Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kitakaze

Gimlin/Heironimus Interviews Analysis By Deception Detection Expert.

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

JW, a third polygraph for Heironimus is certainly possible. Wanting Gimlin to do just one is perfectly understandable in that light, but that is not what this is about. This thread is about getting together sufficient material in the form of video recordings of interviews for a professional microexpression and deception detection analyst to examine and render a professional opinion.

The scrutiny is on both men and the goal is to use a person with an excellent track record and with no bias regarding Bigfoot. Under this scenario, Heironimus has every bit as much chance to be judged as deceptice as Gimlin. They could both be shown to be deceptive or neither. It's not set in stone. When I am putting forward the guy who I am the proponent of for the exact same scrutiny as Gimlin, and you think it's some manner of desperation, there is something, I think, deeply skewed with your perception of what is going on and why.

Can't win for losing in Bigfootery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hopefully the Evening Magazine BobH interview will surface. I'd always suspected BobH was just a talking head but it was after watching and studying Bob's claims and mannerisms in this video that convinced me he's lying. This is the famous interview where he claims Roger shook the camera for effect I believe. I'm no deception detection expert but I have a pretty good feel on this one.

ETA: In no way does anything that BobH has to say affect my opinions of the film itself. If Bob crawled back into the hole at Bluff Creek and stayed there it would suit me just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Kit,

I wanna say thanks for your efforts in this thread. I was one of those who voted for a BH---BG debate, and would love to see it if only BG would agree.I think you are right that it could well get us nearer the truth, whatever that is.

This substitute idea of yours is ingenious and kudos to you for it.

Fister

Hey, now. What's all this seeing eye-to-eye business? I noted, BTW, and commend you for your position that it is important not to discard the testimony of Patterson and Gimlin in an effort to get rid of Heironimus'. As with trying to arrange a joint interview with Heironimus and Gimlin, the motivation is extremely simple...

One of these guys at least is lying to us. Which one is it? Let's find out in an objective manner that doesn't involve our personal opinions. Let's take it out of our hands and put it under a scrutiny we don't control. I have zero fear of the outcome of any such situation that puts Heironimus equally at risk as Gimlin. If Heironimus and all the other people that support him and were there in Yakima during the events of the PGF and those that followed were somehow able to nefariously collude with one another, I welcome that being exposed. Truth is the highest goal and egg on my face would be well worth it.

There's always the scenario Bill and Knights discussed where some how, some way, they both get to be shown as truthful and I haven't been hoodwinked by a bunch of wiley, elderly Yakimanians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

Let's assume for a moment that the experts conclude that Gimlin is telling the truth. Then what? I'll bet the farm that Kit and his like minded cohorts will not come forward that say that Gimlin's clean bill of truth will at all lend weight to the reality that P&G filmed a Bigfoot. All it'll do is swat BH down which in truth the PGF does not need BH at all to be real or fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Hopefully the Evening Magazine BobH interview will surface. I'd always suspected BobH was just a talking head but it was after watching and studying Bob's claims and mannerisms in this video that convinced me he's lying. This is the famous interview where he claims Roger shook the camera for effect I believe. I'm no deception detection expert but I have a pretty good feel on this one.

ETA: In no way does anything that BobH has to say affect my opinions of the film itself. If Bob crawled back into the hole at Bluff Creek and stayed there it would suit me just fine.

Exactly the point of eliminating our subjective opinions. Let's see what the experts have to say and then we can chew on it after.

I mailed Rick to see if he has the video. Hopefully, he does, because that is one of the longest videos of him talking about being at Bluff Creek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Let's assume for a moment that the experts conclude that Gimlin is telling the truth. Then what? I'll bet the farm that Kit and his like minded cohorts will not come forward that say that Gimlin's clean bill of truth will at all lend weight to the reality that P&G filmed a Bigfoot. All it'll do is swat BH down which in truth the PGF does not need BH at all to be real or fake.

This is an important issue and one I've already thought about at length for the purpose of this discussion. Let's say the analyst has an 80% success rate at detecting deception. Let's say I go ahead and get a second opinion from an equally qualified second analyst.

Now let's say the outcome in both circumstances shows Gimlin truthful and Heironimus to be deceptive. I'll bet the same farm as you that this won't happen, but hypothetically, what if it did?

First off: Yes, I would accept the results.

There it is in writing. I would accept the results as reliable evidence that Heironimus was deceptive and his claim of being Patty is false. My next move would most likely be to find out exactly what he was deceptive about and why and also how on Earth it was so deeply orchestrated. If Heironimus and everyone connected to him hoodwinked me, I will pursue no differently than any other outcome.

I am confident Heironimus did not deceive me about anything because of measures I took to trap him and others should they have been dishonest, but with nefarious collusion or some other circumstances, I wouldn't suggest this measure if I wasn't keenly interested in the outcome.

Now flip that Patty. Dception detection analysis shows in the same manner I described above that Gimlin has been deceptive.

I want to know here and now who would accept it as reliable evidence of a hoax involving Gimlin and who would go the MK Davis route and jump on the massacre bandwagon. I think just for how it relates to killing a clan of Bigfoots alone, which was given a wild amount of traction in some circles, this course of action will be highly interesting.

