Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Does Analysis Teach Criminals To Lie ?



"Teaching Criminals To Lie"
                                                                by Peter Hyatt

Once, someone said I was  teaching future murderers how to lie on 911 calls in a domestic homicide cases.

In this discussion, I failed to persuade him that in domestic homicides, it was not likely that the perpetrator of a domestic homicide would:

a.  Study how to deceive a 911 operator in a future, planned homicide
b.  Come across this blog entry
c.  Learn how to apply them
d.  Avoid the free editing process in answering questions from the 911 operator
e.  Avoid being interviewed after the report to 911 because the interview would drag him into a place where scripting and Statement Analysis training would fail him.


Question:  Can publication of analysis teach a criminal how to lie?

Answer:   No.

In fact, we, the "Interviewer" in law enforcement, civil investigations, insurance investigations, human resources investigations, and so on, are more likely to teach a subject how to lie, than any training or publication of analysis.  I will show exactly how this is.

First, what about the publication of analysis?

There are two answers to this, one being a principle of analysis:

In the free editing process, it is close to  impossible to lie outright.

Example:

Jonbenet Ramsey case. 

Some facts and assertions :

Jonbenet Ramsey, 6,  was murdered in her home right after Christmas, 1996, either before or after midnight, with the parents choosing "December 25" on her tombstone.

John Ramsey did not fit the profile of a killer, as former FBI profiler and author John Douglas asserted.

John and Patsy Ramsey did not cooperate with the investigation as innocent parents would.  This included refusal to be interviewed separately, obtaining lawyers immediately, and so on.  Later, this included failed polygraphs and "polygraph" shopping to find one who would pass them, and refuse, for life, to reveal a specific question asked in the polygraph.  The fall out from the case was wide spread.

John and Patsy Ramsey were indicted in the death, via child abuse, of Jonbenet, by a Grand Jury.

District Attorney Alex Hunter refused to sign the indictment, effectively completing his sabotage of the investigation, in cooperation with Ramseys' attorneys.

Statement Analysis revealed:

1.  The Ransom note was deceptive, in that it was not a genuine directive to pay a ransom in exchange for the child.

2.  The author of the ransom note wrote specifically to mislead the investigation highlighting the need to deceive.

3.  John and Patsy Ramsey were both indicated for deception in their statements

4.  Sexual abuse was associated with their language of the Ramseys, which coincided with Jonbenet's history of bed wetting, urinary tract infections and the sexualization of the child, via the beauty pageant circuit.

What did John Ramsey say to a national audience?

"I did not kill my daughter, Jonbenet."

This is not only a reliable denial, but uses the complete social introduction of

a.  "my" (possessive pronoun)
b.  "daughter" (title)
c.  "Jonbenet" (name)

This indicates a good relationship.

The denial has:

a.  The pronoun "I"
b.  The past tense "did not"
c.  The specific allegation "kill"

The Statement Analysis principles thus indicate, from this statement, that John Ramsey did not kill Jonbenet, and he had a good, father-daughter relationship.

It is also completely unreliable.

How can this be so?

The average person has an internal vocabulary of 25,000 words.  John Ramsey, an intelligent man, likely has even more.  When speaking freely, he must go into this vast library of words and choose only a few, leaving out the vast majority, order them properly, and use appropriate tenses and syntax.

All this must be in less than a microsecond of transmission from the brain.

In the free editing process, this rapid transmission is the basis for our success:  it is why we look at the mumbling of "umm" or "well" as a pause, or disruption in the speed of transmission. It is the need to pause, itself, that we 'pounce' upon with our questions.  ("pounce", but not necessarily immediately, as waiting is often wise).

Ramsey did not make this statement freely, early, or of his own accord when the body of Jonbenet was first found.

In fact, Statement Analysis had already been published in media by the time he made this statement, months after the murder, in correlation with his attorneys. This publication included radio broadcasts.

It was not made in the free editing process no more than Amanda Knox' denial in her recent book (even if she wrote it) while refusing to be truthful in so many opportunities prior to the book.

For John Ramsey, it was a carefully prepared statement after much coaching by his attorneys.  If you were his attorneys and knew the truth, would you not read or listen to analysis, and counter it?

Next, and even more importantly:

Even when a criminal understands that he must issue a reliable denial, by bringing him into the Free Editing Process (FEP), that is, when he is freely speaking on his own, he will still give away the truth.

Should he have the need to disrupt the speed of transmission to say, "I did not kill my daughter, Jonbenet", or in a recent case, should Brooks Houck have been informed of analysis of his statement online, it will not preclude him from the same principles of language we are all subject to.  

All the liar can do is parrot a lie.

Former police chief William McCollum shot his wife, New Year's Eve, this past year.  Statement Analysis indicated him for deception, specifically about how the gun got into his bed, and for "extreme psychological distancing" from his wife and victim, Maggie McCollum.

                                The analysis did not conclude that he shot her intentionally.

The analysis concluded, however, that he deliberately lied about how the gun got into his bed, and that the situation of the shooting was one of which triggered his anger.  What does this mean, practically?

It means animosity towards the victim and deception which could have caused investigators to understand:  this guy threatened his wife, brought the gun to bed to terrorize her, even if it went off while moving it.

He made it through an entire 911 call giving the least possible amount of information, and avoided using his wife's name, the pronoun "my" and the word "wife."  It is a stunning example of distancing language.  He likely did not shoot her on purpose (she would not have survived) but this was not all there was to the story.

What might he say today?

"I did not shoot my wife, Maggie, on purpose" giving us words he refused to give during the Free Editing Process and the extraneous scenario of a 911 call.


He did not shoot his wife intentionally, but he did bring the gun into the bed intentionally.  
paralyzed from the waist down

Parroting Language.  

Parroting language is language in which we repeat another's words.  It should be understood, psychologically, by all Interviewers, criminal and civil, that:

a.  Parroting Language is not reliable
b.  Parroting Language reduces internal stress for the subject 

It is less stressful to parrot back answers, even more so than "yes or no" questions, within an interview.

It is why we ask legally sound, open ended questions and avoid with all effort, the introduction of language to the Interview.

Literally, we teach subjects to lie in the interview process and can even teach one how to pass a polygraph. 

This is one of the most least understood principles impacting a polygrapher.   The polygrapher must learn or decode the subject's own language.

Each one of us has our own internal subjective dictionary and the polygrapher must listen, and be the one who parrots.

How we phrase our questions often teaches the subject:

a.  what we know
b.  what evidence exists
c.  what others have said about him
d.  what is in our minds
e.  the direction of the investigation
f.  whether or not he should continue to talk to us

in short, how we phrase our questions teaches him to lie.

Even patrol recognizes the purpose of, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" up to

"Do you know why we are here for an interview?" to allow the subject to reveal knowledge and not the other way around. 

Next:

Parroting language is not only deemed "unreliable" (which it is) but there is more to parroting language than just being unreliable:

It is the need to parrot which makes it sensitive, by itself. 

Each time the subject has to withdraw himself from freely choosing his own words, he is avoiding the question at hand further affirming to us:  we have a guilty person before us.

