ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bigfoot , Bob Gimlin , Patterson-Gimlin film , Roger Patterson

Closed Thread
Old 27th April 2012, 12:18 PM   #8281
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,525
Wink

Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
Wheunis has not written "I don't know". I'm paraphrasing from the sum total of his arguments on the subject. His responses make it clear he has no idea.
"Proving someone's innocence or guilt in a crime, does not hinge on pinning it to someone else."

"I find this akin to arguing that a person cannot be declared innocent of a crime until he points to the person that is, in his stead, guilty.
Since when did passing the buck seal an argument?

The better question is: Why does it matter who was in the suit?"
And in this I agree with him. We may provisionally accept Heironimous's claims as likely to be true (as I do), but it's also perfectly rational and skeptical to neither accept nor reject those claims, until further evidence is forthcoming.
V,
And it is perfectly rational for me to ask him who he thinks was in the suit until he tells me he doesn't know.
__________________
unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 12:54 PM   #8282
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,102
Sweaty Wheunis,

So, what's the deal?

You agree that the PGF is a film of someone in a suit so which of Patterson's and/or Gimlin's friends is in the suit in the film?

There aren't many to choose from but if you can't come up with one here are some hints:

- Who is the only one who admitted being the suit wearer?
- Who is the only one who had the suit in the trunk of his mother's car and showed it to the bar patrons?
- Who is the only one who confronted DeAtely about not being paid what he was owed for wearing the suit?
- Who is the only one who let Gimlin borrow his horse (as seen on the film) for a couple weeks?
- Who is the only one who gave the suit back to Patterson after his horse was returned?

Shall I go on or do you get my point?

If Bob H. did is not the person wearing the Patty suit in the PGF who is the bloke in the suit?



Has anyone heard from Parcher lately? We need his special skills.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

Last edited by GT/CS; 27th April 2012 at 01:03 PM.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 01:16 PM   #8283
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
V,
And it is perfectly rational for me to ask him who he thinks was in the suit until he tells me he doesn't know.
I do not know.
Neither do I care.
If you like, however, I will endeavor to get a re-print of the phonebook of that year and we can start there.

Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Sweaty Wheunis,

So, what's the deal?

You agree that the PGF is a film of someone in a suit so which of Patterson's and/or Gimlin's friends is in the suit in the film?

There aren't many to choose from but if you can't come up with one here are some hints:

- Who is the only one who admitted being the suit wearer?
- Who is the only one who had the suit in the trunk of his mother's car and showed it to the bar patrons?
- Who is the only one who confronted DeAtely about not being paid what he was owed for wearing the suit?
- Who is the only one who let Gimlin borrow his horse (as seen on the film) for a couple weeks?
- Who is the only one who gave the suit back to Patterson after his horse was returned?

Shall I go on or do you get my point?

If Bob H. did is not the person wearing the Patty suit in the PGF who is the bloke in the suit?



Has anyone heard from Parcher lately? We need his special skills.
Thanks for more of the thinly veiled insults so often used to bolster yourselves, as I have presented in another discussion.

Ignoring the arrogance and oh-so-superior intellect so obviously presented by this masterful use of insults - I shall simply say one thing:

Your assumption that it HAD TO BE one of his friends, is quite frankly, equal in absurdity to some pretty magnificent claims by fanatic bigfoot believers.

For all that you, or I, or anyone else has evidence to lay out as proof, it might just as well be a vagrant off the street paid in scotch.

Have a nice day.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 01:33 PM   #8284
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,102
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
I do not know.
Neither do I care.
If you like, however, I will endeavor to get a re-print of the phonebook of that year and we can start there.



Thanks for more of the thinly veiled insults so often used to bolster yourselves, as I have presented in another discussion.

Ignoring the arrogance and oh-so-superior intellect so obviously presented by this masterful use of insults - I shall simply say one thing:

Your assumption that it HAD TO BE one of his friends, is quite frankly, equal in absurdity to some pretty magnificent claims by fanatic bigfoot believers.

For all that you, or I, or anyone else has evidence to lay out as proof, it might just as well be a vagrant off the street paid in scotch.

Have a nice day.
Hey, you're the one who brought it up so let's see your evidence for anyone else being in the suit. 'Feelings' don't cut it here so show us some facts.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 01:50 PM   #8285
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Hey, you're the one who brought it up so let's see your evidence for anyone else being in the suit. 'Feelings' don't cut it here so show us some facts.
You claim Bob H is in suit.
I say I don't believe you, and reject your premise.
Burden of proof is your's, not mine.

Why would I go about proving the non-existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

More precisely: Burden is Bob's. But if you wish to speak on his behalf, have at it.

Last edited by wheunis; 27th April 2012 at 01:54 PM.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 01:56 PM   #8286
AlaskaBushPilot
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,167
There are a lot of manipulation clues with our new fella, but one of the interesting ones is the use of the word "sadly", like here:

Quote:
Sadly, it would take overwhelming evidence for me to believe Bob was involved.

