Earlier this year (2002), I took an FBI pre-employment poly test. I employed countermeasures and passed. It is possible that it was already decided I was going to pass prior to being connected to the "spirit box." Or, it could be that the countermeasures I employed during the exam is what did it for me. I cannot be absolutely sure which; perhaps a combination of both.
I employed the following countermeasures:
1) Controlled breathing from the moment I sat down until the tubes were removed. I mentally counted; 2 seconds inhale, 2 seconds exhale. Total of approximately 4 seconds per breath in/out.
2) Puckered on all "obvious" control questions for 5-10 seconds.
3) Remained perfectly still, controlled my breathing during ALL relevant questions; and there were many relevant questions.
4) Maintained good eye contact at all times when answering the "pretest" questions.
5) Went for the test professionally dressed, tie, wing-tip shoes, slacks, etc., with a conservative haircut.
6) I was very forthright, although, I did not reveal anything they did not already know or could not find out.
7) I received two distinctive different sets of 10-12 questions, which were repeated three (3) times each in random order. In short, I was asked a total combined six (6) sets of about 10-12 questions. Although, there were only two series of questions.
8) I'm not absolutely certain; but I think the first set of questions was 100% relevant/irrelevant. I say this because there were no recognizable "control" questions during the first set of questions. I will add that at the beginning of the first set of questions, (s)he did say: "the test has now started" (I suspected this to be a hidden control question/stimulus) so I did react to it; "puckered", and changed my breathing rate to indicate it bothered me that the test had started! Also, at the end, (s)he said: "the test is now over"; again, (I suspected this to be a hidden control question/stimulus) so I reacted again.
9) The second set of questions was blatantly obvious that it was a probable lie "control" question test. The control questions on this test were straight out of your book TLBTLD! If I didn't know any better, I would think (s)he selected the questions directly from the book.
10) On the obvious control questions; I "puckered" for 5-10 seconds, and departed from my base breathing rate. I also mixed my breathing reactions to each control so I would not demonstrate consistency in any response. I would slow my breathing rate, speed it up, "sigh", breath shallow breaths, breath heavier, etc.
11) The control questions were easy to identify: example; have you ever said anything mean, rude, derogatory about any friends, coworkers, loved ones, etc., have you ever stolen anything during your entire life, have I ever taken "credit" for something someone else did to make myself look better, have I ever stolen anything from work, etc.,
12) The relevant questions were very direct and specific: have you ever taken any illegal drugs, ever sold any illegal drugs, have you violated the FBI's guidelines regarding drug use/sell, do I intend to tell the truth today, ("sacrifice" relevant question), have I ever had any unauthorized contact with someone representing another intelligence agency, am I a member of any white supremacist group, am I a spy, do I meet the requirements and guidelines of the FBI, etc.
13) At the very end of the 2nd set of questions, just before (s)he removed the tubes from around my abdomen and chest; (s)he just asked me "out of the blue": have you ever researched polygraphy? Keep in mind, I was still connected to the poly. I was completely caught off guard, as this question was not ever discussed prior to the poly test. (S)he never told me (s)he was going to ask the question either. Also, a key note; (s)he "had already" told me the test was over. I was simply sitting there counting my breathing rate, as I suspected (s)he was watching to see if I would change my breathing after (s)he told me the test was over. Then, out of the blue came the final question: "have I ever researched polygraphy? Obviously, although caught off guard by this question, I still maintained my composure, controlled my breathing so it would not change from my base line rate, and answered NO! After that, (s)he released the pressure cuff from my arm, and removed the finger sensors and tubes from around my abdomen and chest.
Final note:
I would like to congratulate AntiPolygraph.org on a job well done with regard to "TLBTLD." Without this book prior to my poly, I strongly suspect I most likely would have resulted in a false positive. As most of the relevant questions naturally bothered me and made me nervous.
Please continue your quest, journey and crusade with trying to stop and ban polygraphy as a pre-employment process. Although I passed my initial pre-employment screening, I am aware that I may be required to continue taking poly's. I will continue to be an avid reader of your website, and also want to stay current with regard to any changes, revisions, versions to "TLBTLD." For without this book, it very possibly could have been a whole different story for me.
I apologize for the length of this post; I just wanted you to know how things went, and that I passed the "trial by ordeal" thanks to your website as well as "TLBTLD." May I again say to you; Job well done! and, Thank you.
Don't give up on your crusade, you are truly on the right track.
Hopefully, You're not joining the war on some terror?
Usually the tumb tack in the heel of the shoe method is the best, especially if you're not a Zin Master like our future G-man.
anonaplus,
Truthful applicants have every reason to employ polygraph countermeasures to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome, just as Anonymous did.
As Dr. Drew C. Richardson, a polygraph expert then in the FBI's Laboratory Division testified before the U.S. Senate (http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.shtml), "[Polygraph screening] is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity...the diagnostic value of this type of testing is no more than that of astrology or tea-leaf reading." But nearly 50% of FBI special agent applicants are reportedly failing to pass the polygraph (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=592.msg3067#msg3067) after having passed initial tests and interviews. Clearly, many truthful persons are being falsely accused of deception. (See the AntiPolygraph.org Personal Statements (http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml) page for examples.)
nobody,
One doesn't need to be a Zen master to employ polygraph countermeasures of the kind described by Anonymous above. It's really pretty simple, and you'll find it all explained in AntiPolygraph.org's free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml), which may be downloaded as a PDF file or browsed on-line. For reasons you'll find explained at Chapter 4, the tack-in-the-shoe (placed in the toe, not the heel), is not an advisable countermeasure.
Im new to this site, but was curious and enjoy the misc. exchanges. Heres my problem, regardless of what the postings state do we want future FBI agents to engage in deception during an application process?. Before you tell me about the horrific false positive rate and how this justifies any act of self protection lets look at it another way. If you just know your a super smart guy but never could be bothered to get an actual degree, should you buy one on the internet? Should you lie about your experiences because you would of experienced them if you had the chance? Should you manipulate a polygraph test because of your own self image?. Im not an FBI agent, or affiliated with any fed. agency, but it seems to me that you want a job you play by the agencies rules. Does this make me hopelessly naive, or someone who still believes in integrity? My idea wont be popular on this site, but I would bet the posters are for the most part less interested in justice than revenge. Let the barrage begin...
Quote from: The Breeze on Jul 31, 2002, 06:59 PMIm new to this site, but was curious and enjoy the misc. exchanges. Heres my problem, regardless of what the postings state do we want future FBI agents to engage in deception during an application process?.
Hi The Breeze; I guess I'll shoot the opening fusillade. First, welcome. Second, while you raise a seemingly valid argument, one of the dirty little secrets of the polygraph exam is that the examiner *expects* you to lie. Indeed, those truely honest persons who
completely unburden themselves concerning the Control Questions and answer honestly are doomed to be branded deceptive by their polygraph interrogator. Nice conundrum, eh?
QuoteBefore you tell me about the horrific false positive rate and how this justifies any act of self protection lets look at it another way. If you just know your a super smart guy but never could be bothered to get an actual degree, should you buy one on the internet?
I don't know. But, what does that have to do with employing countermeasures and successfully passing a polygraph?
QuoteShould you lie about your experiences because you would of experienced them if you had the chance?
Personally, I would not.
QuoteShould you manipulate a polygraph test because of your own self image?
I don't know what you mean by that. Self-image? You should only manipulate a polygraph test if you wish to be assured of being labeled NDI.
QuoteIm not an FBI agent, or affiliated with any fed. agency, but it seems to me that you want a job you play by the agencies rules. Does this make me hopelessly naive, or someone who still believes in integrity?
Hmmmm.... possibly both?
QuoteMy idea wont be popular on this site, but I would bet the posters are for the most part less interested in justice than revenge. Let the barrage begin...
I can't comment on the motivations of other contributors, but my oft-repeated motivation continues to be the abolishment of polygraphy as it is currently used. Private employees already enjoy protection from the ravages of the pseudo-science of polygraphy-- the local, state, and federal governments are next.
Thanks for your quick response, I dont intend on changing anyone's established views ref. the conduct of polygraph testing in this country, so we can put that aside. Actually I see both views.
When I say Im not Federal LE you can bank on it (although I did survive a Secret Service polygraph 10 years ago!) When you wonder what my point is ref. "countermeasures", it is simply this: the prevailing view of those opposed to polygraph testing is that it is invalid and therefore any means to combat this "ordeal" are ok. My arguement is simple-it is not ok in my opinion to adopt a ends justifies the means attitude. There would be no end to it. Self image means- that it is OK to lie if you have smoked marijuana 20 times but you think the FBI standard is arbitrary. Are you a worse candidate for having done it 5 more instances? alot of people who do not believe in standards (and are prolific posters here) would argue you are still viable and would sound logical. Funny thing about standards, they have to apply at some point! What concerns me on this site is an attitude that whatever I can get away with is allright because I have some limited knowledge of a process that I perceive is unfair. I would like to hear from respected polygraphers on this, do you folks recognize any or are the whole lot worthless?