There is nothing more attractive to me in Bigfootery than killing wheel-spinning and resolving specific claims.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

the main thread,is Heironimus. he alone says, he was the guy in the suit! "fine" let him take a test with relevant questions,but there are many doubts on his claims, that even the most skeptical can say without doubt that is true. take a test under real conditions with fact finding questions. if he his proved to be telling a true and factual account,then years of debate speculation can be put to rest.

it really his testimony that either shows this,and after 3 polygraphs well even if not admisible in court would swing the doubts. IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

the main thread,is Heironimus. he alone says, he was the guy in the suit! "fine" let him take a test with relevant questions,but there are many doubts on his claims, that even the most skeptical can say without doubt that is true. take a test under real conditions with fact finding questions. if he his proved to be telling a true and factual account,then years of debate speculation can be put to rest.

it really his testimony that either shows this,and after 3 polygraphs well even if not admisible in court would swing the doubts. IMO.

JW, please note the thread title...

Gimlin/Heironimus Interviews Analysis By Deception Detection Expert: Putting both men under the spotlight.

1) It's not about scrutinizing only Heironimus.

2) It's not about polygraphs. Heironimus will take as many as are set out in front of him, but this is not about polygraphs.

3) Polygraph or microexpression analysis, you're still going to want to know the specifics of how Gimlin was able to fool you and how Heironimus was exactly involved. That is something I have been setting out to detail on film for over about a year now. I'm not looking to swing doubts and further more wheel-spinning - the opposite. I want to nail the coffin with either Gimlin's claim, Heironimus' claim, or both of them inside, or that of Patty being a hoax. No possibility is impossible and finding out which is which is something I'm betting viewers will want to be along for.

So if Heironimus passes and Gimlin doesn't, where will you stand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kit,you know full well, that Gimlin takes your attention with a grain of salt! "who are you in his world?" but you are convinced that Heironimus is the real deal. the thread title means less than a bag of beans.but put him with his no back up testimony under a test. as you think he tells the truth! if found to be so! then I and many more will hold up there hands and say KIT & Heironimus are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

JW, all I see is someone trying to rationalize a scenario in which Gimlin does not get the same scrutiny as Heironimus. Please explain this to me. Please help me understand how there is any sense or fairness at in eliminating scrutiny for Gimlin and looking only at Heironimus.

Help me understand why I am supposed to not give microexpression analysts video of Gimlin to examine at length and only that of Heironimus.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

If you can get it to happen then go for it- as long as it's presented to the professional in a totally unbiased manner with no indications that you are for or against either party (no seeding for certain expectations). Even the slightest hint of that would render it useless IMO.

Aside from that it should be interesting to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

If you can get it to happen then go for it- as long as it's presented to the professional in a totally unbiased manner with no indications that you are for or against either party (no seeding for certain expectations). Even the slightest hint of that would render it useless IMO.

Aside from that it should be interesting to see.

I doubt that such a professional would have any career at all if they were so open to bias, nor would the field of study have any validity. Nevertheless, I have already taken that issue into consideration. I am highly mindful of the various manners in which believers will seek to dismiss something that does not fit with their strong beliefs. I will consult any professional regarding this as an interested researcher that is looking to resolve the issue without making any indication of what I think of the situation or whom I am a proponent of. I will even post here the correspondence I send.

That being said, will you accept the results under the scenario I described above to Crow if it indicates Gimlin was complicit in a hoax and no deceiving people about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

That being said, will you accept the results under the scenario I described above to Crow if it indicates Gimlin was complicit in a hoax and no deceiving people about it?

Well first off I'm on the fence if Patty is real or not, and probably always will be unless hard tangible evidence surfaces or a confession by Gimlin/Patterson's wife. I'm not sure why you'd automatically lump me in with believers.

Will I accept it as a hoax based on this? Probably not since it's based purely off of YouTube clips, but I'd still find it interesting. I would think a true test of deception would have to be in person where the professional is there to detect all forms of body language, mannerisms, fluctuations in the voice, etc.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Rogue, my apologies if I gave the impression I thought you were a PGF proponent. Your neutrality does come through. I agree that being right there with the person making the claims is best and this was a route I already tried in seeking to arrange a joint interview with Gimlin and Heironimus. I work with what I can and I make no pretense that Gimlin would likely want nothing to do with any effort of mine since I don't believe him and he sticks to making appearances with people that do and won't ask him tough questions. This is what makes Heironimus unique in that he will meet whoever his doubters are and answer whatever their questions are. Back in 2007 the four hours he spent on Bigfoot Live was pretty major given the hostile reception he was getting.

Now if I may ask you your personal opinion, you say that you would likely not accept a determination made from Youtube videos. That's fair and I accept that. Now what do you think would happen if I went ahead and did this without saying beforehand I would accept the outcome whatever it was, it went against Bob H, and I said, meh, I don't accept a determination reached with video off the Internet?

How do you think that would be received by PGF supporters?

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Kit

I must say(and I have said this before) I think that Gimlin avoids telling lies. He isn't a good liar, and he seems to think it's wrong to lie. He won't take a polygraph because he won't out and out lie and even if he did he knows he'd be caught. Maybe he values his kids opinion of him. Instead of lying He deceives more by dodging and omission. For example, the look in my eyes trick. What he is saying is that no one was with them on Oct. 20. Which is certainly true. No one asks him questions he can't dodge. So unless you get him to answer unambiguous questions in a direct manner I think he might well pass.

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...