Scared out of my mind by this website.

[Ghon]

This is not intended to be a post to break the rules or anything, but as someone in college currently aspiring to work in the intelligence/national security field for our country in the future I can't help but raise these concerns.

I am very detached from the professional nature in which many people speak on this forum. There are a lot of things I don't understand in some of the posts, especially George's. To be honest though, I am glad I found this website. I only accidentally stumbled upon it, and to be honest, after reading George W. Maschke's statement and the statements by a few others I felt sick and angry.

The primary reasons for this is because what your cases all suggest is that no matter how loyal you are to your country, no matter how many years you've served it in uniform, no matter how many letters of reccomendation you get and who they're from, no matter how much education you've got, the untimely tapping of your fingers, a random sweat, or an aberrant deep breath can screw you over. Any one of those tiny little things can ensure that you NEVER work for the federal government, because those act as red flags in a polygraph test. That one can be blacklisted from all agencies after years of endeavors to acquire a position in intelligence only because of a polygraph test result is truly shocking to me, and I never knew that this environment of coercion existed.

So now to why I have felt compelled to post about this. As someone still in college planning to work toward an ambitious academic goal and possibly military service to compliment an entry into the intelligence field, I need to know something. What the hell do I do? Where do I go from here? How do I ensure that the years ahead of me in my studies and my service do not get relegated to insignificance because of some tiny, inconclusive nervousness I might have? In perhaps less kind words, how do I make sure I don't turn out to be one of you guys here?

Just based on everything I've read - whether it's skimming the suggested countermeasures (I refuse to read them), the testimonials here, the history of the polygraph's use - I can pretty much guarantee you right now that if I were administered a polygraph test I would more than break a sweat with all of this stuff in mind. I don't see myself passing at all, and it's not because I have a skeleton in my closet.

Anyways, that's my rant, and I would really appreciate any help/responses to these concerns.

P.S. Also, I noticed many people here thanking this website for their pass of the polygraph test. I would really like to know how it helped you. How is it it's less stressful to be administered such a test with all this knowledge about the machine you're hooked up to in the back of your head? How is it easier when there's that much more information to hide during the test?

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Just based on everything I've read - whether it's skimming the suggested countermeasures (I refuse to read them), the testimonials here, the history of the polygraph's use - I can pretty much guarantee you right now that if I were administered a polygraph test I would more than break a sweat with all of this stuff in mind. I don't see myself passing at all, and it's not because I have a skeleton in my closet.

You are right to be concerned. What I've seen repeatedly as a polygraph examiner is that examinees who are caught in countermeasures have read the advice on this site. They have not only tried out the advice, which stands out like a sore thumb to the eye of a trained examiner, but they have, I strongly believe, made the "relevant" questions much more signficant in their own minds than they would have been if they'd never been exposed to the poor advice presented here. When you read the junk that novices and pretenders post here, you'll be so concerned about masking any possible responses to the relevant questions that you will simply magnify the responses. The irony here is that by following poor advice you may very well be a "false positive," not through any failure of the polygraph, but through your own actions.

[Ghon]

I think you're missing a fundamental point though, LieBabyCryBaby.

Not everyone who has posted here about how one of you guys ruined their life had even known about this site prior to being branded a false positive...I guess it would be relevant to mention that one of those people is the creator of this website.

Do you honestly think the host of this website knew 'countermeasures' prior to taking the polygraph? No. His crusade against them didn't begin until he got dealt a bad hand. So you can't tar them all with one brush. Sure maybe reading some CM info might increase the chances one could fail.

That's irrelevant though... one because that's not the only circumstance it can fail and two because it's not even the countermeasures that worry me. What worries me is the fact that my chances of being accepted into any government intelligence agency is basically a coin toss. A 50% chance. Not based on my record or the accuracy of what I say, but because a polygraph expert saw me 'tap my fingers' or 'sweat a little bit' then that means I shouldn't be hired. I'm sorry, but that's just a lot of you know what.

