How do you do this? Do you push or what? Sorry for my ignorance. I just really never thought of how to constrict my SM. I hope that someone gets with me real soon, my interrogation is in 4 days.
Constricting the anal sphincter muscle means tightening it, as one might to avoid the release of intestinal gas or a bowel movement, and not pushing (as one might when constipated, and which involves other muscles).
You might also consider alternatives to the anal sphincter contraction, such as the mental countermeasures or tongue bite that are also described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml).
You've got a great sense of hummer, thanks for clearing that up for me. When I read your reply I about choked on my own saliva. HE HE HE HE HE !!! :D ;D :D ;D
This guy must be applying for the position of rocket scientist.
Mr. M, good thing you cleared this up for him or else he may have crapped his pants during the polygraph! I believe your suggestion regarding the use of "mental" countermeasures may be a bit of a stretch for this one.
Gee, I really hope this genius beats his polygraph and gets hired into a position of trust. We need more like him at all levels of law enforcement and government service.
By the way "X", what were you "interrogated" for, and how did it go?
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Jul 24, 2002, 09:12 PMGee, I really hope this genius beats his polygraph and gets hired into a position of trust. We need more like him at all levels of law enforcement and government service.
Yes, then he can join the ranks of such federal employees as Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, Brian Regan, Ana Montes, Karel F. Koecher, Larry Wu-tai Chin.... all of whom passed their screening and/or counterintelligence polygraphs.
It's quite funny when you hold yourself up as part of the solution, batman, when in reality you're part of the problem.
Ah Beech Trees, my old advisary. Just what is the problem that I am a part of?
Do you not agree that "X" may be somewhat short of a full load of bricks? I think this is a fair assumption to make, and God knows, you always seem willing to make assumptions.
Wouldn't you too like to see him making decisions regarding national security, especially since he doesn't know whether to push or pinch.
Also, I wasn't aware that Ames "passed" his polygraph examination, or that Hanssen ever took one. Please share.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Jul 24, 2002, 09:48 PMAh Beech Trees, my old advisary. Just what is the problem that I am a part of?
That would be the pseudo-scientific fraud of polygraphy, BM. Surprised you didn't know that.
QuoteDo you not agree that "X" may be somewhat short of a full load of bricks? I think this is a fair assumption to make, and God knows, you always seem willing to make assumptions.
Please feel free to point out any erroneous assumptions you feel I have made.
QuoteWouldn't you too like to see him making decisions regarding national security, especially since he doesn't know whether to push or pinch.
I'm not certain bowel control is a prerequisite for federal employment, so I can't really comment on that, BM.
QuoteAlso, I wasn't aware that Ames "passed" his polygraph examination, or that Hanssen ever took one. Please share.
I guess you haven't found the time to read The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) yet, as you said you would be doing some time ago in a posting to George.
Since beginning his betrayal in 1985, Ames had passed two CIA polygraph "tests" during which he falsely denied having committed espionage, first on 2 May 1986 and again on 12 and 16 April 1991. In 1988–1989, while Ames was betraying his country, the CIA's Office of Security—which had by that time realized that there was a mole in CIA's ranks—wasted a year focusing its attention on an innocent employee who "had difficulty generally getting through routine polygraph examinations over the course of his CIA employment." (U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1994) The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf), page 26
A casual perusal of the facts leads me to believe I was in error-- apparently Hanssen was never polygraphed, even though Freeh had ordered counterintelligence polygraphs for employees in Hanssens league some 7 years prior to his arrest.
My Dear Beach Trees,
Why so eager to attack? Given the nature of some of your postings one might come to the conclusion you too are one of those no good polygraph interrogators.
As for me pointing out any "erroneous assumptions" you may have made, how about that being one of them. I never said you made any "erroneous assumptions", I simply said you seem willing to make assumptions. So I'm assuming you assumed I meant erroneous assumptions, which is in fact an erroneous assumption on your part.
Why do you assume I am a part of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polgraphy? Again, an erroneous assumption on your part.
Re: "Bowel conrol being a prerequisite for federal employment", I just figured it was, since so many who post on this site seem so concerned about using countermeasures to defeat the polygraph, which on ocassion is a prerequisite for federal employment. So I guess, by proxy, bowel control may be a prerequisite in the minds of some.
As for Ames: Do a little more "casual perusal of the facts" and you may find he did not in fact "pass" his exam in '91. Given your misstatement of this fact and the phantom Hanssen polygraph you so freely mentioned, I have to question your accuracy on other topics. Maybe you're no more accurate than what you claim the polygraph to be, a toss of a coin.
I have read the famous (in the minds of some) publication you referenced. I'm apparently not as impressed with it as some who post on this site.
Batman
Batman,
You say in part (in reply to beech trees):
Quote...I have read the famous (in the minds of some) publication you referenced. I'm apparently not as impressed with it as some who post on this site...
Your overall pleasure or displeasure (not really in doubt) and general impressions with
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are not as relevant or useful as any specific criticisms/commentary that you might offer. I am quite sure that the authors would greatly appreciate any intellectually-honest critical review you might provide.
Drew,
I did not say I was either pleased or displeased with the Lie Behind the Lie Detector. I simply said I was not as impressed with it as others seem to be. Even that statement leaves the door open that I may have been somewhat impressed with it, just not as much as others.
Must you and Beech Trees read something negative into every post that does not, on the surface, agree with your particular point of view? Must the individuals who post on this site totaly capitulate to the anti-polygraph viewpoint, or grovel at the feet of the authors of the Lie Behind the Lie Detector before they are free from attack by the likes of you, and Beech Trees? Must they check their sense of humor at the door before they can enter?
Come on a Drew, stop wearing you pants so high and tight and lighten up just a bit. In the big scheme of things, this issue about polygraph is small potatoes to the great, great majority of people. It's not even a blip on their radar screens.
I have also read The Catcher in the Rye as well as Romeo and Juliet. My overall "general impressions" of those particular writings may not be relevant either, however any "specific criticisms/commentary" I may offer on those would probably be as readily accepted in litirary circles as anything I would offer on the Lie Behind the Lie Detector would be here. In other words Drew, trying to offer any criticism of that document on this site would be like spitting into the wind or tugging on Superman's cape; and Batman would never waste his time tugging on Superman's cape.
Over to you Mr. Trees.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Jul 25, 2002, 11:54 AMWhy so eager to attack?
How am I attacking?
QuoteGiven the nature of some of your postings one might come to the conclusion you too are one of those no good polygraph interrogators.
A peculiar conclusion.
QuoteAs for me pointing out any "erroneous assumptions" you may have made, how about that being one of them. I never said you made any "erroneous assumptions", I simply said you seem willing to make assumptions.
I had hoped it would be understood one would not need to point out correct assumptions, as those would not require further discussion/elucidation, thus I specified 'erroneous assumptions' for the purposes of further debate.
QuoteWhy do you assume I am a part of the pseudo-scientific fraud of polgraphy? Again, an erroneous assumption on your part.
I see.
QuoteAs for Ames: Do a little more "casual perusal of the facts" and you may find he did not in fact "pass" his exam in '91.
OK, I'll look for that. Would you mind quoting a source for that fact?
QuoteGiven your misstatement of this fact and the phantom Hanssen polygraph you so freely mentioned, I have to question your accuracy on other topics. Maybe you're no more accurate than what you claim the polygraph to be, a toss of a coin.
I don't believe I'm in error with regard to Aldrich Ames. Revisionist 'post polygraph computer analysis' notwithstanding, Ames passed all of his polygraphs. With regard to Hanssen, yes, I made an error. It's hard to keep the list of spies and raconteurs who have been given a pass by polygraphers whilst they damage government security with impunity straight sometimes. I'm comfortable with the assertion that the overwhelming majority of hard facts I post here is correct-- again feel free to bring up any facts you feel are in dispute.
QuoteI have read the famous (in the minds of some) publication you referenced. I'm apparently not as impressed with it as some who post on this site.
Thanks for sharing. In my opinion, lapsing into specious word games is a waste of valuable time.
Geese Beech Tree, conversing with you guys is like being the odd man out in a WWF tag team match. First you get in the ring and take a few shots, then slap the old tag on the Drewmeister so he can come in and throw a few punches, then he gives you the wink and a nod, and slam, bam, thank you sam, you're back in the ring. Wow, you guys are so good one might think you're all the same person, or possibly all connected at the hip.
Anyway, do I really need to tell you when you're attacking? My God man, just look in the mirror, when your teeth are bared, you're attacking. When anyone gets on this site and questions certain motives, or someones credentials, or tries to defend the use of polygraph in any way, you're attacking. When you're typing on the keyboard, you're attacking. I would consider you to be Mr. M's alter ego. He comes in with the sugar, and you slide around the back door with the rabbit punches.
The "conclusion" about you possibly being a polygraph interrogator, that was a joke my man. There is no way anyone would mistake you for being in that particular field. (On your next post I expect you to comment about how proud you are not to be in that field or something to that effect. Don't let me down.)
Interesting how you make an erroneous assumption and when called on it you state it was only done to "further debate." How magnanimous of you.
As for Mr. Ames, sorry, can't disclose my sources. I know that's not fair, however I do believe there has been some public documentation of the fact his last polygraph was not NDI as originally reported by the media when his stuff hit the fan. I also believe this non-NDI conclusion was reached at exam time (not several years later with the development of polygraph algorythms), but ignored by the "system" due to his lofty position within the agency. Possibly not as much weight was put on the polygraph results as should have been.
And lastly, I'm comfortable that you're comfortable. Now if we could just get the Drewmeister to loosen up those tight drawers of his maybe he would be comfortable too.
Batman
Batman,
Because there exists a paucity of logic on your side when it comes to polygraph screening discussions, if I were in your shoes, I would make an effort to struggle with humor too. That having been said, I usually leave a discussion of my drawers (boxers or briefs you ask?) to the ladies of my life. Perhaps you might care to return to polygraph screening.
With regard to your input into the LBTLD, I can assure you that the authors of this sight would love to have any shred of useful input and correction offered by polygraphers...if for no other reason than to demonstrate that they were open to it. Unfortunately none (or very little) has been forthcoming. I challenge you to redouble your efforts, read or re-read, offer your commentary, and try to prove me wrong on this issue by showing anything that was rejected out of hand... Cheers,
Drew Richardson
No Drew my man, I don't care to return to polygraph screening, it bores me, and frankly, I don't think it's worth a tinkers damn.
However I would like to continue on the topic of the ladies in your life, since you felt compelled to mention them. We'll start with a simple question, why did you feel compelled to mention the "ladies in your life"? I find that to be an interesting twist. Also, I talk pants and you hear drawers, boxers, or briefs. Very interesting indeed. We could probably spend days working our way through this "thread".
As for inputs from polygraphers regarding the Lie Behind the Lie Detector, I guess you'll just have to find a polygrapher to give you those. Me, I'm just taking it all in, enjoying the interface with the malcontents.
Regarding one little polygraph issue though, where you still with the FBI when the Ames case broke? What is your take on whether or not he "passed" his '91 polygraph as Beech Trees contends? Or was he possibly Inconclusive or maybe even DI?
Beech Trees, I do believe the tag has been made, your in the ring now!
Batman
Batman,
As I recall the Ames case broke in 1993; yes I was doing polygraph research for the Bureau in 1991, but did not and have not seen the Ames charts. My guess about that is that a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking has gone on since that time, conveniently reading who knows what into those charts. My suggestion many years ago, was to take the Ames charts, the charts of the 100 exams before and the 100 exams following the Ames exam, remove all identifying marks and have a group of examiners who had never seen any of the charts pick the spy out of the 201 sets of charts. As best I can tell my suggestion was never followed up on...
I'm glad to know we share the same opinion of polygraph screening. At some point I wish you and others who have expressed similar opinions would publicly join those of us who have already so condemned this form of testing. I believe only then can we make some serious progress with specific issue testing and some of the interview issues you have raised.
Cheers and have a pleasant weekend.
Batman,
As Drew has suggested, Gino and I would very much welcome any specific criticism you may have for The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. In fact, we've set up a forum on this board specifically for such commentary. (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=8.0)
You also wrote, "In the big scheme of things, this issue about polygraph is small potatoes to the great, great majority of people. It's not even a blip on their radar screens." Of course, you're right. But this is really irrelevant to the merits of the case against polygraph screening. For those who have become its victims, polygraph policy is not just "small potatoes," and this website exists as a direct result of the harm being done to innocent persons through reliance on this pseudoscience. In addition, appreciable harm is being done to the national security as a result of a misplaced faith in polygraphy. We're working to put polygraph policy on the "public radar screen" by exposing polygraph waste, fraud and abuse. And we've been increasingly successful in reaching those who are directly affected by polygraph screening.
QuoteBatman: In the big scheme of things, this issue about polygraph is small potatoes to the great, great majority of people. It's not even a blip on their radar screens.
I agree wholeheartedly as well. Most people in America could care less about polygraph screening. This is because the vast majority of Americans no longer have to have their lives influenced by this voodoo science thanks to the
Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988. If anything, the lack of public attention received by the topic makes our work here all the more important.
Note: If the Internet was available in the mid 1980s, when polygraph screening in corporate America was as its peak, I think that it would be safe to say that people would be going
batshit upon discovering this site. Would you agree,
Batman?
Gino,
You Da Man, a sense of humor runs under all that antipolygraph brovado.
Drew,
I like your suggestion regarding the Ames charts. If nothing else it would have been interesting to see the results. I assume the additional 200 sets of charts would be ones that were evaluated as NDI. This would have been a very interesting experiment indeed. It would never be too late to push forth such an idea. I have communicated with a few of the Polygraph Program Managers in the not to distant past, and have acquaintances at DoDPI. If you don't mind, I think I will resubmit your suggestion. I for one would be very interested to see just how it plays out.
And, as you know, some folks just can't go as public as others. You too have a good weekend.
GEORGE????,
Is that you I hear touting that Lie Behind the Lie Detector again? Granted, a somewhat interesting, and well researched document, but as I have expressed before, studies are almost always open to a broad range of interpretation. People can very easily take most any study and make it fit their particular point of view. It's kind of like that old saying, "Statistics lie and liers use statistics." I just have never felt comfortable with any of the polygraph studies, those that indicate it has a high accuracy rate, as well as those that indicate it's a 50/50 proposition. So the Lie behind the Lie Detector just didn't do a whole lot for me. However, not to worry, there's always guys like Beech Trees who treat it like the Bible, and sleep with it under their pillow.
Batman
All,
I have to hand it to you all as this listing of postings was magnificent reading! So....to all, while I have posted on another thread, would like to add/ask something within this thread. The simple background is this....passed Ph I of the FBI and am onto the panel interview and then the poly. So, (tongue in cheek) the "tastes great - less filling" question from me, BEFORE I read other threads carefully, AND decide whether or not to read TLBTLD- Is more information about the FBI poly good for me or would it prove to be more harmful?
M6
M6,
When it comes to polygraph screening, ignorance is no bliss. The FBI special agent applicant polygraph failure rate is reportedly now near 50%. (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=592.msg3067#msg3067) Do you suppose that many liars are really passing Phase I?
It would behoove any FBI applicant to learn all he or she can about polygraph screening beforehand. You'll find a detailed explanation of what actually goes on in a pre-employment polygraph interrogation in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml), and in Chapter 4, you'll find tips on how to protect yourself against the all too real danger of becoming a false positive. (You may also be interested in reading the statements of some FBI polygraph victims on the AntiPolygraph.org Personal Statements (http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml) page.)
George,
Thank you for your response. I am chatting off line with Drew about this same topic. Where did you discover a 50%^ fail rate?
M6
M6,
It was reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer in May. Follow the link in my post above for details.