The Breeze,
You write:
Quote...the prevailing view of those opposed to polygraph testing is that it is invalid and therefore any means to combat this "ordeal" are ok...
You are quite wrong about your stated premise. There are many things in this world that are both invalid and not worthy of my attention. It is the fact that it (polygraph screening) is both unjust and leads to victimization that requires my (and other's) concern for and assistance (to include providing information regarding countermeasures) to those who have been or would be injured with this process.
You further write:
Quote...Self image means- that it is OK to lie if you have smoked marijuana 20 times but you think the FBI standard is arbitrary. Are you a worse candidate for having done it 5 more instances? alot of people who do not believe in standards (and are prolific posters here) would argue you are still viable and would sound logical...
Again, my friend, you miss the mark. This is neither about self-image (your definition) nor agreement with arbitrary (or not so arbitrary) standards but with validity of diagnosis in support of whatever standards exist. I have never used illicit drugs and would be quite happy if the FBI had a zero tolerance for such, but if it has a standard which includes no more usage of marijuana than 15 times within the last three years, so be it. The only issue is whether polygraph screening provides any diagnostic value with regard to the promulgated standard. It does not and therefore I strongly oppose its use. Regards,
Drew Richardson
Hi Drew:
I dont think its necessary to tell anyone expressing an opinion that "they are missing the mark". your missing mine and Im missing yours and we both are missing some other persons. You responded by talking about the invalid nature of the test itself, but my real issue is cheating on a federal exam when we hold our FBI agents in such regard (right or wrong in view of recent events) and whether you want to accept my point or not, countermeasures as I understand the literature are an attempt to hide, confuse or "help" during an exam. If I look over at the person next to me on the FBI written exam (im assuming there is one) and use his answers, am I cheating or just revenging the fact that the test was written by a white male with a different perspective than mine, and hence unfair? I know Im smart and dont have to prove it to anyone do I?
My issue and reason for responding in the first place was that I feel many of the followers of this site (movement?) are something less than candid and are picking up the title of victim for convienience. My own experience with the polygraph seems completely unrepresented here. I have taken 3 including one for the USSS and I passed all without problems. One would be luck, two a coincidence but three is a trend. Since I did not lie to what I now know to be relevant questions (at the time I thought they all were) my sense is that the process works. I know this makes me some kind of target here, but it is truth. And while I believe that mistakes are made in this field, I just cant believe I was so lucky not to have experienced the horror stories as told on this site. I should of at least had a glimpse of evil.
I guess I have a problem with a group that seems so visceral and has such obvious axes to grind. Researchers by definition should not be dogmatic or political in my view.
The Breeze,
In considering the ethics of truthful applicants using polygraph countermeasures to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome, some salient points to bear in mind include:
- The "test" is a fraud. It's not just invalid. It's a fraud that necessarily involves the polygrapher lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested." See Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) for more on the willfull misrepresentations inherent in this pseudoscientific procedure.
- There is virtual consensus in the scientific community that polygraph screening is completely invalid and should be stopped.
- As beech trees pointed out, in a probable-lie "control" question "test," the polygrapher assumes that the examinee will be deceptive with regard to the so-called "control" questions. The more candidly the examinee attempts to answer them, and as a consequence exhibits less stress when answering them, the more likely he/she is to fail. So the "test" has an inherent bias against the most truthful applicants.
- As I mentioned in an earlier post to this message thread, nearly 50% of FBI special agent applicants are reportedly failing to pass the polygraph (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=592.msg3067#msg3067) after having passed initial tests and interviews. Many truthful persons are undoubtedly being falsely accused of deception. Yet there is no appeal process for those who fail to pass this pseudoscientific ordeal.
You wrote to beech trees:
QuoteI would like to hear from respected polygraphers on this, do you folks recognize any or are the whole lot worthless?
The validity of any rational argument is not a function of the esteem in which the proponent of that argument is held. Someone held in low esteem may be correct; someone held in high esteem may be in error. Perhaps some polygraphers will care to share their thoughts on the ethics of polygraph countermeasures in this message thread. For some recent discussion of this very topic, however, see the following message threads:
- A word or two from the "other side" (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=659.msg3656#msg3656)
- DOD Polygraphs (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=649.msg3591#msg3591)
You wrote to Drew:
QuoteI dont think its necessary to tell anyone expressing an opinion that "they are missing the mark". your missing mine and Im missing yours and we both are missing some other persons.
When Drew wrote of your "missing the mark," he's simply referring to mistaken premises implicit in your remarks with regard to the reasons for this website's (and the growing antipolygraph movement's) existence.
You also write:
QuoteMy own experience with the polygraph seems completely unrepresented here. I have taken 3 including one for the USSS and I passed all without problems. One would be luck, two a coincidence but three is a trend. Since I did not lie to what I now know to be relevant questions (at the time I thought they all were) my sense is that the process works. I know this makes me some kind of target here, but it is truth.
You attach a significance to your personal experience that it does not have. If the odds of a truthful person being wrongly called deceptive in a polygraph screening examination were one-in-five, then half of those truthful subjects polygraphed three times would share your experience of never having failed a polygraph test. If the odds were as bad as 50-50, then one in eight truthful persons polygraphed three times would still share your experience. But because CQT polygraphy is an unstandardized and unstandardizable (and hence non-repeatable) procedure fraught with uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) confounding variables, no meaningful validity rate can be established for it. While about half of FBI applicants are reportedly "failing to pass" (before 9/11 it was only about 20%) almost all employees and applicants polygraphed by the Departments of Defense and Energy ultimately pass. (See Chapter 1 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources cited there for more on the scientific status of polygraphy.)
George;
Thanks for writing, Im flattered that on my first go-round the luminaries of this site chose to respond.
I understand your mathematical calculations, but as far as me innappropriately applying significance, isnt that what all negative posters are doing after thier first negative experience? You do seek anecdotal experiences in all areas, the fact that mine are overwhelmingly positive (regardless the the mathematical odds) means something to me. You are a researcher and I respect your intellect- but you must admit that what is lacking here is candor in some posters. I have been told that you yourself had a negative polygraph experience resulting from your own deception on your FBI test. Is this rumor from your enemies or would you care to explain so I might understand?
The Breeze,
You wrote in part:
QuoteI understand your mathematical calculations, but as far as me innappropriately applying significance, isnt that what all negative posters are doing after thier first negative experience? You do seek anecdotal experiences in all areas, the fact that mine are overwhelmingly positive (regardless the the mathematical odds) means something to me.
It is possible that some posters here became convinced that polygraphy is without validity simply because they told the truth but were wrongly diagnosed deceptive. That would be an inappropriate attribution of significance to their personal experience. But those who have read and understood Chapter 1 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector realize that they did not simply fall within the a margin of error associated with a scientifically sound diagnosntic technique, but rather are the victims of a pseudoscientific fraud that is without diagnostic value.
While the anecdotes posted here by polygraph victims do not speak directly to the validity of polygraphy, they
do help to document the real harm that is being done to individuals as a result of misplaced reliance on this pseudoscience.
You also wrote:
QuoteYou are a researcher and I respect your intellect- but you must admit that what is lacking here is candor in some posters.
To what lack of candor do you refer? I've seen lack of candor most notably in posts by the proponents of polygraphy.
QuoteI have been told that you yourself had a negative polygraph experience resulting from your own deception on your FBI test. Is this rumor from your enemies or would you care to explain so I might understand?
In an FBI pre-employment polygraph examination, I was diagnosed as deceptive with regard to all relevant questions asked, even though I answered them all truthfully.
The Breeze,
It is not any given anecdotal story that has convinced me and led me to arrive at the conclusions and positions (regarding polygraph screening) that I have shared on this message board and elsewhere. It is the overwhelming impression obtained through several hundred personal contacts from polygraph examinees (or friends, relatives, co-workers, or attorneys representing them) over the last ten years who have universally alleged that they were wrongly found to be deceptive in a polygraph screening examination. Further credence is given this group testimony inasmuch as many of these people are willing to tell their story publicly (in the media, before Congress, in a court proceeding accompanied by cross examination). Furthermore many of these people have sought background investigations (which they were denied) to demonstrate the absence of any evidence of wrong doing in those areas for which they were found to be deceptive. Additionally, as George pointed out in a recent reply, this examination procedure has no support whatsoever in the scientific community and is completely bankrupt in terms of any theoretical underpinnings and basis for practice. Regards,
Drew Richardson
Quote from: The_Breeze on Jul 31, 2002, 11:51 PMI dont think its necessary to tell anyone expressing an opinion that "they are missing the mark".
