I read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and failed miserably when I went for my polygraph. I guess I just have too much of a conscious. I ended up just admitting the things that I had done because they honestly were not that bad. My SCI eligibility was of course denied, but I figured I would try to appeal. I was actually able to mitigate the behaviors (funny how the examiner doesn't ask about mitigating circumstances and only tries to crucify you while you sit in that chair). The only one I was not able to mitigate was "Personal Conduct", presumably for not putting the information on the SF-86 or stating it before questioning.
I'm planning to appeal in person before the appeals panel and was wondering if anyone has done this before and has any advice. I'm also interested in seeing how I can show that I'm "stable, trustworthy, reliable, discreet, of excellent character, and sound judgment" since apparently even admitting information during a polygraph does not make you an honest person.
My advice is:
1. Retain legal counsel.
2. Review past cases that are similar to yours to find what kind of facts and evidence have successfully mitigated security concerns in the past. In this regard, see the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals' industrial security clearance decisions:
http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/
scubadiver1
Quoteapparently even admitting information during a polygraph does not make you an honest person
Yes, unfortunately you are correct, admitting you lied after you were caught lying does not make you an honest person. You stated you read TLBTLDT, but did you understand and properly employ any cm's to protect yourself?
Pailryder: It is breaking news for a polygraph operator to finally admit that a person must use "cm's" to protect themselves from being falsely branded as a liar! CONGRATULATIONS on finally making that admission!
Will you now also admit that the polygraph is not a "lie detector" and that it is simply a prop used by interrogators to frighten and intimidate people?
QuoteYou stated you read TLBTLDT, but did you understand and properly employ any cm's to protect yourself?
Doug
Just so your clear, when the sentence ends in a "?", its a question, not an admission.
Just so YOU'RE clear, you said "did you understand and properly employ any cm's to protect yourself?" Protect himself from what? Being falsely accused of lying? If not, then what was he trying to protect himself from by using cm's?
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Jun 28, 2013, 09:56 AMPailryder: It is breaking news for a polygraph operator to finally admit that a person must use "cm's" to protect themselves from being falsely branded as a liar! CONGRATULATIONS on finally making that admission!
Will you now also admit that the polygraph is not a "lie detector" and that it is simply a prop used by interrogators to frighten and intimidate people?
QuoteYou stated you read TLBTLDT, but did you understand and properly employ any cm's to protect yourself?
Doug
My remark was intended to imply that whatever he read or used did not seem to do him much good.
Sorry, my mistake! I thought you had finally decided to join me and tell the truth about the so-called "lie detector". Obviously I was wrong. You were just trolling - trying to get the poor guy to admit that he had tried to use cm's so you could brag about how they didn't work. And you wanted to get the sadistic satisfaction that guys like you derive from pointing out that the big bad polygrapher scared the hell out of him and got him to admit something.
Quote from: pailryder on Jun 29, 2013, 11:02 AMDoug
My remark was intended to imply that whatever he read or used did not seem to do him much good.
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Jun 29, 2013, 01:32 PMyou wanted to get the sadistic satisfaction that guys like you derive from pointing out that the big bad polygrapher scared the hell out of him and got him to admit something.
The something he omitted, then admitted, is what we call the truth.
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 01, 2013, 06:14 PMThe something he omitted, then admitted, is what we call the truth.
How can you be sure what he admitted was the truth?--because he said so?
I could frighten and intimidate you to the point that you would tell me anything I wanted to hear - but that wouldn't make what you said the "truth"!
And many of the admissions gleaned during interrogation via polygraph "testing" are not the "truth".
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 01, 2013, 06:14 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Jun 29, 2013, 01:32 PMyou wanted to get the sadistic satisfaction that guys like you derive from pointing out that the big bad polygrapher scared the hell out of him and got him to admit something.
The something he omitted, then admitted, is what we call the truth.
@george - thanks for the only actual advice in this thread. I have reviewed several cases and that is why I was able to mitigate the other areas. I have my defense prepared but I was wondering if anyone had luck in a similar situation before, hence why I posted.
@pailryder - My CMs were not effective - if they were I'd have passed and wouldn't be here. But that has nothing to do with TLBTLDT, it's me. I know someone who is a pathological liar and has done plenty of things that would prevent him from ever getting SCI and he was in and out of the polygraph in an hour. The whole thing is an interrogation and the polygraph only works because people believe it does. The polygraph will not prevent the next Snowden.
