Jump to content
kitakaze

Bob Heironimus On Pax Tv's Lie Detector.

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Here it is, Bigfootery - the entire video of Bob Heironimus' appearance on PAX TV's Lie Detector in which he passed the polygraph. Thank you to Phil Morris and Morris Costumes for hooking this up.

Let's have a good, clean discussion and be respectful of differing opinions. Many people who believe Heironimus was not Patty will suggest Bob learned countermeasures to pass the polygraph. Others may suggest he was on medication which allowed him to pass. One thing is for sure - he took a major risk appearing on the show. I welcome theories on how Bob was able to pass the test if he was in fact deceptive. All I ask is please, please, please let's do the BFF just respect and show we can have this conversation without getting personal and attacking the arguer, not the argument.

Have at it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There's a very good reason why lie detectors are inadmissible in court.

Bob's told his little tale so many times, he's probably convinced HIMSELF that it's true.

Never mind that his campfire story has more holes in it than swiss cheese...and the film site LACKS one very important literal hole...the rest of the list we all know, as this fairy tale has been pretty much staked through the heart, decapitated, and had it's burnt ashes spread. Only the skeptical hard core and the uninformed general public still believe in BobH and his "confession".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Oh please.

Gary Ridgway (the Green River Serial Killer) passed a police lie detector test. He was still lying and I'm pretty sure he had much more to lose than Bob H.

*edited for spelling typo.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

There's a very good reason why lie detectors are inadmissible in court.

Bob's told his little tale so many times, he's probably convinced HIMSELF that it's true.

Never mind that his campfire story has more holes in it than swiss cheese...and the film site LACKS one very important literal hole...the rest of the list we all know, as this fairy tale has been pretty much staked through the heart, decapitated, and had it's burnt ashes spread. Only the skeptical hard core and the uninformed general public still believe in BobH and his "confession".

About nine minutes elapsed between the time I posted the video and the time your post came up. Say about six to eight from when you started composing. Did you actually watch the video before posting? If not, that's fine, but it would really help. We have a thread for the hole Bob speaks of. He describes it as a downfall tree. Bob Gimlin also speaks of a downfall tree and we can such in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Oh please.

Gary Ridgway (the Green River Serial Killer) passed a police lie detector test. He was still lying and I'm pretty sure he had much more to lose than Bob H.

*edited for spelling typo.

This is a fair point. We know that polygraphs are not infallible. Here is more info on not only Gary Ridgway passing a polygraph, but also a previous suspect Melvin Foster failing a polygraph...

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1067927512

So how and why did Ridgway pass? And if Heironimus was deceptive, how did he pass? Did he use countermeasures? If so, how did he learn to use them and how did he practice them? And why would someone who was so close literally and in friendship with Bob Gimlin go to such effort? Why did he first deny involvement in Patterson's South Fork film when we know for a fact he was in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

This is a fair point. We know that polygraphs are not infallible. Here is more info on not only Gary Ridgway passing a polygraph, but also a previous suspect Melvin Foster failing a polygraph...

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1067927512

Yep so we have a guilty man passing a polygraph test and an innocent man failing one.

Polygraphs can be dangerous things and not at all reliable. There have also been some people who claimed bigfoot sightings who passed them. I believe I even saw one of them being filmed in one of the classic 1970s docus. The Mysterious Monsters I think.

So how and why did Ridgway pass?

I have no idea. He was guilty as sin and was lying but he passed the test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I would like to make a request to a mod or admin for the sake of fairness. Kerchak makes a sound argument regarding the nature of polygraphs and their fallibility. It's unfair for me to use the word "vindicated" in the title and imparts a bias that I accept the polygraph results. There should be skepticism to the results and I would like to encourage that skepticism. We can leave the title stand, but I would request for fairness and the sake of the quality of the discussion that the word "vindicated" be removed from the title or changed to "passes", my preference being just to remove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

About nine minutes elapsed between the time I posted the video and the time your post came up. Say about six to eight from when you started composing. Did you actually watch the video before posting? If not, that's fine, but it would really help. We have a thread for the hole Bob speaks of. He describes it as a downfall tree. Bob Gimlin also speaks of a downfall tree and we can such in the area.

I don't need to watch a video tape of a story teller "passing" a polygraph about a plainly cockamame tall tale. There are too many impossible changes in this story over the years, such as the 4 different suits mentioned (bought suit, rented suit, "stinky horsehide" made by Patterson, "red paint pony" suit), the "hole", etc that other researchers have pretty well taken apart at the seams already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have no idea. He was guilty as sin and was lying but he passed the test.

Most likely because he was/is a sociopath. "Lie detectors" don't detect deceit per se. They detect physiological stress. Most people, when telling a lie, experience stress symptoms (increased heartbeat, breathing hitches, sweat (which increases the galvanic skin response), etc. These symptoms are very subtle, and exist even if there is no obvious visual "tell". All that "passing" a lie detector test means is that the subject experienced no abnormal stress responses during the test.

Sociopaths are wired different in the brain, though. Since they lack a conscience, they don't stress about doing bad things, including lying. So a sociopath can "pass" a lie detector test while lying through his proverbial teeth, because lying for him doesn't produce a stress response.