You then seemingly break with your own beliefs and write:
Quoteyour missing mine and Im missing yours and we both are missing some other persons.
Regardless, you continue:
QuoteYou responded by talking about the invalid nature of the test itself, but my real issue is cheating on a federal exam when we hold our FBI agents in such regard
Your comparisons make no sense to me. What does the respect or regard (I presume you mean 'high regard') that many FBI agents enjoy have to do with the validity of the polygraph?
Quoteand whether you want to accept my point or not, countermeasures as I understand the literature are an attempt to hide, confuse or "help" during an exam.
I understand countermeasures to be augmented physiological responses that polygraphers (wrongly) interpret as lacking deception, or 'NDI'. I don't know anyone who would not employ some sort of behavioral or physical 'countermeasures' when seeking something they want-- would it not be a countermeasure to sit up straight during a job interview when one's tendency is to slouch? Do we accuse applicants of countermeasures when they wear a smart-looking suit to an interview instead of their customary jeans and t-shirt?
QuoteIf I look over at the person next to me on the FBI written exam (im assuming there is one) and use his answers, am I cheating or just revenging the fact that the test was written by a white male with a different perspective than mine, and hence unfair?
It's ironic that you would conclude that-- based on the author's race-- a test would be unfair, while you then seemingly argue the fairness of a test that it totally lacking in accuracy and scientific credibility.
QuoteMy issue and reason for responding in the first place was that I feel many of the followers of this site (movement?) are something less than candid and are picking up the title of victim for convienience.
In what ways are we not being candid?
QuoteMy own experience with the polygraph seems completely unrepresented here. I have taken 3 including one for the USSS and I passed all without problems.
In the first post you had taken one polygraph, now you have taken three?
QuoteOne would be luck, two a coincidence but three is a trend.
No, because polygraph results are no more accurate than chance, the results of one test have no bearing on the statistical chances of passing the next test-- EXCEPT that those results could and do colour the opinion of the polygrapher who is told of the previous polygraphs and the previous results.
QuoteSince I did not lie to what I now know to be relevant questions (at the time I thought they all were) my sense is that the process works.
The reason you passed your polygraphs is because your physiological responses to the Control Questions were greater than your physiological responses to the Relevant Questions.
QuoteI know this makes me some kind of target here, but it is truth. And while I believe that mistakes are made in this field, I just cant believe I was so lucky not to have experienced the horror stories as told on this site. I should of at least had a glimpse of evil.
Evil? Your characterization, not ours.
QuoteI guess I have a problem with a group that seems so visceral and has such obvious axes to grind. Researchers by definition should not be dogmatic or political in my view.
1. So, you have an ax to grind with people who have an ax to grind?
2. I am not a researcher, but I have taken the time to thoroughly ground myself in the subject. (Pardon the terrible pun)
ok this is my first post on this site. first off, hello beech trees, george , and drew. You guys all rule. You have helped restore hope in my soul that one day i can accomplish my dream and have my father pin my badge on my chest at my graduation, thus enabling me to pass my polygraph and continue on in his legacy and fullfill my destiny that i fought long and hard to earn. this message is designed for The Breeze mostly. Breeze, when i was a child i watched my father go to work everyday to keep this city safe. in law enforcement my father rose fast through the ranks and taught swat. my father was named by the us govt as one of the top instructor for swat/srt and has been named nationaly as one of the best police officers in the US. Wanting to follow and make him proud i joined an explorer post, raised over $10,000.00 in a fight against drugs and so on. Then when i turned 18 i wanted to began becoming a real cop. i joined the US Army military police. i graduated #1 in my mp school and recieved a promotion the night before graduation, and at graduation i was promoted a second time. the whole time my father was watching. i gained much knowlege and experience and fed off of others knowledge, eventually becoming one of the most knowledgable MP on the base in certain specialized areas having knowledge and experience in swat tactics, drug / drug supression, and instructor in bike patrol, traffic, and radar. having signed a 5 year contract with the service, i wanted more and tested for a local police department as a reserve. background went fast and they kept telling me i was hired as soon as i finished with the poly graph. now up to this point, to me a polygraph was a completely accurate lie detector test. thats what i heard from people. i had taken one for my top secret security clearence, only difference is that both polygraph examiners were my best friends on base. So i was not scared or nervous at all. i passed my poly with the army. but when i took this local PD test i was horrified, distrot, upset, and DEVASTED. I FAILED. NOW HERES WHERE I GET ANGRY AT SOMEONE LIKE YOU who doesnt and cannot see the impact. Immediately i was called by this department and advised that since i lacked integrity i was no longer being sought for this position. no problem i was still an mp right? Not for long. i was dispatched to my commanders office by the mp desk. when i arrived there were 2 mpi investigators there with my CO (my co was the provost martial) they sat me down and asked me to relinguish my side arm immediately so we could talk. i handed it over and was then advised of my miranda rights. i was confused. i was question about drug use, then taken to the restroom and they held the cup and watched me piss. then after neg results on urine, taken to the clinic where both blood and hair was taken. after this i was assigned to supply untill i got out of the service. it was said i was transfered to the mp supply area because they needed someone organized there. But i know the real reason. Now I want to make my father proud, but what am i to do, take the poly and fail, EMBARASSING MY FATHER HIS REP AND MINE. i grew up with all those cops. i fought hard for what i have. and to have to give it all up for some machine that has never been prooven to work 24hr/7d.a.w/365d.a.y.. well that BS, lucky you your not the emotional type that gets upset when taking any test poly or written. Well mr.breeze thats why i waited 2 years and gave up hope working as a low paid security guard untill i bumped into this site by mistake. let me tell you something intresting. My father took his 27years ago or so, and he failed. polygraph hurts people of great moral statue that have devoted there life to YOUR safety. the use of counter measures, well, that is just ensuring that my hard work and honesty, and refusal to do drugs and commit even the most petty crimes has guarnteed that i will pass a bias'd test meant to disqualify applicants no matter the expence of innocent people. Why should that be when i know of people who i used to work with in security who talked about stealing cars for stereos and lied on polygraphs which are now cops. Unfair for me i think. Well now hopefully you can see what a polygraph did to not just me BUT TO THE US ARMY. A great solider was lost that day, but his soul and hope has been restored.
I know the feeling, where were you stationed PD Dreamer. I to face that same thing now, and I worry. I am studding the lie detector book i got on this site, and also bought Sting the Detector. Invest in that one and download the free one here. Good luck
Brian
Wow...
I have got to hand it to you guys, it only took me 48 hours to be completely unimpressed with the integrity of this site. As you have figured out by now, I am a Detective from a mid size SW dept asked by my Sheriff to figure out the polygraph/voice stress/interview question and give him options. We had in the past sent out cases for polygraph but needed different cost effective solutions. I came here for intellectually honest discussion and maybe some pro's and cons. Knowing where I was I knew what I was getting into, but knowing something of the players I felt that honesty and objectivity was still possible. I was wrong. I have met a small bunch of intelligent people who are amazing hipocrites, repeating and tediously dissecting each statement instead of engaging in independent thought. Hopefully you are not all the same person. George tells me about the fraud built into the polygraph because on a CQ test the examiner is expecting you to lie, and all I can think of is .....So What? that would mean every ruse that LE uses to solve crimes (undercover, interview techniques etc) renders the court approved tactic of deception in investigation a fraud as well. Tell that to the UC cop risking his life unarmed. He lies everyday.
And what can I make of Drew, a man who conducted research in the belly of the beast, DODPI. Drew, did your research result in the continued abuse of the innocent?. How do you write a thesis on an aspect of polygraph when it is invalid? was your research invalid? How can I attach any credibility to these responses?. And Beech Trees, my suggestion to you would be to carefully read posts before making "I gotcha" statements. I simply told you on 7/31 that I survived a USSS polygraph. Nothing about total numbers of tests at that point. Dont spread yourself so thin, and dont forget to breathe. I know George's and Drew's story, when did you become a victim of the polygraph?
And to all three guardians and hopeful keepers of the flame, what is with the endless and tiresome isolation and analysis of individual sentences? This is poor communication at its worst. I started out, and remain unconvinced as to the total efficiency of polygraph, but unlike you three and Mr. PD I dont think its quite the modern reading of sheep entrails that you would infer. In other words you have not convinced me that this site is staffed with anything but haters of a tool. I had hoped for more. And George, I read your "book" 11 months ago, its well written but suffers from the problem this site has-a fundamental un-willingness to consider another view .