@doug - I'm not entirely innocent here. I did omit some things at first because I felt they were minor / not what the polygrapher was looking for. My polygrapher was an idiot and I saw after the fact how badly s/he twisted my words against me. I've been able to undo a lot of that. I'm not condoning the use of CMs, but I feel genuinely good people need some sort of defense against this archaic process.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jul 01, 2013, 06:41 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jul 01, 2013, 06:14 PMThe something he omitted, then admitted, is what we call the truth.
How can you be sure what he admitted was the truth?--because he said so?
The same way you do, we seek information that can be independently verified.
Quote from: scubadiver1 on Jul 01, 2013, 11:27 PM
Describing my training as teaching "countermeasures" so liars can pass the polygraph "test" is the same thing as describing the polygraph as a "lie detector"! Both descriptions are PURE, UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT!
Why do polygraph operators tell people not to research the polygraph before they take their test? It is very simple - the only way they can intimidate people with the polygraph is to keep them ignorant about how it works. When polygraph operators say I teach people "countermeasures" in order for them to "beat the test". I simply say, that's bullshit, because polygraph operators routinely call truthful people liars - and my technique is the only way for honest, truthful people to protect themselves from being falsely accused of lying. Go to the MEDIA page of my website, www.polygraph.com, and watch the CBS 60 MINUTES investigative report I helped to produce and see the proof yourself - three out of three polygraph operators called three different truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened! You may also enjoy watching me prove THE LIE DETECTOR IS BULLSHIT on Showtime's PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT!
So, let me emphasize this - I DON'T TEACH SO-CALLED "COUNTERMEASURES" - I simply teach people how to ALWAYS PASS by knowing how to show a perfect "truthful" polygraph chart! The word "countermeasures" is a word that has been misappropriated by polygraph examiners - it is used to describe what they say is a means to thwart their ability to detect deception. But polygraph operators have always maintained that they can tell when a person is using these so-called "countermeasures". If that is true, how can anyone use them "beat" the test?
Read my complete essay on "countermeasures" here: http://www.polygraph.com/index.php?i-don-t-teach-countermeasures
scuba
Were you contacted during your pathological liar friend's B/I?
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 02, 2013, 11:11 AMscuba
Were you contacted during your pathological liar friend's B/I?
Troll tactic alert! He is just going to chastise you for not ratting out your friend if you say yes. Ignore this jerk!!! >:(
Not trolling Doug, just wondering how the pathological liar survived the B/I to make it to the poly?
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 02, 2013, 05:33 PMNot trolling Doug, just wondering how the pathological liar survived the B/I to make it to the poly?
That's easy to answer! You polygraphers have told everyone that the polygraph is accurate and reliable "95% of the time", so the BI folks have become lazy - and half the time don't even do a BI (as with Snowden). They just rely on the ALL KNOWING, ALL SEEING, MAGIC LASSO OF TRUTH!
That is why I say it is FOOLISH & DANGEROUS to rely on the polygraph for ANYTHING, let alone EVERYTHING!
::)
Quote from: scubadiver1 on Jul 01, 2013, 11:27 PM@george - thanks for the only actual advice in this thread.
This is a discussion forum, not a dedicated scubadiver advice service. Most of us probably agreed with the advice George gave you, hence no further input.
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 02, 2013, 08:24 AMThe same way you do, we seek information that can be independently verified.
I can appreciate that you are a skilled investigator / interrogator. But it seems that you use the polygraph instrument as a prop to elicit information that can be further investigated and corroborated. This can allow you to infer, but still, there is no detection of lies.
@doug - Not all polygraphers accuse and coerce the person being interviewed. Sure, some of them do. I've been accused of having a drug problem when I've never done drugs nor produced any response to the question on the polygraph. They push hard for a little bit but quickly drop it. Yes, it's an interrogation. But if someone is willing to lie just to make it stop, then they're probably not a great candidate for the job anyways.
@pailryder - friend is a misrepresentation. He was a co-worker and we shared an office at the time, hence why I saw him leave and come back in an hour. They usually process the SCI portion of the clearance before the collateral, so the B/I probably hadn't been conducted yet. Also, have you ever known someone who's a friend to not lie for a friend?
scubadiver1
Best of luck on your appeal.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jul 02, 2013, 10:40 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jul 02, 2013, 08:24 AM
This can allow you to infer, but still, there is no detection of lies.
I do not disagree with your statement, we do infer both truth and deception.
Quote from: scubadiver1 on Jul 02, 2013, 11:14 PM@doug - Not all polygraphers accuse and coerce the person being interviewed. Sure, some of them do. I've been accused of having a drug problem when I've never done drugs nor produced any response to the question on the polygraph. They push hard for a little bit but quickly drop it. Yes, it's an interrogation.