We, the Interviewer, can literally teach a suspect how to lie by the words we choose in our interview process, which is why the interview training (Analytical Interviewing) is:

a.  Based upon Statement Analysis
b.  Requires 'hands on' practice of interviewing, step by step
c.  Is legally sound, protecting all rights
d.  Is approved by union officials, attorneys, etc
e.  Clears the innocent

Even when a defense attorney interrupts the answer, the interruption, itself, is necessary and yields information for us.

In the case of Brooks Houck, he was unwilling or incapable of issuing a reliable denial in the disappearance of 35 year old.  Should he return to the show and say, "I just want to state this from the beginning, I did not..." even the untrained would say, "Isn't this a bit late?"

In Hailey Dunn's murder, mother, Billie Jean Dunn and her attorney, not only had the analysis, but carried it around with them in printed versions.  This still did not stop her from being indicated for deception.

Why not?

Because we, as humans, have a very difficult time lying and once we are in the free editing process, other than parroting, we are going to give ourselves away in deception.

Understanding Statement Analysis, it is so that reading the analysis can only produce parroting, but once he is moved into the free editing process, the information we week to conclude the case will either come out via his words, or he will refuse to cooperate.  By going on national television and not issuing a RD, revisiting the show, making the statement, should not preclude Nancy Grace from asking open ended questions as well as specific questions based upon his answers.

It is very difficult for a human to lie effectively, and it is not simply based upon "conscience" and it does not mean that sociopaths get a "pass" on this.

Sociopaths also feel the stress of lying because of the source of the stress is not the conscience (which is useful in interviewing the larger population) but due to the disruption in the speed of transmission.
Sociopaths' language reveals the "need to deceive" even if it is just for self-protection and not for empathetic reasons.  We humans have an incredibly vast way of self-justification, but even if no desire for self-justification exists, and there is no fear of being caught, there is still the fact that information translated into language that does not come from experiential memory will slow down the speed of transmission, causing a stressful reaction in language.  


"What does it matter?"
As to conscience, it can be minimized, or even deadened, but the language will reveal this, and as a study, it is of great value to Human Resource professionals in hiring, particularly when weeding out potential thieves from employment.

Those who appear unfazed by empathy for fellow humans ("What does it matter?") or even those who care little for consequence, still reveal themselves in language.

Lawyers who defend, successfully, criminals, can attempt to minimize the impact upon conscience by telling themselves that they are "only" doing their job, protecting the rights of their client, fulfilling their duties, etc.  But what might an attorney, for example, who saw the Ramseys repeatedly fail polygraphs until they "found" just the right one?

Answer this question by putting yourself in their shoes.  What might you tell yourself in order to sleep?  Would you say, "They're not murderers.  It wasn't intentional", or "I'm not the one that passed them, the polygrahper was", or, "I can't apologize for being good at my craft" or any of a host of excuses?

Analysis does not teach criminals to lie.  Poorly trained Interviewers, however, just might.  Once a criminal knows the language of the polygrapher does not match his own, he can "beat" the test by getting it to either not catch him outright, or to give "inconclusive" as a result. If the entire session is recorded, you are likely to hear the pre-screening interview have too many words spoken by the polygrapher to be an uncontaminated interview.  

A man who wishes to murder his wife, for example, rather than be destroyed financially and lose custody of his kids may plan such a thing.  He may 'study' the topic of missing persons, online.  He (or she), for example, may study "chloroform" and even use it, as was the case of Casey Anthony, and an attorney will come up with lies to disregard it, (as if a defense attorney's original call was to use deception as a tool to 'win the game') or even deceptively persuade a jury that it was for something else, but eventually, in the free editing process, the truth comes out.

This is an essential part of the training, and elevates interviewers to the point of excellence, rather than to rely upon someone else, which includes submitting a strong interview to a district attorney for prosecution; one in which is very difficult to ignore, as Statement Analysis, now in writing, "analytical report writing) is strong, and will suggest to clear minded individuals, that the person "did it" without the weakness of persuasive language.

The training is intense, but so are the results.

Let them parrot all they want, but once they are talking freely, we will get the information we need to get to the truth.

67 comments:

Trigger said...

"He may 'study' the topic of missing persons on line."

Brooks Houck has police training on the topic of missing persons and a working knowledge of how these cases are viewed and examined.

I hope that this case isn't about breakup violence and the need to avoid paying child support.

Crystal's mother sensed Brooks' coldness when she told him that she was going to report her as missing.


Anonymous said...

Oh dear. Just earlier this morning I fleetingly thought it's about time for you to bring up the JonBenet Ramsey case again. For all the years I've been reading and frequently posting here, and have learned so much from you, for which I am grateful; it's the ONE case I do not agree with you on Peter. I'm sorry, I just can't.

As for the Ramseys being uncooperative with investigators, so would I have been if I had a little snarky ignorant young inexperienced law enforcement employee who had NO experience or training in homicide investigations, sitting around and accusing ME of being a suspect and murderer in my own daughters' death, AND leading others to quickly conclude that I did it when I knew I didn't. For many other reasons I disagree on this one; however, I DO respect your training and teaching, and admire you for many reasons so I won't go there with you again, Peter.

I can't help how guilty they have been made to look or sound, I won't be changing my mind unless one of them admits they killed her and schemed up the whole kidnapping scene, (or unless their young son decides to tell what he might have seen, which he hasn't, or unless he did it himself which we already know he didn't); and of course, we know this won't be Patsy who went to her grave denying any knowledge when she had nothing left to lose, particularly knowing she was on her way to face the judgment. Can't see it. Have a good day!

Peter Hyatt said...

The pressure is upon you, Anonymous 10:29. I appreciate the respectful tone of your disagreement.

Here is for you to consider:

The very principles you apply to the case are the same principles you have appreciated in all other cases.
What concerns me is that I changed my mind about the case through the lens of Statement Analysis. I went from "oh no" to the point of overwhelmed with detail of specific analysis addressed. I am considering doing a profile of the ransom note, next, when time allows.

You will not changing your mind unless one of them confesses. This is to declare a closed mind; the antithesis of analysis. This digging in of one's heels does not make for good analysis in other cases. This, perhaps, reduces the pressure I opened my response with:

the pressure I speak of is logical, based upon the ability to go from point A to point B. In your praise of the cases I have covered, you have seen how A plus B equals C, but in the sense of your reply say:

"I refuse to believe that A plus B equals C unless John Ramsey tells me so. "

This is the fundamental reason that says emotion trumps logic, and will be your final arbitrator, making analysis and the scientific process, and reasoning, all subordinate to emotion.

This "denial" removes the "pressure."

The pressure only exists for those who prize consistency and reason above all else.

Thus, the history of tyranny is the history of the decline of natural law, reasoning, etc. This goes for cults, nations, and bullies.

I hope you will reconsider your stance; not that it matters if you think the Ramseys guilty or not, but because of your own reasoning faculties.

I disagree with an analyst who says that Amanda Knox was not present for the murder. His basis? Her book.