Thank you. However, they are on a time crunch to hire nearly 900 new agents. Any thoughts to them relaxing the "false positives"....
George,
Sorry that last one was so short and confusing. What I meant was, any thought of the FBI being less strict on past drug use? To clarify, I don't mean a lessening of the standard, but rather a less stringent approach to false positives on the poly.
Cordially, M6
On the contrary, it seems the "failure to pass" rate skyrocketed with the surfeit of applicants post-9/11.
Let me ask this, there is one area where my memory does not serve me well. What is the number one way in dealing with this?
M6,
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. But faulty memory can certainly pose a problem during an FBI polygraph examination. Let's take the example of an applicant who has experimented with marijuana. He knows he used it less than the FBI's ceiling of 15 times, but he cannot remember precisely how many times he smoked it.
One FBI polygraph examiner has written that the examinee who admits to having smoked marijuana but professes to be unable to remember the precise number of times he smoked it is "going to fail." (See p. 57 of the 2nd edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.) The best way for the examinee who has smoked marijuana within the FBI's limits to deal with this situation might be to estimate the number of times he actually used it and then to state it as a well-remembered fact, rather than an estimate.
Batman,
You wrote:
Quote...I like your suggestion regarding the Ames charts. If nothing else it would have been interesting to see the results. I assume the additional 200 sets of charts would be ones that were evaluated as NDI. This would have been a very interesting experiment indeed. It would never be too late to push forth such an idea. I have communicated with a few of the Polygraph Program Managers in the not to distant past, and have acquaintances at DoDPI. If you don't mind, I think I will resubmit your suggestion. I for one would be very interested to see just how it plays out...
I appreciate your vote of confidence and willingness to try to further this notion of days gone by. I should point out the obvious though...in order for this analysis to have any credibility whatsoever it would have to be administrated by those with no obvious biases regarding the outcome. Because DoDPI exists only so long as polygraphy (and to a large extent the large polygraph screening programs that have and continue to exist within DoD and other government agencies) exists, it should have absolutely nothing to do with validating anything to do with polygraph screening (to include this notional research effort) or those specific programs upon which its foundation exists.
For similar and even more obvious reasons the polygraph examiners/operational program heads of the agency polygraph programs that utilize counterintelligence polygraph screening can have nothing to do with the ADMINISTRATION of this research. Although they should have absolutely no control over experimental design and implementation (to include verification that chart selection of surrounding exam material was accurate and complete) they would be appropriate and likely represent a necessary candidate pool from which individuals would be chosen to score these charts. The participation by selected examiners (because of the potential serious ramifications to national security stemming from the results of said study) should be preceded by signed sworn statements (presented to Federal Law Enforcement officers) in which they (the examiners) clearly state that they have no prior knowledge of the Ames polygraph charts or (to their knowledge) any other polygraph charts which might be included in this study. It should be made abundantly clear that any misrepresentations in said statement not only could be but also would be prosecuted under Title 18 USC 1001.
I would suggest the National Academy of Science (perhaps even the currently assembled panel) as a starting point in a search for an administrator(s) of this study.
George,
Thank you again for your prompt and informative responses. Your answer was right on target. There is no area that concerns me with regard to the process, other than that you mentioned. Thanks again. Best wishes and continued success with your informative and helpful site.
v/r M6
If I fail the poly and I am working for a private company, do I loose all my clearances or just will not qualify for poly. Does this mean I could be out of a job right now that does not require poly.
Batman:
I saw you were also amused at the savage wit and sloppy fact flinging of our mutual friend Beech Tree. Not to be outdone by a former polygraph researcher turned activist, I came up with my own challenge: Identification and clarification of the man known as Beech Trees. No time limit. Some think he is the vicious alter ego of another "senior user" expressing inelegant views too harsh for a man of science. Because he wont respond for the people, and I was bored at the moment- I prepared a sample bio and wanted to run it by you...
A angry man of about 30, BT lives alone in an apartment somewhere in southern California. Concerned with privacy, he uses the name Beech Trees but is silently afraid that some person who he irritates will start calling him "Beech Nut" or rouguishly "Bitch Nuts" or "Bitch Teats". He feels he is smarter that his fellow co-workers, but has been unrecognized at work due to his highly focused attitude. Never finished his degree, but does affect a enlightened vocabulary and like his mentors, desires to appear scholarly. He is intolerant -without many friends, but does hope to date someone someday. He is not a child molester.
BT did the usual things a while male growing up in SC will do in his youth and his deception on his police application resulted in his return to the staff at pinkertons. He knows what a mistake the department made, and has vowed vengence on the tool that has put him in this place. He was a bad fit for LE duty, never having fought anyone and being of average stature, but did dream of being a Detective like on tv.
Batman, your input into this "model" is appreciated, as it is a work in progress.
I now expect some snappy stereotypical retort about heavyhanded, jackbooted, alcoholic, wife-beating, NRA member, with a crew cut. BT fire away, but pack your lunch...
This series of posts read like a bunch of school boys trading insults about yo mamma's so ugly. If everyone can get past their ego's need to be right, they will see that the problem has been clearly defined. I think even batman and polycop will agree that Polygraph machines are considerably less than 100% accurate. This site is indicative that some people pass that shouldn't - Some people fail that shouldn't . Even if the machine, properly used, were say 90% accurate, is such a margin of error fair and acceptable?
For those that pass that shouldn't - What security risk does that pose in a post 9-11 world? (Terrorists can read this site too.) For those who fail that truly shouldn't - Where is the justice? One false positive can flush an entire LE education down the toilet.
The problem being defined why don't we all focus on a fair solution rather than trading insults.
Perhaps one solution could be - Rather than the total abolition of the poly or the total acceptance of it's findings resulting in disqualification - The poly could be used only as a tool to suggest a more specific background investigation. In a post 9-11 world a very thorough BI should be must for LE, FBI, etc.
Another solution may be hidden in the irony that the American tax payers expect their police to be of the highest caliber and integrity when the educational requirements and pay scales are so low. Truly, we will find only a limited number of high caliber people willing to serve and protect at the salary offered. I serve, (volunteer), as a reserve deputy but I can't imagine supporting my family on cop pay. Something to think about.
The Beaver
Beaver:
Your right of course, but tongue in cheek sarcasm as the result of being called a liar is a natural response to people who have taken themselves way too seriously. You will meet people here who will tirelessly push a pamphlet, instead of looking at the very serious ethical consequences of what they state. Some you meet here will be liars or cheats with credentials, others merely obnoxious and tiresome-but none are interested in what I would call serious debate. This site would be respected if the authors were looking at credibility assessment in real world terms, in other words a recognition that we do need something, and how do we get there from here? maybe an intelligent examination of how the polygraph could evolve as technology permits. Its not here.
Even polygraph enemies like Lykken developed polygraph testing strategies. Educated people in the therepy world use it on sex offenders with great skill. You are troubled by the same thing I am, when you reference 9/11. My first post only a few days ago had to do with irresponsible(i felt) advice being given here that could cause a very real security threat. And more benign than that and what is of more of concern to me working in local law enforcement-an anything goes attitude to testing due to a hatred of a tool.
I think the polygraph is flawed. But I have seen it work as an investigator. Lots of things are flawed, like therapy where a sex offender cons his Dr. into thinking he's cured so he can re-offend. Like medical screens that routinely miss cancers until they are advanced. A medical Dr. reservist on my department told me the accurate specialized tests are just too expensive for screening. Screening at airports, drug dogs, wings falling off airplanes, probation/parole, psychological testing-we could go on and on about processes designed to protect us failing. Should we throw them out because they are not perfect?
Defenders of the flame here will tell you we should rely on backgrounds. None of them quite probably has ever done one. Backgrounds, at least at the local level find out just about what our applicants allow us to see. And other than the national agency checks or arrest record- we most likely will not find the people who used to break into cars with them or smoke pot. It is a function of time and money. Im sure the Feds throw more at it, but there is only so much you can do. And an agent who starts out idealistic, may end up disillusioned and compromised when things at work dont go his way. Backgrounds wont catch that.
I dont want to see a career ruined by some polygrapher who does not know his trade anymore than I want another plane blown out of the sky because a screener was sleepy at the airport. To those of you looking for a career in law enforcement, as I end mine- I would only ask that you stop to consider your actions regarding the "advice" you will get here. If you are holding back info from your recruiter like the founder here did, and you fail- maybe you should not be in law enforcement. Ask GM if there would be an antipolygraph site had he told the truth in all areas of his application and passed ? The answer can only be "NO" which makes him the equivelent of a Sarah Brady.
If you are so selfish to think that starting a career with a lie because you believe you are basically good is admirable, than throw the dice. That kind of thinking will only get you in trouble in this job, take my word for it. You will lie on an arrest, or worse to a judge, lie to Internal affairs and lie to a supervisor. You started with a lie and you will be compromised in time. To those who still think the outdated notion that LE duty is admirable and should be conducted with integrity, I wish you the best of luck in your process.
The Breeze,
You write in part:
QuoteSome you meet here will be liars or cheats with credentials, others merely obnoxious and tiresome-but none are interested in what I would call serious debate.
In assessing the level of interest in serious debate here, unbiased readers may care to review, for example, the exchange of thoughts (in which you participated) in the message thread My FBI Poly (Used Countermeasures and Passed) (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=680.msg3824#msg3824).
You also wrote in part:
QuoteIf you are holding back info from your recruiter like the founder here did, and you fail- maybe you should not be in law enforcement. Ask GM if there would be an antipolygraph site had he told the truth in all areas of his application and passed ? The answer can only be "NO" which makes him the equivelent of a Sarah Brady.
Your above remarks are libelous, Breeze. I answered all questions truthfully on my FBI application, and I answered all questions truthfully during my pre-employment polygraph examination, but I was falsely accused of deception with regard to all relevant questions.
Beech Trees and Drew
I just wanted to provide a little insight into your conversation with Batman regarding Aldrich Ames' polygraph examination(s). There is an excellent book written by Pete Earley: Confessions of a Spy The Real Story of Aldrich Ames. In the book are several excerpts regarding Ames' polygraph examination(s). Specifically pages 154, 168-169, and particularly pages 282. I'm not plugging his book so you'll buy it; go check it out of the library if necessary. I think these excerpts provide a good flavor for how Ames faired on his polygraph examination(s). Unfortunately, too many people hear something through the media and accept it as reality without checking into the "validity" of their information. Just trying to put a little clarity into the conversation. Roy ;)
Breeze,
I'll be the first to admit that I am not a career LE person. As a reserve deputy I spend my limited duty time protecting your parades, high school football games and maybe working an occasional DUI check point, (woo hoo! now that's exciting shit-LOL). Given the nature of your lifetime LE career I can understand some of your cynicism. However, one thing I do have a tremendous amount of experience in is being a background investigator of sorts - So indulge me in playing the Devil's Advocate for a minute.
For the last 15 years I've been a full time Mortgage Loan Officer/Underwriter. In other words, before you get that new home loan, I'm that nosy guy that spends an hour interviewing you, requiring proof all your financial, credit, employment and residential histories. Then I have every shred of information verified by credit reporting agencies, title companies, public record searches, banks, current and previous employers, and even ordering from the IRS your tax records. I see a lot of liars in my business and my polygraph machine is the Credit Report. (Process sound familiar?)
The credit report strikes fear into the even the most honest loan applicant and, like the poly, can be used to disqualify a person before the rest of the BI begins. The biggest difference being that the credit report is an objective collection of historical information. It's indications of character, capacity and willingness to repay are based purely on past performance. AND - (though it may be a big, frustrating, time consuming pain in the ass), information on my credit charts can always be challenged and proven right or wrong.
In contrast, the polygraph is a highly subjective tool which can report a different answer with each different operator, subject's mind set, medications, proper or improper preparation, amount of sleep, anxiety levels, etc. Even though I passed mine I would be very apprehensive about letting the poly have the last word. Disqualifying someone based solely on the poly seems too ridged for it's margin of error, even unfair and truthfully kind of lazy on the part of the BI.
In my experience, where there is smoke there is fire. If the poly indicates deception in one or more areas that is certainly a heads up for the BI. (I smell smoke!) However, before you hose the poor guy it might be worth making sure it's not the neighbor's backyard grill. In my experience, as an underwriter, deception in an applicant is a long thread. If you pull it, you will see the entire fabric begin to bunch up or come apart. Stories will change and evolve. For example, if the poly were to suggest deception in the area of drug use, I would expect that if I pulled that thread I might find poor grades or a possible school drop out - A spotty employment history - An old DUI - Overly frequent changes of residence - Maybe a poor credit history, evictions, judgments - Calls for domestic violence - Hell, he might even fail the drug screen. While most of this evidence is circumstantial it supports the suspicion and it can all be easily obtained with little time or expense. The applicant could then be DQ'd based on past instabilities rather than the questionable accuracy of the poly.
Bottom line - Pro or Con - Focusing only on the solution... Your presumption that everyone whining on the site is a liar might be overly simplistic, cynical and I dare say even arrogant. Truthfully, I've never met a completely honest person, (myself included) - But if YOU were accused of something you didn't do, would you stake your LE career and pension solely on the accuracy of the polygraph? No IA, no investigation -- just pass or fail -- no appeals. I'm no bleeding heart but it truly seems Un-American. If my little six man loan department can coordinate thoroughly verifying/cross checking every shred of information on 20-30 mortgage applications per month I would imagine a properly motivated BI/Personnel office could do the same. My own cynical opinion is that more money being thrown at the problem is not necessarily the solution. I fear it boils down to the stereotypical differences between government agencies and private industry. Government employee jobs are so protected that the motivation to work as hard as their private industry counterparts rarely exists. Perhaps an unfair and debatable assumption. But Breeze and other pro polys - would you even consider modifying the use of the machine as a direction finder only rather than it being the last word? Anit-Poly guys....any room for compromise? I can see the usefulness of the poly as a tool as long as it's not the last word. How about suggestions that protect both the American public from subversives and the applicants from a false positive? Maybe I'm too utopian. If so then debate on.
The Beav
Roy,
Our on-going discusssion might be expedited if you were to sight any particular passages that you believe to be significant and your interpretation of such. I would be glad to continue our discussion of the issue, but my immediate travel schedule and reading burden will not likely allow for my soon obtaining or reading the text/passages you refer to. Best,
Drew Richardson
Drew
I'm not completely up to speed on federal copyright laws so I respectfully decline to take direct quotes out of the book I cited. Based on my interpretation of the book, Ames did not pass his polygraph examination(s). I urge you to read the material yourself and form your own opinions. I cited specific pages so you wouldn't have to read the entire book if you didn't want too. If you choose not to check it out then you should refrain from making blanket statements regarding Ames' polygraph's. Enjoy your travels. Roy :)
Roy, Drew,
Registered user L72cueak posted an excerpt from p. 168 of Confessions of a Spy the message thread, Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=474.msg2251#msg2251). (See reply #28.)
Quote from: Roy on Aug 04, 2002, 04:00 PM
Beech Trees and Drew
I just wanted to provide a little insight into your conversation with Batman regarding Aldrich Ames' polygraph examination(s). There is an excellent book written by Pete Earley: Confessions of a Spy The Real Story of Aldrich Ames. In the book are several excerpts regarding Ames' polygraph examination(s). Specifically pages 154, 168-169, and particularly pages 282. I'm not plugging his book so you'll buy it; go check it out of the library if necessary. I think these excerpts provide a good flavor for how Ames faired on his polygraph examination(s). Unfortunately, too many people hear something through the media and accept it as reality without checking into the "validity" of their information. Just trying to put a little clarity into the conversation. Roy ;)
Hi Roy,
Until I can locate the book and passages you cite, could I trouble you for a synopsis?
