Constricting your sphincter

[Roy]

Beech Trees, Drew, and George

I guess I just need to address these to all three of you since I seem to be getting bombarded from all three of you at the same time.  Do you guys live together?   :)Your web site indicates all points of view are welcome, yet when a dissenting opinion appears you guys go into offensive mode.  I guess Batman was somewhat correct in discussing the tag team theory.  Just wanted to voice my dissenting opinion.  Regards.  Roy

[beech trees]

Hi again Roy,

In private messages and on the board, you told me I was wrong in asserting that Aldrich Ames passed his [1986] polygraph. I'm sorry you feel my responses were 'offensive', I was merely asking for clarification of your thoughts on the subject in light of the facts of the matter.

I do hope you will consider replying to my questions, there is no need to rush.

Dave

p.s. For clarity's sake: It was I, not Dr. Richardson, who erroneously stated that Hanssen had taken and passed a polygraph.

[The_Breeze]

Beaver:
Your correct in assuming that local LE does not do all it should to investigate applicants, right or wrong im sure you are much more thorough than our background investigators.  As you seem very reasonable and honestly interested in debate instead of indoctrination I dont mind sharing my views.  I would also never advocate using the polygraph alone, and indeed we do not in our backgrounds.  You are correct in that it is a tool in the honesty puzzle.  Ill accept your criticism about my outlook-but it was developed after watching dozens of applicants continue to "update" their applications as the result of backgrounds and polygraph. As I listen to myself on this site, Im clearly a dinosaur (at least as far as ethics go)  but you probably wont have to deny me a loan since I have 700 credit!  The reason you passed your poly is the same reason I passed several over the years, you were sincere and told the truth.  It worked for you as it worked for me.  No amount of reading a pamphlet will change that.
And GM thanks for warning me about libel while ignoring my valid points about other process failures and your own motivations. A site that could teach the next Hanssen how to conceal his activities should not worry about free speech.  You may have to answer other more pointed questions someday.  Like others- I repeat here in print what I have been told, If I am wrong like you guys are about Spies...I will say so.  And heres a homework assignment for you and BT, what were the results of Edward Lee Howard's polygraph when he worked for the CIA?

[George W. Maschke]

Breeze,

It's clear we disagree on the ethics of truthful applicants employing countermeasures to protect themselves against a false positive outcome, and we've discussed that in some detail in the message thread My FBI Poly (Used Countermeasures and Passed). But in view of your expressed belief that, "none are interested in what [you] would call serious debate," and in view of your gratuitous libeling of me (for which you have not apologized), I think there is little point in my further discussing ethics with you.

I will, however, answer your question about Edward Lee Howard. My understanding, based on press accounts, is that he failed a CIA polygraph screening "test" at a time that he is not believed to have been spying for the Soviet Union. Because of the polygraph results, and an alleged drinking problem, the CIA fired Howard, who later began peddling secrets to the Soviets.

[The_Breeze]

Thanks George for the almost admission that the CIA polygraph found a spy in government.  I know this does not fit into the latest information that you folks have been putting out, but the truth can be so inconvenient.  So this person was caught, fired and then began his life as a spy? thats a leap even for the most ardent haters of the polygraph. Lets see now: fired, returns to NM, is under surveilance, slips that, becomes a spy, flees to Moscow?  He ran from his watchers in the FBI because he wanted to become a spy once he got his life together?
Since you seem hurt over what I said about your veracity, my source is your testimony before the NAS.  When you explain that event to your breathless listeners, you will see that an apology is not needed.  But then again judging from the way you found not to admit that the polygraph did its job in the above spy case, you will spin your way out of your own words.
You are right not to debate ethics with me, as I have a well established ethical base.
I admire you George, really.  You had the energy to turn your personal failure into a novel and well executed web site for your position. Your personal vendetta has become a political position that you articulate well.  
I can even admire Drew, who has climbed the highest peaks of hypocrisy, without supplemental oxygen.
But the leafy one refuses to state his own credentials, begging the question: why should anyone listen to someone who merely appears to have one document to refer to and no practical experience with the polygraph?
This site is the functional equivilent of Mothers Against Drunk Driving positioning themselves politically against the use of automobiles, since its well established every drunk drives one.  Whats wrong with public transportation?  Maybe MADD is a bad example since they are real victims, that have suffered through someone else's actions- not merely liars who did not get a job.  But you get the point.
Want to work to have valid credibility assessment in Government, since we can both agree that it will exist in spite of your best efforts? Your talents would be better served in productive action, not wishfull thinking-