Likewise, (bringing it back to Bob), a person who has in his own head, convinced himself of his absolute sincerity on a topic will not produce a stress response (since in his mind he is not lying).

Edited by Mulder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FuriousGeorge

I would like to make a request to a mod or admin for the sake of fairness. Kerchak makes a sound argument regarding the nature of polygraphs and their fallibility. It's unfair for me to use the word "vindicated" in the title and imparts a bias that I accept the polygraph results. There should be skepticism to the results and I would like to encourage that skepticism. We can leave the title stand, but I would request for fairness and the sake of the quality of the discussion that the word "vindicated" be removed from the title or changed to "passes", my preference being just to remove it.

I removed "vindicated" instead of changing it to "passing". That's what they do on Yahoo news. They make you click on the story to get the results. OOO I hate that.

------

So here's the problem. I hate to stereotype but there are certain groups of people that can fool lie detectors. With no sources to back it up other than bad tv shows and movies, the biggest 3 groups are spies, con men and hoaxers. I think it's a pre-job requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I remember the first time I listened to Greg Long appear with Bob Heironimus facing off with MK Davis and other PGF proponents in which he referred to Roger Patterson as being a sociopath. The sheer absurdity of it, the ridiculousness and the depth of the venom in his statement - all I could think is you're too far gone, there's no turning back. To label Roger a sociopath, how could he ever expect any measure of seriousness to be accorded him? Roger was a sociopath like I am Diana Ross.

But run it around. Mulder, you're chanelling Long. To put sociopath on Heironimus, like he's convinced himself of the lie to the extent he no longer understands it's a lie; it simply can not bear critical scrutiny. Always, always, always the fat fly in the ointment to this notion will be the friendship between Heironimus and Gimlin that endured for decades. These men had this friendship and neither deny it. BH simply could not have tricked out his mind to believe his role in the PGF while maintaining this decades long friendship with Gimlin. In their workplace at Noel Pepsi, in their everyday life living nine doors from each other and seeing each other up and down, Heironimus could not have gone some Rosebud angle without Gimlin ever snipping it in the bud. Just think about it.

How can Bob Heironimus have convinced himself of being Patty while maintaining a close friendship with Bob Gimlin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I removed "vindicated" instead of changing it to "passing". That's what they do on Yahoo news. They make you click on the story to get the results. OOO I hate that.

------

So here's the problem. I hate to stereotype but there are certain groups of people that can fool lie detectors. With no sources to back it up other than bad tv shows and movies, the biggest 3 groups are spies, con men and hoaxers. I think it's a pre-job requirement.

Problem solved...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

Would think there are many anecdotes of individuals telling stories, true or false.

For example I had been telling my nephews of Jackalopes. They've bought into the story for years.

When I tried to tell them what a tick was, a small insect with 8 legs that sucks your blood. They burst out calling the story BS and didn't believe a word of it.

Did not Bob H state he was a regular at some bar where they use to tell stories all the time?

When one becomes so accustomed to telling stories..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dopelyrics

Hi there,

This is something I have wondered about on numerous occasions.

First of all, let me state that I am undecided about the PGF. It looks realistic in some places (but not all) but I have huge issues with the back story. It's fascinating to me whether it's real or not. I hope it is but I have to be as objective as I can.

This guy Bob H passed a polygraph not once, but twice, I believe. As far as I am aware, Bob G has never taken one, let alone passed one. We know that polygraphs are not infallible, but the one, sure fire way of beating it is to not take it at all.

Would the believers change their mind about the PGF if Bob G did take one, and fail it? Or would they say he failed it because of x, y, z but he is still being truthful? Or, if he did take one and passed it, would they take it as proof that he is telling the truth, knowing that polygraphs are not 100% accurate?

I have no axe to grind with anyone here. I have an open mind about the PGF, but it seems to be that there are one or two double standards when it comes to Bob G vs Bob H and the PGF.

As for "Bob (I presume H) has told his tale so many times he's probably convinced HIMSELF it's true..." Well, the same can be said for Bob G (if indeed he has been lying) and he's had far longer to practice his little tale. I think I need to familiarise myself with exactly what Bob H has claimed with regard to the number of suits etc' etc'.

Best.

Lee

Edited by dopelyrics
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

Ok, so lie detectors don't really tell us whether or not someone is lying, they simply tell us how composed someone is when they are answering questions.

This guy Heironimus has been getting people to buy him drinks for decades to hear his story and has enjoyed quite a bit of local and intermittent national celebrity as a result of it. He has been rewarded so many times for the telling that he's probably pretty composed at this point, whether he's telling the truth or not. Every time you are rewarded for doing the wrong thing it makes it easier and less stressful to keep doing the wrong thing. Even if someone says he's a liar, someone else is going to be there to buy him a drink. From his psychological perspective it may be as simple as "if I'm rewarded, then I'm doing the right thing." No harm, no foul for a guy from a small town where the truth of a tall tale simply depends on how many people believe it.

I put more stock in the scientific analyses of the film itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...