In point of fact I did not learn that Ames passed multiple polygraphs during the course of his career from the media. I first read of that fact as reported in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf), sourced to U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, (1994) An Assessment
of the Aldrich H. Ames Espionage Case and Its Implications for
U.S. Intelligence (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1994_rpt/ssci_ames.htm)
Roy,
You wrote in part to Drew:
QuoteIf you choose not to check it out then you should refrain from making blanket statements regarding Ames' polygraph's.
What "blanket statements" did Drew make regarding Ames' polygraph examinations?
Let's bury this myth once and for all: Ames was deemed NDI on every single polygraph test he was given.
As is typical with any polygraph interrogation, upon seeing significant responses to a Relevant Question, the interrogator moved to extract an admission as to the noted reaction. Regardless if Ames' explanation is characterized as a 'rationalization', 'non-damaging admission', 'lie', whatever, the polygrapher moved to exclude the admission in the next series of charts, at which time the final reactions were not more significant than the neighboring Control Questions.
Next the CIA examiner asked a follow on series of questions relating to the "pitch" issue, in order to ascertain why Ames had appeared to give a deceptive response. Ames responded that since he had worked in CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe (SE) Division, he had been involved in pitches to potential assets. Also, he hypothesized that he might be known to the Soviets because of a recent defector. He further stated that he thought he might be reacting because he was preparing to go to Rome in July 1986, and had some concerns that he might be pitched there. From this, the polygrapher surmised that Ames had gotten his concerns off his chest, and there was nothing more to tell. Once again, the polygrapher went through the CI questions on the polygraph machine, focusing on the pitch issue. This time, the CIA examiner deemed Ames truthful and concluded the examination, characterizing Ames as "bright [and] direct." The examiner's supervisors concurred with the assessment that Ames was non-deceptive.-- An Assessment of the Aldrich H. Ames Espionage Case and Its Implications for U.S. Intelligence (http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1994_rpt/ssci_ames.htm), Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 01 November 1994.
To characterize Ames as having failed his polygraph (or more precisely, judged Deception Indicated) is incorrect... not only did his interrogator deem him NDI, the quality control reviewers (plural) did as well.
Finally, it seems appropriate to quote the most informed source one could hope for, ex-CIA Director John Deutch, who said something quite different (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=516.msg2575#msg2575) about the importance of polygraph screenings, this noted passage from a thread about Nicholson, yet another spy who passed his polygraph exams.
Edward Curran also confirmed (see same thread as above) in a televised interview that no spy has ever been caught with a polygraph interrogation.
Beech Trees
I totally disagree with your assessment on Ames. My characterization of those testifying in front of the Senate is some serious ass covering. I think I read in one of your (maybe Drews or Georges) emails about CYA. Do you think someone from the CIA is going to get up in front of the Senate and say "sir, looks like we had him a couple of times over the past few years, we just never really followed up with a thorough investigation." Which I believe is more likely. I'll go ahead and address George's comment "blanket statement." I was referring to Drew's blanket comment about how Ames and Haansen had passed their polygraph examinations. I'll be out of pocket for a while but if you'll just do some reading I'll be glad to discuss it further. Roy. ;)
Roy,
I think you need to do a better job of fact checking. I have never suggested that Robert Hanssen (check your spelling too) took a polygraph examination, much less passed one during his employment with the Bureau. You might care to read my position paper which was sent to FBI executives at the time the Hanssen case broke in the press. This paper is now posted in "the reading room" on this site. See
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/richardson-memo-02-2001.shtml
Regards,
Drew Richardson
Roy,
Since we seem to be conducting parallel conversations in Instant Message and in public, I will refrain from duplicating my responses and address all your comments here.
I am having difficulty with your continued assertion that Ames was not deemed NDI on his polygraph examination of May 2, 1986, when I read
the CIA examiner deemed Ames truthful and concluded the examination, characterizing Ames as "bright [and] direct." The examiner's supervisors concurred with the assessment that Ames was non-deceptive. How you can characterize that statement as meaning Ames was in fact DI shall probably remain a mystery to me. Regardless, your above cited source also reads:
The examiner said that she would give Rick a few minutes to relax, and then ask him that same question again. As he was sitting there, Rick suddenly realized that he had never been pitched by the KGB. "The question was written incorrectly." It was: 'Have you ever been approached or pitched by a foreign intelligence service?' and I hadn't been! I was the one who approached them! I wasn't lying when I said I'd never been pitched. When the examiner asked Rick the question again, he answered, "No," and this time the machine didn't indicate a reaction.How no measurable reaction to the Relevant Question, as quoted by your source above, can be characterized as a measurable reaction will continue to mystify me.
QuoteMy characterization of those testifying in front of the Senate is some serious ass covering. I think I read in one of your (maybe Drews or Georges) emails about CYA. Do you think someone from the CIA is going to get up in front of the Senate and say "sir, looks like we had him a couple of times over the past few years, we just never really followed up with a thorough investigation." Which I believe is more likely.
I see. So, your explanation of the repeated assertions by the polygraph interrogator, the polygraph interrogator's quality review supervisors, and finally the sworn testimony of CIA polygraph representatives before Congress is that they were all a bunch of perjurious liars. An interesting if not inflammatory theory. Several questions if I may:
Roy, if you're a member of law enforcement, have you alerted Congress and the US Attorney's Office as to the above serial felonies?
If polygraph interrogators and their supervisors are willing to lie in reports, sworn statements, and in sworn testimony before Congress (as you have just explained they have), why should anyone ever believe anything a polygrapher has to say, especialy when it concerns the scientific validity and accuracy of their profession?
Lastly, I'd be curious what you and any compatriots 'in your camp' have to say now about the ethics of lying, seeing as you have just asserted that highly placed, highly trained CIA polygraph examiners and their supervisors are perjurious serial liars. PDD Fed, are you reading this?
Beech Trees, Drew, and George
I guess I just need to address these to all three of you since I seem to be getting bombarded from all three of you at the same time. Do you guys live together? :)Your web site indicates all points of view are welcome, yet when a dissenting opinion appears you guys go into offensive mode. I guess Batman was somewhat correct in discussing the tag team theory. Just wanted to voice my dissenting opinion. Regards. Roy
Hi again Roy,
In private messages and on the board, you told me I was wrong in asserting that Aldrich Ames passed his [1986] polygraph. I'm sorry you feel my responses were 'offensive', I was merely asking for clarification of your thoughts on the subject in light of the facts of the matter.
I do hope you will consider replying to my questions, there is no need to rush.
Dave
p.s. For clarity's sake: It was I, not Dr. Richardson, who erroneously stated that Hanssen had taken and passed a polygraph.
Beaver:
Your correct in assuming that local LE does not do all it should to investigate applicants, right or wrong im sure you are much more thorough than our background investigators. As you seem very reasonable and honestly interested in debate instead of indoctrination I dont mind sharing my views. I would also never advocate using the polygraph alone, and indeed we do not in our backgrounds. You are correct in that it is a tool in the honesty puzzle. Ill accept your criticism about my outlook-but it was developed after watching dozens of applicants continue to "update" their applications as the result of backgrounds and polygraph. As I listen to myself on this site, Im clearly a dinosaur (at least as far as ethics go) but you probably wont have to deny me a loan since I have 700 credit! The reason you passed your poly is the same reason I passed several over the years, you were sincere and told the truth. It worked for you as it worked for me. No amount of reading a pamphlet will change that.
And GM thanks for warning me about libel while ignoring my valid points about other process failures and your own motivations. A site that could teach the next Hanssen how to conceal his activities should not worry about free speech. You may have to answer other more pointed questions someday. Like others- I repeat here in print what I have been told, If I am wrong like you guys are about Spies...I will say so. And heres a homework assignment for you and BT, what were the results of Edward Lee Howard's polygraph when he worked for the CIA?
Breeze,
It's clear we disagree on the ethics of truthful applicants employing countermeasures to protect themselves against a false positive outcome, and we've discussed that in some detail in the message thread My FBI Poly (Used Countermeasures and Passed) (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=680.msg3824#msg3824). But in view of your expressed belief that, "none are interested in what [you] would call serious debate," and in view of your gratuitous libeling of me (for which you have not apologized), I think there is little point in my further discussing ethics with you.
I will, however, answer your question about Edward Lee Howard. My understanding, based on press accounts, is that he failed a CIA polygraph screening "test" at a time that he is not believed to have been spying for the Soviet Union. Because of the polygraph results, and an alleged drinking problem, the CIA fired Howard, who later began peddling secrets to the Soviets.
Thanks George for the almost admission that the CIA polygraph found a spy in government. I know this does not fit into the latest information that you folks have been putting out, but the truth can be so inconvenient. So this person was caught, fired and then began his life as a spy? thats a leap even for the most ardent haters of the polygraph. Lets see now: fired, returns to NM, is under surveilance, slips that, becomes a spy, flees to Moscow? He ran from his watchers in the FBI because he wanted to become a spy once he got his life together?
Since you seem hurt over what I said about your veracity, my source is your testimony before the NAS. When you explain that event to your breathless listeners, you will see that an apology is not needed. But then again judging from the way you found not to admit that the polygraph did its job in the above spy case, you will spin your way out of your own words.
You are right not to debate ethics with me, as I have a well established ethical base.
I admire you George, really. You had the energy to turn your personal failure into a novel and well executed web site for your position. Your personal vendetta has become a political position that you articulate well.
I can even admire Drew, who has climbed the highest peaks of hypocrisy, without supplemental oxygen.
But the leafy one refuses to state his own credentials, begging the question: why should anyone listen to someone who merely appears to have one document to refer to and no practical experience with the polygraph?
This site is the functional equivilent of Mothers Against Drunk Driving positioning themselves politically against the use of automobiles, since its well established every drunk drives one. Whats wrong with public transportation? Maybe MADD is a bad example since they are real victims, that have suffered through someone else's actions- not merely liars who did not get a job. But you get the point.
Want to work to have valid credibility assessment in Government, since we can both agree that it will exist in spite of your best efforts? Your talents would be better served in productive action, not wishfull thinking-
"Whats wrong with public transportation? Maybe MADD is a bad example since they are real victims, that have suffered through someone else's actions- not merely liars who did not get a job. But you get the point."
Liars who did not get a job?? Who ever you are or think you are I suggest you watch you mouth. I don´t know if you´ve read any of the threads here concering people WHO DID NOT LIE AND FAILED THE POLYGRAPH... HELLO. I am going to be totally honest on my polygraph and if I fail people are going to hear about it... By the way you have no manners. Who are you to call anyone at all a liar?!! I also suggest you be carefull with what you say , it could come back and kick you in the face. :-X
The Breeze,
With regard to the Howard case, see
Washington Post staff writer Walter Pincus's 20 July 2002 article,
"CIA Defector Howard Said to Have Died in Moscow." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34976-2002Jul19?language=printer) Concerning the timing of Howard's failed polygraph and the beginning of his espionage, Pincus writes:
QuoteHoward joined the CIA in 1981. In 1983, as a newly trained case officer, he and his wife, Mary, also a CIA officer, were prepared for an initial posting to Moscow. But Howard failed a polygraph on the eve of their departure.
Howard was fired from the agency after his case was reviewed, an investigation during which his heavy consumption of alcohol also became an issue.
Although the CIA helped him get employment with a state government agency in Santa Fe, N.M., Howard's drinking got him in trouble there. Faced with financial problems, he apparently made contact with Soviet agents in Vienna in 1984 while on vacation with his wife, and allegedly sold them secrets he had learned while preparing for the posting in Moscow.
If Pincus is correct, it appears that Howard began selling secrets
after failing his CIA polygraph, not before. Do you agree?
Regarding your allegation that I was untruthful in my FBI application/polygraph examination, you wrote:
QuoteSince you seem hurt over what I said about your veracity, my source is your testimony before the NAS. When you explain that event to your breathless listeners, you will see that an apology is not needed. But then again judging from the way you found not to admit that the polygraph did its job in the above spy case, you will spin your way out of your own words.
Where in my testimony before the NAS (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=165.msg693#msg693) did I indicate that I told anything but the truth in any aspect of my FBI application?
Quote from: The_Breeze on Aug 05, 2002, 01:38 PM
Thanks George for the almost admission that the CIA polygraph found a spy in government. I know this does not fit into the latest information that you folks have been putting out, but the truth can be so inconvenient.
Two quick questions, if I may, The Breeze:
1. Do you consider Edward J. Curran (former Deputy Director of Counterintelligence, Central Intelligence Agency) to be 'one of us folks putting information out'? Yes or no please. If your answer is 'yes', I suppose you may ignore my next question. However, if you do NOT categorize Edward Curran as an anti-polygraph <insert hateful word of your choice here>, then please help me to understand your position in light of Mr. Curran's televised statement (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=371.msg1698#msg1698) on CBS 60 Minutes II segment "Final Exam":
QuotePelley: To your knowledge, in a routine screening, of the general population of agents or employees, has a spy ever been caught by a polygraph examination?
Curran: Not that I know of. Fairness to myself, by saying, you know, have you ever caught anybody, well, we haven't really polygraphed everybody either.
Your thoughts? Topic specific, if you please.
Breeze,
LUV them 700 plus credit scores! And I don't think you're a Dinosaur. Ethics and integrity are two qualities that are essential, in my opinion, to be any kind of cop, (or banker). That 700 credit score speaks volumes - more than you can imagine.
Thanks for the posts.
Beav
The Beaver,
Assuming The Breeze has a good credit rating, this fact has no more relevance to the validity of polygraph screening (and related issues) than a life insurance agent's glee that he has low to normal blood pressure readings. Please try to stay more focused.
X,
My post to The Breeze was part of a series posts. I was comparing tools, (poly/credit reports), that measure integrity, ethics, honesty and personal character as it relates to background investigations. My point being, a person with high credit scores tends to also be of higher character. I'm not sure how you related blood pressure to any of the above. ??? ??? ???
The Beaver,
I think the point Anonymous is making is that The Breeze's credit rating (and your satisfaction therewith) has no bearing on the validity of his comments on polygraphy.
I don't think anyone has questioned The Breeze's character here and am not sure why he felt the need to volunteer his credit rating. But immediately after doing so, The Breeze wrote:
QuoteThe reason you passed your poly is the same reason I passed several over the years, you were sincere and told the truth. It worked for you as it worked for me. No amount of reading a pamphlet will change that.
As you know from the many accounts related by polygraph victims here on AntiPolygraph.org, being sincere and telling the truth is no guarantee that one will pass polygraph "test."
The Breeze seems to believe that anyone who fails to pass a polygraph must have been dishonest, and he has specifically accused me of having been untruthful in my application for employment as an FBI special agent. He says that he bases this allegation on my remarks last year before the National Academy of Sciences. Apart from his credit rating, another measure of The Breeze's ethics and integrity will be his response to (or failure to respond to) this question that I put to him on 5 August:
QuoteWhere in my testimony before the NAS (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=165.msg693#msg693) did I indicate that I told anything but the truth in any aspect of my FBI application?
I find the blanket characterization that everyone that fails a polygraph is dishonest to be HIGHLY offensive. From my own personal experience I know the test is flawed. I have taken two polygraphs during application processes for local police departments. Both times I have been debriefed afterwards in regards to the drug usage question. I have absolutely NO doubt that I NEVER used drugs in any shape or form and yet the polygraph test returns a result of DI when answering "no" to my ever having used drugs. I am currently scheduled for a re-test for the second department. Unless you have been in my situation you will never know how incredibly frustrating it is to know that your dream career may be placed out of reach based on this flawed test. I HIGHLY value my integrity and just thinking about the polygraph and the implied stain it has placed on my truthfulness makes my blood boil.
Completely honesty and disclosure is NOT in any shape or form guaranteed to result in passing the polygraph. I KNOW from personal experience. You are welcome to believe in this test if you like, but I and others in my situation don't just believe, we KNOW for a fact the test is flawed.