[George W. Maschke]

Ghon,

First, rest assured that your post does not in any way break any rules of this website. All points of view are welcome.

With regard to your questions, "What the hell do I do? Where do I go from here?" I would suggest that you not pin all your career plans and hopes on a career in intelligence. If your polygraph squiggles zig when polygraph dogma says they should have zagged, you're shit-out-of-luck.

So if I were in your shoes, I would continue to study the topics you find interesting while keeping career options other than intelligence in mind. You might also consider intelligence-related work that doesn't require polygraph screening. For example, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (like the rest of the State Department) does not require polygraph screening. And if you were to become a staffer with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, you wouldn't be required to submit to polygraph screening (and might be able to help persuade members to put an end to our government's insane reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy).

[T.M. Cullen]

Just based on everything I've read - whether it's skimming the suggested countermeasures (I refuse to read them), the testimonials here, the history of the polygraph's use - I can pretty much guarantee you right now that if I were administered a polygraph test I would more than break a sweat with all of this stuff in mind. I don't see myself passing at all, and it's not because I have a skeleton in my closet.

With a preemployment polygraph at NSA/CIA/FBI it is NOT a bad chart reading that will do you in.  Like I've told you, the whole goal of this type of polygraph is to fluster you and "see what we can get you to say".  So it is more YOUR MOUTH, than a blip on a chart, that will do you in.  

At the NSA, if the hiring committee thinks you are a really promising applicant, they will have security test and retest you hoping you pass. They even retested me after I ripped the straps off my chest in a fit of anger and frustration during my polygraph!

But if you SAY something during the polygraph they can distort and use against you, THAT along with the chart is what will do you in.  A bad chart WITHOUT a confession leads to an "inconclusive" not a "fail"  And with the former, there is hope.

This is especially true for an existing employee taking a periodic update polygraph.  An existing employee can not be legally fired based solely on a polygraph CHART READING.   But what an employee SAYS during a periodic polygraph CAN be used to fire them!  So that should tell you something.

Never forget it is an INTERROGATION, the machine is a fancy "prop".  And as with ANY "interrogation" it is "what they get out of you" that matters most.

So cheer up, go out and get drunk/laid this weekend.  And start fresh on Monday.

TC

[George W. Maschke]

With a preemployment polygraph at NSA/CIA/FBI it is NOT a bad chart reading that will do you in.Like I've told you, the whole goal of this type of polygraph is to fluster you and "see what we can get you to say".So it is more YOUR MOUTH, than a blip on a chart, that will do you in.

Yes, polygraph screening is an interrogation in disguise. But applicants for intelligence positions can be and indeed are disqualified based on polygraph chart readings alone. No admissions are necessary.

[Ghon]

Cullen:
But if you SAY something during the polygraph they can distort and use against you, THAT along with the chart is what will do you in.  A bad chart WITHOUT a confession leads to an "inconclusive" not a "fail"  And with the former, there is hope.

George:
But applicants for intelligence positions can be and indeed are disqualified based on polygraph chart readings alone. No admissions are necessary.

And you see, this is what's getting me here. I do not know which one of you to believe. In George's statement, he did not say anything that could be used against him. All he did was answer the questions with a yes or a no and then he was called a liar. That experience of his doesn't seem to flow with what you're saying, Cullen.

It seems either you got lucky, or he got a bad apple doing his poly test, or something else is going on here.

They even retested me after I ripped the straps off my chest in a fit of anger and frustration during my polygraph!

I thought you said in another post that you shouldn't express anger or contest the polygraph results?

[George W. Maschke]

Ghon,

T.M. Cullen's experience is with the NSA polygraph program, and I think he has perhaps overgeneralized his experience to all federal polygraph screening programs. The NSA is, to my knowledge, one of only two federal agencies (the other being the CIA) that routinely use the Relevant/Irrelevant technique to screen applicants and employees. It is quite common for NSA and CIA applicants to be accused of "having problems" during their first polygraph session, to be grilled about what they were thinking about when they answered the questions, and then to be brought back for one or more follow-up sessions. No doubt, some applicants who might have ultimately passed -- had they kept their mouths shut -- make disqualifying admissions. (I'm not particularly troubled about this.)