And finally PD Dreamer....You should of picked someone else to tell that tale to. As a military police officer who now does it as a civilian, I know your story is ridiculous. An application process from a civilian agency will not be furnished to Military officials as it is confidential. You should sue the agency if your story is true. And to take action, and relegate such a sterling soldier to what we called "halls and walls" duty after holding an advanced clearance, without adjudication....again false. The UCMJ has in depth safeguards for a situation like you describe. I can only conclude like most of the other posters on this site that you are holding back details, to enhance victimization. I see lots of applicants who look great on paper, and I'm really rooting for them when some disclosure occurs that they happened to forget to put on their application paperwork, and they have to admit that they lied. Bummer huh?
I started out seeking truth- I honestly described my polygraph experiences as uneventful, which they were (the USSS was however tiring) This branded me as a subversive to the faithful. Is it possible gentlemen, that someone could be honest in describing the polygraph as un threatening to the truthfull?
I talked about what I percieved to be an acceptance of the anything goes mentality which so many seen to advocate here. I still do not believe one should cheat on an entry test, any test. It is not OK to assign your own definition of validity. If you feel strongly about testing, do not seek to work for any agency that requires it. Stand on whatever principles you might have. And PD, if you are half the man you think you are, keep trying- we and our sister agencies are drowning in failed, lying, recent criminal activity, applicants. Im told its that way everywhere. Leave California. Not every agency tests-
And know who you are lecturing to about safety before breaking squelch junior, I was a real SWAT cop for 6 years, not one in a fascinating story, and have endangered my life countless times.
Thanks for the paranoia gentlemen, Im not sure I should of expected more from you folks, but I wont be posting again...so pile on.
QuoteThe Breeze: And George, I read your "book" 11 months ago, its well written but suffers from the problem this site has-a fundamental un-willingness to consider another view .
Thank you for posting. One of the main functions of this uncensored message board is to ensure that "other views" are heard.
QuoteGeorge tells me about the fraud built into the polygraph because on a CQ test the examiner is expecting you to lie, and all I can think of is .....So What? that would mean every ruse that LE uses to solve crimes (undercover, interview techniques etc) renders the court approved tactic of deception in investigation a fraud as well. Tell that to the UC cop risking his life unarmed. He lies everyday.
I do not dispute that deception and trickery
when used in the course of criminal investigations are legitimate tools of law enforcement. I do, however, think that it is absolutely wrong to lie to and deceive job applicants and others not suspected of wrongdoing,
under any circumstances , no matter how well intentioned the goal. If we allow this, what is next? Do you feel that it is okay for a police chief to lie and inflate his budget needs with the good faith of goal stopping crime? Just because law enforcement officers are allowed to mislead criminal suspects does not mean that they have carte blanche to lie.
QuoteAnd to all three guardians and hopeful keepers of the flame, what is with the endless and tiresome isolation and analysis of individual sentences? This is poor communication at its worst.
Was the reason for the lack of indentation/spacing between the paragraphs in your post designed to prevent this?
QuoteIt is not OK to assign your own definition of validity.
Perhaps you should consider taking your own advice. As George already stated, there is
universal opposition to the validity of pre-employment "screening" polygraphs in academia. If you had read our book, you would have noticed that even DoDPI's own academic advisory board proclaimed personnel screening board proclaimed screening invalid and recommended that it should be stopped. Soon after, the board was disbanded and all members were dismissed. If anyone is assigning their own definition of validity, breeze, it is you.
THE Breeze:
A polygraph does not insure that you have cops free of (criminal activities.) I served with a guy as an MP that came from Detroit. He told me that he used to sell dope and didnt want that life for him or his kid. He never got caught so military was open to him. And as you know there is no poly for a entry level MP. He changed his life for the better, and was able to give something back. Now he is with Chicago PD in a (Specialized department). To protect him i wont say what depart. He has no criminal activity left so people make mistakes and can change for the better. As for other comments i saw you make, if you were ever an MP you would know that agencies talk. it sounds to me that, that is what happened. I know with me when i failed mine, an x-MP now PD with the department i applied with heard about it, and called my Commanding Officer which was also his friend. Since it was hear say that he disclosed it, i had no grounds. But I still suffered. The_Breeze, my whole point that i think you dont understand is that someone can take the poly one day here, and re-take it a week later and fail. it just doesnt seem fair. I do appreciate law enforcement and care very much about them. Hell i feel bad for that Inglewood cop. But the polygraph threat is real and valid. I have mine with Santa Barbra PD, and then in 3 weeks with LAPD and SDPD. I pray that i pass, but i have been honest and plan to do so. But the_Breeze, be safe in your job,and good luck in finding what you are looking for.
Brian
Before I begin responding to a few of the more substantive issues you raise, The Breeze, I'd like to first address one complaint you have later on in your post:
QuoteI have met a small bunch of intelligent people who are amazing hipocrites, repeating and tediously dissecting each statement instead of engaging in independent thought... And to all three guardians and hopeful keepers of the flame, what is with the endless and tiresome isolation and analysis of individual sentences? This is poor communication at its worst.
The reason I single out particular sentences and short passages in quotes and then respond to them is simply for ease of reading, and to make doubly sure that the reader knows to what portion of the post I am responding. I'm sorry you feel like it's niggardly parsing to do so, but it's how I've always done it both here and on other web bulletin boards.
QuoteI have got to hand it to you guys, it only took me 48 hours to be completely unimpressed with the integrity of this site. As you have figured out by now, I am a Detective from a mid size SW dept asked by my Sheriff to figure out the polygraph/voice stress/interview question and give him options.
What question did your Sheriff ask? Are you here seeking information on the reliability and accuracy of the polygraph for potential use as an investigative tool in criminal matters, or as an additional tool in the screening process of potential new hires, or in the post-conviction/probation/parole arena...?
QuoteWe had in the past sent out cases for polygraph but needed different cost effective solutions. I came here for intellectually honest discussion and maybe some pro's and cons. Knowing where I was I knew what I was getting into, but knowing something of the players I felt that honesty and objectivity was still possible.
Speaking of honesty and objectivity, why did you feel it necessary to obfuscate and mislead us as to the true nature of your visit here, starting with your very first post? Your initial questions/observations surrounded the use of the polygraph as a screening element in the application process of the FBI, and the ethics of potential federal agents 'lying',
not as a criminal investigation tool. Frankly I'm flabbergasted at your rant here now.
QuoteGeorge tells me about the fraud built into the polygraph because on a CQ test the examiner is expecting you to lie, and all I can think of is .....So What? that would mean every ruse that LE uses to solve crimes (undercover, interview techniques etc) renders the court approved tactic of deception in investigation a fraud as well.
The Breeze, you raised an oft-repeated question in the world of polygraphy and countermeasures-- repeated not only by pro-polygraph individuals seeking to shame those who use countermeasures but also by genuinely honest people caught in what they think is a moral dilemma. I for one usually point out several truisms about the polygraph, including:
-Your polygraph interrogator EXPECTS you to lie to the Control Questions, or at least to have great unease over the certaintly/accuracy/honesty of one's responses to the CQ's.
-In return for his deceit and lies about the nature of the test, the polygrapher in turn condemns dishonesty from the test subject--setting up a highly hypocritical situation in which many feel the quote, "Tis no deceit to deceive the deceiver" holds water.
Your original questions and observations NEVER mentioned court-sanctioned lies and trickery to elicit confessions. Had you done so, I doubt anyone here, pro or anti-polygraph, would argue that such tactics are perfectly legal and sanctioned by every court in the US. I'm amazed that you would take our responses and somehow find fault with them because LEO's lie and deceive during the course of an interrogation, or in the course of undercover work. What does one issue possibly have to do with the other?
Yes, The Breeze, the polygraph as it is used today makes a WONDERFUL interrogation prop. You might be interested in reading what one of the original pioneers of the polygraph, John Larson, once wrote:
I originally hoped that instrumental lie detection would become a legitimate part of professional police science. It is little more than a racket. The lie detector, as used in many places, is nothing more than a psychological third-degree aimed at extorting confessions as the old physical beatings were. At times I'm sorry I ever had any part in its development.QuoteAnd Beech Trees, my suggestion to you would be to carefully read posts before making "I gotcha" statements. I simply told you on 7/31 that I survived a USSS polygraph. Nothing about total numbers of tests at that point. Dont spread yourself so thin, and dont forget to breathe.
What gotcha statement? I merely observed in your first post that you had written you had passed one polygraph, and in a later post you wrote you had passed three. It was a curious thing, that's all. I guess it's a moot point now, since you fabricated your reasons for being here and then took the responses to your false questions about the ethics of lying in order to pass a polygraph and applied them to your REAL reason to be here... which is as far as I can deduce because your boss thinks it would be neat to have a polygraph interrogator on his squad.