How do you know about what "all polygraphers" do or do not do? I have been involved in polygraph testing since 1972 - on both sides of this issue - and I think I have a pretty good idea about what polygraphers do and don't do. I have received tens of thousands of reports from victims, I have debated dozens of polygraphers, and have done the only real investigative report on their practices, (CBS 60 MINUTES among others). And I will tell you that I have never found a polygrapher that doesn't "accuse and coerce the person being interviewed"!
But I defer to your vast experience - and all the knowledge you gleaned from having failed one test - thanks for setting me straight! ::)
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jul 02, 2013, 10:40 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jul 02, 2013, 08:24 AMThe same way you do, we seek information that can be independently verified.
I can appreciate that you are a skilled investigator / interrogator. But it seems that you use the polygraph instrument as a prop to elicit information that can be further investigated and corroborated. This can allow you to infer, but still, there is no detection of lies.
Pailryder: I don't think he meant that polygraphers "do infer both truth and deception" based on the polygraph chart tracings, but rather from the information you elicit, (by whatever means). In other words, if a person admits to having lied, that may allow you to infer that further investigation is needed. But you and I both know that you can't "infer either truth or deception" by evaluating the polygraph chart tracings.
To infer means to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises - we see smoke and infer fire. To infer from a "reaction", that a person is being deceptive is ludicrous. When you see a nervous "reaction" to a question, you may only infer that the person had a response to a stimulus - nothing more. That response, or "reaction" does not indicate deception, and you cannot infer that it does. I quote Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University who said, "There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)." So if you say "we do infer both truth and deception", and you infer that based on the polygraph chart tracings, you are wrong. You can't infer either truth or deception from anything the polygraph records, that inference must be drawn from facts - not "wild ass guesses" as your cohort Sullivan is quoted as saying.
Doug
There is SO MUCH wrong in your postings, I don't know where to start. SO I WON'T!!!!!!! I prefer a conversation to a SHOUTING MATCH!!!!
BTY, my eight year old grandson thinks your incessant use of emoticons is childish.
Everyone have a happy and safe 4th.
Now I'm done.
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 04, 2013, 08:26 AMDoug
There is SO MUCH wrong in your postings, I don't know where to start. SO I WANT!!!!!!! I prefer a conversation to a SHOUTING MATCH!!!!
BTY, my eight year old grandson thinks your incessant use of emoticons is childish.
Everyone have a happy and safe 4th.
Now I'm done.
You are done? You never even started! Why? Because you know you can't win a debate with me! The reason you are done before you even start is because you know you can't prove that the polygraph is a "lie detector" - and you know that I have already proved it is not! I stick to the facts and let the facts speak for themselves, but you have no facts to support your position. You know you can't defend your position that the polygraph is a "lie detector" - so you quit before you even start.
Since you can't win the debate, or even engage in an intelligent conversation, your only recourse is the same old ad hominem attack that you and all the other polygraphers resort to. And you all get so riled up your posts don't make sense and your spelling and grammar is terrible! But I'm sure that is no reflection on your intellect. :-? "SO I WANT"?????? Want what? Want to make believe you are not a fraud and a con man?
I see you quote Dr. Lykken at the bottom of your posts: "No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers." David Thoreson Lykken.
I would have you know he changed his mind about that after he met me and read my manual. I met Dr. David T. Lykken, professor of Psychology and well-known polygraph opponent, when I testified in Congress in support of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. He wrote me to thank me for my manual and he even endorsed the techniques taught in my manual & video/DVD and my PERSONAL TRAINING in his book saying, "...if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven (methods) rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards; an innocent suspect has nearly a 50:50 chance of failing a CQT administered under adversarial circumstances, and those odds are considerably worse than those involved in Russian roulette. (A Tremor in The Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Polygraph, 2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998, p. 277) This great man was totally opposed to your insidious Orwellian industry and, as you can see, he actually advised people to use my techniques to protect themselves from being falsely branded as a liar.
And here is a special Fourth of July treat for you and your grandson!
:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8-) :-? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-/ :-* :'(
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 04, 2013, 08:26 AMDoug
There is SO MUCH wrong in your postings, I don't know where to start. SO I WON'T!!!!!!! I prefer a conversation to a SHOUTING MATCH!!!!
I see you have calmed down enough to correct the error in your post. Now perhaps we can have an intelligent "conversation". And, I am not engaged in a "SHOUTING MATCH" - you are the only one talking in ALL CAPS! But I'm sure my argument is so powerful and overwhelming, that to you it may seem like I'm shouting.
You say, "There is SO MUCH wrong in your postings, I don't know where to start". Let me suggest you start with
one thing in my postings that you think is wrong, and we'll converse about that. I will even accommodate your grandson and resist the strong urge to use emoticons.