Fail polygraph=dishonesty, my ass!
In my mind the polygraph equates to the old way of finding witches. They take the suspected witch and throw her bound into a pond, if she floated she was a witch and they'd burn her at the stake. If she drown, then she was innocent. The polygraph may in fact catch some dishonest people, but a lot innocent people are being drown.
Will I use countermeasures on my re-test? No, I won't since I am foolish enough to believe my integrity requires me not to. I am emotionally drained by this whole experience at this point and could really care less if I get the job now. Part of me still very badly wants this job, but when you are completely honest and still fail a polygraph; what hope is there really?
Hopefully one day this test will be abolish as it rightfully should be and something much more accurate will replace it, but until then--to blindly champion its cause is rather sad. Until the flawed natured of the polygraph is admitted, more grievous harm is done to the United States and various state and local agancies. Not to mention the harm it inflicts upon the innocent people that fall victim to it.
Sincerely,
C. Robinson
All -
I really enjoy reading informed, educated debate on both sides of an issue. On this website, I have found links to many studies about polygraphy. Many of the original studies are too old to have found their way onto the internet in their entirety, but there is a very good, objective and thorough explanation and evaluation of studies done in a 1983 study, commissioned by congress and conducted by the Office of Technical Assessment (OTA). It can be found at:
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk3/1983/8320/832001.PDF
This document thoroughly digests all of the scientific studies that had been conducted to date on polygraph testing. In citing studies, they don't merely excerpt and manipulate a few bare statistics - the OTA evaluators go through the sample selection criteria, polygraph methodology used, the entire construction of the field test, and dissect the results of each study extensively. I STRONGLY urge you to read chapter 4 (that goes through the field studies that have been done) and also chapter 7, which presents the OTA's conclusions that:
"...no overall measure or single statistic of polygraph validity can be established based on available scientific evidence." (Page 96) Ranges can be discussed, but even these don't often make sense given significant margins of error.
They also point out that accuracy of polygraph results, by the nature of the beast, depends upon a lot of uncontrollable variables - eg the skill of the examiner and the personality and history of the examinee. ZERO studies have been done to evaluate these variables. This is captured in the enormous range of error in the various studies (most disturbing to me- false positives). They conclude that although the field studies which met their criteria of scientific validity indicate that a deceptive person will be detected at odds better than chance, they note numerous times the significant statistical error in each study, and also between studies.
I hold this study up as truly objective material - people from all sides of the debate were invited (and urged) to contribute, including the American Polygraph Association.
Speaking of which- if you go to the APA website - they do have a section entitled "research" - Rather than links, or intelligently detailed summaries of relevant studies on both sides of the issue (as can be found on Anti-polygraph.com), they "cherry pick" statistics that suit their cause. The APA does not even disclose which method each "study" they cite is evaluating. The OTA concluded that one cannot take the results of a polygraph study using one method, in one application, in one setting, and extrapolate the results to other methods, uses or settings. You can't even take one examiner's results in a particular method, application and setting and apply it to other examiners. (Again - those pesky uncontrollable variables!)
Do we, as a society, really want our livelihoods, not to mention our freedom and right to defend ourselves against false accusations to rest on a complex process that the scientific consensus seems unable to draw any definitive conclusions about? (aside from the definitive conclusion that no definitive conclusions can be drawn in decades worth of use and research) I'm personally not willing to take that kind of a crap-shoot. De Facto, in a criminal investigation, one's fate is decidedly not in the hands of an objective machine or one's own truthfulness - given the subjective nature of the CQT methodology, it is in the hands of the Examiner, in hopes that not only is he competent, but that in a 1-2 hour discussion with me he can ascertain enough about my particular personality and history to come up with a Control Question that will get a reaction out of me that will be greater than my reaction to a false accusation. I'd rather have my fate decided by a jury of my peers, or even a judge with guaranteed years of experience and education.
I would also point out that most polygraph examiners are NOT psychologists, and perhaps NOT terribly well-educated. The OTA study could be a little heavy reading for them.
Another thought - our government does not allow a pharmaceutical company to market a drug until it has gone through years and years of rigorous testing, documenting all possible side effects. God forbid I should take a sinus medication that has a 15% chance of giving me a little diahrrea. Why has rigorous testing and presentation of scientific conclusions of the polygraph instrument and methodology, that affects so many lives so drastically not been required?????
Chicbette:
You asked, "Why has rigorous testing and presentation of scientific conclusions of the polygraph instrument and methodology, that affects so many lives so drastically not been required??"
The answer is simple. In reality, polygraph testing does not affect "so many" lives, therefore, the great majority of the public just doesn't consider it an issue. When monitoring this site you would thinks that polygraph has a "drastic" impact on all Americans, however it doesn't. It only impacts those who chose to undergo the process, whether they be individuals who apply for positions that require a polygraph, or those who are under some sort of investigation and who decide to take a polygraph.
In the big scheme of things, I don't know if this polygraph issue even rates a "pimple on the butt of the giant" classification.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Aug 11, 2002, 07:18 PM
Chicbette:
You asked, "Why has rigorous testing and presentation of scientific conclusions of the polygraph instrument and methodology, that affects so many lives so drastically not been required??"
The answer is simple. In reality, polygraph testing does not affect "so many" lives, therefore, the great majority of the public just doesn't consider it an issue. When monitoring this site you would thinks that polygraph has a "drastic" impact on all Americans, however it doesn't. It only impacts those who chose to undergo the process, whether they be individuals who apply for positions that require a polygraph, or those who are under some sort of investigation and who decide to take a polygraph.
When the device in question is used in a national security setting and doesn't do the job it's supposed to (i.e. lets extremely damaging spies through, disqualifies a significant number of qualified people from whose work we could all benefit immeasurably), it most certainly has an impact on all Americans.
It's an indirect impact. But an impact nontheless.
Skeptic
Quote from: Batman on Aug 11, 2002, 07:18 PMIn reality, polygraph testing does not affect "so many" lives, therefore, the great majority of the public just doesn't consider it an issue. When monitoring this site you would thinks that polygraph has a "drastic" impact on all Americans, however it doesn't. It only impacts those who chose to undergo the process, whether they be individuals who apply for positions that require a polygraph, or those who are under some sort of investigation and who decide to take a polygraph.
In our rush to trivialize the impact of the polygraph, let's not overlook those people in the intelligence community whose lives were put at risk and and in more than a few cases ended by polygraphers selling a worthless screening/counterespionage tool to their employers. Men died as a result of polygraphers' lies indicating polygraphs can detect lies-- Aldrich Ames sold secrets to the Soviets that resulted in the deaths of American citizens. Ames exposed - and caused the death of - 34 secret US and allied agents, and identified 55 clandestine US and allied operations to the Soviet Union, thus causing the death of many others.
But hey, what's a few dead people? Your job is safe. Sleep well, my Forensic Physio-Psychologic-whatevers.
QuoteIn the big scheme of things, I don't know if this polygraph issue even rates a "pimple on the butt of the giant" classification.
Try telling that to the families of the people noted above.
Wow, very well said Beech Trees, very well said indeed. Having recently spoken to a friend of mine who has done polygraphs in the service, i mentioned this site, then asked him how he could do it. How he could send possibly innocent peoples careers down the tube. His answer, not only distrubing, but also a complete lack of integrity was, "Well (Name), you cant make an omlet without braking a few eggs. Sometimes the good of the many(The People) out ways the good of the one(The Innocent truthful applicant). It happens but i didnt happen to me!" Spoken like a polygrapher. He just came short of saying the machine doesnt work. well, i think Ames showed us that not only did one egg broke, but the whole freakin egg carton went with it. What a shame. My thoughts go out to those poor families for there losses.
Well-stated beech trees, well stated indeed!
If the polygraph could so easily identify lies as they are "sold-as-being-able-to-do", then how and why did Aldrich Ames get past it.?
Aldrich Ames should be the "poster boy" for proving that polygraphs do not work at all. Why don't the government simply do away with polygraphers, and use tarot card and palm readers? Perhaps another brilliant idea would be to flip a coin. It would be just about as accurate, and would only be a fraction of the cost.
All of the polygraphers that post to this site try their best to not only make us believe that polygraphs work as they argue, but also that they can detect the type of countermeasures described in "TLBTLD" without being able to support their claims.
What I find so interesting is; they argue that countermeasures can be easily detected, however, they cannot support their claim[s] with any scientific data. I assume we are simply to accept their "word" alone (yea right!) and succumb to the all mighty "spirit box" and all its glory...
Mr_X
Ah My Dear Beech Trees,
Well said, yes well said indeed. However, do you really believe that it was simply the evil polygraph that allowed Ames to do what he did? You appear to be an almost educated individual, so you can't possibly think that polygraph alone was at fault for Ames. What about the Walker family? They did a hell of a lot of damage to national security? Was polygraph at fault there? There have been many spies who never came near a polygraph instrument or an evil examiner. Who do you blame for their actions? Beech, you ignorance as to how the system really works speaks volumes. The problem is you sometimes wear it like a badge of honor.
As for you Jet-Journalist, your alleged conversation with your "friend" sounds pretty bogus. Couldn't you have least made him pause, you know, just for effect. I was surprised you didn't throw in an evil laugh on your friend's part, just to make sure you drove home the point.
Let it ring loud and clear, polygraph and those evil examiners are the root of all the world's problems. Just think, do away with polygraph and you do away with world hunger, suicide bombers, war, strife, conflict, orphaned children, drunk drivers, stray bullets, gangs, sexual molestation of children, rape, abortion, the death penalty, cancer (of all types), Aids, all illness, and terrorism.
Beech, my boy, those are just a few of the issues that fall a tad higher on the "who gives a damn" scale than your hated polygraph. That's why, in the big scheme of things, polygraph just isn't on the radar screen. But, don't despair, the world always needs someone like you to fight off the gnats. That frees up the rest of us to beat back the alligators.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Aug 12, 2002, 05:45 PM
Ah My Dear Beech Trees,
Well said, yes well said indeed. However, do you really believe that it was simply the evil polygraph that allowed Ames to do what he did? You appear to be an almost educated individual, so you can't possibly think that polygraph alone was at fault for Ames. What about the Walker family? They did a hell of a lot of damage to national security? Was polygraph at fault there? There have been many spies who never came near a polygraph instrument or an evil examiner. Who do you blame for their actions? Beech, you ignorance as to how the system really works speaks volumes. The problem is you sometimes wear it like a badge of honor.
Batman, you're simply missing the point. The polygraph didn't allow Ames to do what he did.
Reliance upon the polygraph (in lieu of, say, keeping track of whether his lifestyle matched his legitimate income) allowed him to do what he did.
In part, it is the false sense of security created by belief in the polygraph that is the danger to national security.
Skeptic
Septic,
Polygraph is just a small, and I do mean small part of the whole "national security" picture. The system as a whole should be faulted for a situation such as the one that fostered an Ames. Those of you who want to put it all on the "reliance" on polygraph are the ones who are missing the point! This attitude allows the individuals up the chain, who chose to ignore all the other non-polygraph indicators, off the hook. There were plenty of tell-tale signs regarding Ames that warrented some serious attention. The good old boy system simply decided to look the other way until it was far to late. Then it became all too easy to say, "Well, how should we have known, he passed a polygraph." That's an after the fact cop-out. This simply fuels the fire of folks like you, Beech Trees, et al. You allow yourselves to get suckered in with this rational. When one takes a hard look at the overall Ames picture, all the indicators scream, LOOK AT ME! Unfortunately no one looked. Then when the dust setteled, well, it was simply the fault of that evil polygraph. Ain't that the easy way out.
Try some independent thought here. You might surprise yourself, then again, maybe not!
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Aug 12, 2002, 07:26 PM
Septic,
Doing your best to overcome the thread's title, I see.
Quote
Polygraph is just a small, and I do mean small part of the whole "national security" picture. The system as a whole should be faulted for a situation such as the one that fostered an Ames. Those of you who want to put it all on the "reliance" on polygraph are the ones who are missing the point! This attitude allows the individuals up the chain, who chose to ignore all the other non-polygraph indicators, off the hook. There were plenty of tell-tale signs regarding Ames that warrented some serious attention. The good old boy system simply decided to look the other way until it was far to late. Then it became all too easy to say, "Well, how should we have known, he passed a polygraph." That's an after the fact cop-out. This simply fuels the fire of folks like you, Beech Trees, et al. You allow yourselves to get suckered in with this rational. When one takes a hard look at the overall Ames picture, all the indicators scream, LOOK AT ME! Unfortunately no one looked. Then when the dust setteled, well, it was simply the fault of that evil polygraph. Ain't that the easy way out.
Try some independent thought here. You might surprise yourself, then again, maybe not!
Probably not -- I really have no problem in this area. Thanks, anyway.
No one is saying the whole system wasn't at fault for letting Ames get through. As I indicated in my last post, his spending habits should have been a gigantic red flag. What I am saying is that reliance upon the results of a polygraph is part of the problem. Frankly, we're noting the exact same thing, but your conclusions are, IMHO, faulty.
Why do you suppose they use the polygraph, Batman? Surely, you're not arguing they simply ignore the results?
The polygraph is fundamentally unreliable at what it is purported to do. Since I truly doubt our national security apparatus uses the instrument for fun, logic would lead one to believe that those unreliable results influence the conclusion about a person's guilt or innocence.
The only way one could argue that the polygraph does not impact incidents like the Ames case is by assuming NDI results are typically ignored by counterintelligence investigations. Is that your position?
Skeptic (note the "k")
Batman Wrote:
(Let it ring loud and clear, polygraph and those evil examiners are the root of all the world's problems. Just think, do away with polygraph and you do away with world hunger, suicide bombers, war, strife, conflict, orphaned children, drunk drivers, stray bullets, gangs, sexual molestation of children, rape, abortion, the death penalty, cancer (of all types), Aids, all illness, and terrorism. )
Well if the polygraph didnt disqualify those with great knowledge and experience you would have better Police officers to combat these issues, good point Batman!!!! i knew you had it in you!!!!
Quote from: Batman on Aug 12, 2002, 05:45 PMHowever, do you really believe that it was simply the evil polygraph that allowed Ames to do what he did?
Ah, no, that would be both an oversimplification of what I wrote above and an oversimplification of the appropriate placing of responsibility.
At the top of the 'responsibility pyramid' would be, of course, Aldrich Ames. He alone chose his course of actions. Of course, Aldrich Ames met with severe (some say not severe enough) penalties for his criminal acts. He now wastes away in prison and will continue doing so for the rest of his life.
Setting aside for a moment Ames, let's look at the counterintelligence infrastructure that failed miserably for quite some time to detect Ames (and consequently halt the murders of Americans and allies). To deny the importance of the polygraph in this failure is to deny reality; if you're asking me to quantify the amount of responsibility, I cannot, not do I think anyone else can. However, the polygraph is relied upon both by Ames' superiors and the bureaucrats in Washington, and in this sense both parties should be held accountable for their false suppositon that the polygraph is even remotely accurate. It might be enlightening to read what the man himself wrote on just this subject (http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ames.html):
Deciding whether to trust or credit a person is always an uncertain task, and in a variety of situations a bad, lazy or just unlucky decision about a person can result not only in serious problems for the organization and its purposes, but in career-damaging blame for the unfortunate decision-maker. Here, the polygraph is a scientific godsend: the bureaucrat accounting for a bad decision, or sometimes for a missed opportunity (the latter is much less often questioned in a bureaucracy) can point to what is considered an unassailably objective, though occasionally and unavoidably fallible, polygraph judgment. All that was at fault was some practical application of a "scientific" technique, like those frozen O-rings, or the sandstorms between the Gulf and Desert One in 1980... I've seen these bureaucratically-driven flights from accountability operating for years, much to the cost of our intelligence and counterintelligence effectiveness. The US is, so far as I know, the only nation which places such extensive reliance on the polygraph.As I wrote before, Ames will never leave prison. The decision-makers who relied upon a pseudo-scientific fraud and were partly responsible for allowing Ames to commit espionage that ultimately led to the deaths of American citizens were, to my knowledge, never sanctioned.
