- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Recent posts
#91
Intelligence Agency Applications, Hiring, and Employment / Re: 8-hour CI poly, is it norm...
Last post by old chap 1776 - Jul 06, 2025, 05:41 PMYou would know if your BI started because your credit would get pulled and your references would notify you that have been contacted. If you were found unsuitable after only the poly, then it has to have been something you said during the poly. That's the only way. Sorry man. I still have my fingers cross. They agency actually completed my BI.
I find it hard to believe that you applied in January and had a poly only a month later. This is an impossible timeline in the IC. When you apply, it takes several months before you are contacted back. You have to go through preliminary online testing, standard interviews, and even a pre-security interview all before the poly, which can take several months to a year before you even get to the poly! Unless you are transitioning directly from another agency or something and already had a TS/SCI clearance.
QuoteApplied January 2021, poly February 2021, rejection letter December 2021; was a direct hire process.
I find it hard to believe that you applied in January and had a poly only a month later. This is an impossible timeline in the IC. When you apply, it takes several months before you are contacted back. You have to go through preliminary online testing, standard interviews, and even a pre-security interview all before the poly, which can take several months to a year before you even get to the poly! Unless you are transitioning directly from another agency or something and already had a TS/SCI clearance.
#92
Intelligence Agency Applications, Hiring, and Employment / Re: 8-hour CI poly, is it norm...
Last post by Jorge Mendosa - Jul 06, 2025, 07:26 AMOnly one poly given.
No admissions made. No harsh interrogation.
Don't know if background investigation was started or completed.
Rejection letter only said found unsuitable for employment.
Was not Covid, as NSA was hiring and the waiting room was full of applicants.
No admissions made. No harsh interrogation.
Don't know if background investigation was started or completed.
Rejection letter only said found unsuitable for employment.
Was not Covid, as NSA was hiring and the waiting room was full of applicants.
#93
Intelligence Agency Applications, Hiring, and Employment / Re: 8-hour CI poly, is it norm...
Last post by old chap 1776 - Jul 05, 2025, 03:12 PMQuoteApplied January 2021, poly February 2021, rejection letter December 2021; was a direct hire process.
Maybe Covid had something to do with your rejection, such as the NSA not hiring during the pandemic.
- Did they call you in for a second or third poly?
- What there something you admitted to or were harshly interrogated on that may be the reason for denial?
- Did your background investigation start and/or conclude?
- Did they tell you why you were rejected or was it a vague suitability denial?
Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to gauge my process. Several of us on Reddit and in the clearancejobs discussion board are in limbo trying to figure out what is going on.
#94
Intelligence Agency Applications, Hiring, and Employment / Re: 8-hour CI poly, is it norm...
Last post by Jorge Mendosa - Jul 05, 2025, 12:01 PMApplied January 2021, poly February 2021, rejection letter December 2021; was a direct hire process.
#95
Intelligence Agency Applications, Hiring, and Employment / Re: 8-hour CI poly, is it norm...
Last post by old chap 1776 - Jul 05, 2025, 10:06 AMQuoteyou very likely were disqualified. Ten months after my NSA poly I received a one-page rejection letter from NSA.
Yikes. Sorry to hear and I guess it sucks for me. On other forums like reddit people have been cleared after a year or more. Those who are rejected jsually find out quickly, like within a couple of months after a poly.
When did you go through the process? Your job was a direct hire fed job with NSA? Can you post your timeline?
#96
Intelligence Agency Applications, Hiring, and Employment / Re: 8-hour CI poly, is it norm...
Last post by Jorge Mendosa - Jul 05, 2025, 09:52 AMyou very likely were disqualified. Ten months after my NSA poly I received a one-page rejection letter from NSA.
#97
Polygraph Policy / Interview with Kevin Gosztola ...
Last post by George W. Maschke - Jul 05, 2025, 09:06 AMAs mentioned on the blog, I spoke with journalist Kevin Gosztola, who runs the website TheDissenter.org, about the Trump administration's reliance on polygraph screening to go after suspected leakers. Our interview begins about 10 minutes into his latest podcast:
https://thedissenter.org/dissenter-update-trump-administrations-reliance-on-lie-detectors/
https://thedissenter.org/dissenter-update-trump-administrations-reliance-on-lie-detectors/
#98
Intelligence Agency Applications, Hiring, and Employment / Re: 8-hour CI poly, is it norm...