I argue otherwise, but my disagreement has a basis in that he and I share the respect of principle. Our disagreement is in application.

This means that if either of us is wrong (one must be!), we can trace the root of our error and receive correction.

Should he say, "I will not believe in Knox' guilt unless she confesses" is to end all investigation and use of scientific process, and by tyrannized by emotion.

This line of thinking not only disqualifies one from analysis, but has ramifications for everything in life.

Thank you for your response.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Trigger,

I did not know that Houck had police training on missing persons. Can you elaborate?

I know that local PD is under pressure, as his brother is an officer. This is really rough on them.

Peter

Juliet said...

Peter - JonBenet: for years I did not consider the parents to be involved, moreso when the footprint on the suitcase beneath the window came to light, and the unidentified DNA in JonBenet's underclothing, both of which have yet to be satisfactorily accounted for - at least, I didn't think much to the explanations which were floating round last time I looked at the case, which must have been a couple of years ago More recently, and I think as a result of reading this blog over time, I've become more sceptical of that niggling ransom note to the point Of considering it's existence to be absurd, but were it not for the questions surrounding the note I would willingly go on believing the Ramseys were amongst the most vilified people on earth, and that LE had massively failed JonBenet by not even looking for a perpetrator. So, here's hoping you will do an analysis of the note sometime. I like this blog, but the stuff about Caitlyn previously known as Bruce, not so much - well, not at all, actually. :)

Anonymous said...

It was just the other day Peter, after I made a post concerning my thoughts and empathy on the Dugger parents' sex abuse matter, that you told me I would do well in statement analysis due to being able to place myself with empathy in their place in the same situation.

On another post you said you respect my stance on saying "I will not be changing my mind" on a couple of other posts, even though I had pointed out some differences in my beliefs as opposed to some others, (BTW, I am not a man as you thought me to be, I am a woman); with an explanation as to why I would not be changing my mind. So you see there? I really do not have a closed mind.

It is NOT your statement analysis of the Ramseys' statements that causes me to question their guilt, they are very fine analytical viewpoints; it is several other matters, mostly entirely unrelated to statement analysis. Maybe one day I'll explain a little more in-depth.

I remain very much open to further exploration of the Ramseys possible guilt in little JonBenets death; it's just that I've seen other possible deceptions and inadequacies in this case that leads me to believe nope, not them. However, I AM still (a little bit) open...

Thank you for your kindly response... I remain, respectfully;

Anonymous said...

Juliet said;

"I like this blog, but the stuff about Caitlyn previously known as Bruce, not so much." Really? What was said about Bruce Jenner that could be in such dispute?

The weak-minded dumbass is a man, born with male DNA; there is no such thing as a DNA transplant and he will DIE with male DNA. GOD, via his birth, appointed and decreed him to be a man and that's what he is. Period. He can have all the breast, facial and penal operations he wants too but he is STILL a man. Take it or leave it. The dumbass is denying the very God who created him and it is HIS argument with GOD that is his problem; and YES, this is a mental condition.

And NO, I won't be changing my mind. So there.

Peter Hyatt said...

The basis for a disagreement being something that can be debated and changed: this is good. When one closes down entirely, it is just that: there is no more reasoning, debate, scientific evaluation. Having empathy is, indeed, a great trait for analysis. (putting into the shoes of another). It is not the only trait, but I assumed that one who does so, within the context of analysis, also follows principles of analysis (otherwise, why be here?). Hence, change of mind based upon new info.

If emotion can override reason/logic/principles in one case, it can in another. You might do very well in Case A, Case B, but what if something touches your emotion in Case C? Is this now, "throw out all the principles, because "I feel"?
IF this is your position, no, you cannot do analysis. This is arbitrary. You might do very well on the next case, but what about the one after that? Far better would be to give a strong self examination of your own feelings in the Ramsey case.

Trigger said...

Peter,

Brooks Houck wanted to run for Sheriff of Nelson Co.

His brother Nick works for the Bardstown police.

My thinking was that Brooks had to have working knowledge of what is involved in that line of work.

Bardstown is tightly knit with families who have land, longevity, and power.

I have seen first hand how counties here protect that old power base.

Sus said...

"God, via his birth appointed and decreed him to be a man"

I don't think God is concerned with the labels man/ woman, black/ white, or any other labels which separate. Looking in Genesis you will see he gave one name to us...human or mankind. He left the naming to Adam. Don't you ever wonder why God left the naming, the labeling, the grouping, the separation to humans, while making it clear he sees us as one? It's part of the human experience. We separate ourselves. We each have something we have to overcome which will drive us inward to where our true self is. The spark of God or the oneness with God lies within and separateness here on earth is only to make us see it. Caitlyn Jenner says hers is she is really a woman. Another says she is really black when she appears white. Listen to their words to hear their truth. One sounds truthful to me, one does not. Anyway, labels are not from God. Only our Soul is.

That's my sermon for the day. Sorry, but I feel Caitlyn Jenner is brave to finally be her true self.

Juliet said...

I believe that a minority of people are, somehow living in the wrong body, and whether this is a biological fact, or due to a mental condition, makes no difference to their perception of themselves, or to their own reality, to how they are able to live their lives, or in some cases, tragically not. If it's a mental condition, it is no less their reality, and a person should not be disparaged on account of it, or be expected to somehow be able to 'cure' themselves of how they identify in order to conform to others' expectations, nor considered to be deliberately deceiving themselves, or trying to deceive others. The case of Leelah Acorn, the transgender teen who committed suicide because her (or as some might insist, his) parents would not consent to hormone therapy, thus enabling him to transition to her before his voice deepened and body became manly, is a tragic case in point. Personally, I think it's too complex a subject to be helpfully viewed through either the lens of mere feeling, or of statement analysis. Yes, the DNA cannot be changed, but what is also very resistant to change, is the conviction some people have, from their earliest years, that they are living in the wrong body, that is their truth, their reality, and that some people would rather be dead than have to live what they consider to be a lie in a body which seems alien to their 'true' selves, should not, in my opinion, be lightly dismissed.

Juliet said...

Leelah Alcorn, I think that was 'auto-corrected'to Acorn.

Trigger said...

Pop quiz:

Bruce Jenner gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and kills a woman named Kim Howe while driving on the freeway.

Who shows up for the trial?

A. Caitlyn Jenner
B. Bruce Jenner

Who died that day?

Kim Howe

Juliet said...

I have read a fair bit of this blog, but didn't know Peter had analysed the Ramsey statements. Obviously, I was not meaning to imply I didn't think much of anything Peter might have said on the case, as I wasn't aware he had made an analysis, but sorry if it came over that way.