QuoteYou appear to be an almost educated individual, so you can't possibly think that polygraph alone was at fault for Ames.
Hey, here's an almost thank-you for that almost insult masquerading as an almost compliment.
QuoteWhat about the Walker family? They did a hell of a lot of damage to national security? Was polygraph at fault there?
Again, I do not blame the polygraph, I blame the people who place reliance upon a pseudo-scientific fraud as a counterespionage screening tool.
QuoteThere have been many spies who never came near a polygraph instrument or an evil examiner.
We're not discussing those spies, are we? For the purposes of this discussion, we're focused on the failure of the polygraphers to detect lies, in this case lies put forth by Aldrich Ames.
QuoteWho do you blame for their actions?
The person who commits the act of espionage is to blame. I would think this would be obvious to everyone, but I'm happy to answer it again.
QuoteBeech, you ignorance as to how the system really works speaks volumes. The problem is you sometimes wear it like a badge of honor.
Setting aside Yet Another Crass and Boorish Insult, I will humour your accusation and ask you to enlighten us all: How does the system really work?
QuoteLet it ring loud and clear, polygraph and those evil examiners are the root of all the world's problems. Just think, do away with polygraph and you do away with world hunger, suicide bombers, war, strife, conflict, orphaned children, drunk drivers, stray bullets, gangs, sexual molestation of children, rape, abortion, the death penalty, cancer (of all types), Aids, all illness, and terrorism.
Beech, my boy, those are just a few of the issues that fall a tad higher on the "who gives a damn" scale than your hated polygraph. That's why, in the big scheme of things, polygraph just isn't on the radar screen. But, don't despair, the world always needs someone like you to fight off the gnats. That frees up the rest of us to beat back the alligators.
If the problems/crimes/diseases you cite above are more important to the general public, it is in part because the pseudo-scientific fraud of polygraphy has been outlawed and may not be used against them in the workplace. Again, your attempts to trivilialize the problem ring hollow to me.
Finally, I find it astounding that polygraphers and their pro-polygraph cohorts expound the crucially important role the polygraph plays in national security whilst simultaneously-- on the very same message board--minimizing and trivializing the polygraph's role in national security. Which assertion is the lie?
Dave
P.S. I thought bats took more interest in gnats than alligators.
Holy Writer's Cramp Beech,
You are one long winded dude.
First, I find it interesting that you would rely on a quote of someone with the character of Ames as fuel for your arguement. Why not quote from Judas himself next time.
Second, my point about the Walker clan was simply that they engaged in espionage, yet polygraph had no invovlement. To the best of my knowledge none of that particular group underwent a polygraph prior to their espionage related activities. The real point is, the system as a whole has to accept responsibility for these type individuals. It's just too simple to blame it all on one small aspect of that system (polygraph). However simple solutions are sometimes favored by simpletons.
As for the spies who never took polygraphs, why don't "we" want to discuss them? Could it be that there have been far more of them than ones who did undergo polygraphs? If this is the case could it then mean there is a systemic problem that goes far beyond polygraph? Maybe it's just a bit too far for the likes of you to see, understand, or acknowledge.
Finally, maybe the problems I cite are more important to the general public simply because they are more important. You may be just too afraid to admit that something you have attached yourself so strongly to is not the number one concern of all America. Believe me, when I interview the sexually assaulted young girl, polygraph is not foremost on her mind; unless of course it helps to nail her assailant.
Gnats, alligators, anti-polygraph crusaders; Batman has an interest in them all.
Well Beech, gotta go, Gotham City beckons, there's crime in them there streets.
Batman
Batman,
You wrote:
Quote...simple solutions are sometimes favored by simpletons.
This reminds me of one of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's favorite quotations:
"For every human problem there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong." H.L. MenckenPolygraph screening is just such a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. It has an abysmal record at ferreting out spies, at the cost of many innocent persons having their careers ruined.
You might be interested in a letter on waste, fraud, and abuse (http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-011.shtml) in the Department of Defense counterintelligence-scope polygraph program that I sent to Secretary Rumsfeld shortly after he assumed office in January 2001. (I never received a reply.)
Although interesting, I do believe that this discourse has strayed a tad bit from the focus of this thread, 'Constricting your sphincter'. Someone should start a new thread that is specific to this topic. For those interested in a more in-depth account of Ames' activities, go to http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1994_rpt/ssci_ames.htm . The three polygraphs that were administered to Ames' during the time of his espionage are accurately depicted in this text. There is mention of deception being indicated in both 1986 and 1991.
J.B.,
You wrote in part:
QuoteThere is mention of deception being indicated in both 1986 and 1991.
But the CIA polygraph unit
passed Ames, and in 1988, CIA mole hunters instead opened an investigation of an innocent employee who "had difficulty generally getting through routine polygraph examinations over the course of his CIA employment."
The point is that
the polygraph utterly failed to detect or deter Ames' espionage, just as it failed with double agents Karel (Karl) F. Koecher, Larry Wu-tai Chin, and Ana Belen Montes.
The Breeze,
On 4 August, you libeled me in this message thread, when you wrote:
QuoteIf you are holding back info from your recruiter like the founder here did, and you fail- maybe you should not be in law enforcement. Ask GM if there would be an antipolygraph site had he told the truth in all areas of his application and passed ? The answer can only be "NO" which makes him the equivelent of a Sarah Brady.
When I corrected you, you glibly responded on 5 August:
QuoteSince you seem hurt over what I said about your veracity, my source is your testimony before the NAS. When you explain that event to your breathless listeners, you will see that an apology is not needed. But then again judging from the way you found not to admit that the polygraph did its job in the above spy case, you will spin your way out of your own words.
The same day, I asked you "where in my testimony before the NAS (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=165.msg693#msg693) did I indicate that I told anything but the truth in any aspect of my FBI application?"
Twelve days have passed since then, which I think is adequate time for you to have responded. You boasted about your ethics, telling me, "You are right not to debate ethics with me, as I have a well established ethical base."
Your continued silence says more about your ethical base than your foregoing words.
Quote from: Batman on Aug 13, 2002, 05:57 PM
Holy Writer's Cramp Beech,
You are one long winded dude.
In the future, I will remember that further explanations (after you question me and/or oversimplify and outright misstate my position) will be met with such comments. Another person might say words to the effect, "If you don't like my answers, don't ask the questions, chucklehead." I'd like to think I'm above such crass retorts though. Regardless, I will try to be more succinct in the future when I respond to your questions.
QuoteFirst, I find it interesting that you would rely on a quote of someone with the character of Ames as fuel for your arguement. Why not quote from Judas himself next time.
Rather than engaging in attacks on the man-- which is rather pointless, we all know he's a convicted spy-- why not argue the facts he asserts?
QuoteSecond, my point about the Walker clan was simply that they engaged in espionage, yet polygraph had no invovlement. To the best of my knowledge none of that particular group underwent a polygraph prior to their espionage related activities.
And thus, for the purposes of this discussion, is irrelevant. We are (or at least I thought we were) discussing the damage that can result when misguided bureaucracts rely IN PART upon the pseudo-scientific sham of polygraphy to detect spies. It would appear polygraphers bear no responsibility at all in the Walker case; such cannot be said for Mr. Ames and many others.
QuoteThe real point is, the system as a whole has to accept responsibility for these type individuals. It's just too simple to blame it all on one small aspect of that system (polygraph).
I have never stated that polygraphy is solely to blame for the failure to detect Aldrich Ames' criminal activities. Numerous investigations took place in the wake of the Aldrich Ames case. Depending upon with whom you speak , Ames:
1. Passed his polygraphs
2. Did not pass his polygraphs
3. Passed his polygraphs, but showed indications of 'trouble' with financial areas of the exam that should have alerted interrogators to his espionage (and here I thought there were only three outcomes to a polygraph exam!)
4. Passed his polygraphs, but highly complex and secret computer algorithms applied to his charts AFTER he was caught reveal he did NOT pass his polygraphs
5. Passed his polygraphs with the help of secret Soviet countermeasure techniques
These are only a few of the opinions given by the pro-polygraph community... to me, that indicates a massive denial of responsibility at all (i.e., obfuscation and an ease with tailoring one's answer to fit the questioner). As to affixing blame, it is specious to say things like 'the system as a whole has to accept responsibility for these type individuals' and then run away when critics point to real, tangible solutions like the abolishment of polygraphy as a counter-intelligence screening tool. The 'whole' is comprised of 'parts', yes? No matter how large or small, polygraphy IS A PART and bears a corresponding amount of blame for the failure. Does anyone else here think it is ludicrous to point at spies who never underwent a polygraph interrogation as proof that polygraphy is essential to counter-intelligence screening?
QuoteHowever simple solutions are sometimes favored by simpletons.
Here I will have to defer to your expertise, as I'm certain you are more conversant than I with matters simple.
QuoteAs for the spies who never took polygraphs, why don't "we" want to discuss them? Could it be that there have been far more of them than ones who did undergo polygraphs?
Yes batman, in the whole of human history, the total number of spies who have been polygraphed (and passed) is I'm sure vastly smaller than the total number of spies. Hardly a thunderbolt observation.
QuoteIf this is the case could it then mean there is a systemic problem that goes far beyond polygraph? Maybe it's just a bit too far for the likes of you to see, understand, or acknowledge.
Enlighten me, batman. How many times must I ask? You keep making omniscient reference to your superior ability to see the big picture, yet fail to deliver when asked to demonstrate that ability. Write as long a reply as you wish! My attention span is such that I will not insult your mindfulness to detail nor earnestness in wishing to have your thoughts understood.
QuoteFinally, maybe the problems I cite are more important to the general public simply because they are more important. You may be just too afraid to admit that something you have attached yourself so strongly to is not the number one concern of all America.
I don't believe I have ever stated that I'm concerned that the average American does not have the uses and abuses of polygraphy forefront in their mind. For what purpose to you now engage in this strawman argument?
QuoteBelieve me, when I interview the sexually assaulted young girl, polygraph is not foremost on her mind; unless of course it helps to nail her assailant.
Irrelevant to the topic at hand, and a rather heavy-handed attempt to pluck at heart strings. For every sexual assault victim you cite, I cite a polygrapher's interrogation of a sexual assault victim that results in a dismissal of their victimization when a DI occurs.
George
Thanks for remembering me. Believe it or not I hav'nt cared to log on for this period since I had work to do, which I found far more serious. Reading the posts in my absence show me that not much has changed.
I guess I touched a nerve with you when I referenced your testimony before NAS. I refer to your comments about providing a statement to your FBI inquisitors, explaining what was going through your mind when you failed your polygraph. When I utilize this after a criminal wants to further explain (relax, I did'nt say you were a criminal) something he neglected to state up front in his initial interview, I call this an admission. My understanding of this in your case is that it disqualified you. Would you like to explain what was necessary to commit to paper as an excuse for a reaction, if you were completely candid on your application? I am having a hard time painting the FBI as the reckless destroyer of qualified applicants as portrayed here. Maybe your applicant statement could be posted on the site? FOIA put to good use?
You further refused to acknowledge the question line as put to you about "level or error", and dodged the questions/ comparisions about backgrounds being likewise flawed and unstandardized. I found your testimony evasive. My comments reflect that. You can become comfortable with the idea that I do not care for your motives or your method. To fail a polygraph unnecessarily is regrettable, to help those that would defeat our security process (as flawed as it is) in my view is criminal. You do this because of hatred of a tool that you believe harmed you. As a smart guy, you know many processes lack total effectiveness, diagnostic or otherwise- I named a few in an earlier post which you also dodged. To say "its hard to live down a false positive" as a reason for abolishing polygraph is disingenuous. Applicants failing unstandardized, flawed background checks holding thier heads high and feeling good about themselves? Polygraph accorded undue weight? What agency do you work for again, and how would you have any idea of how an administer views these results (other than FBI)? Sorry George, this is about you. If you lost your security clearence there was cause. My wife used to do security clearences for the Govt. (really beech)
And from what she has told me its quite a process not taken lightly, with many safeguards for the employee.
Let me just address all my friends:
Lets not get worked up about my credit rating or lack of one, I was having a back and forth with a person in the business. I dont think It says anything but that I pay bills on time. Sorry some felt I was trying to inflate my worth, actually I could care less. I realize I am not among friends here as someone who does not fear the polygraph.
Star2be00. What can I make of your comments, except you would not talk like that to me in person. Heres your first free lesson in Law Enforcement: If you have to look right and left before you do something (or say something) dont do it. Kicked in the face? Little late for that advice. I hope you will learn to watch your anger if you ever make it to the streets. If these exchanges get you worked up, how about getting thrown up on? think about it...Hello!
My friend BT, who lacks credentials, but not vigor- you seem to be the resident defender of the spy line so here is a thought for you. Do you think anything really comes out of the CIA in a completely unsanitized form? Do we have any idea (and would the CIA tell us) of polygraph success, or the deterrant effect that you folks would erode? When I bring up a spy who was DI, George tells me that based on one account it looked like he became a spy after being wrongly found deceptive on a polygraph! I thought the CIA polygraphed on hiring, and then every 5 years or so. Why was a new case officer tested?. Do you know? I dont -and I dont like to fill in blanks wondering or trying to advance a position. He had FBI sitting on his house because he might become a spy? He was not fired for being a drunk though, I promise you.
Im pretty much done here, I leave like I began- not really expecting to change minds but looking for info. Too many observers here are far too willing to take a statement of a frusturated applicant as gospel. From having worked with applicants, I have found a reluctance on thier part (very natural) to disclose honestly every answer asked for. Ours has over 200 questions. So when I say people lie, I can back it up. Sorry if that offends any of the breathless here, its just life. Start living yours with objectivity, and you will find the "advice" here hollow and self serving.
The Breeze,
Let's see...
On 4 August, you accused me of having not told the truth in my FBI application:
QuoteIf you are holding back info from your recruiter like the founder here did, and you fail- maybe you should not be in law enforcement. Ask GM if there would be an antipolygraph site had he told the truth in all areas of his application and passed ? The answer can only be "NO" which makes him the equivelent of a Sarah Brady.
When I corrected you, you wrote on 5 August:
QuoteSince you seem hurt over what I said about your veracity, my source is your testimony before the NAS. When you explain that event to your breathless listeners, you will see that an apology is not needed. But then again judging from the way you found not to admit that the polygraph did its job in the above spy case, you will spin your way out of your own words.
The same day, I asked you "where in my testimony before the NAS (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=165.msg693#msg693) did I indicate that I told anything but the truth in any aspect of my FBI application?"
Finally, on 4 September you have replied, but
you still don't say where in my NAS testimony I indicated that I told anything but the truth. You write in relevant part:
QuoteI guess I touched a nerve with you when I referenced your testimony before NAS. I refer to your comments about providing a statement to your FBI inquisitors, explaining what was going through your mind when you failed your polygraph. When I utilize this after a criminal wants to further explain (relax, I did'nt say you were a criminal) something he neglected to state up front in his initial interview, I call this an admission. My understanding of this in your case is that it disqualified you. Would you like to explain what was necessary to commit to paper as an excuse for a reaction, if you were completely candid on your application? I am having a hard time painting the FBI as the reckless destroyer of qualified applicants as portrayed here. Maybe your applicant statement could be posted on the site? FOIA put to good use?