But sometimes, as T.M. Cullen alluded to, innocuous admissions are blown out of all proportion by polygraphers who are rated based on their confession rates following "deception indicated" polygraph charts. And some applicants who make no substantive admissions at all are indeed disqualified based on their polygraph chart readings alone.

According to retired CIA polygrapher John F. Sullivan, it was once the case in the CIA that the only persons who failed the pre-employment polygraph were those who made disqualifying admissions. He reports that the CIA first denied an applicant a security clearance based solely on polygraph results in 1979. (See, Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner, Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books, 1979, p. 79.)

Rest assured that nowadays, both NSA and CIA will disqualify applicants based on polygraph results alone. Admissions are not necessary.

There is one agency (the Department of Defense) where it appeared (at least as of 2002, when the last data were publicly reported) that the only persons who failed the polygraph were those who made "substantive admissions." See the message thread, How to Pass the DoD CI-Scope Polygraph.

With regard to the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies that require pre-employment polygraph screening, applicants who don't pass the polygraph are disqualified -- no admissions required.

See the "Public Statements" page for polygraph experiences from applicants with a variety of agencies:

https://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml

[Ghon]

According to retired CIA polygrapher John F. Sullivan, it was once the case in the CIA that the only persons who failed the pre-employment polygraph were those who made disqualifying admissions. He reports that the CIA first denied an applicant a security clearance based solely on polygraph results in 1979. (See, Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner, Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books, 1979, p. 79.)

Rest assured that nowadays, both NSA and CIA will disqualify applicants based on polygraph results alone. Admissions are not necessary.

I'm confused about something. A polygraph's intent is to judge the honesty of an individual. How can someone fail a polygraph based on something they admit (which does not qualify under the Bureau/Agency's rules?)

...erm, in other words, I'm saying that the polygraph's chart isn't affected by what you openly admit, it only gets affected by whether you feel pressure upon hearing a certain question, which may make you react emotionally in ways to modify the chart reading. So how can an admission make you fail a polygraph?

There is one agency (the Department of Defense) where it appeared (at least as of 2002, when the last data were publicly reported) that the only persons who failed the polygraph were those who made "substantive admissions." See the message thread, How to Pass the DoD CI-Scope Polygraph.

Meaning that the experience people like yourself have had is not going on at DoD?

With regard to the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies that require pre-employment polygraph screening, applicants who don't pass the polygraph are disqualified -- no admissions required.

See the "Public Statements" page for polygraph experiences from applicants with a variety of agencies:

https://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml

Speaking of admissions. It was posted by Cullen in another thread that if you let the polygrapher know, in any way shape or form, that you are aware of the existence of this website and aware to some extent that there are countermeasures or even criticisms of the polygraph device, then you will be failed or disqualified. Is this true? So, what am I supposed to say when they ask the question, "Are you aware of any anti-polygraph website, or are you aware of the existence of any counter-measures to the device you are being administered with?" I would almost certainly have to lie to get past such a question, or face the consequences (whatever they are) of telling the truth and letting it be known that I have read this website.

Also isn't it possible that the government is able to see who visits this site? I know that might sound a bit paranoid, but I'm going to ask that question anyway.

I feel like I have made my efforts even harder just having found this website.

[T.M. Cullen]

And you see, this is what's getting me here. I do not know which one of you to believe. In George's statement, he did not say anything that could be used against him. All he did was answer the questions with a yes or a no and then he was called a liar. That experience of his doesn't seem to flow with what you're saying, Cullen.

It's not necessarily an "Either or" proposition.  Don't make admissions or play the "gee what's bothering you about this question?" game regardless of which agency you've applied to.  If it's an agency where a chart alone can disqualify you, and there are no "control" questions to apply CMs to, you then have no control over that.