On being emotional, and letting feelings get in the way, even LE are not always immune to that, and they will say they try not to become emotionally involved in the cases they are working on, but that it's difficult not to at times, especially where children are concerned - the main thing is that those concerned have the ability to see where feelings might be clouding judgement, and to look again from that point. Like DeOrr's father said, everyone was so attached, so concerned - he was probably thinking of a police officer's likely own words to the family, as in 'we try not to become emotionally attached in these cases, but with children, well, you just do, because you start thinking of your own', sort of thing. It's natural that people let their feelings in at time, but to be clear-sighted they have also to be able to detach from those feelings. With the Ramseys, i found my feelings did get in the way, I just didn't want to believe child abuse could be an element in that type of family, in such a prosperous, respectable community, also I didn't much consider the beauty pageant aspect as anything but innocent, if eccentric, maybe because at that time it was entirely alien to Brits -it's only in the last few years that we've had a glimpse into that strange world, courtesy of satellite tv channels, and to me, a lot of it seems like routinely endorsed child abuse, though I know that view wouldn't sit too well with pageant enthusiasts.

Juliet said...

Anon, it sounds as if you are very much repulsed by Bruce becoming Caitlyn, but you really shouldn't let all those feelings govern your thoughts. :) It's not about you anyway, and if it has anything to do with God, well, i expect he loves Caitlyn just the same as he did Bruce. Besides, there's apparently no male or female in heaven, so I wouldn't expect it to be too great an issue, or that God would want anyone to be made very miserable on account of it.

trustmeigetit said...

Peter..stating it as "I refuse to believe that A plus B equals C unless John Ramsey tells me so" is about as clear as it comes.

SA is like science. It's clear. And like you said, as long as they do speak, if the right questions are asked the answers are there.

It doesn't matter if the cop was young or inexperienced, they talkeD ALOT in the beginning days and lacked a reliable denial.

SA is amazing and I have picked up on "sensitivity" with myself even being aware of it and choose the truth.

Example, I had an email about a mistake that had been made (I just did it again by not applying a pronoun to the mistake) and I started to reply "we will resolve" when it was an error that I alone made. I caught myself typing the reply of "we" (sharing guilt) and changed it. Instead I apologized for the mistake I made and stated that I would resolve it.

Juliet said...

Or even a little bit miserable. It's not anyone's job to make anyone unhappy for not being able to be as they want them to be, is it? I think it's a mistake to see transgender issues as moral issues, they are identity issues.

Anonymous said...

I'm new to this discussion, but I've heard things like this many times:

"I believe that a minority of people are, somehow living in the wrong body, and whether this is a biological fact, or due to a mental condition, makes no difference to their perception of themselves, or to their own reality, to how they are able to live their lives, or in some cases, tragically not."

I can't make any sense of it...
---

"somehow living in the wrong body"

How do you tell whether a body is "wrong" or right? The body IS ?

What does it even mean to be "living in" a body? You cannot move out of yourself?

People suffering from eating disorders, are their bodies right or wrong?

Juliet said...

People with eating disorders often also perceive their bodies to be wrong, and there is no convincing them otherwise - it's called body dysmorphia. They are not starving themselves to death for fun, or lying, in the same way suicidal transgender people are not killing themselves for fun, or because someone won't believe their 'lies'.

Anonymous said...

Juliet, I agree with you on that. :)

I thought the "somehow living in the wrong body" part was *your* conclusion, and that's why I asked. What did you mean when you said:


"I believe ..."

"that a minority of people are,"

"somehow living in the wrong body, ..."

Anonymous said...



God did not make any mistakes.

You're blaming the wrong one.

It's as simple as that.

Lily said...

Have any of you read the kidnapper emails in the Denise Hutchens case? Talk about the War and Peace of kidnapping notes. I never thought there would be a rival to the Ramsey note, but I guess it is true that there is always an exception to the rule!

Lily said...

Sorry, Huskins not Hutchens. I can't seem to paste the link on my phone, but latimes has the full affidavit. It's a fascinating read.

Sus said...

But humans do. They might mislabel his creations because they can only see the exterior.

Juliet said...

Anonymous, I meant what I said. I mean that I believe them. If a boy says, 'I am a boy', I accept that. If a boy insists he is a girl, I accept that while physically he is a boy, he is in other ways more strongly wired up as a girl, to the point of identifying as one. I don't mean that I accept this immediately or unquestioningly, and am not talking about phases and kids playing at dress up, and stupid parents who send their boy child to a Halloween party dressed as a princess in order to be able to write a blog about what open-minded parents they, and all that. Some people just don't fit their assigned gender, and I believe and accept that to be true.

Juliet said...

Anonymous at 10.34 - I'm not blaming God, though I might quite like to if that seemed reasonable - nothing's as simple as that, be real.

Anonymous said...

Juliet @2:15, to be real; yes, it really IS as simple as that. You just don't understand. I'm not criticizing you for this, since, in fact, you don't understand. We can't help what we don't grasp. We think we are way smarter than we are, when we are dolts.

If you really understood, and this is not criticism of you or anyone else; you would realize that we are under the footstool of the fearsome and almighty, ever-powerful God and His ever-present all-seeing eye. You would realize that there is a great deceiver, the prince of the air who is reeking havoc every minute of every day in our lives and all those lives around us deceiving and lying to us. Sure, no one wants to talk about this, like it is swept under the rug, when it isn't. Look around you, it's as plain as day. It is not God committing any of the evil.

I feel sorry for those who are so badly deceived, and all those who commit suicide, and those who spend their lives wishing they were this, or they were that; in their self-centeredness their souls have gone inward leaving them to no longer be able to think of anything other than what and who they think they are. It is a pitiful state to be in, often leading to life long drugged depression and/or suicide; never considering that God could lead them out of their self-destructive misery.

If you really knew and understood, you would never turn a Bible Scripture into a joke as you did in a previous post; you would also not make excuses for all those who act in defiance of the Holy God and His directives in our lives. He is doing all he can to protect and guide us but we're not listening. He loves us, and I believe cries to see what we are doing to ourselves without considering His ways and warnings that can lead us into a peaceful place; but no, we have to fight with and reject His great love and guidance for us.

The consequences of our actions, our deeds, even our thoughts are under great scrutiny; we are living in the valley of the shadow of death, this life is a death march, we all need to comprehend and come to terms with this unseen knowledge. I am not attempting to be critical of you or anyone else, as I really do understand how hard it is to comprehend these matters of the soul, the things we cannot see with our naked eye or understand with our frail and weary mind, but we must.

We know down in our soul when we are going the wrong way and leading others in the way of darkness and destruction, telling them 'it's okay' when it isn't, and are given time to wake up and stop our madness, but do we? In the end, we have no choice.

Anonymous said...

To get back to statement analysis; no, I do not believe that statement analysis can teach a person how to lie. I believe that if anyone is looking to statement analysis to teach them how to cover up their lies, they were liars to begin with and will remain liars.

Even if they learned a few statement analysis tricks to help them hide their lies, their natural lies would still roll off their tongue like marbles, and no amount of statement analysis training can help them hide what they already are: liars.

Anonymous said...

WOW Peter. This amazes me that you do not think William McCullum shot his wife Maggie deliberately. I think he did! To me, every indication pointed to him deliberately shooting her at the opportune moment, making it possible for him to have others believe it was an accident. Right. An accident waiting to happen.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
WOW Peter. This amazes me that you do not think William McCullum shot his wife Maggie deliberately. I think he did! To me, every indication pointed to him deliberately shooting her at the opportune moment, making it possible for him to have others believe it was an accident. Right. An accident waiting to happen.
July 22, 2015 at 7:12 AM


Look at what you wrote and see how we agree: "An accident waiting to happen."