Oh really? Why is this a thing to be sad about? Sad for you? Sad for humanity? What is the purpose of this word sadly? Because on the face of it there is nothing to be sad about. But you feel compelled to stick that word in there. Maybe it is a clue, eh:


Quote:
And lastly (but sadly): Proof of fakery/trickery/BS wont really change anything at all in the greater scope of "footers".
Quote:
Sadly, no conclusive evidence proves either way on the matter.
(Film development timeline impossibility)


Quote:
Unfortunately, the only thing we have to go by in Bob's case is his knowledge of the event, and word of mouth.

Sadly, I do not put much weight to "Ask my sister! She will tell you the same!"

In that one, check out the additional term "unfortunate" along with "sadly". Boy, is he really in anguish over having "only" a confession of a co-perpetrator backed up with multiple lie detector tests, and eyewitness corroboration.

Unfortunately, and sadly, this is transformed by our friend into "word of mouth" and pretense that family members are disbarred from corroboration when they are eyewitnesses. Courts don't do that of course. Only the guy claiming to be so sad and unfortunate over it.

Notice how the word sadly can instead be an important clue to the opposite: being very happy about transforming eyewitness testimony into "word of mouth". Being happy about no amount of evidence being enough for him. Being happy that disproving the PGF will not change the beliefs of 'footers.

Correlation = 100%: Where the word "sadly" is used, the writer can be viewed as happy instead. Whereas interpreting the word as signalling actual sadness - it does not fit the data like that at all. And the one achieving the most sadness and misfortune of all is that no amount of evidence can convince him Bob Heironimus is in the suit.

Gee, who is in charge of choosing that outcome? Surprise! It's whenuis! So logically, wouldn't it make for a much happier whenuis to remove his sadness and misfortune by allowing himself to change that obviously unreasonable position? That's proof the word does not mean what it says.


Now, we have only four data points. But they show correlation 100% and the most important data point of all has double weignt because it shows that more deceptive words are added when the importance of the deception rises.

Since we have announced we're on to him the data is going to be manipulated so this is the end of it. But he's already been outed by others. I just wanted to add my little hobby horse of understanding deception and manipulation in as corroboration.

Last edited by AlaskaBushPilot; 27th April 2012 at 02:01 PM.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 02:10 PM   #8287
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,459
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
Did a 10 minute Google Image Search, came up mostly empty.
Not proof that it doesn't exist, and no pressure from me on the topic - but if you happen to find that photo, I would appreciate a link or such.

But like I said, you don't have to go out of your way to find it.
Sadly, it would take overwhelming evidence for me to believe Bob was involved.

I just don't believe the whole "I was part of it, but they didn't cut me in" story.
If I were to hoax something, I wouldn't dare cut someone involved OUT, for exactly the fear that they would ruin it.
..
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
What you believe or don't believe has no impact on reality.
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
?



And the same applies to everyone else here.
But somehow, mob mentality prevails.
Everyone has latched on to Bob, for nothing more than it would serve their overarching desires above facts.
Sure, if Bob was involved and is being truthful, then it proves PGF as a fake!
And immediately everyone scrambles to prove him genuine.

Since when does proving one thing fake, hang on the assumption that something else must be instead true?
Explain to me, if you will, folks...
WHY can't PGF be faked, regardless of Bob? If Bob was never even born, then PGF can't be a fake?!
Is this how far the desperation has gone? That we will throw our case on the back of another fraudster, just to hammer our clause home?

Furthermore, I love the idea presented that Bob is too integral to PGF to ignore.
So, anyone who said that PGF was fake before Bob came out was wrong? Idiots?

Cmon guys, I know we can do better than rest our entire case on the halfwitted claims of another fraudster...
You're the one who made the argument from incredulity.

Who's we? You got a schizophrenic mouse in your pocket?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 02:13 PM   #8288
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,188
Originally Posted by BravesFan View Post
My belief that BH was Patty hinges on 2 things. He has passed multiple lie detector tests AND the fact that his walk is unmistakably similar to Patty's. It's so exactly dead on and is such a unique looking gait, that it seems ludicrous to think that A)an animal happened to walk just like Bob or B) someone else involved in the hoax walked exactly like him.

If pressed to write my opinion down in stone, Clue style, it was Bob , In Bluff Creek, with the monkey suit
BH is the prime suspect, but I would not say "The walk" is good evidence, since it can be replicated by many people. Remember, a NG skeptical show had an actor replicating the "Patty walk" right in front of Meldrum's face.

His story with Patterson and Gimlin is more convincing IMHO. However, for all I know (and I know nohting), anyone else could be the bloke in the suit, maybe even Patterson or Gimlin. Its not that hard to increase an actor's height and bulk with costumes.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 02:13 PM   #8289
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
There are a lot of manipulation clues with our new fella, but one of the interesting ones is the use of the word "sadly", like here:




Oh really? Why is this a thing to be sad about? Sad for you? Sad for humanity? What is the purpose of this word sadly? Because on the face of it there is nothing to be sad about. But you feel compelled to stick that word in there. Maybe it is a clue, eh:




(Film development timeline impossibility)





In that one, check out the additional term "unfortunate" along with "sadly". Boy, is he really in anguish over having "only" a confession of a co-perpetrator backed up with multiple lie detector tests, and eyewitness corroboration.