QuoteI started out, and remain unconvinced as to the total efficiency of polygraph, but unlike you three and Mr. PD I dont think its quite the modern reading of sheep entrails that you would infer.
It's no inference, The Breeze. Polygraph "testing" is an unstandardizable procedure that is fundamentally dependent on trickery. It is a sham of a psuedo-science that has never, ever, been proven to be more accurate than chance. If you don't believe the regular contributors here (like myself, or Dr. Drew Richardson, or George, or Gino, or Mark Mallah, etc...) then would you please take a moment to read what Professor John J. Furedy of the University of Toronto wrote:
...basic terms like "control" and "test" are used in ways that are
not consistent with normal usage. For experimental psychophysiologists,
it is the Alice-in-Wonderland usage of the term "control"
that is most salient. There are virtually an infinite number of
dimensions along which the R [relevant] and the so-called "C"
["control"] items of the CQT could differ. These differences include
such dimensions as time (immediate versus distant past),
potential penalties (imprisonment and a criminal record versus a
bad conscience), and amount of time and attention paid to "developing"
the questions (limited versus extensive). Accordingly,
no logical inference is possible based on the R versus "C" comparison.
For those concerned with the more applied issue of evaluating
the accuracy of the CQT procedure, it is the procedure's in-principle
lack of standardization that is more critical. The fact that the
procedure is not a test, but an unstandardizable interrogatory
interview, means that its accuracy is not empirically, but only
rhetorically, or anecdotally, evaluatable. That is, one can state
accuracy figures only for a given examiner interacting with a given
examinee, because the CQT is a dynamic interview situation rather
than a standardizable and specifiable test. Even the weak assertion
that a certain examiner is highly accurate cannot be supported, as
different examinees alter the dynamic examiner-examinee relationship that grossly influences each unique and unspecifiable
CQT episode.QuoteIn other words you have not convinced me that this site is staffed with anything but haters of a tool. I had hoped for more. And George, I read your "book" 11 months ago, its well written but suffers from the problem this site has-a fundamental un-willingness to consider another view.
And what is this other view?
QuoteAnd finally PD Dreamer....You should of picked someone else to tell that tale to. As a military police officer who now does it as a civilian, I know your story is ridiculous.
So, you're a civilian employee working for a Sheriff? I thought you were a 'Detective from a mid size SW dept asked by my Sheriff to figure out the polygraph/voice stress/interview question and give him options'?
So, to summarize, you've been a military police officer, a Detective, a SWAT officer, and now a civilian employee of a Sheriff's office?
I for one think the isolation and analysis of various points of someone's statements is essential to good critical analysis, ensures that someone is not being misquoted, and makes it that much more convenient for the reader. And I have to say that I think George and Beech Trees practice this art with great acuity.
The Breeze, if you're still reading this, your desire to get "both sides" is a very limited paradigm. Do you try to get "both sides" from the criminal and the victim to determine whether the criminal act was legitimate or not?
Please understand that I am not equating polygraphy with criminal behavior, only pointing out the fallacy of getting "both sides", and since you believe you're not getting it here, thinking we're a bunch of narrow minded fanatics. Why should we here pretend, for the sake of a false veneer of objectivity, that polygraph screening is anything but illegitimate? I think many of the antipolygraph people who contribute to this site have educated themselves from a 360 degree standpoint about the polygraph and have found it severely wanting.
We welcome contrary evidence. Are you aware of any that refutes what George et al have been saying?
Drew Richardson...I thought you were a chemist by training - weren't you once a chemist in the FBI's forensic laboratory? Then you got involved with that Hazmat Unit, but there was something about keeping rented vehicles for months past the return date that got you yanked from the unit chiefs job and placed in the IFUU working on "special projects" for the Assistant Director until you got the message and decided to retire.
How exactly does a chemist get to be an expert in physiology and polygraphy...or is that part of the magical 16 weeks at the Academy?
Hey Beech
I didnt last long, you have a special skill for irritation disguised as logic.
Is it just possible that someone who does not blurt out everything on first post could still be sincere and not trying to mislead anyone? stay with me and turn down your sensitivity for a moment. Remember me? the one you thought was an FBI agent and the one embellishing his positive polygraph record? You would do better not to jump so fast, you run the risk of sounding silly rather than informed.
The reason I spoke first about integrity, was because I was immediately struck by the debate and wanted to say something...is this OK? Or are only the trampled on welcome on this "free" site. How could this make me a liar about why I was conducting research in the first place?. My dept cannot afford a polygrapher and our need is not so great, the Sheriff gets flyers from vendors (voice stress) and asked me to look around. Is that possible Beech Tree or do you smell a spy who just wants to mess up your notion of polygraph. And my friend, anyone not in the military to me is a civilian. That includes me after I seperated. The trapping me in a corner is just not working out that well for you.
The fact that I registered some disappointment at what I found here makes me atypical, not insincere. Not everyone is going to fit into your neat cookie-cutter victim of the polygraph schema. I have disappointed you and you have tried to make me sound like a liar. We have a saying in my world...first person to go personal loses.
I hope you do better in your own personal life, you are way too close to the polygraph thing. Its ok to log off, go see a movie or something. By the way, since you have been so persistent in your cross examination of my veracity, why did you duck the question of your own (im sure) very traumatic polygraph experience? Just who looked into your soul, and plucked out your deceit in such a humiliating way? Of course you dont have to tell me anything, but you should be willing to share your own stories and let others hold them up to the light. Your boy PD Dreamer should of been subjected to your withering wit, little questions like:
why does an MP get a TS
how was he removed from duty on a rumor, any due process
what was the reserve (!) interest in sinking his career
where was the UCMJ, staff judge advocate on his post
the name of his lawyer
On a real BS story you should be all over it just for integrity sake, keep your site free of storytellers that may look silly when discovered. But he got a free pass due to the nature of the story. Now you understand why I say I am unimpressed with the quality of this site. So forgive me once again for repeating that this site was of no use to me in what I need. My personal experiences, and being associated with polygraph tests as done in actual investigations...where I saw through a one way persons confronted with neg. polygraph results confess- these are more real to me than a small group (im still not convinced Im talking to different people here) who have no real LE background. Sorry Drew, most street cops think the FBI does not want to get thier hands dirty, but will take locally developed cases for thier own stats and publicity.
I will close this message with a thought to anyone who is looking for answers, has an upcoming polygraph and is scared. You would do well to remember that our profession is flawed, just like you. The hints you are getting here are from people that have failed, and you will have to decide if that is who you want to listen to or not. They are not stupid, and sound convincing... but like a gun control fanatic who can never be convinced that a handgun may save a woman from being raped, they are utterly convinced this tool has no value. Thats OK, but unfortunately with that personal belief comes alot of really poor information like cheating on an entry exam is ok because the tool is invalid. Ask the guards here why they dont rail against a psychological screen (usually given right after a poly, yes beech I worked a year in the Academy too) they are quick to tell you about all the thugs and spies who have slipped through the polygraph crack, when the same people without exception have met with a Dr. of Psychology who administered detailed testing to prevent the possibility of just such a person from being employed! why the free pass for that failed profession? Where do we log on to GM's new site www.antitherapist.org? Haters of a tool, my friends who just want to be cops, should not automatically command your attention. Think- dont let emotion rule.
Although I do possess a Ph.D. degree in physiology, you are correct-I do have an undergraduate degree in chemistry and have worked as both an organic chemist for a pharmaceutical company and an analytical/forensic chemist for the government. None of my posts on this site are predicated on my specific academic background, though the principles of the latter physical science have admittedly affected my thinking about issues of validity and the diagnostic worth of various polygraph applications and formats.
I liked your first post on how a supposed FBI polygraph was passed by your GREAT method of using countermeasures.
It was quite similar to many other posts that i've seen on here. Could it be that several different posts are all the same individual? Why would anyone wanna do that? or the question should be why does anyone have to do that??
Just an observation
Are you still at it little "george." Didn't your mother tell you it was bedtime yet?
Quote from: george on Oct 27, 2002, 11:27 PM
I liked your first post on how a supposed FBI polygraph was passed by your GREAT method of using countermeasures.
It was quite similar to many other posts that i've seen on here. Could it be that several different posts are all the same individual? Why would anyone wanna do that? or the question should be why does anyone have to do that??
Just an observation
If your question is "why would anyone want to use countermeasures?", the simple answer is that the polygraph doesn't do what it's supposed to do, and thousands of innocent people have been falsely branded as liars thanks to the device. Those are pretty good reasons to use countermeasures in an effort to ensure a correct polygraph outcome.
