scientific basis for assuming that because a person physiologically responds when answering a question, he/she has not been completely truthful. Conversely, lack of a consistent physiological response to a question is no clear indication that the subject has been completely truthful.
Posted by DRUGSAREBAD
- Jul 24, 2003, 01:59 PMPublic,
I practiced no specific CMs at all. I have heard from TV and other police contacts that you have to pay attention to the questions and do things like tighten your butt muscles during relevant questions, stuff that will spike a reaction to the obviously truthful questions...at least I am going on a whim here I am not even sure if I am correct but believe me if I didn't pass I will be reading TLBTLD and going into my second one fully loaded.
As for the questions I had "trouble" with one question apparently was about disclosing all past employers. The examiner said I had trouble and seemed to be hinding something about my past employers. I told him I was certain I was completely honest with my employers besides I have never been fired from any job and have always received good reccommendations so I would have no reason to lie or fabricate anything along those lines. The other question was theft from previous employers. This one was very hard to find the ultimate no answer to because who hasn't taken a pen home from work or take computer paper because their printer ran out at home....obvisouly him! I mad admissions during our interview about the stupid things I did when I was younger and they were all minor. I stole two CDs from an ex-employer, and office supplies like pens and paper and binders for college with my current employer nothing to big. Nothing totaling over $50.00. He said I seemed to have trouble with that and I told him maybe it is becuase I know they were stupid mistakes and it bothers me because I never did anything to correct it I just took the stuff but onlys those times and I was actually 100% truthful with him. The post-test interview was all of about two minutes. He asked me if anything was bothering me about those questions and I said the above. He told me that had I put nothing for the questions about stealing from past employers he would make sure of it and I said I was completely honest with everything I listed. He told me that because I was honest in the pre-test interview we are "in a different place and he will have to make his evaluation" That was it, shook my hand gave a smile and opened the door...so long!
I guess I will find out for sure the end result very soon!
Thanks Pulic and I hope I answered you questions? I will be sure to keep the board up to date as soon as I hear something.
I practiced no specific CMs at all. I have heard from TV and other police contacts that you have to pay attention to the questions and do things like tighten your butt muscles during relevant questions, stuff that will spike a reaction to the obviously truthful questions...at least I am going on a whim here I am not even sure if I am correct but believe me if I didn't pass I will be reading TLBTLD and going into my second one fully loaded.
As for the questions I had "trouble" with one question apparently was about disclosing all past employers. The examiner said I had trouble and seemed to be hinding something about my past employers. I told him I was certain I was completely honest with my employers besides I have never been fired from any job and have always received good reccommendations so I would have no reason to lie or fabricate anything along those lines. The other question was theft from previous employers. This one was very hard to find the ultimate no answer to because who hasn't taken a pen home from work or take computer paper because their printer ran out at home....obvisouly him! I mad admissions during our interview about the stupid things I did when I was younger and they were all minor. I stole two CDs from an ex-employer, and office supplies like pens and paper and binders for college with my current employer nothing to big. Nothing totaling over $50.00. He said I seemed to have trouble with that and I told him maybe it is becuase I know they were stupid mistakes and it bothers me because I never did anything to correct it I just took the stuff but onlys those times and I was actually 100% truthful with him. The post-test interview was all of about two minutes. He asked me if anything was bothering me about those questions and I said the above. He told me that had I put nothing for the questions about stealing from past employers he would make sure of it and I said I was completely honest with everything I listed. He told me that because I was honest in the pre-test interview we are "in a different place and he will have to make his evaluation" That was it, shook my hand gave a smile and opened the door...so long!
I guess I will find out for sure the end result very soon!
Thanks Pulic and I hope I answered you questions? I will be sure to keep the board up to date as soon as I hear something.
Posted by Public Servant
- Jul 24, 2003, 02:40 AMDAB,
Sorry for the abbreviation. Yes, NDI (No Deception Indicated) is good.
From what you're saying, I gather you practiced no specific CMs other than trying to remain calm and control your breathing. I assume this was just an attempt to remain calm and to keep your physiology from accelerating as a result of nervousness. If so, this is quite common and it sounds like you took the test as designed.
However, you mentioned physical CMs. What type have you heard of prior to coming to this site, and what made you decide not to attempt any?
One last question: Did the question with which you were told you had problems, seem broad and hard to narrow to an absolute "no" answer; or was there an admission you gave mentioned within the question?
Running three charts and asking questions again, is part of the examination process. It's a way of determining consitency. One response might have been a fluke; consitent response indicates the question truly concerns you (ie not completely truthful).
The examiner should not have told you if you were passing between charts. No determination can be made until sufficient charts/askings have been conducted. Perhaps when he said you were doing well, he meant you were doing a good job of concentrating, listening, and remaining still.
Again, if there was no post test interview, to speak of, I don't think you have much to worry about.
Take care and please keep us posted on what you hear about your results.
Sorry for the abbreviation. Yes, NDI (No Deception Indicated) is good.
From what you're saying, I gather you practiced no specific CMs other than trying to remain calm and control your breathing. I assume this was just an attempt to remain calm and to keep your physiology from accelerating as a result of nervousness. If so, this is quite common and it sounds like you took the test as designed.
However, you mentioned physical CMs. What type have you heard of prior to coming to this site, and what made you decide not to attempt any?
One last question: Did the question with which you were told you had problems, seem broad and hard to narrow to an absolute "no" answer; or was there an admission you gave mentioned within the question?
Running three charts and asking questions again, is part of the examination process. It's a way of determining consitency. One response might have been a fluke; consitent response indicates the question truly concerns you (ie not completely truthful).
The examiner should not have told you if you were passing between charts. No determination can be made until sufficient charts/askings have been conducted. Perhaps when he said you were doing well, he meant you were doing a good job of concentrating, listening, and remaining still.
Again, if there was no post test interview, to speak of, I don't think you have much to worry about.
Take care and please keep us posted on what you hear about your results.