Unfortunately, and sadly, this is transformed by our friend into "word of mouth" and pretense that family members are disbarred from corroboration when they are eyewitnesses. Courts don't do that of course. Only the guy claiming to be so sad and unfortunate over it.

Notice how the word sadly can instead be an important clue to the opposite: being very happy about transforming eyewitness testimony into "word of mouth". Being happy about no amount of evidence being enough for him. Being happy that disproving the PGF will not change the beliefs of 'footers.

Correlation = 100%: Where the word "sadly" is used, the writer can be viewed as happy instead. Whereas interpreting the word as signalling actual sadness - it does not fit the data like that at all. And the one achieving the most sadness and misfortune of all is that no amount of evidence can convince him Bob Heironimus is in the suit.

Gee, who is in charge of choosing that outcome? Surprise! It's whenuis! So logically, wouldn't it make for a much happier whenuis to remove his sadness and misfortune by allowing himself to change that obviously unreasonable position? That's proof the word does not mean what it says.


Now, we have only four data points. But they show correlation 100% and the most important data point of all has double weignt because it shows that more deceptive words are added when the importance of the deception rises.

Since we have announced we're on to him the data is going to be manipulated so this is the end of it. But he's already been outed by others. I just wanted to add my little hobby horse of understanding deception and manipulation in as corroboration.
Yes, I am rather sad that Bob H cannot be validated as telling the truth.
Him, or any other person, being proven as the suitman would conclusively shut the case on PGF forever.
I am, indeed, deeply disappointed that Bob's claim does not hold any weight in the real world, other than hearsay.

Oh wait.
I'm sorry.
I forgot your infallible Lie Detector.

I will save you the time and quote the relevant ruling instead...

Quote:
"Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion..."


If you prefer a more scientific viewpoint on the issue, I am pleased to provide a single one, which in itself will further lead to more reference material on the matter.

William G. Iacono, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience; Director of the Clinical Science and Psychopathology Research Training Program at the University of Minnesota; published paper titled Forensic "Lie Detection":
Quote:
Although the CQT [Control Question Test] may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions, it does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test. CQT theory is based on naive, implausible assumptions indicating (a) that it is biased against innocent individuals and (b) that it can be beaten simply by artificially augmenting responses to control questions. Although it is not possible to adequately assess the error rate of the CQT, both of these conclusions are supported by published research findings in the best social science journals (Honts et al., 1994; Horvath, 1977; Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984; Patrick & Iacono, 1991). Although defense attorneys often attempt to have the results of friendly CQTs admitted as evidence in court, there is no evidence supporting their validity and ample reason to doubt it. Members of scientific organizations who have the requisite background to evaluate the CQT are overwhelmingly skeptical of the claims made by polygraph proponents.
As Published in the Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2001.

Last edited by wheunis; 27th April 2012 at 02:15 PM.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 02:29 PM   #8290
BravesFan
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
IMO, who is in the suit is secondary to that it IS a suit. BH can't prove he was the man in the suit anymore than anyone can prove he wasn't. It happened 45 years ago and I reckon any evidence to that effect is long gone.

The circumstantial evidence is as follows:

He claims to be the suit wearer
Nobody else has come forward as such
He passed a lie detector test
He fits the height range
He walks very similarly to Patty
He knew all those involved and is a friend of Gimlin's to this day


I'm not saying that we could convict of him of being the suit wearer, but I think that he would garner a good bit of extra surveillance and would be the prime suspect.
BravesFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 02:30 PM   #8291
BravesFan
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
Originally Posted by Correa Neto View Post
BH is the prime suspect, but I would not say "The walk" is good evidence, since it can be replicated by many people. Remember, a NG skeptical show had an actor replicating the "Patty walk" right in front of Meldrum's face.

His story with Patterson and Gimlin is more convincing IMHO. However, for all I know (and I know nohting), anyone else could be the bloke in the suit, maybe even Patterson or Gimlin. Its not that hard to increase an actor's height and bulk with costumes.
his natural walk seems to fit Patty though, unless you think prior to making his claims he sat with a copy of the film and practiced?
BravesFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 02:31 PM   #8292
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,102
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
You claim Bob H is in suit.
I say I don't believe you, and reject your premise.
Burden of proof is your's, not mine.

Why would I go about proving the non-existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

More precisely: Burden is Bob's. But if you wish to speak on his behalf, have at it.
Since Bob H. being Patty is the default postition it is up to you to provide evidence that will make us look another direction.
If you can't provide anything we have no choice but to dismiss you as someone who spouts nonsense regarding BH's role in the PGF and we must stay with the default position.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 02:36 PM   #8293
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Since Bob H. being Patty is the default postition it is up to you to provide evidence that will make us look another direction.
If you can't provide anything we have no choice but to dismiss you as someone who spouts nonsense regarding BH's role in the PGF and we must stay with the default position.
The default?!
Default as proven by what?