On the other hand, if your question is, "why would anyone want to post accounts of using countermeasures multiple times under different names?", (which I don't think is the case at all), I'd have to say I just don't know. Why would someone show up and start insulting respectable people anonymously?
Skeptic
george,
With regard to the ethics and integrity of truthful applicants choosing to employ polygraph countermeasures to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome, is not unethical, as you seem to imply. The "polygraph" is a colossal fraud, and thus, the polygrapher must lie to and otherwise deceive the person being tested.
I speak from a recent personal experience, not from some Internet article or book I read. I recently underwent two pre-employment FBI polygraph tests. They (the FBI) were unsure if I actually passed, failed, employed countermeasures, didn't employ polygraph countermeasures, etc...
In short, the bureau decided to err on the side of caution, so they deemed my results as "inconclusive", and denied me further consideration for employment with the bureau.
The FBI polygrapher responded to my polygraph results by saying; "nobody does that good" and, "you did too good to be true".
My point being, the FBI has absolutely no idea if I employed polygraph countermeasures or not. They are simply not sure. Although, they like to imply that they can detect countermeasures, I can assure you, they are clueless. If there is any doubt, they will simply deem your results as inconclusive.
For the record, I am not confirming or denying that I employed polygraph countermeasures during either, or both, of my FBI pre-employment polygraph exams.
If the FBI cannot accurately identify (pin-point) the use of cm's with absolute certainty, I'm surely not going to aide in their quest in data gathering to confirm any suspicions or doubts they may have. I take personal pleasure in the bureau not knowing "for sure" if I did or did not use countermeasures.
It is strictly my "personal opinion" that any/all truthful candidates should employ polygraph countermeasures to prevent a possible false positive result.
Unethical, I think not. Rather, I prefer to call it good advice and good judgment.
Good luck.
triple_x
If you were an honest person, you wouldn't have to use counter measures, would you? Think about it. Aren't you proud of yourself for passing a polygraph examination using deceptive techniques.
Quote from: Polyman2002 on Oct 29, 2002, 06:29 PMIf you were an honest person, you wouldn't have to use counter measures, would you? Think about it. Aren't you proud of yourself for passing a polygraph examination using deceptive techniques.
Is it your contention that honest people are always deemed 'NDI' on their polygraphs? Is it your contention that a polygraph machine, or the charts produced therefrom, can measure the deception or the honesty of an individual?
From what planet are you, and what have you been smoking?
Polyman2002,
Polyman2002 wrote:
"If you were an honest person, you wouldn't have to use counter measures, would you?"
Where did I say that I did?
Polyman2002 wrote:
"Think about it. Aren't you proud of yourself for passing a polygraph examination using deceptive techniques."
You are completely missing my point. I'm simply pointing-out that upon completion of two bureau pre-employment polygraph test's, they do not know if I employed countermeasures or not. In their own words, "I did too good to be true."
Their verbatim response to my test results were; "you did too good to be true", and "no one does that good".
The FBI failed me strictly because I scored better on the charts than they think I should have. They should have just flipped a coin, which would have been just as accurate. They simply assume I must have cheated because I scored better than they thought I should have.
I ask you; where is any proof of reliable scientific study, case study, blind study, any study at all perhaps I failed to mention, that supports "any claim" of being accurate at detecting polygraph countermeasures?
triple_x
Dear Triple-X,
For about the past five days, there has been an influx of personal attacks lacking any intellectual arguements. Little "george", "Polydonotlie", and "Polyman2002" are clones of a mind lacking any ability to think beyond one dimension. Please be flattered that they were able to focus and concentrate for more then fifteen seconds and read your thread. I think that it will be a group effort of this website to help them develop their debating skills and scientific arguement for they have been lacking in all areas.
Many have inferred that they are polygraph operators who are irritated with this website. I wound not want to insult any person, even a polygraph operator like that for these people truly are intellectually challanged when it comes to presenting clear and logical ideas.
Fair_Chance,
I appreciate the "heads-up" with regard to the referenced culprits and their insulting and unwarranted posts on the board.
Following my previous post, I perused the board and noted several unwarranted insults, and personal attacks by the referenced individuals you mentioned. I now realize I fail victim to their ploy...
Respectfully,
triple_x
Skeptic - In response to your bafflement over why anyone would want to sign on repeatedly and disguise themselves as individual posters giving such positive account of their success of countermeasures, just one phrase you should know; MISERY LOVES COMPANY!! In other words, people who have failed to get what they want in life the honest way, want to convince others that the system is flawed (see! it's screwing up tons of people's lives, it's out of control!!), hence increasing the numbers of people being "victimized", thereby lending credibility to their particular "beef" with the system. If others are successful @ getting things they want legitimately (taking a poly & passing it because they're telling the truth), then it would start to look like the poly works, & the problem might lie with the individual that failed the poly. We can't have that, so let's create a lot of fictitious accounts of success with countermeasures (when in actuality people employing countermeasures are being caught everyday. I know because I'm catching them/full confessions, & loving it!!), then more people will attempt countermeasures, get caught, become disgruntled with the system they never even gave a fair chance, help bolster the lawsuit, help the initial losers feel good about their own failures, etc. For example, what your website "GOD" (George Maschke) does not tell you, is that he failed the FBI poly & made significant admissions regarding drug use which disqualified him as an applicant. Also, he does not tell you that he currently works for the Iranian government. A little scary don't you think?! Makes you wonder what his real motives are. Imagine if Maschke was successful in his drive to "outlaw" poly, how many crucial intelligence cases regarding national security would be lost, if poly couldn't be used. Or is that what he wants to see happen? Might help his middle eastern friends infiltrate this country even more than what they've already done. As the NAS ultimately stated regarding poly, "THERE'S NOTHING BETTER". Or was that sentence left out when Maschke posted the NAS findings for all of his anti-poly friends to read??!
Dear Patriot,
In the Middle Ages, they used to bleed people in order to "cure them." Many people died from this process because "there was nothing better at the time." We now look back upon it and say, "How barbaric!" We will soon refer to polygraph testing for security in the same way in the future.
Quote from: patriot on Oct 31, 2002, 06:24 PM
Skeptic - In response to your bafflement over why anyone would want to sign on repeatedly and disguise themselves as individual posters giving such positive account of their success of countermeasures, just one phrase you should know; MISERY LOVES COMPANY!! In other words, people who have failed to get what they want in life the honest way, want to convince others that the system is flawed (see! it's screwing up tons of people's lives, it's out of control!!), hence increasing the numbers of people being "victimized", thereby lending credibility to their particular "beef" with the system. If others are successful @ getting things they want legitimately (taking a poly & passing it because they're telling the truth), then it would start to look like the poly works, & the problem might lie with the individual that failed the poly.
Patriot,
There's just one problem with your analysis: it is beyond dispute that the polygraph as it is used today falsely flags many innocent people. The NAS's study has buried that particular argument. It's over with. Done for. The debate is finished, and you lost before you began; you arrived about one month too late.
QuoteWe can't have that, so let's create a lot of fictitious accounts of success with countermeasures (when in actuality people employing countermeasures are being caught everyday. I know because I'm catching them/full confessions, & loving it!!),
Sure you are, Patriot. Care to provide some proof? Dr. Richardson has issued a simple challenge that should make it easy for you. Think of the fame and fortune that would be yours if you prove your ability to detect countermeasures
publicly!
QuoteFor example, what your website "GOD" (George Maschke) does not tell you, is that he failed the FBI poly & made significant admissions regarding drug use which disqualified him as an applicant. Also, he does not tell you that he currently works for the Iranian government. A little scary don't you think?! Makes you wonder what his real motives are.
Even if you could provide proof for any or all of the above, what do these things have to do with the efficacy and fairness of polygraph testing?
QuoteAs the NAS ultimately stated regarding poly, "THERE'S NOTHING BETTER". Or was that sentence left out when Maschke posted the NAS findings for all of his anti-poly friends to read??!
Actually, the NAS ultimately stated the polygraph should be abolished for security screening. The "nothing better" referred specifically to methods of lie detection, not security screening. Perhaps if you would actually read the report and not rely on the DoDPI/APA talking points, you wouldn't appear quite so much the fool.
Skeptic
Patriot,
Regarding the following:
QuoteFor example, what your website "GOD" (George Maschke) does not tell you, is that he failed the FBI poly & made significant admissions regarding drug use which disqualified him as an applicant. Also, he does not tell you that he currently works for the Iranian government.