Doug
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Jul 03, 2013, 09:47 AMI will tell you that I have never found a polygrapher that doesn't "accuse and coerce the person being interviewed"!
Mistake 1 You fail to distinguish between an interview and an interrogation. We do not coerce and accuse anyone in the interview, we save that for the interrogation. A small distinction which may escape many but should not be lost on the greatest self proclaimed expert in the antipolygraph universe.
Mistake 2 You fail to distinguish between LEA, government and private practices. As a private examiner, the client or his attorney requests and pays for my services. I have no incentive to accuse or coerce anyone.
Mistake 3 Inference In your chosen example, you see smoke, you infer fire. But there is no direct and unequivocal connection between smoke and fire, is there? Your inference is likely correct, but it could be mistaken. There can be fire without smoke and smoke without fire.
We see smoke, or empirical observable response, and infer fire, or deception as the most probable likely cause of that response. Not the only possible cause, but the most likely. We have never, to my knowledge, claimed a direct unequivocal connection.
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Jul 05, 2013, 05:22 PMI am not engaged in a "SHOUTING MATCH" - you are the only one talking in ALL CAPS!Quote from: Doug_Williams on Jul 02, 2013, 06:11 PMThat's easy to answer!You polygraphers have told everyone that the polygraph is accurate and reliable "95% of the time", so the BI folks have become lazy - and half the time don't even do a BI (as with Snowden).They just rely on the ALL KNOWING, ALL SEEING, MAGIC LASSO OF TRUTH!That is why I say it is FOOLISH & DANGEROUS to rely on the polygraph for ANYTHING, let alone EVERYTHING!
Proven demonstratively wrong by your own post.
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 06, 2013, 08:56 PMBut there is no direct and unequivocal connection between smoke and fire, is there?
There is indeed a connection: it is the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. This is a proven scientific and fact that is repeatable. There is no such provable connection between reaction and deception-this is where polygraphy loses its license to be called "scientific."
Arkhangelsk
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jul 06, 2013, 10:44 PMThere is no such provable connection between reaction and deception
Some people know there is a connection because they actually feel the change in their body when they lie. Be honest, have you never felt that? Polygraph is an interview and interrogation technique, one person questioning another. I respect scientific research and try to modify and align my techniques with other social sciences, but every real world polygraph is unique, an interaction between two specific individuals and as such is not repeatable, so I agree with your assertion that what I do is not hard science.
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 07, 2013, 08:31 AMArkhangelsk
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jul 06, 2013, 10:44 PMThere is no such provable connection between reaction and deception
I agree with your assertion that what I do is not hard science.
Pailryder: You have finally said something that almost resembles a factual, truthful statement. I said
almost, because you are not quite there yet. You are right when you say that what you do is not "hard science", (any of the natural or physical sciences, in which hypotheses are rigorously tested through observation and experimentation). It is not even soft science, (a science, such as sociology or anthropology, that deals with humans as its principle subject matter, and is therefore not generally considered to be based on rigorous experimentation). It is, as I have always said, pseudoscience, (a theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation - that pretends to be science).
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 07, 2013, 08:31 AMSome people know there is a connection because they actually feel the change in their body when they lie.Be honest, have you never felt that?
Our bodies are full chemicals making us feel all kinds of ways. I would feel a change in my body by being asked any kind of personal question where I feel threatened or have much at stake; extrapolating it to deception without a firm scientific theory is foolish and can hurt many people in many ways.
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 06, 2013, 08:56 PMAs a private examiner, the client or his attorney requests and pays for my services.I have no incentive to accuse or coerce anyone.
If you simply hook them up to the instrument, ask a standard set of questions, let the computer score the charts with no post test interrogation, then that would be an innocuous side show. It's a different story when someone is facing a revocation hearing, or if someone's career is on the line.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jul 09, 2013, 04:29 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jul 06, 2013, 08:56 PMAs a private examiner, the client or his attorney requests and pays for my services.I have no incentive to accuse or coerce anyone.
If you simply hook them up to the instrument, ask a standard set of questions, let the computer score the charts with no post test interrogation, then that would be an innocuous side show. It's a different story when someone is facing a revocation hearing, or if someone's career is on the line.
Polygraph operators are out of control - they don't answer to anyone, and they don't give a damn about the millions of people who are traumatized, and whose lives are ruined by their arbitrary and capricious actions. It is tantamount to criminal negligence on the part of our government to allow this so-called "lie detector" testing to continue! The EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT should be extended to PROTECT EVERYONE from the practitioners of this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture!
I'm so glad that Williams doesn't coerce or accuse anyone.