I hear you stating your belief. I hear your claim as to a default.
I call your statement into question.

I am sure as heck not challenging any amounts of any "default" here, as no default exists.
Default has proof.
This garbage has none.

Fall much for the lie-detector, do we?
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 02:40 PM   #8294
BravesFan
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
Unless you are stating that Patty being real is the default position?


Person A has claimed to be the wearer

no other person has claimed as such

most reasonable estimations of the height and weight of the "creature" fall within the measurements of the claimant. Making his claim "reasonable" but not "proven".

Claimant was (and still is) an associate of the filmmakers/hoaxers



Why ,in the question of "Who is in the suit?" would BH NOT be the default position?
BravesFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 02:41 PM   #8295
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,188
Originally Posted by BravesFan View Post
his natural walk seems to fit Patty though, unless you think prior to making his claims he sat with a copy of the film and practiced?
Nope.
Just saying I don't think its the best argument, because other people can walk this way.
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 02:44 PM   #8296
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,689
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
.......

Fall much for the lie-detector, do we?
The polygraph is a proven, reliable, investigative tool..

One of it's most effective uses, is establishing who is, or is not, willing to submit to an examination.
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !

Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 27th April 2012 at 02:45 PM.
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 02:45 PM   #8297
BravesFan
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
It just struck me the first time I saw him walking how similar it was to Patty.

Not that any of us will ever know for sure either way. But I have to admit, one of the saddest days of my young life was when I first had to deal with the fact Patty was most probably a fake..... That sucked! lol

But, it's better to be saddened by the truth than revel in a fallacy I reckon.
BravesFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 02:59 PM   #8298
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,102
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
The default?!
Default as proven by what?

I hear you stating your belief. I hear your claim as to a default.
I call your statement into question.

I am sure as heck not challenging any amounts of any "default" here, as no default exists.
Default has proof.
This garbage has none.

Fall much for the lie-detector, do we?
Did you not see my list of facts that point towards BH?
What facts do you have that point to anyone else other than Bob being in the suit?

Until and unless you provide something for us to consider you will be rightfully ignored and/or be considered a troll, and that's a shame because I don't think you're a troll.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

Last edited by GT/CS; 27th April 2012 at 03:16 PM.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 03:00 PM   #8299
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
The polygraph is a proven, reliable, investigative tool..

One of it's most effective uses, is establishing who is, or is not, willing to submit to an examination.
The only thing the polygraph has ever, or will ever prove, is a person's knowledge of an event. The end.
Not whether or not he is lying about it.
Not even whether or not his telling thereof is true or false.

I will however agree to the ways in which the above statements has led to positive proof of somebody's implicit involvement in a crime was proven by polygraph (spoilered for those that don't care)

In a rather high-profile crime, the police intentionally leaked false information regarding the weapons used in a particular crime. More interestingly, they leaked that none had been used.
Upon testing the person in question, they questioned the man on this misinformation and the polygraph positively identified that the man did indeed register a response to being questioned about weapons used in the crime.
The response indicating that he did indeed have knowledge about the weapons, was able to grant them a restricted search warrant of his premises, and did indeed turn up the weapons in question.

Some psychologists have spoken out heavily to the method used, as the swing of information presented versus the questions may have triggered a false positive on response from the polygraph.
Even so - the police has since used the same tactic on occasion in high profile cases, without any successful appeals in court to the method.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 03:05 PM   #8300
BravesFan
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
The only thing the polygraph has ever, or will ever prove, is a person's knowledge of an event. The end.
Not whether or not he is lying about it.
Not even whether or not his telling thereof is true or false.

I will however agree to the ways in which the above statements has led to positive proof of somebody's implicit involvement in a crime was proven by polygraph (spoilered for those that don't care)

In a rather high-profile crime, the police intentionally leaked false information regarding the weapons used in a particular crime. More interestingly, they leaked that none had been used.
Upon testing the person in question, they questioned the man on this misinformation and the polygraph positively identified that the man did indeed register a response to being questioned about weapons used in the crime.
The response indicating that he did indeed have knowledge about the weapons, was able to grant them a restricted search warrant of his premises, and did indeed turn up the weapons in question.

Some psychologists have spoken out heavily to the method used, as the swing of information presented versus the questions may have triggered a false positive on response from the polygraph.
Even so - the police has since used the same tactic on occasion in high profile cases, without any successful appeals in court to the method.

So you are claiming that those who administer Polygraphs (and analyze the results) are not being truthful when they determine that the suspect's statements are "deceptive"? Cuz that' s what they say, The say whether or not they think the guy is lying or not.