Again, I answered all questions truthfully during my pre-employment polygraph examination. I withheld nothing. Nothing I said to my polygrapher when he asked what I was thinking of when a question was asked was in any way responsive to any of the questions asked. You have falsely accused me of lying and withholding information. Nowhere in my NAS testimony, or anywhere else, have I ever indicated that I was in any way untruthful in my FBI application. I wasn't.
Who told you that I was disqualified on the basis of a supposed admission? A whispering campaign in the polygraph community, perhaps? My FBI HQ file unambiguously states that it was the polygrapher's (erroneous) opinion that I was deceptive to all relevant questions that was the basis for terminating my application, and not any admission/confession.
You also write:
QuoteYou further refused to acknowledge the question line as put to you about "level or error", and dodged the questions/ comparisions about backgrounds being likewise flawed and unstandardized. I found your testimony evasive. My comments reflect that.
These are two questions to which I hadn't given much consideration before the NAS meeting. I allow that I didn't have well-considered answers, and perhaps should not have tried to answer them off-the-cuff. (I do think, however, that Professor Faigman did a fine job discussing the differences between polygraph screening and background investigations; I hope his remarks are audible on the recordings.) But this has nothing whatsoever to do with my truthfulness in my FBI application.
I spoke before the NAS to mainly to suggest questions that I think the committee needs to consider in writing its report. You'll find those questions here (http://antipolygraph.org/nas/maschke-27-04-01.shtml).
QuoteYou can become comfortable with the idea that I do not care for your motives or your method.
Your uncomfortableness with same cannot in any way justify your libeling me.
QuoteTo fail a polygraph unnecessarily is regrettable, to help those that would defeat our security process (as flawed as it is) in my view is criminal.
Our purpose here is to help truthful applicants to protect themselves against the very real danger of a false positive outcome. Is it a crime to tell the truth about polygraphs?
You also write:
QuoteTo say "its hard to live down a false positive" as a reason for abolishing polygraph is disingenuous.
How do you figure? It is indeed very hard to live down a false positive outcome. In most cases, it is simply not possible for the examinee to prove the negative proposition that he was
not deceptive.
QuoteSorry George, this is about you.
You would like to make the debate about polygraphy be about me. But it's not. Even if I were a lying, drug-abusing spy and narcotrafficker who sought employment with the Bureau on personal instructions from Osamah bin Laden himself, it would have no bearing on the merits of the arguments I have made regarding polygraphy and polygraph policy.
Regarding the Howard spy case you write:
QuoteWhen I bring up a spy who was DI, George tells me that based on one account it looked like he became a spy after being wrongly found deceptive on a polygraph! I thought the CIA polygraphed on hiring, and then every 5 years or so. Why was a new case officer tested?. Do you know? I dont -and I dont like to fill in blanks wondering or trying to advance a position. He had FBI sitting on his house because he might become a spy? He was not fired for being a drunk though, I promise you.
You wear your ignorance of the Howard case like a badge of honor. You say you don't like to fill in blanks or try to advance a position, but you are advancing without evidence (indeed, against all reported accounts) the notion that Howard was spying for the Soviets while working for the CIA, but was caught by the polygraph.
The Breeze,
star2be wrote to you, quoting an earlier post of yours:
Quote"Whats wrong with public transportation? Maybe MADD is a bad example since they are real victims, that have suffered through someone else's actions- not merely liars who did not get a job. But you get the point."
Liars who did not get a job?? Who ever you are or think you are I suggest you watch you mouth. I don´t know if you´ve read any of the threads here concering people WHO DID NOT LIE AND FAILED THE POLYGRAPH... HELLO. I am going to be totally honest on my polygraph and if I fail people are going to hear about it... By the way you have no manners. Who are you to call anyone at all a liar?!! I also suggest you be carefull with what you say , it could come back and kick you in the face. :-X
to which you replied:
QuoteStar2be00. What can I make of your comments, except you would not talk like that to me in person. Heres your first free lesson in Law Enforcement: If you have to look right and left before you do something (or say something) dont do it. Kicked in the face? Little late for that advice. I hope you will learn to watch your anger if you ever make it to the streets. If these exchanges get you worked up, how about getting thrown up on? think about it...Hello!
On what basis do you say that star2be00 would not talk to you like that in person? Would you physically intimidate him/her?
Regardless of what star2be00 would or would not say to you in person, it appears that
you would not make the libelous accusations you have made against me in person, since you even seem to be afraid to state such using your real name.
;)
Quote from: The_Breeze on Sep 04, 2002, 10:19 PMMy friend BT, who lacks credentials, but not vigor- you seem to be the resident defender of the spy line so here is a thought for you. Do you think anything really comes out of the CIA in a completely unsanitized form?
You seem either incapable or unwilling to answer a simple yes or no question. You are quite good at trumpeting your own set of ethics as a shining example of intestinal fortitude, but how ethical is it to enter a discussion and then cut & run when the questions get tough? What does that say about the man behind the badge? I'll let others draw their own conclusions, but I have long ago reached mine about you.
In light of your recent insinuation that former head of counterintelligence Edward Curran is a liar, I will ask you to drop the Byzantine cloak-and-dagger vernacular like 'unsanitized' and simply answer the question below with a yes or no:
Yes or no: Former head of CIA's counterintelligence Edward Curran was intentionally lying when he stated in the following televised interview:
QuotePelley: To your knowledge, in a routine screening, of the general population of agents or employees, has a spy ever been caught by a polygraph examination?
Curran: Not that I know of. Fairness to myself, by saying, you know, have you ever caught anybody, well, we haven't really polygraphed everybody either.
Yes or no please?
Finally, I find it a tad hypocritical that you would label me as 'lacking credentials' when it would appear by your repeated assertions that you have no knowledge of most of the hard facts in the Howard case.
If you feel any of the facts I have put forth in this discussion are incorrect, please feel free to dispute them with facts, not ad hominem arguments.
Whomever:
Fascinating retorts and speculation about my personal courage. As always, when I am on this site I have the overwhelming feeling of being surrounded by carping wannabees. What you call cutting and running, I call doing my job, being on travel, even a brief stint in the ER for an accident injury and of course the general feeling that logging on and responding to such a group is so wasteful. (but interesting)
I wont answer tough questions? like the one I put to Beech Tree about his credentials and why does anyone need to respond to someone who has one source and starry eyes?....still waiting. You folks only answer me specifically when it suits you, or have you not noticed?
I dont want to sign my name for the same reason I protect my identity locally as all thinking LE officers do. Plus its none of your business, and certainly does not diminish any point Im trying to make. I could care less what your real names are. Your faithfull share this preference if you will note. I obviously do not have the time to devote here as you all do as I am gainfully employed- this is not evasion. Who would oppress the innocent if I logged in all day?
And George- since you are so adamant that you have been libeled, post your FBI background investigation, polygraph report, DI explanation statement and any other excuses for losing your clearance (have you spoken to that yet?) so we all might be enlightened. I believe, as in most things, that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
My comments to starwannabee are simple. He portrayed an aggressive tone twords me and only you G could turn that into me threatening him! How do you do that with a straight face?
You can see from my responses that I feel it useless to debate specific points with you, which means to you that I am vanquished.(but to me it means im simply bored) My specific points are there: ethics, process failure, backgrounds vs. polygraph, Credentials, GM's clearance issue, error rate evasion, spies and personal integrity. This site is about retribution not information. George would of been happily investigating crime scenes in Minot ND had he not failed, which in my world equels hypocrisy. I wonder if he would of became a polygrapher if the FBI asked him to? He knows quite well, (and has never responded to my point about various process failures) that nothing is absolute and we should not expect it from polygraph. We simply cannot throw out everything that is not 100% or even 90% without thought. You may as well start www.nocolonscreen.bs. people get harmed sometimes, by all sorts of tests- I wish it did'nt happen.
The overriding selfishness of the posters here speak volumes about where we are as a nation in my opinion. If the polygraph does not work in thier applicant screen, it should be abolished-even if it may catch a murderer next week. Sorry, I am approaching middle age and have a real hard time with that reasoning.
I will visit from time to time for reasons that are my own, feel free to spin that anyway you want. Only the most rabid haters of this electonic gadget can dwell overlong here-
Breeze,
You write:
Quote...Sorry, I am approaching middle age and have a real hard time with that reasoning...
Don't be so parsimonious in your analysis, Breeze...you seem to have trouble with any reasoning. How simple can Beechtrees make it for you?? He asked for a simple yes or no answer to a specific question. Your middle age and impending retirement is not necessarily indicative of cognitive dysfunction, but your lack of responsiveness leads one to wonder...
With regard to Mr. Maschke, you write:
Quote...I believe, as in most things, that the truth lies somewhere in the middle...
In the middle of what...what George has claimed to be true and what you have previously surmised (giving you the benefit of the doubt with regard to motivation). Your guessing is not a basis for and certainly provides no justification for your libel. Presumably most of the pro-polygraph types who visit and/or post on this site are employed by one of several government(s) and agencies that have some connection to law enforcement. Do any of you base anything you say or do on evidence?? You previously indicated that there was evidence connected with his NAS testimony that he had lied with regard to one or more relevant issues on an applicant polygraph exam or more generally in connection with the application process. You have provided exactly zero evidence to support your libelous assertion. If you are in fact a law enforcement officer it's time for some responsible commentary for you. I suppose even a merciful lack of commentary will do...
The Breeze,
It is very easy for you to feel comfortable whilst hiding behind a fortified barrier with line-of-sight of your enemy, while the opposition has no tactical intel on your position. Make sense? It should, because in my summation, you enjoy anonymity while attacking those who have exposed themselves. Undoubtedly, you are a municipal officer (maybe state, but I doubt it) who is probably dissatisfied with their current level of authority. I have unfortunately had to work with municipal officers of your character, and all you guys do is violate prosecutional guidelines and jeopardize operational security, partly due to your inferiority complex and 'big-mouth syndrome.'
If you were ever tasked to one of my operations as a municipal liaison to the Feds, I would have you putting up yellow-tape and fetching coffee. Why? Because your verbal demeanor resembles a man of violent and unstable behavior who has something to prove to the world. Second Lesson in Law Enforcement: The Aforementioned Personality Type Has No Place in 'Protecting and Serving' at any Level.
Third Lesson in Law Enforcement: Never Prosecute Without Concrete, Tangible Evidence. This is the prime reason that, as a Fed, I currently speak-out against polygraph. Electronics can never take the place of seasoned intuition and thorough investigation. This is a lesson that you will learn with continued experience, but unfortunately you have already sentenced several people based on personal bias, which is even more heinous than 'conjecture and hearsay.'
Feel privileged that a decorated Fed is giving you advice.
Good luck with the final chapter of your career. I hope that you will rapidly mature in a short period of time and make a meaningful contribution to society.
Sincerely, Rick Thirde
The Breeze,
In part you wrote:
Quote
The overriding selfishness of the posters here speak volumes about where we are as a nation in my opinion. If the polygraph does not work in thier applicant screen, it should be abolished-even if it may catch a murderer next week. Sorry, I am approaching middle age and have a real hard time with that reasoning.
I agree with you on the notion that polygraph works in a specific criminal issue setting. I agree that one should not cast the lot to banish the stone.
I disagree with the notion of misusing polygraph for what it was not intended nor validated. I have read intellectual message posts of pro- and anti-polygraph individuals on this site. It is my personal opinion that, for the most part, the process (pre-employment screening), not the instrument or examiner, is being disputed here. I have scoured the available research. Research has not proven this process valid, even when conducted in the sterile setting of an analog study. I have read the opinions of many of those who designed and conducted the research. These persons seem to say it has not been proven.
For the most part, polygraph is used at the end of a thorough investigation in order to resolve that unresolved specific issues that has been discovered. Most of the time the scope of suspected has been narrowed to a few individuals. In most of these cases a CQT is administered to those select few to aid the investigators in focusing their investigation. In some countries a GKT is administered and used as forensic evidence in court. This is where polygraph as been proven to work.
I will give you a hypothetical situation of a pre-employment screening process when instituted in the typical use of the polygraph, criminal specific issue.
An investigator comes to you and says, "Breeze. I know there must be some crime afoot in my area. I do not know of any but there must be someone violating some law. I am going to bring you every person from my area and I want you to tell me who has committed what crime. Once I have your professional opinion on these matters, I will seek a warrant for, arrest, and prosecute these individuals based on your polygraph."
What would you say to this investigator?
I know for a fact that I would not stake anything on a SPOT to resolve weather an individual has committed a specific crime out of a list of many not even probable known crimes. However, it has been suggested that the above scenario is exactly what is being done in some incidents of the pre-employment process.
Breeze,
Intentionally or not, in post after post you demonstrate irony in the choice of your screen name. There's a lot of hot air there, but not a whole lot of substance.
Quote from: The_Breeze on Sep 05, 2002, 08:19 PM
I wont answer tough questions? like the one I put to Beech Tree about his credentials and why does anyone need to respond to someone who has one source and starry eyes?....still waiting. You folks only answer me specifically when it suits you, or have you not noticed?
Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us as to why Beech Trees' credentials have any relevance as to the accuracy of the information he presents or the questions he poses for you?
QuoteI dont want to sign my name for the same reason I protect my identity locally as all thinking LE officers do. Plus its none of your business, and certainly does not diminish any point Im trying to make.
Ironic, then, that you'd be hung up on someone else's credentials (which, thanks to online anonymity, could be falsified at will). Perhaps, in lieu of answering the question I asked above, you'd care to enlighten us as to why your identity (and thus, credentials) should be irrelevant to the points you make, yet critical to whether others' points and questions are valid?
QuoteAnd George- since you are so adamant that you have been libeled, post your FBI background investigation, polygraph report, DI explanation statement and any other excuses for losing your clearance (have you spoken to that yet?) so we all might be enlightened. I believe, as in most things, that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Careful with that backpedalling, Breeze...
You might recall that you made the specific claim that George had been untruthful in his polygraph. You have failed to back up that claim. You've been called on it. The appropriate response, if you cannot back up such an accusation, is to retract the statement and apologize.
(rest of self-serving nonsense snipped for brevity)
Skeptic
The Breeze,
You write in part:
QuoteAnd George- since you are so adamant that you have been libeled, post your FBI background investigation, polygraph report, DI explanation statement and any other excuses for losing your clearance (have you spoken to that yet?) so we all might be enlightened. I believe, as in most things, that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Regarding security clearance matters, I have nothing to add to my remarks at the NAS meeting, and I see no compelling need to post Privacy Act information about myself to counter your completely unsubstantiated accusations against me.
You also write:
QuoteI dont want to sign my name for the same reason I protect my identity locally as all thinking LE officers do. Plus its none of your business...
Yes, libel is safest when done anonymously, isn't it?Let me share with you a parable that perhaps you'll understand:
Shooting the Breeze
Once upon a time, in the Land of Enchantment, a conceited little bird lived in a place between the mountains and mesas astride the river that is called Grand. Flitting about in the sky, he imagined that it was the flapping of his little wings that caused The Breeze to blow. To be sure, this was no ordinary little bird, for he had Special Weapons and Tactics. Amongst the Most Special of these was this: hiding amidst the branches of a tall and mighty tree, he would release his droppings on the lowly creatures that ventured below. His targets would look up in irritation, but could see not whence the unprovoked attack had come: the little bird was completely invisible behind the cover of the tree's dense foliage. This gave the little bird no small measure of amusement.
One fine summer's day, a hunter passed under the tree, whereupon the little bird released upon his head a particluarly generous measure of excrement. "What bird is this, that has droppings so large?" thought the hunter to himself. "It must be some grand bird of prey, and would make a fine trophy." Raising his musket to the sky and peering over the sights, the hunter at first saw nothing. The little bird laughed to himself. But then the hunter caught a glimpse of the little bird's tail feathers, which appeared through a gap in the foliage. What the hunter had imagined must be a mighty Eagle turned out to be nothing more than a pompous little Jay. With the unwitting little bird in his sights, the hunter put his finger on the trigger and was about to avenge the gratuitous insult this impertinent little creature had visited upon him. But then he lowered his musket. "No, little Jay," he thought to himself, "You're not worth the powder."