If he wanted to shoot her, he would have killed her. I think he brought the gun to bed deliberately to terrorize her, which is where the guilt is.

Your theory works if he shot her and immediately had regret and didn't finish off the job. It is possible.

Bottom line is that prosecutors failed to grasp that he called 911 most reluctantly and the reluctance is not limited to his career ending event, but is found in the psychological distance to his wife

I wager anyone anything that Maggie eventually tells all; she likely has, already.

She is in a most precarious situation; incapable of self care and utterly dependent upon him. Perhaps she will make him care for her the rest of his natural life. His "I'm sorry" attitude can only last so long.

Two years?

Good post.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

only in America can a people have a 40% suicide rate, be proclaimed as heroes, and no longer afforded professional intervention due to the new status.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your responses, Peter. I appreciate it. Good ones too.

Ha... I did not realize that you and I had said the same thing; "An accident waiting to happen." I believe he set her up deliberately, then when she didn't die after he lingered quite a while prior to calling 911 hoping she would bleed to death, (surprise surprise! she didn't), then held up the dispatcher as long as he could with his mumbling and fumbling and making her pull every response out of him; he fully intended for her to die, but by this time it was too late to pump another bullet into her.

Oh yeah, he's stuck with the situation he created, having to devote the rest of his life to her physical, mental and financial care; even to feeding and bathing her; serves the b'stard right, I just hope it lasts a lot longer than statistics show it might not due to the condition she is in.

Still, it is Maggie I feel so sorry for, not only to be in the condition he has put her in, but also it is SHE who is at HIS mercy and not him at her mercy. Poor woman. I'd place money on it that he is meaner than cat shyt to this poor helpless woman, totally helpless to anything he does or says to her. I do believe he will kill her in the end, one way or another.

She is just one example that NO ONE, woman or man, (yes, there ARE men who are abused by women nearly ever day of their sorry lives), should EVER EVER go back to someone who has ever abused them the first time. They need to run like the devil is after them because he is! This is my opinion about low-life William McCullum.

Anonymous said...

BTW Peter, as you may know, my former husband was a multi-degreed psychologist/psychiatrist, and highly acclaimed published professor, (now deceased) who also owned and operated a half-way house for state assisted substance abusers.

From my own personal knowledge, I can tell you, (which you may already know), they really have no answers or proved successful treatment for all these people who are confronted with their trans gender, transsexual and other deviant problems that consume them and lead many to suicide. They try to cajole and counsel with them, but largely are groping for straws.

His last dissertation (I wrote for him) was in animal research, learning and motivation. He kept quiet about it, but learned that his trained rats were easier to work with and train than were many emotionally disturbed humans. He was a very vocal atheist when I married him; in the end, he had an experience with the almighty and learned real quick, there really is an almighty superior being out there. He was one of the most out-spoken honest people I ever knew and from then on he would not deny what he knew to be true and was absolutely shocked to admit, "OMG, you were right!" My point is that I know a little more about some of these particular subjects that I speak of than one might suspect.

AnniesMom said...

Anonymous @6:54

Your post is right on target,we have become a people of feeling,whatever I feel is what counts. Nothing and no one else matters. Every act has a consequent,whether in this life or the next.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.Ga 6:7 KJV.

I feel sorry for those who don't believe in God,they don't know what great joy they're missing. God does not make junk,we are created male and female period. Bruce Jenner can call himself whatever he wishes but when the roll is called he'll be Bruce.

BTW He still has male parts,so does he sit or stand? ;-)







AnniesMom said...

Sus said

Actually Adam named Eve not himself. Jenner is not a woman and will never be a woman,and he's still hanging on to his male parts. Why would you think God doesn't care about this kind of thing? Trust me Bruce will find out just how much God cares in that last day!

Peter Hyatt said...

The public praise of Bruce Jenner, and the subsequent "scolding" of the retired quarterback who did not "applaud enough" has far more repercussion than any of us know.

The suicide rate for transgender is so high, that I struggle to describe it. It is cruelty to applaud that which needs intervention.

We have purged our military of masculinity, in the name of egalitarianism and "technological warfare", replacing it with "feelings."

I read a lengthy article about how an officer filed a formal complaint about his curtains.

A ground war is something that requires tenacity and ferocity. When soldiers find themselves in a court martial for hurting someone's feelings, we are a nation that will eventually be incapable of defending itself. There may come a day when masculinity, the strength and sacrifice, that is, is longed for.

Our gender-neutral president has strengthened our enemies, caused our allies to distrust us, armed Islam De Jour (Muslim Brotherhood differ from ISIS in name only), defied the Constitution, insulted Congress, doubled Islamic immigration, doubled our national debt, doubled real unemployment, pushed us towards a race war, and is about to destroy neighborhoods where, yes, they did build it, through fraudulent law suits which will expose "racism" that does not exist. He decries gun ownership while seeking lower sentences for crimes with guns and has lied more boldly and more often than any politician I have ever studied (including Lincoln) and has made it popular to be illogical.

He has less than 2 years to destroy hard work with his "institutionalized" or "legalized" envy in his quest to show his hatred of white people, Asians, and hard working blacks. He does not miss an opportunity to insult Christianity and refused to let the White House flag be at half mast for the Marines killed in the name of Islam, nor recognize those who died.

Other than that, I think he is doing a marvelous job. He is "trans" something, but I am not sure just what yet. Perhaps someone else can help.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous,

Your post is intelligent; thank you.

John Hopkins has some trans gender studies and I have had some, not a great deal, but some experience interviewing transgenders, children, and parents.

I have not found a single transgender child (By "transgender", I include those who expressed confusion; not just those who have made a decision to be one or the other) who's parent (s) did not inflict severe damage upon the child.

With a severe suicide rate, truth is best: go for the childhood trauma, and do everything possible to limit the emotional abuse thrust upon the child by the parent.

Teens are the saddest of them all, and this is where suicide comes into even greater focus.

If there are enough protests and obamas-like "feelings first" mentality, the DSM will have to be edited again and this tiny, but tragic, portion of the population, will not be helped.

Parents cultivate the personality of their children.

I once had a therapist say to me, "I'm pregnant!"

I congratulated her.

She then said, "I am hoping for boy who is gay!"

I didn't answer. I was stunned.

She said, "You know, Peter! So I will have a shopping buddy!"

I do not know the gender of her child, but the last I heard, this woman is now at her own office, giving THERAPY to the general public, paid for by tax dollars.

I love psychology's studies; I love them! They are amazingly deep, vast, and reveal so much about ourselves. It is the creepy recommendations that severely troubled people give, based upon the studies, that is the most shocking. It is almost as if the more unsound the advice, the more books that will sell.

So Bruce is a hero, but not Rachel the white trans-racial.