We aren't in court, he passed a lie detector test, while this isn't the be all and end all, it DOES strengthen his case.
BravesFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 03:07 PM   #8301
AlaskaBushPilot
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
I am, indeed, deeply disappointed that Bob's claim does not hold any weight in the real world, other than hearsay.
So, stick with the pretense of being so devastated about a fallacy you are peddling.

Bob's direct testimony is just that: direct testimony. It is not hearsay. Are you really this, uh uninformed - or think so little of us to make that argument?

We are about to witness the old bait-and-switch. You leap deceptively from Bob's claims to something very different: The lie-detector support for those claims in addition to the claims themselves:

[quote]I forgot your infallible Lie Detector.

[quote/]
Quote:
I will save you the time and quote the relevant ruling instead...
Under the maxim that the manipulative person is up to the exact opposite of what he says, this is not to save me time. This is a diversionary tactic away from Bob's testimony itself: to take up my time.

You are pretending that removing the lie detector removes Bob's testimony itself, which it clearly does not.


Quote:
If you prefer a more scientific viewpoint on the issue, I am pleased to provide a single one, which in itself will further lead to more reference material on the matter.
Same iron law now of doing the opposite of what he's saying: of course I don't prefer irrelevant arguments. Only as it pertains to how a manipulator works his mark.

The problem now is the longer you stay the worse it is going to get with all the inconsistencies. But our top men were on to you right away, and I am a late arrival to the party.

Last edited by AlaskaBushPilot; 27th April 2012 at 03:09 PM. Reason: post isn't quoting right and I have to go to work!
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 03:17 PM   #8302
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Did you not see my list of facts that point towards BH?
What facts do you have that point to anyone else other than Bob being in the suit?

Until and unless you provide something for us to consider you will be rightfully ignored and/or be considered a troll.
Oh, you mean that disrespectful post of yours with the thinly veiled insults?
Are you surprised that I ignored it's contents after "Sweaty"?

Seeing as you insist:

Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
- Who is the only one who admitted being the suit wearer?
- Who is the only one who had the suit in the trunk of his mother's car and showed it to the bar patrons?
- Who is the only one who confronted DeAtely about not being paid what he was owed for wearing the suit?
- Who is the only one who let Gimlin borrow his horse (as seen on the film) for a couple weeks?
- Who is the only one who gave the suit back to Patterson after his horse was returned?
- Bob H. is the only recorded/public admittance to being the suit wearer.
So? Proves nothing.
If I came forward and said I was Jack the Ripper, does that make it true simply because nobody else has ever said the same?

- THE suit? No I'm affraid that will have to go as circumstancial evidence. No proof exists, other than hearsay as to this suit being THE suit.
Hearsay amounts to nothing whatsoever.
Further to the hearsay, there is no proof offered whatsoever, that the suit mentioned or discussed was the suit in question.
Oh my isn't that convenient that he doesn't have it anymore?

- First, start with the assumption that he is telling the truth? Nice investigative work!
The only thing you can possibly prove from this is that Bob's motivation has always been money. Nothing more.

- The only thing this proves is that Bob's horse was on the scene. Not Bob. Unless you are saying that Bob is in a horse suit, at the same time as being in a monkey suit?
Me borrowing anything to anyone is proof of nothing more than the facts
a) I had that thing
b) That person wanted/needed said thing
It's not even reasonable to imply that we knew each other. I don't know my neighbour's last name, but I borrowed him my PS3 controller once for a weekend...

- No proof that such an exchange took place, nor that the suit was ever proven (other than above hearsay) to be in Bob's possession in the first place. Yet again more unsubstantiated hearsay.
The only fact we can deduct from this matter is that Bob got his horse back from Patterson.


All I see is circumstantial (and even then extremely weak) evidence of nothing more than knowing each other, one borrowing the other's horse, and another who happened to have any one of a million monkey suits in his car.
The only verification for these matters is by hearsay.

http://brainchildblog.com/wp-content...ough-sieve.jpg

Edited by jhunter1163:  Removed hotlink.

Last edited by jhunter1163; 27th April 2012 at 05:24 PM.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 03:22 PM   #8303
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by BravesFan View Post
We aren't in court, he passed a lie detector test, while this isn't the be all and end all, it DOES strengthen his case.
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
We are about to witness the old bait-and-switch. You leap deceptively from Bob's claims to something very different: The lie-detector support for those claims in addition to the claims themselves:
Bait-and-switch? I didn't bring up the lie detector!
It was presented ipso facto as if I am to say "Oh! But of course he wasn't lying then!".

Polygraph neither strengthens, weakens, proves, disproves, or plays any role whatsoever in Bob's statement being true or false.
Bob's statement is nothing but that. Words coming out of his mouth.
Not a shred of tangibly conclusive evidence.
The only corroboration he brings, is the testimony's of... other random people he knew? People in a bar. His sister. Postman Pat and his black-and-white cat.

Circumstantial, backed up by nothing more than hearsay from around the town.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 03:34 PM   #8304
BravesFan
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,784
I get the sneaking suspicion you are a bleever masquerading as a skeptic, in fact I have a fairly good idea I know who.........

