Failed Polygraph but Appealing. Any Advice?

[scubadiver1]

I read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and failed miserably when I went for my polygraph.  I guess I just have too much of a conscious.  I ended up just admitting the things that I had done because they honestly were not that bad.  My SCI eligibility was of course denied, but I figured I would try to appeal.  I was actually able to mitigate the behaviors (funny how the examiner doesn't ask about mitigating circumstances and only tries to crucify you while you sit in that chair).  The only one I was not able to mitigate was "Personal Conduct", presumably for not putting the information on the SF-86 or stating it before questioning.

I'm planning to appeal in person before the appeals panel and was wondering if anyone has done this before and has any advice.  I'm also interested in seeing how I can show that I'm "stable, trustworthy, reliable, discreet, of excellent character, and sound judgment" since apparently even admitting information during a polygraph does not make you an honest person.

[George W. Maschke]

My advice is:

1. Retain legal counsel.

2. Review past cases that are similar to yours to find what kind of facts and evidence have successfully mitigated security concerns in the past. In this regard, see the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals' industrial security clearance decisions:

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/

[pailryder]

scubadiver1

apparently even admitting information during a polygraph does not make you an honest person

Yes, unfortunately you are correct, admitting you lied after you were caught lying does not make you an honest person.  You stated you read TLBTLDT, but did you understand and properly employ any cm's to protect yourself?

[Doug Williams]

Pailryder:  It is breaking news for a polygraph operator to finally admit that a person must use "cm's" to protect themselves from being falsely branded as a liar!  CONGRATULATIONS on finally making that admission! 

Will you now also admit that the polygraph is not a "lie detector" and that it is simply a prop used by interrogators to frighten and intimidate people?

You stated you read TLBTLDT, but did you understand and properly employ any cm's to protect yourself?

[pailryder]

Doug

Just so your clear, when the sentence ends in a "?", its a question, not an admission.

[Doug Williams]

Just so YOU'RE clear, you said "did you understand and properly employ any cm's to protect yourself?"  Protect himself from what? Being falsely accused of lying? If not, then what was he trying to protect himself from by using cm's? 

Pailryder:  It is breaking news for a polygraph operator to finally admit that a person must use "cm's" to protect themselves from being falsely branded as a liar!  CONGRATULATIONS on finally making that admission! 

Will you now also admit that the polygraph is not a "lie detector" and that it is simply a prop used by interrogators to frighten and intimidate people?

You stated you read TLBTLDT, but did you understand and properly employ any cm's to protect yourself?

[pailryder]

Doug

My remark was intended to imply that whatever he read or used did not seem to do him much good. 

[Doug Williams]

Sorry, my mistake!  I thought you had finally decided to join me and tell the truth about the so-called "lie detector".  Obviously I was wrong.  You were just trolling -  trying to get the poor guy to admit that he had tried to use cm's so you could brag about how they didn't work.  And you wanted to get the sadistic satisfaction that guys like you derive from pointing out that the big bad polygrapher scared the hell out of him and got him to admit something. 

Doug

My remark was intended to imply that whatever he read or used did not seem to do him much good. 

[pailryder]

you wanted to get the sadistic satisfaction that guys like you derive from pointing out that the big bad polygrapher scared the hell out of him and got him to admit something.

The something he omitted, then admitted, is what we call the truth.

[Ex Member]

The something he omitted, then admitted, is what we call the truth. 

How can you be sure what he admitted was the truth?--because he said so?

[Doug Williams]

I could frighten and intimidate you to the point that you would tell me anything I wanted to hear - but that wouldn't make what you said the "truth"!

And many of the admissions gleaned during interrogation via polygraph "testing" are not the "truth".

you wanted to get the sadistic satisfaction that guys like you derive from pointing out that the big bad polygrapher scared the hell out of him and got him to admit something.

The something he omitted, then admitted, is what we call the truth.

[scubadiver1]

@george - thanks for the only actual advice in this thread.  I have reviewed several cases and that is why I was able to mitigate the other areas.  I have my defense prepared but I was wondering if anyone had luck in a similar situation before, hence why I posted.

@pailryder - My CMs were not effective - if they were I'd have passed and wouldn't be here.  But that has nothing to do with TLBTLDT, it's me.  I know someone who is a pathological liar and has done plenty of things that would prevent him from ever getting SCI and he was in and out of the polygraph in an hour.  The whole thing is an interrogation and the polygraph only works because people believe it does.  The polygraph will not prevent the next Snowden.

@doug - I'm not entirely innocent here. I did omit some things at first because I felt they were minor / not what the polygrapher was looking for.  My polygrapher was an idiot and I saw after the fact how badly s/he twisted my words against me.  I've been able to undo a lot of that.  I'm not condoning the use of CMs, but I feel genuinely good people need some sort of defense against this archaic process. 

[pailryder]

The something he omitted, then admitted, is what we call the truth. 

How can you be sure what he admitted was the truth?--because he said so?

The same way you do, we seek information that can be independently verified.

[Doug Williams]

Describing my training as teaching "countermeasures" so liars can pass the polygraph "test" is the same thing as describing the polygraph as a "lie detector"!  Both descriptions are PURE, UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT!

Why do polygraph operators tell people not to research the polygraph before they take their test?  It is very simple - the only way they can intimidate people with the polygraph is to keep them ignorant about how it works.  When polygraph operators say I teach people "countermeasures" in order for them to "beat the test".  I simply say, that's bullshit, because polygraph operators routinely call truthful people liars - and my technique is the only way for honest, truthful people to protect themselves from being falsely accused of lying.  Go to the MEDIA page of my website, www.polygraph.com, and watch the CBS 60 MINUTES investigative report I helped to produce and see the proof yourself - three out of three polygraph operators called three different truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened!  You may also enjoy watching me prove THE LIE DETECTOR IS BULLSHIT on Showtime's PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT!

So, let me emphasize this - I DON'T TEACH SO-CALLED "COUNTERMEASURES" - I simply teach people how to ALWAYS PASS by knowing how to show a perfect "truthful" polygraph chart!  The word "countermeasures" is a word that has been misappropriated by polygraph examiners - it is used to describe what they say is a means to thwart their ability to detect deception.  But polygraph operators have always maintained that they can tell when a person is using these so-called "countermeasures".  If that is true, how can anyone use them "beat" the test?

Read my complete essay on "countermeasures" here: http://www.polygraph.com/index.php?i-don-t-teach-countermeasures

[pailryder]

scuba

Were you contacted during your pathological liar friend's B/I?