What of the 15 year old malnutritioned girl who identifies as being overweight?

Do you wish to give her a parade too?

If it was my daughter, I'd want professional intervention and not a parade.

Why? Why isn't her "identity" praised?

Answer: Because scientifically, she is not overweight.

ha!

Scientifically, neither is Bruce a girl.

I do not understand why women's groups are not angry saying, "THIS IS NOT A WOMAN!" "THIS IS AN INSULT TO WOMEN EVERYWHERE!"

The United States of Feelings. Science be damned.

Anonymous said...


Thank you Anon @1:21, I appreciate it when just one will stand up and be counted. I do suspect however, that there are others who post here who know and believe the truth, in fact I know of one who remains quitely on the sidelines and who shall remain nameless.

Some just don't want to get involved in any such controversy that they already know will be lost to those who don't want to hear; also there are some who will ridicule until you turn blue which is their goal, to drive you away or make you give up. So just know, I appreciate your wonderful response and wish God's blessing upon you for being wise enough to stand firm.

No, many do not realize what they are missing in not knowing and following God's precepts; not realizing what a peaceful life it is, even filled with all our many troubles. It is unfortunate for them; we know which way to go on a moments notice, but they rob themselves by not knowing there is great peace in the midst of adversity, thereby causing themselves to flounder every which way but never finding peace. It is a pathetic and troublesome way to live, especially when they don't have too.

Nah....! God didn't make any mistakes. Not nary a one!! Bruce Jenner is living a very troubled life, void of any understanding and totally self-centered. "There is a way that seemeth right unto man but the end thereof are the way of death." He is emotionally and mentally distraught and sadly lost his way a long time ago. He is a 65-yr old man, with not much further to go on his journey. I just hope he finds his way before it's too late to redeem his soul.

We CANNOT spend our lives fighting with and rebelling against God; OR in misleading others into following a path that is against Gods' designated plan for our lives. There is a HUGE price to pay. I've known of a few others who did this and I've seen their lives come to very painful and bitter consequences with no way out. You know, there comes a time will God will give us over to a reprobate mind.

My computer is on the fritz and I apologize if it leaves a long blank space at the end of my post. Working on it. Thanks again for your response!
















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Peter Hyatt said...

Regarding my conversation over the Sheriff shooting:

My analysis conclusion was that he:

a. Deliberately brought the gun to bed
b. Psychological Distance from victim indicates acute animosity

As to shooting her, I cannot say he intended to do so, as it is not in his words, but he may have. He may have shot her once, and then changed his mind.

I appreciate your view and you may be right. I think, however, prosecutors should have focused upon the lie (passive) he told about the gun, though even as I review it, I still have my doubts about the shooting.

So, as I argue with you, I am arguing with myself and I am not strong in my opinion about intention.

a and b are right from principle and easy to spot.

c ...it evades me a bit.

This would make a good discussion.

thanks,

Peter

Anonymous said...

Marvelous post, Peter! I'll have to get back to you though on the subject of psychology, Obama and Brucie boy. You told me more about Obama than I ever koew, I try hard to keep away from most political issues as they are a no win situation for us. Nonetheless, I'm having all this trouble with my computer so will catch up with you later. I appreciate all the time and effort you gave to this post!

Peter Hyatt said...

I am going to post a poll question about the shooting.

I now have doubts about my position.

Peter

Anonymous 2:09

Here is an article for you. It is short and summary, but helpful. I am falling in love with this website:

www.americanthinker.com for its logic.

The specific article is:

Peter Hyatt said...

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/what_hath_obama_wrought.html


I think Democrat readers here will love this website.

It is very difficult to despise logic and reason and read Statement Analysis.

Juliet said...

AnniesMom,
God makes a fair bit of 'junk', at least if you hold God responsible for everything created - just thinking of parasites which eat out children's eyes and hideously malformed 'monster' foetuses. Help me here - I don't know if you are describing Caitlyn, and transgender people as 'junk', or not?

Sus said...

I want to speak to the fifteen year old malnourished girl you mention, Peter. Our identies come from within, and that is not where that girl is getting hers. She is looking to the external. It's not what she feels on the inside, but what she believes she looks like on the outside.

That's nothing like what a transgender goes through. It's the opposite for them. They know exactly what their exterior looks like , and it doesn't match their inner identity. No matter how they present to the world, they still have the same inner identity.

Juliet said...

I would also like to add that I don't advocate parades either, and don't doubt that in some instances kids have developed these issues as some sort of reaction to questionable parenting - those are issues aside. My concern is toward the individual for whom the gender identification crisis is real, no matter how he or she has arrived at it. I don't think they deserve mockery, derision, bullying or denial, but this sometimes is the reaction from parents who can't cope with how their son or daughter is identifying, and just generally many people react in those ways at any mention of a transgender person, as though they believe them to be somehow less human, less real, than they consider themselves to be.

Anon - Wielding God as a cure all or threat might make those who do it feel better but it is not helpful to heap guilt upon the person in crisis, and can drive troubled and sensitive young people into deeper despair. Dismissing me as one who obviously doesn't know God because I don't take a particular view, presumably yours, is interesting. So pleased to meet the editor of The Lamb's Book of Life, and so relieved to know she is not criticising me, not in the least. :)

Peter Hyatt said...

If a God exists, by definition, He is responsible for all "junk", parasites, and so on, ultimately, yet cannot be charged with wrongdoing.

We have, in a fallen world, both principles, and exceptions.

Sus, your argument about "internal and external" is really a stretch because should we follow this as an argument, we now have a new perception in life that still trumps science.

I have interviewed teenaged girls who recognized that at 98 lbs, they were, in fact, skinny, but they felt "fat" about themselves, even though their eye sight was perfect ,and they could measure with a scale and a tape measure. They knew they "trumped"fact, even.

Whether this perception is "internal", or the perception is "external", we, as human beings, have senses from which we gain information.

Your classification is akin to the claims of psychics.

There is no "internal" versus "external' perception in human nature. We see, hear, feel, taste, and then process this in our brains. The human brain processes both thought and emotion.

The consistency of nature is best, yet there is always someone, 1 in several million, for example, born with both sexes. In a "fallen world", there is pollution, disease, disaster, yet, if the source is located, we may overcome it, as we have with many deformities.

The truth, however, remains the truth, and if the perception (internal, external, both, or another new description ) does not match truth, it is wrong, and something is amiss.

What I only learned recently in the medial profession is doctors willing to amputate healthy limbs for "trans-abled" people. I guess with the butchers of Planned Parenthood making billions by killing, I should not have been surprised.

They amputate so that the person's perception "matches" their body.

We mutilate bodies because of someone's perception, rather than assist them. By some estimates, the "transgender" suicide rate is 40%.

Now we are going to turn from helping them and declare the a civil right, even though they are at war with nature, itself.

Regarding advocating bullying, derision, or mockery:

I have never met anyone like this, even though the argument is in the lips of so many. Children make fun of each other for any and everything and a boy wearing a dress is an easy mark.