[star2be00]

"Whats wrong with public transportation?  Maybe MADD is a bad example since they are real victims, that have suffered through someone else's actions- not merely liars who did not get a job.  But you get the point."

Liars who did not get a job?? Who ever you are or think you are I suggest you watch you mouth. I don´t know if you´ve read any of the threads here concering people WHO DID NOT LIE AND FAILED THE POLYGRAPH... HELLO. I am going to be totally honest on my polygraph and if I fail people are going to hear about it... By the way you have no manners. Who are you to call anyone at all a liar?!! I also suggest you be carefull with what you say  , it could come back and kick you in the face.

[George W. Maschke]

The Breeze,

With regard to the Howard case, see Washington Post staff writer Walter Pincus's 20 July 2002 article,
"CIA Defector Howard Said to Have Died in Moscow." Concerning the timing of Howard's failed polygraph and the beginning of his espionage, Pincus writes:

Howard joined the CIA in 1981. In 1983, as a newly trained case officer, he and his wife, Mary, also a CIA officer, were prepared for an initial posting to Moscow. But Howard failed a polygraph on the eve of their departure.

Howard was fired from the agency after his case was reviewed, an investigation during which his heavy consumption of alcohol also became an issue.

Although the CIA helped him get employment with a state government agency in Santa Fe, N.M., Howard's drinking got him in trouble there. Faced with financial problems, he apparently made contact with Soviet agents in Vienna in 1984 while on vacation with his wife, and allegedly sold them secrets he had learned while preparing for the posting in Moscow.

If Pincus is correct, it appears that Howard began selling secrets after failing his CIA polygraph, not before. Do you agree?

Regarding your allegation that I was untruthful in my FBI application/polygraph examination, you wrote:

Since you seem hurt over what I said about your veracity, my source is your testimony before the NAS.  When you explain that event to your breathless listeners, you will see that an apology is not needed.  But then again judging from the way you found not to admit that the polygraph did its job in the above spy case, you will spin your way out of your own words.

Where in my testimony before the NAS did I indicate that I told anything but the truth in any aspect of my FBI application?

[beech trees]

Thanks George for the almost admission that the CIA polygraph found a spy in government.  I know this does not fit into the latest information that you folks have been putting out, but the truth can be so inconvenient.

Two quick questions, if I may, The Breeze:

1. Do you consider Edward J. Curran (former Deputy Director of Counterintelligence, Central Intelligence Agency) to be 'one of us folks putting information out'? Yes or no please. If your answer is 'yes', I suppose you may ignore my next question. However, if you do NOT categorize Edward Curran as an anti-polygraph <insert hateful word of your choice here>, then please help me to understand your position in light of Mr. Curran's televised statement on CBS 60 Minutes II segment "Final Exam":

Pelley: To your knowledge, in a routine screening, of the general population of agents or employees, has a spy ever been caught by a polygraph examination?

Curran: Not that I know of. Fairness to myself, by saying, you know, have you ever caught anybody, well, we haven't really polygraphed everybody either.

Your thoughts? Topic specific, if you please.

[The_Beaver]

Breeze,

 LUV them 700 plus credit scores!   And I don't think you're a Dinosaur.  Ethics and integrity are two qualities that are essential, in my opinion, to be any kind of cop, (or banker).  That 700 credit score speaks volumes  - more than you can imagine.