But ,in case I am mistaken, who do you think is the most likely person to be in the suit? (which is all anyone has stated, no one person has said "we know it was BH in the suit"

Given the evidence, the statements, and yes the polygraph, BH is the prime suspect in the "Who Wore the Patty Suit" case. If new evidence emerges clearing Bob, then we will analyze it at that time.
BravesFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 03:41 PM   #8305
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 13,689
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg:
The polygraph is a proven, reliable, investigative tool..

One of it's most effective uses, is establishing who is, or is not, willing to submit to an examination.


Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
The only thing the polygraph has ever, or will ever prove, is a person's knowledge of an event. The end.
Not whether or not he is lying about it.
Not even whether or not his telling thereof is true or false.
Nothing in your reply, addressed the substance of my post..


Are you by chance running for public office ?
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join Team 13232 !
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 03:43 PM   #8306
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,102
Originally Posted by BravesFan View Post
I get the sneaking suspicion you are a bleever masquerading as a skeptic, in fact I have a fairly good idea I know who.........
But ,in case I am mistaken, who do you think is the most likely person to be in the suit? (which is all anyone has stated, no one person has said "we know it was BH in the suit"

Given the evidence, the statements, and yes the polygraph, BH is the prime suspect in the "Who Wore the Patty Suit" case. If new evidence emerges clearing Bob, then we will analyze it at that time.
Good, then we won't need to wait for Parcher
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 03:51 PM   #8307
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by BravesFan View Post
I get the sneaking suspicion you are a bleever masquerading as a skeptic, in fact I have a fairly good idea I know who.........

But ,in case I am mistaken, who do you think is the most likely person to be in the suit? (which is all anyone has stated, no one person has said "we know it was BH in the suit"

Given the evidence, the statements, and yes the polygraph, BH is the prime suspect in the "Who Wore the Patty Suit" case. If new evidence emerges clearing Bob, then we will analyze it at that time.
I have never been a registered member on any forum on skeptism, bigfoot, UFO's, any religion, or any such topic in the history of ever.

You are welcome to search for, and I am most willing to list my active forum participations, as here follows (spoilered for "dgaf")

mybroadband (SA) - user wheunis
mygaming (SA) - user wheunis
PlayFire - user wheunis
Ubuntu/Wine - user wheunis
3DM3 - user wheunis
Eorzeapedia - user wheunis
ZAM - wheunis
...
...
I'm sure you see the pattern already, and a quick Google search will do just fine at this point.


As to your question, see my quoted reponse from a few replies back.

Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
I do not know.
Neither do I care.
Neither is it my intent to further an investigation into any other likely suspects.
Plainly put, my statement "PGF is fake" does not, like everybody else, grasp at Bob's straws to validate themselves.
Bob's validity is not required.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 03:55 PM   #8308
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,525
wrong again; its not hearsay. It's eyewitness statements. You have all the footer fallacies down pat. Which is fine. You can memorize whatever you want. Not standing up in court doesn't mean polygraphs aren't useful, sometimes just the response to the request speaks volumes. Bob Gimlin will never take one, I guarantee you that. They are widely employed across industry and government. Footers widely request trial-quality proof against bigfoot, but accept the wild claims of almost anyone when it comes to "evidence" "for" "bigfoot." So you fit the bill.

How do you feel about the existence of bigfoot? Do you think bigfoot exists as a flesh and blood animal resembling the popular definition? 8 feet tall, 400 lbs, hinged feet, glowing eyes, great running speed upright but also goes on all fours, eats anything, no fire or tool use, lives in family units, can't be photographed, eats zagnut bars, breaks off the tops of trees, howls at night, sneaks into camps, habituates to humans, carries off humans, throws stones at humans, etc.

The strange thing about your statements about Bob H is that they all have that ill-informed quality (footers don't actually read The Making of Bigfoot) and some sound if you have a personal grudge against Bob. That is footer-style stuff. I mean, you can get your info wherever you wish but learning about Bob H from the footers is likely to give one some mistaken ideas.
__________________
unlikely to stay thirsty, my friends.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 04:07 PM   #8309
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Hmmm... this is fun.
Hey parnassus, check this out!

Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
Footers parnassus and co widely request trial-quality proof against bigfoot Bob H, but accept the wild claims of almost anyone when it comes to "evidence" "for" "bigfoot. Bob H" So you I fit the bill.
Funny how that works...
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 04:14 PM   #8310
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,601
wheunis: What evidence or testimony in particular makes you think he's absolutely not the MIAS actor? (speaking of Bob Heironimus)
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 04:22 PM   #8311
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by River View Post
wheunis: What evidence or testimony in particular makes you think he's absolutely not the MIAS actor? (speaking of Bob Heironimus)
He's a dishonest person, with only money as a verifiable motive.

Implicit in his "confession", bares the possibility that even if considered true - makes him a fraudster.
From his own mouth, this was about money he felt cheated out of.