Parents must cultivate their children's sexuality, as they have for thousands of years. The one in a million child born with both sexes is something that belongs between the parents and their doctor to work out, this extreme exception.

The others are just psychologically bullying their children and need to stop the madness. The Bruce Jenner parade only makes things worse and beneath it all is a suffering soul who does not know if he is a man or woman and is desperate for intervention.

I think of JONAH, in New Jersey, even though I am not Jewish and simply cannot abide the ignorance of a judge, who should know better than to repeat bumper stickers instead of truth. They helped those who voluntarily sought help, and have been effectively shut down due to "political correctness" and government out of control.

God help us.

Sus said...

I'm going to try to explain this a bit better. And I'm doing it at the risk of sounding crazy, "psychic", or whatever, so please bear with me.

I believe we are all one. We all have that spark of God within us. Call it our Soul. God is within us. We are born to earth not knowing this. It is the earthly experience to find God within.

Through our earthly experience, we have to be driven inward. In to find God. We have to realize nothing "external" will lead us to him. Some of us are led easily. Some of us need a hammer over the head.

So when I see someone with great trials I know it is part of their earthly experience. I leave them at it. You get what I mean there. Of course we live by earthly laws. We all have our own journey. Caitlyn Jenner has hers. This is the trial God may have put in front of her.

And I repeat, man is who lives separately. Man is who classifies and judges. God gave only one name. Human. He allowed humans to name and label to live separate here on earth. In eternity we will live as one with God.

Juliet said...

Sus, you don't sound crazy.

tania cadogan said...

Hi Anniesmom
God does not make junk,we are created male and female period.

I have to disagree with your statement.

There are people born who are intersex(what used to be called hermaphrodite)
Their genes are messed up and instead of being XX or XY they may be XXY or XYY
They present as having the genitals of sometimes both genders or genitals which are not clearly defined.
There are also cases where the genitalia has the appearance of female or male whilst their genes show them as being the opposite.

it used to be that the parents and surgeons would look at an intersex child and decide one way or the other, operate and have the child raised in the chosen gender.
This caused a huge amount of stress when the child raised as a boy feels like a girl and vice versa, the damage though is already done.

These days doctors presented with such cases do nothing surgically and wait till the child decides for themselves what gender they are/feel and if the now grown child wishes to have surgery or leave as is.

There are also cases where the patients shows every indication of being female yet in physical appearance is masculine (Caster Semanya as an example)
This can be all down to hormones since people have both male and female hormones in their bodies though one is dominant.
This is why some males have feminine features since they produce a higher level of female hormones that the average male, and some females look very masculine , even to growing facial hair due to higher than usual levels of male hormones (this is why ladies after the menopause tend to be hairier or those with polycystic ovaries can also show excessive hair growth, it is down to a decline in the production of female hormones oestrogen and progesterone. Tablets can be given which raise the levels back to near normal)

If you believe in god then you believe he doesn't make mistakes and he creates every child at the moment of conception.
The resultant child is exactly how god made them warts and all, this includes gays, lesbians, intersex etc.
You didn't choose to be heterosexual the same as people don't choose to be gay, lesbian or intersex.

There are some who genuinely believe they are in the wrong body, again this could be down to being intersex, it could be down to mental issues, it could be down to their genes and hormones.
WE know a lot about the human body and how it works, we don't know everything.
It could be a single change in the DNA sequence that results in someone feeling the way they do.
Although the human genome has been mapped, we don't know how each code interacts with the billions of others, be it on or off.
One day we may learn and be able to switch a specific gene on or off and cure a disease.

There are some who claim to be a different gender in order to make a point or to seek attention.
There are a few who simply don't know what they are, they don't know if they are heterosexual or gay, they don't know if they are a male inside a female body who loves women which would mean are they heterosexual or a lesbian, or a female in a male body who loves men which would make them heterosexual or gay.
There are even a few who have surgical gender reassignment to their chosen gender only to regret it and want to change back because they didn't feel right in their new gender either.
Lastly there are a few who consider themselves neither gender and act and dress according to how they feel gender wise that day, they are androgenous or gender fluid.

What it boils down to is humans are animals and we all know how varied genders can be in animals with some changing sex depending on their age or environment, some reproducing without the presence of males and so on.

I think bruce is seeking attention, with an eye on making money.
He may genuinely feel he is a female in a male body, he may decide not to have gender reassignment surgery and stay as is ( meaning he can alsways swap back again if attention wanes or he thinks he can make a fortune from a new show)


Juliet said...

Tania - It would be good if everyone here reads your post, as you've put such a lot so clearly and concisely -I find it very helpful, so thanks. It's a shame that Caitlyn formerly known as Bruce has become the focus for transgender issues (it's a shame when people are classed as issues), as she's not terribly representative of anyone but herself. She is inviting so much cynicism by keeping her options open, and by being part of the reality TV circus. I think she should keep her options open till she is sure obviously, but also that she should be staying out of the spotlights till she is sure, but that wouldn't be lucrative.

Anonymous said...

I read her post and beg to differ. She made some excellent scientific (or medical) points, then blew it all by using Bruce Jenner as an example, when Bruce Jenner did not have a sex identification problem, nor did he have both sets of genitala. He was IS a man whose proactive sperm helped to bear six or more children. He is a self-declared freak.

Tania HobNobs has announced herself atheist more than once. Naturally she will 'intelligently' find everything she can that she thinks she can use to prove herself and everyone else against and in defiance of God.

THEN says we are animals. Well, I most certainly AM NOT. She might be an animal, or thinks she is, so much for that. Anything to blow off the Word of God. God made us HUMANS, just a little lower than the angels and set us to have dominion over the animals. Sorry, nothing Hobnob says could have any credibility with me.

Anonymous said...


Yes she does sound crazy. We are NOT all born one. If we had been, we would be able to get inside each others thoughts and there is only ONE who can do this, and THIS is Jesus Christ. We are all born separately, individually, all given our individual and separate soul, some being given five talents or more and some given one; for which we will EACH stand up separately, individually and ALONE to give an account of ourselves and our earthly deeds and works before the Almighty throne of the Almighty God.

We are each born either male or female having either male or female DNA, and THATS a scientific/medical FACT. Thank God, at least we can't undermine his handiwork of creating us either male or female. Bruce Jenner is NOT a she, he is a HE; born with male DNA, whose soul will leave this earth WITH MALE DNA. Get a grip on it for God's sakes!

Sus said...

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. And while you're at it, common courtesy.

Anonymous said...

Maybe you're right about that Sus. For this I apologize, also my apparent lack of common courtesy.

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous said...

Yes she does sound crazy. We are NOT all born one. If we had been, we would be able to get inside each others thoughts and there is only ONE who can do this, and THIS is Jesus Christ. We are all born separately, individually, all given our individual and separate soul, some being given five talents or more and some given one; for which we will EACH stand up separately, individually and ALONE to give an account of ourselves and our earthly deeds and works before the Almighty throne of the Almighty God.

