My FBI Poly (Used Countermeasures and Passed)

[Fair Chance]

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.

[Polyman2002]

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.

[Anonymous]

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...

[beech trees]

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.

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.

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...

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)...

[George W. Maschke]

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.

[George W. Maschke]

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).

[Fair Chance]

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.

[Skeptic]

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

[Fair Chance]

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.

[Anonymous]

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...

[triple x]

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

[triple x]

Polyman2002,

You wrote in part:

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