Thanks for the posts.

Beav

[Anonymous]

The Beaver,

Assuming The Breeze has a good credit rating, this fact has no more relevance to the validity of polygraph screening (and related issues) than a life insurance agent's glee that he has low to normal blood pressure readings.  Please try to stay more focused.

[The_Beaver]

X,

My post to The Breeze was part of a series posts. I was comparing tools, (poly/credit reports), that measure integrity, ethics, honesty and personal character as it relates to background investigations.  My point being, a person with high credit scores tends to also be of higher character.  I'm not sure how you related blood pressure to any of the above.

[George W. Maschke]

The Beaver,

I think the point Anonymous is making is that The Breeze's credit rating (and your satisfaction therewith) has no bearing on the validity of his comments on polygraphy.

I don't think anyone has questioned The Breeze's character here and am not sure why he felt the need to volunteer his credit rating. But immediately after doing so, The Breeze wrote:

The reason you passed your poly is the same reason I passed several over the years, you were sincere and told the truth.  It worked for you as it worked for me.  No amount of reading a pamphlet will change that.

As you know from the many accounts related by polygraph victims here on AntiPolygraph.org, being sincere and telling the truth is no guarantee that one will pass polygraph "test."

The Breeze seems to believe that anyone who fails to pass a polygraph must have been dishonest, and he has specifically accused me of having been untruthful in my application for employment as an FBI special agent. He says that he bases this allegation on my remarks last year before the National Academy of Sciences. Apart from his credit rating, another measure of The Breeze's ethics and integrity will be his response to (or failure to respond to) this question that I put to him on 5 August:

Where in my testimony before the NAS did I indicate that I told anything but the truth in any aspect of my FBI application?

[Starwizard]

I find the blanket characterization that everyone that fails a polygraph is dishonest to be HIGHLY offensive.  From my own personal experience I know the test is flawed.  I have taken two polygraphs during application processes for local police departments.  Both times I have been debriefed afterwards in regards to the drug usage question.  I have absolutely NO doubt that I NEVER used drugs in any shape or form and yet the polygraph test returns a result of DI when answering "no" to my ever having used drugs.  I am currently scheduled for a re-test for the second department.  Unless you have been in my situation you will never know how incredibly frustrating it is to know that your dream career may be placed out of reach based on this flawed test.  I HIGHLY value my integrity and just thinking about the polygraph and the implied stain it has placed on my truthfulness makes my blood boil.

Completely honesty and disclosure is NOT in any shape or form guaranteed to result in passing the polygraph.  I KNOW from personal experience.  You are welcome to believe in this test if you like, but I and others in my situation don't just believe, we KNOW for a fact the test is flawed.

Fail polygraph=dishonesty, my ass!

In my mind the polygraph equates to the old way of finding witches.  They take the suspected witch and throw her bound into a pond, if she floated she was a witch and they'd burn her at the stake. If she drown, then she was innocent.  The polygraph may in fact catch some dishonest people, but a lot innocent people are being drown.

Will I use countermeasures on my re-test? No, I won't since I am foolish enough to believe my integrity requires me not to.  I am emotionally drained by this whole experience at this point and could really care less if I get the job now.  Part of me still very badly wants this job, but when you are completely honest and still fail a polygraph; what hope is there really?  

Hopefully one day this test will be abolish as it rightfully should be and something much more accurate will replace it, but until then--to blindly champion its cause is rather sad.  Until the flawed natured of the polygraph is admitted, more grievous harm is done to the United States and various state and local agancies.  Not to mention the harm it inflicts upon the innocent people that fall victim to it.