So lets consider.
He was willing to tarnish his own reputation, for money.
Not for truth. Not for a guilty conscience.

So if he had so little self-respect that he was able to disregard his own reputation for money, I find it very likely and extremely probable that he has no respect for the truth either.
At this measure, I find it most likely that every single word out of his mouth, with exception to his name, is more likely to be false than it is true.

TL;DR - It's the motive that convinced me.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 04:25 PM   #8312
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,102
How do you know he's a dishonest person?

Since you agree that the PGF was a hoax what are your thoughts about Gimlin?
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

Last edited by GT/CS; 27th April 2012 at 04:27 PM.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 04:52 PM   #8313
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
How do you know he's a dishonest person?
IF we are to believe his confession, it implies he willingly and knowingly part-took in a hoax.
Wouldn't you call that dishonest?

IMO, any man willing to sell his own reputation is a dishonest man. Such men will twist anything to get at what they want. In Bob's case, I very much believe that to be money.

“I was never paid a dime for that, no sir,”
“Sure I want to make some money. I feel that after 36 years I should get some of it.”
- Bob Heironimus


Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Since you agree that the PGF was a hoax what are your thoughts about Gimlin?
Gimlin was probably Patterson's biggest mistake. Gimlin got loose-lipped once (or twice, memory fails me) and almost completely fuddled the story into the open.
He generally seems to me like an odious little man.

I'm guessing you're not really asking my opinion on his character though.
I haven't looked much into Gimlin, as it's rather hard to find coherent information on him. Heck, I've even seen the fansites not agree on everything Gimlin!

SPECULATION WARNING!
Complete unsupported speculation on my own part almost wants to suggest that Gimlin may have been the "main player" in all this. Most likely he wanted out. Decided it was a bad idea. Planned to cancel the whole thing a day or so before?
I think Patterson got hostile from this point, possibly threatening Gimlin.
Only reason for this is the statement he made about why he hasn't publicly taken part in the debacle, and his answer was something about not wanting to discredit his wife and endanger her banking career. (?whut? Scallywag with honor/loyalty?!)
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 04:56 PM   #8314
River
Illuminator
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,601
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
He's a dishonest person, with only money as a verifiable motive.

Implicit in his "confession", bares the possibility that even if considered true - makes him a fraudster.
From his own mouth, this was about money he felt cheated out of.

So lets consider.
He was willing to tarnish his own reputation, for money.
Not for truth. Not for a guilty conscience.

So if he had so little self-respect that he was able to disregard his own reputation for money, I find it very likely and extremely probable that he has no respect for the truth either.
At this measure, I find it most likely that every single word out of his mouth, with exception to his name, is more likely to be false than it is true.

TL;DR - It's the motive that convinced me.

Again, what specific testimony or evidence leads you to this conclusion? All I see in your post is opinion based on?
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 05:09 PM   #8315
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by River View Post
Again, what specific testimony or evidence leads you to this conclusion? All I see in your post is opinion based on?
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
He's a dishonest person, with only money as a verifiable motive.

Implicit in his "confession", bares the possibility that even if considered true - makes him a fraudster.
From his own mouth, this was about money he felt cheated out of.

So lets consider.
He was willing to tarnish his own reputation, for money.
Not for truth. Not for a guilty conscience.

So if he had so little self-respect that he was able to disregard his own reputation for money, I find it very likely and extremely probable that he has no respect for the truth either.
At this measure, I find it most likely that every single word out of his mouth, with exception to his name, is more likely to be false than it is true.

TL;DR - It's the motive that convinced me.
The only better I can give you is the direct quote.

“I was never paid a dime for that, no sir.”
“Sure I want to make some money. I feel that after 36 years I should get some of it.”
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 05:30 PM   #8316
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Somewhat of an appeal:

Does anyone have a link to a high quality version of this?
http://youtu.be/nc--kJ1EpZM

Dunno if I just noticed something due to bad quality.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 05:43 PM   #8317
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,102
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
IF we are to believe his confession, it implies he willingly and knowingly part-took in a hoax.
Wouldn't you call that dishonest?

IMO, any man willing to sell his own reputation is a dishonest man. Such men will twist anything to get at what they want. In Bob's case, I very much believe that to be money.

“I was never paid a dime for that, no sir,”
“Sure I want to make some money. I feel that after 36 years I should get some of it.”
- Bob Heironimus



Gimlin was probably Patterson's biggest mistake. Gimlin got loose-lipped once (or twice, memory fails me) and almost completely fuddled the story into the open.
He generally seems to me like an odious little man.

I'm guessing you're not really asking my opinion on his character though.
I haven't looked much into Gimlin, as it's rather hard to find coherent information on him. Heck, I've even seen the fansites not agree on everything Gimlin!