As for my experience.  I tested both in 1995 and in 2000.  Passed it in 1995 but only one linguist my language was being hired ("Clinton cuts").  In 2000, they offered me GS-13 (which was one level higher than I asked for), but I took passing the poly for granted and to my great surprise (having passed it in 1995) I failed.  It was during the last day of testing during the post test interrogation that I got angry and riopped off the straps and told them how "bogus" I thought the polygraph was.  I got a call six months later from personnel wanting to test me again.

TC

[T.M. Cullen]

Speaking of admissions. It was posted by Cullen in another thread that if you let the polygrapher know, in any way shape or form, that you are aware of the existence of this website and aware to some extent that there are countermeasures or even criticisms of the polygraph device, then you will be failed or disqualified. Is this true? So, what am I supposed to say when they ask the question, "Are you aware of any anti-polygraph website, or are you aware of the existence of any counter-measures to the device you are being administered with?" I would almost certainly have to lie to get past such a question, or face the consequences (whatever they are) of telling the truth and letting it be known that I have read this website.

"Yes, Mr. Polygrapher, I did try to research the polygraph a little, but I found that there is so much controversy over the topic, it quite honestly, just confused me!  So how accurate is it?  98%?  Wow!  That's pretty accurate!"

That would be a TRUTH statement, wouldn't it.  As opposed to:

"Look, this test is bogus!  98% accurate?  Yeah right!  I went to 'anti-polygraph.com' and got the real facts about this so-called test of yours!  I'm not going to fall for your tricks Mr. Polygrapher!"

Also isn't it possible that the government is able to see who visits this site? I know that might sound a bit paranoid, but I'm going to ask that question anyway.

I seriously doubt that.  Is your name really Ghon?

TC

[Ghon]

It's not necessarily an "Either or" proposition.  Don't make admissions or play the "gee what's bothering you about this question?" game regardless of which agency you've applied to.  If it's an agency where a chart alone can disqualify you, and there are no "control" questions to apply CMs to, you then have no control over that.

So basically, in George's case, there was nothing he could do, but I should still heed your advice anyways. Just a note here...when you say 'dont make admissions' are you saying I SHOULD hide some things?

As for my experience.  I tested both in 1995 and in 2000.  Passed it in 1995 but only one linguist my language was being hired ("Clinton cuts").  In 2000, they offered me GS-13 (which was one level higher than I asked for), but I took passing the poly for granted and to my great surprise (having passed it in 1995) I failed.  It was during the last day of testing during the post test interrogation that I got angry and riopped off the straps and told them how "bogus" I thought the polygraph was.  I got a call six months later from personnel wanting to test me again.

TC

I see, so you were already hired. That gives you a little bit of leeway. I thought you meant that you did that pre-employment.

"Yes, Mr. Polygrapher, I did try to research the polygraph a little, but I found that there is so much controversy over the topic, it quite honestly, just confused me!  So how accurate is it?  98%?  Wow!  That's pretty accurate!"

That would be a TRUTH statement, wouldn't it.  As opposed to:

"Look, this test is bogus!  98% accurate?  Yeah right!  I went to 'anti-polygraph.com' and got the real facts about this so-called test of yours!  I'm not going to fall for your tricks Mr. Polygrapher!"

So then are you saying I SHOULD admit that I'm aware of countermeasure techniques and controversies surrounding the use of the polygraph? I wasn't going to say the second statement. I just wanted to know whether or not the fact that you know about a site like this and the existence of a Book/PDF file like the one on this website is a potential disqualification or in some way casts a shadow of doubt over how honest you will be judged to be. Does it?

I seriously doubt that.  Is your name really Ghon?

TC

As I'm sure you're aware, there's plenty of ways for your personal information to be uncovered on the internet other than screen names or what you tell people. For example, George W. Manschke posted in another thread that he was able to track the IPs of people who voted in a poll. Who's to say that my IP couldn't be traced and my name revealed, to then be put on a blacklist? Yes I am being serious.