I have publicly mentioned on numerous occassions (including a written statement (http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-2001/maschke-statement.shtml) submitted for the record to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary at its 25 April 2001 hearing on polygraph screening, and on national television on CBS 60 Minutes II (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=371.msg1698#msg1698)) that I "failed" an FBI pre-employment polygraph examination. However, I made no "significant admissions" whatsoever with regard to drug use (or any of the relevant questions). I have never used any illegal drug, nor have I ever used any legal drug illegally. And I do not currently work for the Iranian government, nor have I ever done so in the past.
Maschke - I am not disputing what "public statements" you may have made, however, I know for a fact you made illegal drug use admissions during the course of your polygraph, & that is ultimately what did you in. Obviously you are very bitter about that, and have actually lied many times over in your "public statements". Also, I realize you do not outwardly work for the Iranian government, but instead, a psuedo linguistic services outfit (overseas) that has ultimate ties to the Iranian government.
And to you Skeptic, what does your God's background have to do with the legitimacy of polygraph? Do you really have to ask? Obviously if he's lying about his own poly experience, and his employer, he cannot be trusted to be truthful about anything he speaks. Whether it be about poly, or his reasons for trying to discredit it. I noticed your God did not address the issue I brought up about the demise of crucial intelligence/national security investigations/information if poly is banned. Again, it seems as if his motivations are not would he would like you to believe.
Also Skeptic, regardless of what the NAS said about screening exams, again, I reiterate, "THERE IS NOTHING BETTER". Deal with it!! The point they were addressing, as am I, nothing better exists in lie detection, no matter the scenario you're testing. And, unlike many on this site, I do not need public recognition of the good work I'm doing. I've got the written confessions, I don't need to share them with you to feed my ego. I stand behind my patriotic work. Keep setting them up on this site, & I'll keep knockin 'em down.
Way to go. Ive been administering Polygraph for about 1 year and have gotten 8 confessions. Two of these were from child molesters. If it hadnt been for the polygraph and my charts they would have gone free and re-offended.
I don't think you had this in mind when you started anti-poly.
At least I hope you didn't.
Patriot,
You write:
QuoteMaschke - I am not disputing what "public statements" you may have made, however, I know for a fact you made illegal drug use admissions during the course of your polygraph, & that is ultimately what did you in.
How do you "know" this?
QuoteObviously you are very bitter about that, and have actually lied many times over in your "public statements".
Oh? Please tell me more.
QuoteAlso, I realize you do not outwardly work for the Iranian government, but instead, a psuedo [sic] linguistic services outfit (overseas) that has ultimate ties to the Iranian government.
I see. So why did you knowingly and falsely state that I work for the Iranian government?
Quote from: patriot on Nov 01, 2002, 12:43 AM
And to you Skeptic, what does your God's background have to do with the legitimacy of polygraph? Do you really have to ask? Obviously if he's lying about his own poly experience, and his employer, he cannot be trusted to be truthful about anything he speaks. Whether it be about poly, or his reasons for trying to discredit it. I noticed your God did not address the issue I brought up about the demise of crucial intelligence/national security investigations/information if poly is banned. Again, it seems as if his motivations are not would he would like you to believe.
Watch "patriot" fail to back up any of his libelous statements regarding Mr. Maschke. Advice to the casual reader: don't hold your breath waiting for him to do so.
Talk is cheap, "patriot". And libel is actionable.
QuoteAlso Skeptic, regardless of what the NAS said about screening exams, again, I reiterate, "THERE IS NOTHING BETTER". Deal with it!! The point they were addressing, as am I, nothing better exists in lie detection, no matter the scenario you're testing.
"Patriot", if my point were a bird, you'd have shit on your forehead.
The primary findings of the NAS, which you ignored in your screed, was that the polygraph is a danger to national security and should not be used for security screening purposes. The lack of adequate "lie detection" methodology to replace the polygraph (which itself is inadequate) does not mean the polygraph is better than nothing -- as the NAS explicitly stated.
QuoteAnd, unlike many on this site, I do not need public recognition of the good work I'm doing. I've got the written confessions, I don't need to share them with you to feed my ego. I stand behind my patriotic work. Keep setting them up on this site, & I'll keep knockin 'em down.
Patriot has obviously completely missed the point of the NAS report. Perhaps they should add "reading comprehension" to the required coursework for polygraphers?
Skeptic
Quote from: patriot on Oct 31, 2002, 06:24 PM
Skeptic - In response to your bafflement over why anyone would want to sign on repeatedly and disguise themselves as individual posters giving such positive account of their success of countermeasures, just one phrase you should know; MISERY LOVES COMPANY!!
I fail to see the logic of your assertion. If someone successfully passed their polygraph while employing countermeasures, wouldn't they be joyous and not miserable?
QuoteIn other words, people who have failed to get what they want in life the honest way, want to convince others that the system is flawed (see! it's screwing up tons of people's lives, it's out of control!!), hence increasing the numbers of people being "victimized", thereby lending credibility to their particular "beef" with the system.
I'm curious which posts specifically you feel are counterfeit or embellished or mere repetitions by the same poster. Could you point them out (http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml) and tell us who you think is the culprit, and why?
QuoteIf others are successful @ getting things they want legitimately (taking a poly & passing it because they're telling the truth), then it would start to look like the poly works, & the problem might lie with the individual that failed the poly.
Unfortunately the hard facts don't bear out your fantasy theory. The National Academy of Sciences report indicates that an honest person has an equally random chance of passing a polygraph as a dishonest person.
QuoteWe can't have that, so let's create a lot of fictitious accounts of success with countermeasures (when in actuality people employing countermeasures are being caught everyday. I know because I'm catching them/full confessions, & loving it!!)
Are you really? Everyday you catch one or more of your polygraph subjects attempting countermeasures? Who are these people? Would you mind providing specifics as to the kinds of countermeasures employed, how you detected them, and how you then obtained 'full confessions'?
Quote...then more people will attempt countermeasures, get caught, become disgruntled with the system they never even gave a fair chance, help bolster the lawsuit, help the initial losers feel good about their own failures, etc.
Ohhhhh I get it now. We're here spreading the
disinformation that polygraphy is nothing but a sham of a pseudo-science masquerading as legitimate, and that anyone with fairly short notice can master simple, easy to use physical and behavioral countermeasures that are undetectable by The State. That way, when people are foolish enough to believe those assertions, they employ the countermeasures, are effortlessly caught by people like 'patriot' here, and then those same foolish people are somehow secretly indoctrinated by us to come BACK to this website and lie that their State-sponsored interrogator didn't know whether to shit or go blind, so dazzling was their use of these countermeasures... thus enticing still MORE people to believe what I guess we should now (according to the Patriot Braintrust) call 'The Lie Behind The Lie Behind The Lie Detector'.......... Ummmmm yeah. That's it.
Sherlock Holmes you ain't sport.
QuoteAlso, he does not tell you that he currently works for the Iranian government. A little scary don't you think?! Makes you wonder what his real motives are.
Must be that ring of Netherland-based American citizen opium-smoking Iranian operatives I've heard tell about. All very 'hush-hush' don't you know.
QuoteImagine if Maschke was successful in his drive to "outlaw" poly, how many crucial intelligence cases regarding national security would be lost, if poly couldn't be used.
Yes, imagine that horrendous number. How many would be lost? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Oh my God, MILLIONS? Hey Zippy, in the course of human events,
not one spy has ever been caught with the polygraph. So, you tell me, is zero equal to, greater than, or lesser than zero?
Go back to the drawing board Chuckles, you didn't crack the case wide open with this post.
You have a lot of time on your hands beach trees
Posted by: skeptic5 Posted on: 10/31/02 at 23:55:19
You have a lot of time on your hands beach trees
Tsk...tsk....those who can't come up with any proof or logic are at a loss...they cannot comprehend the ease and ability to counter their nonsense within, at most, two minutes. A lot of time on our hands? No, that would be the polygraphers who are feeling the insecurity surrounding their jobs right now.
Certainly in these most difficult economic times we can all appreciate the polygraphers overwhelming sense of fear over the very short time left for them to practice their voodoo. I suppose they are all going to have to jump a plane to Israel, China, Africa, or one of the other countries where this pseudo-scientific fraud is practiced. Is this a fair thing for those who have stolen the livelihoods of so many? Is it fair for those who perpetuate a fraud? I think so.
Quote from: skeptic5 on Nov 01, 2002, 02:55 AM
You have a lot of time on your hands beach trees
I'm certain I wrote it faster than you read it.
Cheers,
Dave
Quote from: beech trees on Nov 01, 2002, 02:39 AM
Yes, imagine that horrendous number. How many would be lost? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Oh my God, MILLIONS? Hey Zippy, in the course of human events, not one spy has ever been caught with the polygraph. So, you tell me, is zero equal to, greater than, or lesser than zero?