SPECULATION WARNING!
Complete unsupported speculation on my own part almost wants to suggest that Gimlin may have been the "main player" in all this. Most likely he wanted out. Decided it was a bad idea. Planned to cancel the whole thing a day or so before?
I think Patterson got hostile from this point, possibly threatening Gimlin.
Only reason for this is the statement he made about why he hasn't publicly taken part in the debacle, and his answer was something about not wanting to discredit his wife and endanger her banking career. (?whut? Scallywag with honor/loyalty?!)
Wow, you may have discovered something completely unknown here.
Please link us to some bigfoot believer sites that do not adore Gimlin so we can read up on the believers that don't believe him, and did you call him a 'little man'? Gimlin? Are you mistaking Gimlin for Patterson?

It's nice that he stayed away from the bigfoot notoriety for his wife's career. He's the salt of the earth. But if you dig a little deeper you'll discover the real story.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

Last edited by GT/CS; 27th April 2012 at 05:45 PM.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 05:45 PM   #8318
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Wow, you may have discovered something completely unknown here.
Please link us to some bigfoot believer sites that do not adore Gimlin so we can read up on the believers that don't believe him, and did you call him a 'little man'? Gimlin? Are you mistaking Gimlin for Patterson?

It's nice that he stayed away from the bigfoot notoriety for his wife's career. He's the salt of the earth. But if you dig a little deeper you'll discover the real story.

The bigfoot sites adore Gimlin
Not all BF sites...
In fact, one in particular I remember the guy actually downright hates Gimlin.

One minute. Finding now.


ETA: Ding!
Sure, just one page of an entire site hating on him, but it's a start!

Last edited by wheunis; 27th April 2012 at 05:53 PM.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 06:10 PM   #8319
AlaskaBushPilot
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by wheunis View Post
IF we are to believe his confession, it implies he willingly and knowingly part-took in a hoax.
Wouldn't you call that dishonest?

IMO, any man willing to sell his own reputation is a dishonest man. Such men will twist anything to get at what they want. In Bob's case, I very much believe that to be money.

“I was never paid a dime for that, no sir,”
“Sure I want to make some money. I feel that after 36 years I should get some of it.”
- Bob Heironimus

Our friend stated that no evidence whatsoever would convince him that Bob Heironimus was in the suit and he has systematically gone about proving that.

This is the one thing where we can trust his word. But I don't think he meant to be so obvious about his bias.

Quote:

Gimlin was probably Patterson's biggest mistake. Gimlin got loose-lipped once (or twice, memory fails me) and almost completely fuddled the story into the open.
He generally seems to me like an odious little man.

I'm guessing you're not really asking my opinion on his character though.
I haven't looked much into Gimlin, as it's rather hard to find coherent information on him. Heck, I've even seen the fansites not agree on everything Gimlin!
This is such a bizarre mix of concocted "positions" on things. When people source their information that pretty much tells us whether they are a skeptic or masquerading as one.

This is so odd too as a diversion:

Quote:

SPECULATION WARNING!
Complete unsupported speculation on my own part almost wants to suggest that Gimlin may have been the "main player" in all this. Most likely he wanted out. Decided it was a bad idea. Planned to cancel the whole thing a day or so before?
I think Patterson got hostile from this point, possibly threatening Gimlin.
Only reason for this is the statement he made about why he hasn't publicly taken part in the debacle, and his answer was something about not wanting to discredit his wife and endanger her banking career. (?whut? Scallywag with honor/loyalty?!)
Golly, the red capitalized speculation warning. Talk about goofy. We are pretty handy at identifying speculation, which is not the blinking red lights we see in this post.

It is the real bitterness towards Bob Heironimus. That comes through loud and clear, and tips our hand to the fact Bob Heironimus must be your worst enemy. You clearly have a filter where nothing good about Bob Heironimus is admitted, and only bad.

Except there is only one bad thing you can say about him, in his whole 70 years: that he got duped into participating in 1967. A "sucker" as he called himself. None of his life before that and none after matters.

You think you are telling us about Bob Heironimus. But you are telling us a lot more about yourself.

This left-field thing about Gimlin being the "main player". WTF?! It seems like such a contrived "position" to pad a made-up persona with. How can someone be so clueless and come in with such wrath at Bob Heironimus. So many signs of deception I can't say WTF is going on with our poster other than really hating on Bob Heironimus.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th April 2012, 06:33 PM   #8320
wheunis
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
This is the one thing where we can trust his word. But I don't think he meant to be so obvious about his bias.

You think you are telling us about Bob Heironimus. But you are telling us a lot more about yourself.
I have nothing to hide. Yes, I am incredibly Biased towards Bob H.
And Gimlin.
And Patterson.
Of course I am biased!

You wouldn't be biased to the "testimony" of a bunch of fraudsters?!

Hell yeah, I hate all 3 of em!

Nothing would please me more than the PGF, and all 3 of it's participants, being outed as a hoax from a bunch of conmen on every account.

Where have I not been clear on it?
I have no intent to hide my bias against these types of men.

Last edited by wheunis; 27th April 2012 at 06:34 PM.
wheunis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.