We are each born either male or female having either male or female DNA, and THATS a scientific/medical FACT. Thank God, at least we can't undermine his handiwork of creating us either male or female. Bruce Jenner is NOT a she, he is a HE; born with male DNA, whose soul will leave this earth WITH MALE DNA. Get a grip on it for God's sakes!


You do not have an explanation for those whose DNA reveals them to be XXY or XYY.
Nor do you cover chimeras, those who have 2 differing DNA types.
These are very rare and usually the result where one twin has been absorbed into the other.
There have been cases where a mother was accused of not being the biological mother to her children as their DNA didn't match hers (it was to do with a custody battle)
The mother was pregnant and when the child was born and a sample taken for DNA testing immediately, the same result happened, she was not the biological mother of the child even though she had carried and given birth to the child.

They eventually took samples from her from different areas as one doctor wondered if she was a chimera.
It turned out she was.

Her blood hair and saliva contained one lot of DNA, her ovaries and other sample areas contained a different DNA.

Anonymous said...

THEN says we are animals. Well, I most certainly AM NOT. She might be an animal, or thinks she is, so much for that. Anything to blow off the Word of God. God made us HUMANS, just a little lower than the angels and set us to have dominion over the animals. Sorry, nothing Hobnob says could have any credibility with me.


You need to learn some basic biology.

Humans are classed as mammals (Homo Sapiens) and come from the hominin branch of the great apes and they are characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion, manual dexterity and increased tool use, and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies.

Since we are not a vegetable, nor a mineral we have to be an animal.
Our closest living relatives are chimpanzees and gorillas with the sequencing of both the human and chimpanzee genome, current estimates of similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences range between 95% and 99%.

Juliet said...

Anon at 9.54 - sorry to break it to you, but it's the body which has the DNA, not the soul. Doesn't the bible say that in the afterlife there is no male or female, and everyone will be as the angels? Also, in Christ there is no male or female? You might want to have a little word with God about all that, or with yourself. :)

Anonymous said...

Hobnob, I have more education than you could ever know or guess, and that which I don't have, I don't require. When I need the services of a professional who is trained out of my field, I go and get one AND PAY for it. I do not seek 'free' advice or services. When I need wisdom, guidance and knowledge, I go to God to get it. Not some wishy-washy lame brained atheist whose only mission is to prove to us there is no God by letting us know how smart she is and HE isn't. Bully for you. Go for it. Beyond that, I'm not even bothering to read the rest of your prattle.

Anonymous said...

Juliet, I expected you to jump on that one about the body having the DNA and not the soul. Right of course, but you knew exactly what I meant.

I'm getting a little sick of you telling ME how I need to learn the Word and yada, yada. I have read and reread the Bible, and in many areas, several times repeatedly. I don't need ANYONE to interpret or misinterpret for me, not even when I make an error in my own statements; which I am fully aware.

Just looking to nit-pick with me.

Go back to Hobnob, and good luck with that. You two should do well together. She can lead you into utter darkness and you won't even know what happened. Pity.

Juliet said...

Anon, don't you find it a bit perplexing when the atheists seem to be better Christians than Christians? I suppose It might really annoy them, too.

Keep it classy. ;)

Anonymous said...

I am SOOO sick of you and your so-called advice to me. You don't even know what the word classy means. PLEASE, stay away from me and I will certainly afford you the same courtesy.

Juliet said...

Thanks, Anon I'll do my best, but reasonably,, you'll have to excuse me if I accidentally speak to you, as there are so many who share your name. If I do, it will be unintentional. I'm not going to avoid replying to every anonymous post on the chance it might be one of yours, though some of yours I will be able to recognise by the content and tone. I don't mind if you feel the urge, at any time, to break your resolve and heap some more of that Christian love upon me - it's like water off a duck's back. :-)

AnniesMom said...

I'm sorry for those here who don't believe in God. That's your choice of course and I have no intention to argue about it,as it has no effect on me or my faith. Whatever god you serve whether it is fame,fortune,wealth or whatever it will all end one day and you will stand before the judge of all mankind.

Ga 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
(KJV)


BTW I'll still read and maybe even comment on this blog,because Peter does a great job and he's right about the state of the world today. I do thank God this world is not my home. I'm just passing through.

Anonymous said...

What a lovely statement, AnniesMom; so glad to see another one who shares the faith and will stand up for it. God bless you and keep you in his care always.

AnniesMom said...

Anonymous@10:20

Thank You! He does bless me daily,I came to the truth very late in life and I'll not forsake Him!

I found this today and in MHO it is a perfect description of what is happening today.

Samuel F.B. Morse, became a famous inventor, even developing the Morse Code ("Morse, Jedidiah," 2007, Encyclopedia of Britannica [on line]).
In an election sermon given at Charlestown, Massachusetts on April 25, 1799, this American patriot offered the following chilling warning–an observation not unlike many of the founders:
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions: in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom and approximate the miseries of complete despotism. All efforts to destroy the foundations of our holy religion, ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them" (1799, p. 9).
If Morse was correct, America is in a dire predicament–literally entering on the brink of national disaster and destruction. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34). "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord" (Psalms 33:12).

AnniesMom said...

LOVE ;-)

The Bible admonishes us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies probably because they are generally the same people." Love God, love your enemies (Matthew 5:44), love your neighbor. Somewhere in all that there is bound to be someone who is hard to love. But, according to Jesus, we are never more like God than when we choose to love those we can't stand as well as those who can't stand us.

foodnerd said...


Quoting a random Anonymous of the 3 million Anonymouses who don't know they can choose an actual name without registering or leaving their junk e-mail address:

"God did not make any mistakes.

You're blaming the wrong one.

It's as simple as that."

~~~~~~~

Babies are born every day with either no sex organs, or equipment for both genders; why is it so hard to grasp that one can be born with the wrong equipment entirely? It's a complex process in there when we evolve into one gender or the other and if it went viral that a baby faced one of the first two situations and nobody was going to do anything, there would be public outcry of the parents' cruelty, and vitriolic condemning of their religion regardless of if it's related.

Why should those in the third category have less rights and more public degradation?

If you believe in God, it isn't about mistakes. Again, babies are born daily with severe heart, lung, intestinal and myriad other life-threatening ailments. Many have surgery, some even before they're born, and grow up to live productive, normal lives.

If you believe in God you probably credit him for guiding those surgeons' hands to greatly improve quality of life, so who the heck are you to cut him out of the pie when you decide you don't approve of how someone else receives his help?

And if those whose upper organs need repairing or replacing to live a full, quality life deserve that shot, why should it matter which organs need work?

foodnerd said...

Tania Catogan, you beat me to it! Usually I finish reading before starting yapping, but was churning up a froth reading too many adding to the pain of those dealing with this issue. I've met and spoken to many transgender people, but I've never had a personal conversation with one who is, much less a discussion about the issue.

I can feel their pain and sadness sometimes, and wary, steel curtain of mistrust often, and it's difficult because I can't stand to feel people hurting and not be able to do or say anything helpful. But it would be embarrassingly arrogant and condescending to tell them it's OK with me as if I have any permission to grant or they should give a flying eff what I think of such a personal journey.