Last post by old chap 1776 - Jul 05, 2025, 08:04 AMAs of today, still no updates. It has been about 9 months since my poly, and 8 months in adjudication. The security folks at the IC contractor job told me I went into adjudication about a month after the poly. I wonder if the poly accusations were part of some criminal investigation they are doing on me? I have been a naughty boy, but I leave no traces and I didn't confess to anything . . .
#99
Polygraph Policy / Former Senior FBI Special Agen...
Last post by George W. Maschke - Jul 04, 2025, 11:00 AMMichael Feinberg, then a senior FBI official with a background in counterintelligence work, was told on 31 May 2025, that he would be receiving no further promotions and that he was to be polygraphed about his friendship with Peter Strzok, a former senior FBI special agent disliked by FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino.
Feinberg has published an article about his experience for the Lawfare blog under the title, "Goodby to All That: My Resignation from the FBI."
The following is an excerpt:
It seems to me that it was entirely inappropriate for the FBI to require Feinberg to submit a polygraph interrogation about his friendship with Strzok (who to my knowledge has never been convicted of any crime and is not presently under criminal investigation).
I would be interested in anyone else's thoughts on this.
Feinberg has published an article about his experience for the Lawfare blog under the title, "Goodby to All That: My Resignation from the FBI."
The following is an excerpt:
QuotePrior to that day [31 May 2025], I had never faced any sort of disciplinary review or investigation. And to be clear, I was not accused of violating any rules or regulations this time either, nor had any of my cases fallen short of institutional standards. My only supposed sin was a long-standing friendship with an individual who appeared on Kash Patel's enemies list, and against whom Dan Bongino had railed publicly.
Yet rules turned out not to matter much. And so, that weekend, Bongino informed my SAC, who in turn informed me, that he was halting—and actually reversing—my professional advancement.
I'm not going to rehash or relitigate Pete's story here; it's been told ably and comprehensively by others, not the least by himself. I'll simply note that we worked together in the FBI's Counterintelligence Division roughly a decade ago, and we shared a number of mutual acquaintances before we ever even met (the counterintelligence world being not that large). Our own friendship began with a discovery that we liked the same bands and shared an interest in trying new restaurants; the notion that I was his "protégé," as one X account stated, was news to us both. Most of our conversations since he left the Bureau have involved debating the relative merits of New Order versus Joy Division. If the fact that I sang along to "Every Day is Like Sunday" while he stood next to me at a Morrissey concert actually represents an imminent danger to the Bureau's integrity, then, for the first time in nearly a half-century on this earth, I'm truly at a loss for words.
Yet under Bongino's reign, it was apparently enough. My SAC informed me in a moment she described as "brutally honest," that I would not be receiving any promotions; in fact, I needed to prepare myself for the likelihood of being demoted. She gave me no details about what position or office I would be sent to once my time as a leader prematurely concluded.
Furthermore, she told me, I would be asked to submit to a polygraph exam probing the nature of my friendship with Pete, and (as I was quietly informed by another, friendlier senior employee) what could only be described as a latter-day struggle session. I would be expected to grovel, beg forgiveness, and pledge loyalty as part of the FBI's cultural revolution brought about by Patel and Bongino's accession to the highest echelons of American law enforcement and intelligence.
When my SAC revealed the concern about my friendship with Pete, and its imminent consequences, I knew that I could no longer stay at the Bureau. Within twenty four hours of my final phone call with her, I resigned, five years short of eligibility for retirement and a pension. I sent the following resignation letter...
It seems to me that it was entirely inappropriate for the FBI to require Feinberg to submit a polygraph interrogation about his friendship with Strzok (who to my knowledge has never been convicted of any crime and is not presently under criminal investigation).
I would be interested in anyone else's thoughts on this.
#100
Polygraph Policy / Re: A Public Challenge to "Exp...
Last post by George W. Maschke - Jul 01, 2025, 04:12 AMDavid Goldberg has posted a follow-up video to our interview, recorded shortly after it, titled "Truth vs. Skepticism: My Reaction to George Maschke's Claims | @gwmaschke."