[/font]
Quote from: The_Breeze on Sep 05, 2002, 08:19 PM
Whomever:
Fascinating retorts and speculation about my personal courage. As always, when I am on this site I have the overwhelming feeling of being surrounded by carping wannabees. What you call cutting and running, I call doing my job, being on travel, even a brief stint in the ER for an accident injury and of course the general feeling that logging on and responding to such a group is so wasteful. (but interesting)
Unfortunately, it is no longer speculation The_Breeze. In the time you took simply composing the above paragraph you could have answered the simple yes or no question ten times over. Regardless of your work-related excuses, it is you-- through your own actions, no one else's-- who has dictated the conclusions here, not 'us'.
I did consider trying one last time to engage you in some sort of legitimate debate, however your sentiments above lead me to the inescapable conclusion that you simply will do anything in your power to avoid answering direct questions. And while you are clearly indisposed to reading or heeding advice from me, I will make the observations that, on the internet, it doesn't matter in the slightest how physically imposing a person is, nor how tough they can talk, bluster, bludgeon, intimidate, etc. The mere fact that you incessantly make reference to your badge and mantle of authority as some sort of magic talismans whereby your word should be the final say in *any* matter is evidence enough that you do not deserve the people's trust or respect-- but combine that with your remarkably asinine 'profile' of me, along with the sophmoric dodges, the finger-pointing, and the outright lies about the creator of this website...... I wash my hands of you The_Breeze. God help the men & women who are served by a mid size SW Sheriff's dept.
Quote from: Rick Thirde on Sep 05, 2002, 11:24 PM
as a Fed, I currently speak-out against polygraph. Electronics can never take the place of seasoned intuition and thorough investigation. This is a lesson that you will learn with continued experience, but unfortunately you have already sentenced several people based on personal bias, which is even more heinous than 'conjecture and hearsay.'
Mr. Thirde,
BRAVO to you!!!! It is refreshing to hear your comments about a
SEASONED INTUITION and THOROUGH INVESTIGATION being done instead of reliance on "electronics" . This unfortunately is the exception and not the rule in many LE agencies.
Many entities rely on polygraphy as a "shortcut" to a complete investigation for pre-employment and maybe even some criminal investigations. The rational being that if we can ask 15 questions and determine "deception" on drug use and theft, among other areas of "concern", candidates aren't worthy of a job in LE.
Keep up the effort
Fred F. ;)
Rick & Fred,
I confer that nothing should supplant a thorough investigation. I have listened to several lectures on the topic of pre-employment polygraph. It is my personal opinion that polygraph was intended to be used as a tool in the pre-employment process to aid background investigators in focusing on segments of the investigation and resolve any unresolved issues that were discovered in the investigation, not as a thaumaturgic tool. Two of my personal ideas of a properly used pre-employment polygraph are listed below. I personally believe that the later information based GKT would be preferable, if a polygraph was needed, and could be administered in this type of specific issue setting. In my opinion, a properly conducted and documented background investigation would leave little (if any) necessity for a polygraph in a pre-employment setting.
CQT
1. A thorough background investigation is conducted.
2. The background investigator interviews the applicant and attempts to resolve any issues that arose in the investigation.
3. If a specific issue cannot be resolved, a CQT polygraph is administered on that specific issue.
4. Any information obtained from the polygraph is confirmed and, if need be, step 3 is repeated one last time for final resolution.
5. All the information obtained from the background investigation is then reviewed by a panel to determine weather the applicant should proceed to the next step or be dismissed from the process.
GKT
1. A thorough background investigation is conducted.
2. If a specific issue is discovered in the investigation, a GKT is constructed and administered on that issue.
3. Any information obtained from the polygraph is confirmed.
4. All the information obtained from the background investigation is then reviewed by a panel to determine weather the applicant should proceed to the next step or be dismissed from the process.
How's the weather in Philadelphia, Bureau Agent McCloughan?
When I get the time, I will respond to how ignorant your logic of electronics is. Honestly, I'd expect more from the son of a New York City Cop.
S/A Thirde
P.S. Way to go on Congressman Trafficant's case in Ohio! I'm sorry that you made a fool of yourself in front of the entire nation. Remember Jim, just because you use to crunch numbers as an accountant for the Bureau doesn't mean that you can be the judge, jury, and executioner of promising young Americans by crunching polygraph numbers.
Rick,
As one who has often vigorously disagreed with J.B. on matters related to polygraphy (see, for example, the message thread The Scientific Validity of Polygraph (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=408.msg1903#msg1903)), I think your remarks to J.B. are entirely unwarranted. First, he didn't discuss any "logic of electronics" here. Second, although I don't believe J.B. has cared to discuss the particulars of his employment on this message board, I can tell you that your conclusion that he is an FBI Special Agent in Philadelphia who was involved in the Traficant investigation and "made a fool of himself in front of the entire nation" is completely wrong.
Moreover, J.B. has always been courteous in his posts here. I think you owe him an apology.
Rick,
First, not that it is relevant or incumbent for me to respond to your last assertion, you are incorrect on your information and assertion. I nor anyone else with my last name have ever been employed by the NYPD or FBI. If you work for the federal government as you have exerted, that information would be a phone call away for you to confirm. If I did not make it clear enough to you in previous posts I have made, any views, thoughts, writings, etc... I convey here or anywhere else outside an official assigned function of my employment are my own and not that of anyone else. Any views, thoughts, writings, etc... I convey are in no way to be construed to represent any agency, department, association, entity, etc... I have never attempted to represent any different.
Second, I am a polygraph examiner and not an accountant.
Third, I have never nor do I now claimed to be the "judge, jury, and executioner of promising young Americans." I am not.
Opinions are opinions. Scientific research data is scientific research data.
Quote
If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.
- Abraham Lincoln
[/i][/b]
Please Jim, I'd expect more from you. Using the classic Bureau DEMCA strategy (Deny Everything, Make Counter-Accusations) is ridiculous, especially since you know who I am and know what I know.
No, you are not an accountant as of the present moment, and it was very sly of you to say that "I am not an accountant." But we both know your excellent track record in prosecuting fraud investigations as a Bureau Agent. (Except for your embarrassment in the Trafficant case) For goodness sake, Jim, give it up.
And, yes, I know that you do not represent the views of the Bureau, but I am quite sure that you apply your views to your daily routine. But to try and hide your identity now is futile, especially since anyone reading this right now can call the Philadelphia Field Office of the FBI and confirm you as being the resident polygrapher.
Don't be angry that I exposed your identity. You already used your name, as have I. What do you expect, Jim? Maybe its time for both of us to retire.
To tell you the truth, I'm already growing tired of having to respond to your ineffective attempts to remain anonymous while adhering to the Bureau credo of "Truth"(within acceptable parameters). Its too bad that you do a lousy job of it, but then again, that's why you never excelled at field work, and Marty can vouch for that.
Rick Thirde,
What constructive purpose does it serve to publicly 'out' someone's identity during the course of this discussion? I for one am uncomfortable with this as it will no doubt create a chilling effect for both sides of future debates...
Perplexed,
Dave
Thirde
You presume alot. Fetch your coffee? I place the federal people that assist me on warrant entries on perimeter. (at thier request) I guess the idea of possible gunplay becomes overwhelming. Since local municipalities make most of your cases (you do re- write them well) I can understand your hostility. If you are a federal agent, I suggest you leave the psychological analysis to those qualified. To throw your lot in with a group of hysterical anti-polygraph zealots because you believe in a thorough investigation (who does not?) borders on the pathetic.
I have to admit that calling me "violent and unstable" when you see your friends threatened did brighten my day. Any reasonableness or dignity you might of wanted to portray, quickly disappeared in your posts to the FBI agent.
What ever you think of me is mildly interesting. You sound like a blowhard. A real fed probably would be a bit more discreet in his responses, but I cant be sure as they are typing all day when I visit the local task force.
The reason I have taken this tone (which seems to have offended you) with this particular group is they are as a whole advocating a position I just cannot understand ethically or professionally. Are ethics important in whatever agency you represent? Is the position advocated here (deception because the tool is invalid) yours as well? If you followed the thread you saw the progression of my responses, and my growing anger at what I believe to be borderline criminal advice.
It strikes me as odd you find kindred spirits here. Since you want a Sheriff's detective to feel honored you even took the time to respond to someone so unworthy, help me understand what you gain from helping a group of people that could make your next investigation that much harder if it goes to polygraph? If you choose not to use it in your investigations, then maybe you think more like I do than you will care to admit. Also, I would never attack another LE officer with unbelievable presumptions of incompetence as you have. You truly have no clue here-
Typing a name at the end of a posting does not translate into credibility. You have demonstrated that.
To Beech: Ok ill bite. Since you like yes or no responses even if you are unwilling to give same- just who specifically were the sexual assault victims shown as DI, that allowed thier attackers to re-offend?. Please be specific (so I can check) as I am truly curious. Maybe your federal friend will take the ball and investigate the polygrapher (local law im sure) for federal civil rights violations. Could be alot of work...
And to George, Im not surprised you would not want to post your post test responses to the FBI during your failed polygraph. Perhaps you could stop gritting your teeth and just prove me a liar by your own words. Ill be waiting, but in the mean time Ill trust my sources, my own research and my own instincts.
Simply saying (bleeting?) that you are truthfull sounds sufficient to the faithfull but rings hollow to those more objective.
Quote from: The_Breeze on Sep 13, 2002, 09:23 PM
And to George, Im not surprised you would not want to post your post test responses to the FBI during your failed polygraph. Perhaps you could stop gritting your teeth and just prove me a liar by your own words. Ill be waiting, but in the mean time Ill trust my sources, my own research and my own instincts.
Simply saying (bleeting?) that you are truthfull sounds sufficient to the faithfull but rings hollow to those more objective.
Mr. Breeze,
You are continuing to dance around the point.
You were the one who claimed George was untruthful. The burden is on you to prove your assertion, not on others to prove you false. Your one attempt to back up your assertion has been "outed" as wholly unsupportive of your position. Do you have the integrity and intellectual honesty to admit you have no evidence for your accusation and apologize, or will you continue to post your libel?
If not, I believe you will lose all remaining credibility with your readers.
Skeptic
New Friends:
I almost forgot the reason why I logged on yesterday, I enjoyed George's story of high adventure and excrement, but I have one a bit more relevant for the readers.
A few days ago I sat in on a polygraph in connection with a double murder that happened last month. Because it was "dealer on dealer" you might imagine that no one was too enthused to talk to Det's about the case. All financial inducements had failed and the case was going no where. The case detective made the decision to polygraph a key witness whose story did not quite make sense. The polygraph subject told her story and the polygraph operator at the conclusion of the exam confronted the person with her failing results. The usual lengthy denials followed but the polygrapher kept bringing her back to the relevant. After about 30 minutes this person suddenly buried her head in her hands and made a confession that she was in fact a co-conspiritor to a double homicide. I was impressed. This serious case can now go forward, warrants are being signed and It will be solved. But my question is this....what did I observe? A cheap trick, coin toss, lucky chance event, false confession or valid LE use of an admittedly imperfect tool?
My problem with the overwhelming number of posters on this site is simple. Your experience with the polygraph is in my view severly limited. Failing a pre-employment does not give you a well rounded base to give opinion about validity. George fits into this category, except that he took the extra steps of educating himself.
My thought is this: If a polygraph will help me solve a crime or IA case I want the option to use it, warts and all. Since I have freely admitted that this tool seems to be imperfect, I think I have more objectivity than most who visit here, when I say I dont want my options limited by those who are dogmatic about the issue.
To attack me personally is a convienient way to sidestep the message of ethics. I have only given the general facts of my employment here to illustrate the point that I am not blindly following any ideology. If you have no basis to speak from how can you be considered credible?. I have both taken and seen the device as it is used, I do not fear it. If that makes me a target here, no problem.
So my new friend skeptic, this is why I have asked about others backgrounds. If you want to take a firearms course, you would like to know that your instructor has at least handled one at some point. Since I have asked for nothing specific or personal, this does not seem unreasonable. My choice is not to add my own personal information to this site, George's little story notwithstanding. If I grow to respect the views and see open mindedness suddenly appear, I will most likely change my mind.
And skeptic, (since you appear to have been tagged and are on point) why is something that the founder says automatically carved in stone for you? sharing beliefs and feeling threatened by a contrary experienced view is one thing, blind loyality is another. I have stated that the source of my comments about George's lack of candor to the FBI stem from the fact that he failed his test and made admissions. This is a matter of record and available to you. If I see that George did not make such I will be the first to apoligize. I would point out to you that denying federal employment and the removal of security clearences is not done at a whim. Im sorry, but the ball is still in George's court on this one....
Somehow trying to make my personal thoughts as expressed here with emotional responders, into a competence issue at my place of employment is unnecessary and pointless. It would also be very wrong.
Quote from: The_Breeze on Sep 14, 2002, 12:51 PM
New Friends:
I almost forgot the reason why I logged on yesterday, I enjoyed George's story of high adventure and excrement, but I have one a bit more relevant for the readers.
A few days ago I sat in on a polygraph in connection with a double murder that happened last month. Because it was "dealer on dealer" you might imagine that no one was too enthused to talk to Det's about the case. All financial inducements had failed and the case was going no where. The case detective made the decision to polygraph a key witness whose story did not quite make sense. The polygraph subject told her story and the polygraph operator at the conclusion of the exam confronted the person with her failing results. The usual lengthy denials followed but the polygrapher kept bringing her back to the relevant. After about 30 minutes this person suddenly buried her head in her hands and made a confession that she was in fact a co-conspiritor to a double homicide. I was impressed. This serious case can now go forward, warrants are being signed and It will be solved. But my question is this....what did I observe? A cheap trick, coin toss, lucky chance event, false confession or valid LE use of an admittedly imperfect tool?
My problem with the overwhelming number of posters on this site is simple. Your experience with the polygraph is in my view severly limited. Failing a pre-employment does not give you a well rounded base to give opinion about validity. George fits into this category, except that he took the extra steps of educating himself.
My thought is this: If a polygraph will help me solve a crime or IA case I want the option to use it, warts and all. Since I have freely admitted that this tool seems to be imperfect, I think I have more objectivity than most who visit here, when I say I dont want my options limited by those who are dogmatic about the issue.
I don't think anyone here has or will deny that valid and valuable confessions are obtained every day with the polygraph as an aid. Such anecdotal evidence simply isn't the issue that's being discussed.
The problems I have (and others seem to have) with the polygraph are the overall validity of the technique (which cannot be confirmed or refuted with anecdotal evidence alone) and the brutality, invasiveness and disrespect of the methodology itself. Valid and valuable confessions have been and are being obtained through the use of physical torture, as well. However, I am quite sure, Breeze, that you would not condone such a practice. The sometime utility of a technique simply doesn't tell the whole story.
In my educated humble opinion, the available evidence says polygraphs overall are simply not reliable indicators of whether someone in innocent or guilty. Beyond their use as an interrogation prop, the error rates are too high to trust the results. This raises significant issues regarding national security and just treatment of job applicants, not to mention criminal suspects.
QuoteTo attack me personally is a convienient way to sidestep the message of ethics. I have only given the general facts of my employment here to illustrate the point that I am not blindly following any ideology. If you have no basis to speak from how can you be considered credible?. I have both taken and seen the device as it is used, I do not fear it. If that makes me a target here, no problem.