Sincerely,
C. Robinson

[chicbette]

All -

I really enjoy reading informed, educated debate on both sides of an issue.  On this website, I have found links to many studies about polygraphy.  Many of the original studies are too old to have found their way onto the internet in their entirety, but there is a very good, objective and thorough explanation and evaluation of studies done in a 1983 study, commissioned by congress and conducted by the Office of Technical Assessment (OTA).  It can be found at:

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk3/1983/8320/832001.PDF

This document thoroughly digests all of the scientific studies that had been conducted to date on polygraph testing.  In citing studies, they don't merely excerpt and manipulate a few bare statistics - the OTA evaluators go through the sample selection criteria, polygraph methodology used, the entire construction of the field test, and dissect the results of each study extensively.  I STRONGLY urge you to read chapter 4 (that goes through the field studies that have been done) and also chapter 7, which presents the OTA's conclusions that:

"...no overall measure or single statistic of polygraph validity can be established based on available scientific evidence."  (Page 96) Ranges can be discussed, but even these don't often make sense given significant margins of error.

They also point out that accuracy of polygraph results, by the nature of the beast, depends upon a lot of uncontrollable variables - eg the skill of the examiner and the personality and history of the examinee.  ZERO studies have been done to evaluate these variables.  This is captured in the enormous range of error in the various studies (most disturbing to me- false positives).  They conclude that although the field studies which met their criteria of scientific validity indicate that a deceptive person will be detected at odds better than chance, they note numerous times the significant statistical error in each study, and also between studies.  

I hold this study up as truly objective material - people from all sides of the debate were invited (and urged) to contribute, including the American Polygraph Association.    

Speaking of which- if you go to the APA website - they do have a section entitled "research" - Rather than links, or intelligently detailed summaries of relevant studies on both sides of the issue (as can be found on Anti-polygraph.com), they "cherry pick" statistics that suit their cause.  The APA does not even disclose which method each "study" they cite is evaluating.  The OTA concluded that one cannot take the results of a polygraph study using one method, in one application, in one setting, and extrapolate the results to other methods, uses or settings.  You can't even take one examiner's results in a particular method, application and setting and apply it to other examiners.  (Again - those pesky uncontrollable variables!)

Do we, as a society, really want our livelihoods, not to mention our freedom and right to defend ourselves against false accusations to rest on a complex process that the scientific consensus seems unable to draw any definitive conclusions about?  (aside from the definitive conclusion that no definitive conclusions can be drawn in decades worth of use and research)  I'm personally not willing to take that kind of a crap-shoot.  De Facto, in a criminal investigation, one's fate is decidedly not in the hands of an objective machine or one's own truthfulness - given the subjective nature of the CQT methodology, it is in the hands of the Examiner, in hopes that not only is he competent, but that in a 1-2 hour discussion with me he can ascertain enough about my particular personality and history to come up with a Control Question that will get a reaction out of me that will be greater than my reaction to a false accusation.   I'd rather have my fate decided by a jury of my peers, or even a judge with guaranteed years of experience and education.

I would also point out that most polygraph examiners are NOT psychologists, and perhaps NOT terribly well-educated.  The OTA study could be a little heavy reading for them.  

Another thought - our government does not allow a pharmaceutical company to market a drug until it has gone through years and years of rigorous testing, documenting all possible side effects.  God forbid I should take a sinus medication that has a 15% chance of giving me a little diahrrea.  Why has rigorous testing and presentation of scientific conclusions of the polygraph instrument and methodology, that affects so many lives so drastically not been required??

[Batman (Guest)]

Chicbette:

You asked, "Why has rigorous testing and presentation of scientific conclusions of the polygraph instrument and methodology, that affects so many lives so drastically not been required??"

The answer is simple.  In reality, polygraph testing does not affect "so many" lives, therefore, the great majority of the public just doesn't consider it an issue.  When monitoring this site you would thinks that polygraph has a "drastic" impact on all Americans, however it doesn't.  It only impacts those who chose to undergo the process, whether they be individuals who apply for positions that require a polygraph, or those who are under some sort of investigation and who decide to take a polygraph.

In the big scheme of things, I don't know if this polygraph issue even rates a "pimple on the butt of the giant" classification.

Batman