[T.M. Cullen]

Just a note here...when you say 'dont make admissions' are you saying I SHOULD hide some things?

I mainly mean if they try to tell you the machine is detecting deception on your part, or that something must be "bothering you", when in fact you are NOT being deceptive, and nothing is bothering you about your answers leave it at that.  

They WANT you to start yapping your jaws off and tell them your life story to see if you give them anything "juicy".  But if you answer the relevant questions truthfully (e.g. about drug usage...etc.)?  Then you are not hiding anything!  You've disclosed all drug usage, criminal activity if any, indebtedness...etc.!

Some polygraphers here have suggested people write down anything that could possible have bothered you about the questions.  But if there is nothing bothering you (other than the fact they say you're lying when answering the question, when you ain't) what is there to write?  

It's a game to see what they can get you to say.  They want to totally focused on the machine, to believe the machine!  The machine is good, the machine is invincible.  You must be "one with the machine"!  They want you to speculate, and delve into your inner mind.  To ponder your soul and see what is there. All to make the machine like you.  All so the machine takes pity on your soul.  They do it so well, they make you forget the original freaking questions!  But that is EXACTLY what you should be focusing on, the original relevant questions.  

"Gee Mr. Polygrapher, there is nothing bothering me about that question, and I have answered it truthfully.  What more do you want me to say?"  What is so hard about saying that?

Anything you say in addition to that concerning relevant questions should not be anything that would "raise any eyebrows".  And believe me, that are real good at getting you to say some pretty embarrassing things!

If there are control questions, you can consider using CMs, but you need to be able to identify control questions, know how (and when) to employ CMs,  George is the guy to talk about that.  But you probably don't have enuf time for that.  

I see, so you were already hired. That gives you a little bit of leeway. I thought you meant that you did that pre-employment.

No, I was an applicant given a conditional offer at GS-13.  All I had to do was pass the polygraph.  Which i took for granted (after all i passed one five years earlier).  And ended up failing and was not hired.  So now I live on the North Shore or Oahu manage real estate and write pornographic novels in the evenings

TC

P.S.  Stop overthinking and worrying.  You're starting to remind me of me!

[Ghon]

So then are you saying I SHOULD admit that I'm aware of countermeasure techniques and controversies surrounding the use of the polygraph? I wasn't going to say the second statement. I just wanted to know whether or not the fact that you know about a site like this and the existence of a Book/PDF file like the one on this website is a potential disqualification or in some way casts a shadow of doubt over how honest you will be judged to be. Does it?

^ I would still like an answer to this if you have time.

"Gee Mr. Polygrapher, there is nothing bothering me about that question, and I have answered it truthfully.  What more do you want me to say?"  What is so hard about saying that?

Nothing, except in George's case it ruined his career...hence why I am so worried

No, I was an applicant given a conditional offer at GS-13.  All I had to do was pass the polygraph.  Which i took for granted (after all i passed one five years earlier).  And ended up failing and was not hired.  So now I live on the North Shore or Oahu manage real estate and write pornographic novels in the evenings

TC

P.S.  Stop overthinking and worrying.  You're starting to remind me of me!

WHAT! Are you serious? How is it you tell me I'm 'overthinking this' and worrying too much 4 lines after a paragraph about how your career was ruined and you're stuck with making porn??

My God, this is getting crazier by the minute.

[pailryder]

Ghon

Examiners assume educated subjects google and find these sites.  The information available at these sites can be useful, but the problem is the overwhelming amount of information spun to support one point of view.  I estimate it would take a year for the average person to read and understand what is presented at this site alone.  You are asking people who hate polygraph to tell you what polygraph examiners think.  They think they know, but they do not.  Their reasoning is colored by their hate.  I can tell you that there is no single point of view in our community about this question.

I suggest you pose your question on a pro site and see what examiners, the ones who really know, have to say.    

Candid honesty is the best policy, not a sure thing, but the way to go.