Aside from minor jibes, I for one have only seen people attack your actions (the things you've said or questions you've refused to address) and possible motivations behind them. Some of Mr. Thirde's material has been an exception.
It should be noted, however, that when you cast personal aspersions, it tends to invite the same.
QuoteSo my new friend skeptic, this is why I have asked about others backgrounds. If you want to take a firearms course, you would like to know that your instructor has at least handled one at some point. Since I have asked for nothing specific or personal, this does not seem unreasonable.
In general, Breeze, my friendship is not easy to come by.
As to credentials and/or backgrounds, there is nothing wrong with asking about them. Addressing them tends to have limited utility,though (for example, if someone is specifically asserting personal knowledge or expertise, or opinion based specifically and solely upon personal experience). They simply aren't relevant to the validity of most of the points being raised here, however, as those involve relating the knowledge and expertise of others.
Quote
And skeptic, (since you appear to have been tagged and are on point) why is something that the founder says automatically carved in stone for you?
Regardless of where my sympathies lie, it is your out-and-out libel of Mr. Maschke (who I have yet to see engage in such behavior himself) with which I have a problem. If you want to know, I fully agree with George and Dave that Rick Thirde's attacks on J.B. (who has also done an excellent job of sticking to the issues and discussed them in a rational and thoughtful manner) were rude and unwarranted, as well. I'd like to see them stopped.
Quotesharing beliefs and feeling threatened by a contrary experienced view is one thing, blind loyality is another.
Why would you assume that my position is based upon blind loyalty?
QuoteI have stated that the source of my comments about George's lack of candor to the FBI stem from the fact that he failed his test and made admissions. This is a matter of record and available to you. If I see that George did not make such I will be the first to apoligize. I would point out to you that denying federal employment and the removal of security clearences is not done at a whim. Im sorry, but the ball is still in George's court on this one....
Given the fact that the results of polygraph exams are taken into account, I do believe they are denied based upon very poor data.
QuoteSomehow trying to make my personal thoughts as expressed here with emotional responders, into a competence issue at my place of employment is unnecessary and pointless. It would also be very wrong.
I hope you don't think I have tried to do so. All I am trying to address is what you're presenting in this forum.
Skeptic
Skeptic
I had prepared my usual overlong response to you and then it dropped. So Ill do a short one for a change.
You are right about civility. Please check my early posts and see the way I was spoken to so you might understand any lack of civility I demonstrated. I regret some of my responses now because I know that its pointless.
I believe in what I see and what my experiences tell me are valid, this was why I furnished the example. Since I have seen this previously in my career, I dont consider it a ruse or prop. Did aristotle say "that which repeats is not due to chance"? It can be irritating when others, no matter how articulate or passionate, voice an opinion based on one failed polygraph as a platform. The only reason I have asked one especially aggressive member of this forum to reply with some kind of background statement is for this reason. If you have never seen this tool work, but emotionally believe otherwise, that does not automatically generate respect.
I have been taken to task for not answering as expected so let me ask my own questions-
Is the polygraph a valid LE tool?
Is teaching countermeasures productive to society?
Is there a failure rate in other diagnostic procedures?
Is it ethical to tell a applicant to distort a test because the tool is inaccurate?
Are background checks subject to bias and incompetence?
I think I had other questions on my lost post but this will do.
Finally I would say this to my detractors, If your irritated with me for not furnishing evidence to your standards, imagine how hypocritical it appears when you make fantastic leaps into my competence without reviewing my spotless IA file, interviewing those I work with or conducting basic research. George will point you in the right direction if thats important to you.
As far as what I have said, I stand by it. I know something of the government clearence process- and I know a failed job applicant polygraph will not cause by itself a clearance revocation. I believe there is more, and George does not want to address it except to say Im wrong. This is not preparation for a court case, this is my opinion based on facts at hand. It is not privacy information as he has alleged, no one has asked for anything like that just a discussion in general terms of what was said to his investigators. My highly placed scource says it was enough to pass him over. Now why would a linguist with skills in great demand, be passed over in such a spectacular way unless there was more to this story.
I will apoligize to all if my other redundant post suddenly appears
Quote from: The_Breeze on Sep 15, 2002, 11:36 PM
Skeptic
I had prepared my usual overlong response to you and then it dropped. So Ill do a short one for a change.
Happens to the best of us. Sometimes brief is better, anyway.
QuoteI believe in what I see and what my experiences tell me are valid, this was why I furnished the example. Since I have seen this previously in my career, I dont consider it a ruse or prop. Did aristotle say "that which repeats is not due to chance"? It can be irritating when others, no matter how articulate or passionate, voice an opinion based on one failed polygraph as a platform.
The trouble with this reasoning is that casual observation (as opposed to scientific study) may convince one that many things are correct which are not. Thanks to confirmation bias (the tendency to notice that which confirms our preconceptions), people can see what seems like solid evidence for astrology, ESP, and other unscientific beliefs. And it's not a matter of being gullible. Confirmation bias affects the most intelligent and seasoned of scientists.
QuoteI have been taken to task for not answering as expected so let me ask my own questions-
Is the polygraph a valid LE tool?
Depends upon how it is used. I have real problems with how it's currently used in the U.S.
Quote
Is teaching countermeasures productive to society?
I believe it is more important that a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted. As pertains to the polygraph, this is a tool with documented flaws that are out of proportion to its reputation as a "lie detector", and a documented bias against innocent people. This means that the reputations of innocent people are impugned, government misses out on the talent of loyal, competent Americans, and false confidence is put in the notion that the guilty don't get by -- all very counterproductive to society.
Countermeasures serve two purposes. First, they serve directly to protect the innocent from false accusation and all its attendant negative consequences. Second, they serve to remind us of the false confidence placed in the polygraph,
regardless of the existence of countermeasures.
Quote
Is there a failure rate in other diagnostic procedures?
Of course. In general, though, that failure rate is scientifically documented and taken into account. As I see it, neither are the case with the polygraph.
QuoteIs it ethical to tell a applicant to distort a test because the tool is inaccurate?
Please see my response to your question regarding countermeasures. Given these flaws and the additional fact that the polygraph is an invasive, disrespectful and traumatizing tool, I have real ethical problems with this particular "test" that go above and beyond accuracy issues.
Quote
Are background checks subject to bias and incompetence?
Nothing is perfect. That doesn't mean we can't make value judgements as to what is appropriate to the task at hand and with an eye to people's rights.
Quote
As far as what I have said, I stand by it. I know something of the government clearence process- and I know a failed job applicant polygraph will not cause by itself a clearance revocation. I believe there is more, and George does not want to address it except to say Im wrong. This is not preparation for a court case, this is my opinion based on facts at hand. It is not privacy information as he has alleged, no one has asked for anything like that just a discussion in general terms of what was said to his investigators. My highly placed scource says it was enough to pass him over. Now why would a linguist with skills in great demand, be passed over in such a spectacular way unless there was more to this story.
Sir, I am a democrat, which some would say means I place an inordinate amount of trust in government. But even I know that decisions in government are frequently made for less than rational and fair reasons.
I'll say this for you: you're persistent.
Skeptic
Skeptic
Your well reasoned words work in both directions. You do know that Phd. level research exists to support the utility of polygraph. It exists to show that it is a coin toss as well. We both know that proponents can find supporting documentation for almost any position, even the ones you named. I do not debate reliability or validity here for this reason. I will be told that the research is flawed, self serving, funded by DODPI or just plain wrong. This brands me as evasive to some.
Could I convince a PETA operative that research on inhalation toxicology done on dogs is necessary in that it may save a soldiers life? You can imagine the response I would get....in fact it might resemble some of the posters here. More emotional than logical.
Your thoughts on preconcieved ideas certainly apply as well to many writers here, there is no moral high ground occupied solely by anti polygraph folks. I would like to think I do not have a preconcieved notion, even though I am clearly in a minority position here. Since I have said now repeatedly that I believe the tool is flawed, and certainly does not replace good police work- I should not be considered a zealot.
Thanks for answering my questions. In response to your thinking on countermeasures you make two good points, but they are from the preposition that all subjects that take a polygraph need protection of thier basic rights/ and are telling the truth. Is it possible that a criminal could receive very real assistance from information contained on this site (as well as others) that could cause very real harm? Is the need to revenge oneself against a tool/process worth that? I believe Lykken made an excellent reference to this point.
Maybe the value judgement you speak of is what has allready happened in LE and Govt ref. the use of this tool. Investigators and administrators know that backgrounds (which are always done prior) are limited and flawed, but there is a chance that this tool may uncover information not available any other way. In the case of my own agency it has prevented felons from being commissioned when a records check and background did not come up with disqualifying information. But a failed polygraph and subsequent admission closed the circle. Could I define that as testamonial rather than anecdotal?
With this use (as allready pointed out) mistakes do occur. From having spent most of my adult life in Govt. both federal and state, I just do not see the rights violations others here are speculating about. But I have seen Govt. bend over backwards in retaining people that should have been fired, and protecting security clearances. I am not saying it has never happened.The MM case is troubling to me if it has been completely and accurately explained.
I think you make your points well and without rancor. Since I am not a good candidate for indoctrination (which ran me on the rocks early here) that is appreciated.
Quote from: The_Breeze on Sep 16, 2002, 01:37 PM
Thanks for answering my questions. In response to your thinking on countermeasures you make two good points, but they are from the preposition that all subjects that take a polygraph need protection of thier basic rights/ and are telling the truth. Is it possible that a criminal could receive very real assistance from information contained on this site (as well as others) that could cause very real harm? Is the need to revenge oneself against a tool/process worth that? I believe Lykken made an excellent reference to this point.
Let me make two points. First, I certainly
do assume that "all subjects that take a polygraph need protection of their basic rights" -- this is a basic tenet of our constitutional justice system, and applies not only to the polygraph but to everything in which law enforcement is involved. However, I don't believe that one must assume all polygraph subjects are telling the truth for countermeasures to be a good idea. The protection of the innocent is simply too important, and I don't believe such protections are currently part of the polygraph process.
I do agree that "it possible that a criminal could receive very real assistance from information contained on this site (as well as others) that could cause very real harm". However, there is more than one solution to this problem (we might start by placing far less emphasis on the results of polygraph exams), and as I hope I've indicated, I believe the benefits outweigh the harm.
QuoteMaybe the value judgement you speak of is what has allready happened in LE and Govt ref. the use of this tool. Investigators and administrators know that backgrounds (which are always done prior) are limited and flawed, but there is a chance that this tool may uncover information not available any other way. In the case of my own agency it has prevented felons from being commissioned when a records check and background did not come up with disqualifying information. But a failed polygraph and subsequent admission closed the circle. Could I define that as testamonial rather than anecdotal?
Actually, I'd still see it as "anecdotal" :) -- consider that you have no idea how many people get by the polygraph who also have disqualifying information in their backgrounds. Are you sure you're not simply getting better liars for employees?
And what of people who drop out of the process due to the invasiveness and discouragement of repeated failed polygraphs? What of those who falsely confess (despite Batman's assertions, we know this takes place)?
For that matter, what about someone who, after repeated polygraphs, is pushed to reveal something that might appease the polygrapher, and thus looks like he or she was withholding information they simply didn't think of as responsive to the questions in the first place?
Additionally, I do hope your agency does not disqualify based on polygraph results alone (I think you indicated this previously). If it does, then you are missing out on good people falsely found deceptive.
Skeptic
Skeptic
In the Metro set up that Im in, we do not disqualify based on polygraph but rather verified information that may result from such tests. An "inconclusive" is not a problem unless it points a background investigator in a specific direction.
Its clear I respectfully disagree with you on the tools utility. Your focus is human rights (of course our applicants are treated with respect) and mine is what I consider practical to LE aims. Have we ever lost anyone who would of made a good officer? probably. Im not sure doing away with polygraph would change that, just the vehicle by which it happens i.e. background investigator bias/faulty investigation/recruiter "gut feelings" etc.etc.
Since one of your solutions to the problem I raised is less reliance on the tool, I wonder if you think this is a probable short term fix? I dont believe polygraph use is weakening, in fact the opposite seems to be occuring regardless of the efforts made here. If that is true, your solution seems more hopeful than practical.
We have probably run the course. It was nice to have a exchange on this site with a stable individual not prone to hysterics.
I'm back. Your right, the Breeze, Skeptic, Dave, George, I was a little hostile before I left on TDY. And I apologize for any cantankerous behavior, but I will not back down from my position.
Dave, you said that you don't understand what my 'uncovering' accomplishes. First of all, you don't know Jim like I know him. Secondly, you have no idea of the agenda that he is trying to pursue on this website. Third, has Jim responded? (On this thread, not likely)
The Breeze, who are you kidding, I attack LE officers every day, its my job to make sure that my operations are running on schedule. Otherwise, it's my ass on the Washington Grille.
And speaking of agendas, let me make my agenda absolutely CLEAR: Man's utter reliance and trust in technology will doom us all. From polygraphs to StopLight Photography, we entrust too much in digital electronics and binary code. WE'RE GETTING LAZY!
Here's a sad story: My neighbor just told me that his 3rd grade son's math workbook instructs him to solve problems with a calculator. Not algebra, ladies and gentlemen, simple addition and subtraction. Let that settle in your gut for a couple of minutes. My agenda is clear.
Rick, you wrote:
QuoteFirst of all, you don't know Jim like I know him. Secondly, you have no idea of the agenda that he is trying to pursue on this website. Third, has Jim responded? (On this thread, not likely)
First, it's clear that you have no idea who J.B. McCloughan (who, by the way, does not go by the name of "Jim") is. I know Mr. McCloughan through private message, e-mail, and telephone exchanges. He is not an FBI Special Agent. He is not in Philadelphia. And he was not involved in the Traficant investigation, making "a fool of himself in front of the entire nation," as you have previously alleged.
Second, any "agenda" that Mr. McCloughan has in posting here is scarcely concealed. He has offered his ideas on how polygraph countermeasures might be detected (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=328.msg1485#msg1485) (even sending scanned portions of charts for posting on this message board), argued in support of the validity of CQT polygraphy, and discussed concealed information tests, among other things. I have often disagreed with him. But I've always found him to be courteous and respectful of others. I see no reason to suppose that Mr. McCloughan (who has recently revealed his last name here) has any hidden agenda.
Third, you ask if Mr. McCloughan ("Jim," as you call him) has responded. Well, indeed he has. He replied directly to your claims in a post in this message thread dated 11 September.
Please George,
Do me a favor and call the Philadelphia Field Office of the FBI and sincerely ask who the resident polygragher is?
If I am mistaken, then shame on me. Truly.
If the "J.B." that you know is different than the Jim McCloughan at PFO, then this is the most unusual case of mistaken identity that has ever occured. Please, call.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I'm back. Your right, the Breeze, Skeptic, Dave, George, I was a little hostile before I left on TDY. And I apologize for any cantankerous behavior, but I will not back down from my position.
Dave, you said that you don't understand what my 'uncovering' accomplishes. First of all, you don't know Jim like I know him. Secondly, you have no idea of the agenda that he is trying to pursue on this website. Third, has Jim responded? (On this thread, not likely)
The Breeze, who are you kidding, I attack LE officers every day, its my job to make sure that my operations are running on schedule. Otherwise, it's my ass on the Washington Grille.
And speaking of agendas, let me make my agenda absolutely CLEAR: Man's utter reliance and trust in technology will doom us all. From polygraphs to StopLight Photography, we entrust too much in digital electronics and binary code. WE'RE GETTING LAZY!
Here's a sad story: My neighbor just told me that his 3rd grade son's math workbook instructs him to solve problems with a calculator. Not algebra, ladies and gentlemen, simple addition and subtraction. Let that settle in your gut for a couple of minutes. My agenda is clear.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++