The polygraph is highly touted as an important part of national security programs. Yet the testing has not caught one known spy. The main reason for pre-screening use has no history of success.
The stockholders of any business would be up in arms about the money wasted on a business procedure that did not produce any results and cost so much money.
I am a taxpayer and I am allowed to discuss and bring attention to what I believe is a waste of resources. The government law enforcement computer systems are ancient. Use this money to hire more computer specialist and equipment. Let's go into the 21st century instead of staying in the Dark Ages.
Way to go Lawpolyman,
Keep up the good work. As a matter of fact, without the polygraph, not only would child molesters go free to exploit other children; but murderer's, robbers, and other scum of the earth would continue to reap havoc in our society. I guess the anti-polygraph folk didn't consider this. Lawpolyman? Could it be that some of these anti-polygraph folk took a polygraph and failed it. Ooops, did I let the cat out of the bag,( Meooooow), open a can of wriggly worms.
Beech,
I think I've picked up on the prevailing modus operandi here...lacking any intelligent thought, logic, and reason for existence (following the NAS report), the polygraph-screening community has decided to unleash all that remains--illiteracy, lack of diction and a serious dearth of writing ability. Does there exist some super secret requirement in that community not to have scored over 400 on the verbal portion of the SAT?? Admittedly, reading this tripe has become quite painful :) I suppose to that extent, they have succeeded...
Quote from: Anonymous on Nov 01, 2002, 11:50 AMBeech,
I think I've picked up on the prevailing modus operandi here...lacking any intelligent thought, logic, and reason for existence (following the NAS report), the polygraph-screening community has decided to unleash all that remains--illiteracy, lack of diction and a serious dearth of writing ability.
Perhaps they are unleashing their adolescent children to deal with us. In all sincerity, it would be truly frightening to contemplate that the recent posters here are the actual men & women of law enforcement entrusted to serve us.
QuoteDoes there exist some super secret requirement in that community not to have scored over 400 on the verbal portion of the SAT?? Admittedly, reading this tripe has become quite painful :) I suppose to that extent, they have succeeded...
Indeed.... each of the inane posts only serves to reinforce:
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. I suspect the signal-to-noise ratio will increase for the worse in weeks to come. (Note to The_Breeze: I am a ham radio enthusiast, so I am qualified to use the 'signal-to-noise' metaphor)...
Beech Trees,
Ironically, the unintellectual "noise" being made by our pro-polygraph friends is sending a very powerful "signal" that critically thinking visitors to this site won't fail to recognize.
;)
Beech Trees,
Another problem with "patriot's" theory that this website is some kind of a conspiracy to spread disinformation is that we have provided here an uncensored forum for discussion and debate of polygraph issues. We don't delete the posts of those who disagree with us (unlike the frightened minds who operate the pro-polygraph website, PolygraphPlace.com (http://www.polygraphplace.com)).
:)
Quote from: Polyman2002 on Nov 01, 2002, 11:14 AM
Lawpolyman? Could it be that some of these anti-polygraph folk took a polygraph and failed it.
The NAS report stated that prescreening and screening Federal Employees serves no security purpose (and thus should be considered a waste of taxpayer money as far as I am concerned).
The NAS report stated that using such test
will falsely accuse many innocent people.The test has no validity. I would not let the results taint my opinion of anyone who passes or fails the test.
If I can wire patches to a subject's forehead, connect it to a box with lights and paper, and convince thousands of test subjects that it works and can detect lies, I am bound to have some great confessions and success stories. When people find out that it is nothing but an empty box, it stops working.
The NAS report confirms what many of this webpage have believed: the box is empty and so is the "truth" of many who believe that they can use it to tell fact from fiction.
Quote from: Polyman2002 on Nov 01, 2002, 11:14 AM
Lawpolyman? Could it be that some of these anti-polygraph folk took a polygraph and failed it. Ooops, did I let the cat out of the bag,( Meooooow), open a can of wriggly worms.
OK,
no one can be this clueless.
Polyman, the site has a search engine, not to mention an area for testimonials. Several people here have indeed taken polygraphs and been falsely accused. It ain't a secret, bud.
You guys are
not helping your case. At least with the pre-NAS polygraph crowd, there was a pretense that polygraphers were educated, intelligent people. By contrast, I honestly doubt all of our current crop of pro-polygraphers put together could outsmart a chair.
In fact, I almost wonder whether this isn't a campaign by anti-polygraph people to make polygraphers look bad and give us something to do. It
was getting pretty boring, for awhile.
Fair Chance or anonymous, this isn't you, is it? ;)
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Nov 01, 2002, 02:10 PM
In fact, I almost wonder whether this isn't a campaign by anti-polygraph people to make polygraphers look bad and give us something to do. It was getting pretty boring, for awhile.
Fair Chance or anonymous, this isn't you, is it? ;)
Skeptic
I admit. I did make a posting pleading for polygraph proponents to throw us some bones before all of the loonies came out of the shadows. That was only in response to multiple threads on using the polygraph for orgasm verification. You guys were getting cabin fever.
That's why I like your quotes Skeptic, you are an equal opportunity skeptical person.
If I could come up with some of these ideas that have been appearing than I could be making big money writing for MAD Magazine.
Let's not become cannibalistic just because the polygraph proponents seem to be giving up.
Sorry, Skeptic--even if of a mind to do so (hard to imagine such a state of mind though), I couldn't force myself to write that poorly...
Polyman2002,
Do you guys actually believe that polygraph testing is the "only" answer to solving crime?
You wrote:
"Without the polygraph, not only would child molesters go free to exploit other children; but murderer's, robbers, and other scum of the earth would continue to reap havoc in our society."
Do you not support other methods of crime solving such as: standard police work, detective work, visual surveillance, electronic surveillance, undercover work, undercover agents, confidential informants, common street snitches, interrogations, co-defendant confessions to cut a deal, neighborhood watch, crime stoppers, eyewitnesses, stake-outs, police line-ups, victims descriptions, etc, etc...
You guys seem to signify in your posts that polygraph is the answer to all crime. In actuality, polygraph testing catches very few criminals and/or suspects? The threat of a polygraph may bluff a "confession" from a criminal that already has significant overwhelming evidence incriminating them. But to think, believe, or suggest that polygraph testing alone bluffs countless confessions is overstated.
With regard to the many claimed confessions gained by all of the "pro-polygraph" guys on this board; that is merely a "personal and anonymous" unsupported claim.
If I were a professional polygrapher working for any of the many federal agencies, and I openly claimed to be able to detect and identify polygraph countermeasures with unquestionable accuracy, I would identify myself, the agency I worked for, and I would also accept the public challenge posed by Drew Richardson and prove him wrong. I would not hide behind an anonymous message board identity.
I would be very proud to be able to prove my ability to bluff confessions of employed polygraph countermeasures. I would also inform my superiors of my exceptional ability, and further openly challenge anyone to try-me.
Just imagine all of the national publicity, notoriety, fame, admiration from your peers that you would gain... if I was truly capable of doing what many polygrapher's claim to be capable of doing on this board, I would be on 20/20, Dateline, 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes II proving my case.
I would lend some credence to the recent NAS report on polygraph as reliable documented support of our belief on this site that polygraph testing is inaccurate and should not be relied on.
Please point-out or reference any source of reliable proof supported by documented scientific study supporting the diminishing reliability of polygraphy testing.
Respectfully,
Triple_x
Polyman2002,
You wrote in part:
Quote from: Polyman2002 on Oct 29, 2002, 06:29 PM
If you were an honest person, you wouldn't have to use counter measures, would you? Think about it. Aren't you proud of yourself for passing a polygraph examination using deceptive techniques.
you write:
"If you were an honest person, you wouldn't have to use counter measures, would you?"
If you believe that total and complete honesty will guarantee an NDI "passing" result, then you are a very naive and gullible individual. Surely you do not actually believe that...
You also write:
"Think about it. Aren't you proud of yourself for passing a polygraph examination using deceptive techniques."
I feel certain that the original author "Anonymous" of this message string is in fact very proud that he passed his FBI pre-employment polygraph exam. Furthermore, if you also think a poly alone revels all adverse in ones background; again, you are very naive. All FBI special agents to include most professional support positions require a SSBI for TS. Even a janitor position with the bureau requires TS...
If you think a polygraph is superior to a NAC/LAC (National Agency Check, Local Agency Check), then you probably still also believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny...
That being said, do you feel that "Anonymous" should have simply told the truth and risked a "false positive" result? And if so, if he had been the victim of a false positive, what would you say to him then.?
I think all readers on this board would like to know what you have to say to the victims of a true "false positive" result.
Please indulge and enlighten us all...
xxx