Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

"hoax Confessors"

Recommended Posts

Incorrigible1

Thanks mod, ill keep this in mind.

I'm not a mod. Just more you're wrong about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

I'm not a mod. Just more you're wrong about.

Oh.. Sorry. I just assumed from your posts you were a mod. You act like one.

Whar else am i wrong about?

Prove it please.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Patterson's story came with movie footage, casted footprints (that had been photographed by an independent passerby), and corroborating testimony from another man who was there, and who continues to testify that he saw an animal (not a man in a suit) over 42 years later.

Kitakaze will have nothing but testimony.

Bob H.'s story also comes with the same movie footage, showing a man of his size in a suit. Faked footprints are the stock in trade of bigfoot hoaxers. Gimlin's "testimony" might be more believable if he'd take a polygraph, like Bob H. did, twice. Bob H.'s story has considerable supporting testimony as well, and he was generally accepted as the subject of the film, by his friends, at the time.

"testimony" is something we often use to help us decide things.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
Huntster, on 26 November 2010 - 09:10 AM, said:

Patterson's story came with movie footage, casted footprints (that had been photographed by an independent passerby), and corroborating testimony from another man who was there, and who continues to testify that he saw an animal (not a man in a suit) over 42 years later.

Kitakaze will have nothing but testimony.

Bob H.'s story also comes with the same movie footage

Actually, Bob H.'s story came long after the film "came" with Patterson.

Decades after.

showing a man of his size in a suit.

Prove that.

Faked footprints are the stock in trade of bigfoot hoaxers.

Like who?

Gimlin's "testimony" might be more believable if he'd take a polygraph, like Bob H. did, twice.

Please. Don't make me laugh:

Polygraphy has little credibility among scientists.[20][21] Despite claims of 90-95% validity by polygraph advocates, and 95-100% by businesses providing polygraph services,[22] critics maintain that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.[23] Critics also argue that even given high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy a significant number of subjects (e.g. 10% given a 90% accuracy) will appear to be lying, and would unfairly suffer the consequences of "failing" the polygraph. In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "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..."[24] Also, in 2005 the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific communityâ€.[25] Charles Honts, a psychology professor at Boise State University, states that polygraph interrogations give a high rate of false positives on innocent people.[26]..........

.......Several countermeasures designed to pass polygraph tests have been described. Asked how he passed the polygraph test, Ames explained that he sought advice from his Soviet handler and received the simple instruction to: "Get a good night's sleep, and rest, and go into the test rested and relaxed. Be nice to the polygraph examiner, develop a rapport, and be cooperative and try to maintain your calm."[42]

Other suggestions for countermeasures include for the subject to mentally record the control and relevant questions as the examiner reviews them prior to commencing the interrogation. Once the interrogation begins, the subject is then supposed to carefully control their breathing during the relevant questions, and to try to artificially increase their heart rate during the control questions, such as by thinking of something scary or exciting or by pricking themselves with a pointed object concealed somewhere on their body. In this way the results will not show a significant reaction to any of the relevant questions.[43][44]...

Bob H.'s story has considerable supporting testimony as well, and he was generally accepted as the subject of the film, by his friends, at the time.

More testimony. Worthless for everybody except somebody selling a book.

"testimony" is something we often use to help us decide things.

Yup. Patterson's and Gimlin's testimony (the guys who were there) helps validate what I believe I see on the film.

Bob's testimony helps you argue that the subject is a man in a suit (the only possible explanation for the film that doesn't admit that it is an animal).

But my eyes see an animal. Bob's "testimony" doesn't change that for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Im just gonna wait for kitz results. I think itll take time but if he stays focused i reckon he might get that one huge undeniable smoking gun.

Imho

Seems like you think Kit is your new Messiah.

The 'smoking gun' would be the 'suit'. Where do you think he might pull that out from? Is he going to magic it up out of paper mache and a hairbrush?

The Bob H claim stopped going anywhere in 2004. He's not moved it a jot forward in the last 6 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

"testimony" is something we often use to help us decide things.

Thing is I can't decide which 'testimony' to go with.

A. The 'testimony' of Bob H that he walked like a gorilla/ape as per Roger Patterson's instructions or

B. The 'testimony' that everyone knew it was him because they recognised his normal walk.

Both 'testimony' A and 'testimony' B were even given in the same interview.

Unless of course Bob H was often to be seen normally walking around Yakima like a gorilla/ape. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

A properly informed and prepared cross examiner could demolish Bob H (and other confessor claims such as the Wallace family) in about 10 minutes on the stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

A properly informed and prepared cross examiner could demolish Bob H (and other confessor claims such as the Wallace family) in about 10 minutes on the stand.

Or (preferably) get them jailed for perjury.................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA
On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2010 at 7:49 AM, Guest said:

I get riled when the "skeptics" use alleged hoax confessors to attempt to buttress their "no BF" position.

Stop and consider this logically:

Either

1) they did indeed hoax BF evidence. That means they are liars.

or

2) they did NOT hoax BF evidence, but are claiming to have done so. This also means that they are liars.

So were they lying then, or are they lying now? Either way, they cannot be trusted. Why should we give ANY "confessor" any evidentiary weight whatsoever?

And yes that includes the infamous Penn and Teller. What proof do we have that they ACTUALLY performed a hoax? They could well just be flacking for their fading careers by injecting themselves falsely into a high-profile BF case.

Now, if they can actually provide affirmative PROOF they were there and responsible for a hoax, then I would accept that they did so. That proof has not been proffered to my knowledge.

This is one, and there's more than one, of the reasons that my position on this topic doesn't consider hoaxing. And neither should yours.  It is flat irrelevant to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...