Unfortunately, his slick responses can do very little to conceal the reality that not everyone has the luxury of choosing whether or not to be polygraphed.
I also wonder where he obtained his polygraph "training". >:(
The B/I can foul up one's application for work just as badly as the polygraph. Perhaps even worse....
All it takes is for the investigators to latch onto even one asshole who's willing to make negative remarks about the applicant. >:(
Quote from: xenonman on Jul 13, 2013, 01:53 PMI'm so glad that Williams doesn't coerce or accuse anyone.
Unfortunately, his slick responses can do very little to conceal the reality that not everyone has the luxury of choosing whether or not to be polygraphed.
I also wonder where he obtained his polygraph "training". >:(
I think you are confused about me. Please let me inform you about who I am and what I do - go to my website www.polygraph.com
Quote from: xenonman on Jul 13, 2013, 01:59 PMThe B/I can foul up one's application for work just as badly as the polygraph. Perhaps even worse....
All it takes is for the investigators to latch onto even one asshole who's willing to make negative remarks about the applicant. >:(
well let me tell you, 3 polygraphers from the same area ruined an applicants life and to better his future, b/c you examiners are so aloof and one sided...when you grow older, believe me, it will one day come to you, through the bad karma you've thrown on others, just how corrupt your inaccurate little machine and you are, "actually thinking you can catch people in lies." And one day, you will realize all the harm you've done to others...and you get paid to do this, you receive training and think your an expert at catching people in lies....tell me something, where is your little crystal ball hidden?
Quote from: 01273E3E2B520 on Jan 07, 2014, 09:09 AMwhere is your little crystal ball hidden?
maybe it's up your ass. Try searching around up there.
Quote from: quickfix on Jan 07, 2014, 03:19 PMQuote from: 01273E3E2B520 on Jan 07, 2014, 09:09 AMwhere is your little crystal ball hidden?
maybe it's up your ass. Try searching around up there.
Proves my point
examiners have to defend what they do to others, in their own mind, with insults, to justify their jobs...it is unfortunate that they ruin so many careers and lives...think about it, if they would outlaw polygraphs, which they should, examiners would be out of a job, and they do make some big bucks. Can you imagine hurting a life, for money? Wouldn't it be great, if they would have to follow all those people around they failed and see what good human beings they were...who is the lier, really?
Quote from: 597F6666730A0 on Jan 08, 2014, 10:53 AMexaminers have to defend what they do to others, in their own mind, with insults, to justify their jobs...it is unfortunate that they ruin so many careers and lives...think about it, if they would outlaw polygraphs, which they should, examiners would be out of a job, and they do make some big bucks. Can you imagine hurting a life, for money? Wouldn't it be great, if they would have to follow all those people around they failed and see what good human beings they were...who is the lier, really?
There are millions of people who have been falsely branded as liars, simply because they had a nervous reaction when they answered a question. They have had their lives ruined because they believed the lie that the polygraph was reliable and accurate as a "lie detector", and that the polygrapher was an honorable professional who would treat them fairly. They found out the hard way that the polygrapher was just an interrogator - that the polygraph was just a prop he used to frighten and intimidate them. And worse yet, that the polygrapher could accuse them of lying without any evidence to prove that accusation and they could not challenge or appeal his decision! That's not fair, it is not the way things should be done in this country, but that's the way it is! It is past time to put a stop to this BULLSHIT! >:(
We've ruined lives? Oh, that's terrible; they're all unemployed, homeless, hungry, jumping off buildings! Hurting a life? like a Mafia hitman? I better go to confession tonight so I can be forgiven!
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Jul 13, 2013, 02:01 PMQuote from: xenonman on Jul 13, 2013, 01:53 PMI'm so glad that Williams doesn't coerce or accuse anyone.
Unfortunately, his slick responses can do very little to conceal the reality that not everyone has the luxury of choosing whether or not to be polygraphed.
I also wonder where he obtained his polygraph "training". >:(
I think you are confused about me. Please let me inform you about who I am and what I do - go to my website www.polygraph.com
How do you APPEAL a polygraph. what do you include. I just failed mine. I do not agree with results. >:(
QuoteHow do you APPEAL a polygraph. what do you include. I just failed mine. I do not agree with results. >:(
There is no meaningful appeal process. However, you can and should write a letter contesting your polygraph operator's accusation of deception, if only to document the fact that you do not silently agree with and accept it.
You can address your letter to the individual who signs your rejection letter.
I would keep it short. Just affirm that you told the truth. It's pointless, and possibly counterproductive, to attempt to think up reasons why the polygraph (an invalid procedure that is wrongly called a "test") produced inaccurate results.