I infer from the title that he supposes that he is on the side of truth and that my skepticism somehow is against the truth. The video may be viewed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJl_xp4lak0
Among other things, David states:
This is misleading. David and I do not agree that experienced polygraph examiners are going to catch examinees who use countermeasures. As I mentioned to him during our interview, the federal polygraph school did a study on countermeasures ca. 1995 under the auspices of Dr. Gordon Barland, and what it showed was that with no more than an hour of training, 80% of test subjects were able to beat the polygraph:
https://antipolygraph.org/s/cc
I also mentioned that there is nothing in the polygraph literature about how to reliably detect countermeasures. David's claim that "experienced examiners are going to catch that examinee trying to do countermeasures" is without evidence.
David goes on to say:
Here, too, David mischaracterizes my remarks. I did not state that "polygraph examinations do in fact help people" in any general sense. Rather, I conceded that some people who pay for polygraph services are satisfied with the results. I believe that overall, polygraphy does much more harm than good.
Moreover, I don't believe that experienced polygraph operators provide more accurate chart readings than beginners do. There is no peer-reviewed research to support this notion.
David goes on to argue that I was wrong in claiming that federal agencies share polygraph results with each other, arguing that it would be logistically impossible. He seems to be unfamiliar with databases such as Scattered Castles.
He repeats his claim that computerized polygraphs provide "way more" accurate results than analog ones. However, there is no peer-reviewed research that would support this notion.
I infer from the title that he supposes that he is on the side of truth and that my skepticism somehow is against the truth. The video may be viewed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJl_xp4lak0
Among other things, David states:
QuoteWhat he [George Maschke] also got right was, he said, "countermeasures."
Ladies and gentlemen, I have said this before and I'll say it again, that there is countermeasures out there, and people do tend to utilize in order to manipulate and try to beat their polygraph examinations that they go and take. And what I told him, and I agreed with him, that there are manuals, education material out there, on countermeasures, how to do it, how to learn how to do it, however what I said was, experienced examiners are going to catch that examinee trying to do countermeasures, and that's what I agreed with George Maschke.
This is misleading. David and I do not agree that experienced polygraph examiners are going to catch examinees who use countermeasures. As I mentioned to him during our interview, the federal polygraph school did a study on countermeasures ca. 1995 under the auspices of Dr. Gordon Barland, and what it showed was that with no more than an hour of training, 80% of test subjects were able to beat the polygraph:
https://antipolygraph.org/s/cc
I also mentioned that there is nothing in the polygraph literature about how to reliably detect countermeasures. David's claim that "experienced examiners are going to catch that examinee trying to do countermeasures" is without evidence.
David goes on to say:
QuoteWhat I also agreed with him, and this is huge, ladies and gentlemen, is, he said that polygraph examinations do in fact help people. I cannot emphasize that enough! Polygraph examinations of all matters, whether it's criminal, whether it's infidelity, whether it's pre-employment, whether it's false allegations, whatever, they in fact help people overcome whatever their issue is, when, and this is what I said, when you seek an experienced, certified examiner, just like myself. And there are not a lot of them out there, so you have to do your due diligence to find one. There are some crappy ones out there that ruin people's lives, and that's where me and George agreed, that people have failed exams that were telling the truth, and people have passed exams that shouldn't have, and I am a perfect witness for that, because people have come in my office who have either failed my exams, and when I've told them they have failed, I ask them "how did you beat that last examiner that you went to?" or vice-versa when they passed mine, I asked "How did you fail that last exam and examiner?" they would tell me, either they did something to try to manipulate that exam or whatever, but they admitted to me what they did, and so I know that you can beat an inexperienced polygraph examiner, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is what me and George Maschke discussed about beating the polygraph—not the polygraph instrument, you can beat inexperienced polygraph examiners.
Here, too, David mischaracterizes my remarks. I did not state that "polygraph examinations do in fact help people" in any general sense. Rather, I conceded that some people who pay for polygraph services are satisfied with the results. I believe that overall, polygraphy does much more harm than good.
Moreover, I don't believe that experienced polygraph operators provide more accurate chart readings than beginners do. There is no peer-reviewed research to support this notion.
David goes on to argue that I was wrong in claiming that federal agencies share polygraph results with each other, arguing that it would be logistically impossible. He seems to be unfamiliar with databases such as Scattered Castles.
He repeats his claim that computerized polygraphs provide "way more" accurate results than analog ones. However, there is no peer-reviewed research that would support this notion.