Friday, April 28, 2017

The Danger of Fabrication of Reality

Few people understand how dangerous one who fabricates reality is.  In deception detection, we learn that less than 10% of those who are deceptive, will fabricate reality. 

In live team analysis recently, we covered a statement where rent money went missing. 

The subject was 100% truthful, line by line. 

The statement tested to be "Unreliable" on its Form. 

There was not a single lie in it. 

The team rightfully concluded that the subject (author) had stolen the rent money via their analysis. 

This highlights a very important principle within both lie detection and in life, itself:  90% plus of lies are via missing information rather than the fabrication of reality. 

When we have one willing to literally fabricate reality, we have an unique individual who poses a threat of unknown proportion.  

Lying causes internal stress and the brain becomes quite adept at avoiding this stress.  The stress is not simply due to feelings of guilt, as even sociopaths, who hold no empathy for their fellow man, feel internal stress of a direct lie.  Why?  Because it leave them vulnerable to being caught and accused. 

By what?

By their own words. 

Their own words. 

This is critical in understanding human nature.  We are known by our words via communication, and to be seen a "liar" is not to be seen "lying" but literally to be classified, in total, as a liar.  This is not something the liar likes. 

Out right lies are rare and with the rent money, the analysts, both new and experienced, focused in upon sensitivity indicators and made the only reaonsable conclusion the words would allow:  "Deception Indicated."

In fact, he had stolen the rent money from his two roommates and went out and purchased drugs and some new clothes with it, leaving the living status of the roommates in jeopardy. 

Police asked him to write out a statement and it was very short, so the victims were told, "well, we just don't know..." and no justice was realized. 

This deceptive young man gave indication of not only deception, but the language of addiction.  The analysts spotted this readily.  


When one will lie outright, he is now in the 10% category.  "I didn't do it" when he did, is one thing, but to say

"I took the money and gave it to the landlord", for example, when the subject did not even meet the landlord, puts himself into a new category and it makes him a danger to all around him. 

Those who lie by omission and are successful pose a risk specifically due to their success.  Like a thief at work, $100 success will emboldened for $1,000 theft.  

Yet, when one lies by omission, and continue in this lie, they will experience something similar to the most dangerous fabricator of reality:


Why is the rarer outright fabricator more dangerous?

For whatever reason, likely rooted in childhood, and fueled by success in deceiving people, the fabricator of reality has overcome the internal stress of lying.  

It is here that we learn:  

There is no bottom.  

They are in this sense dangerous because they are not restrained as others. 

You may predict their next downward step, but you cannot predict the bottom.  Their potential for societal harm is only limited by their opportunities.  

Even immoral people have some restraint, such as fearing being caught, and they still have the restraint of internal stress to hinder just how far they will go with deception. 

When Richard Blumenthal said he was boots on the ground in Viet Nam, he fabricated reality; he never left the United States.   Confronted by his own words, his response indicates who he is. His "core" identity was under attack.  His response is consistent with the lack of conscience.  

  With this by-passing of internal stress, we cannot know how low he will go, and we should not expect any basic honesty.  This means that when prosecuting people for crimes, he would be at high risk to prosecute an innocent if it benefited his career. 

Businesses that do not screen for deception pay a severe cost.  

There are ways to spot this type of deceiver, but there is no way to strongly predict how low they will go; we can only predict the next step downward, and perhaps, the next step, but in terms of the bottom: it does not exist. 

Wall of Truth

Truth is powerful and it is an invisible wall of protection.  

What makes fabricators of reality so dangerous is that they do not have the same restraints as others in society. They will go increasingly further into depravity; they will graduate from lie to lie, crime to crime, inflicting costs upon any and everyone around them.  

If you get in their way, they will go on the offensive. 

Without the wall of truth, the 10% fabricator of reality has a need to silence opposition.  It is far more than just being unable to answer truth, they cannot abide it.  

Need to silence

The lack of any reasonable "bottom" is frightening enough, but when it is combined with exploitation of others, we find they possess a need to silence discussion.  

Without a bottom, we now have the need to silence that is often accompanied by a pseudo-morality, which further fuels the liar into the realm of violence.   We see this in the "anti fascist" socialist movement that uses fascism to silence.  Socialism, itself, must use coercion to accomplish its social goals.  When the "virtue signaling" begins, we have a combination of:

a.    Deception that needs to silence communication 
b.  Intrusion of hormonal increase (emotion) 
c.  violence

The "science" march was a political march, not a science march, and its theme was singular and the opposite of science:  silence opposition. 

Anything that needs to silence scrutiny is scientifically indefensible, hence the need for coercive silence.  Combine this with hormonal increase (virtue signaling) and the power is increased. 

Add in male testosterone age 18 to 30 and the result can be violence that increases in both intensity and scope.  

Someone wants to do you bodily harm because you disagree with him.  

When one claims, for example, that a man is a woman, the absurdity, itself, can only be defended by coercion.  Therefore, if you go to the delivery room and your doctor says,

"It's a boy!"

the only contrary argument would be to attack the doctor as a "bigot", "racist", "phobic, nazi" and so on, as is the popular result of identity politics today.  Classify someone to avoid using logic. 

Add in virtue signaling and testosterone and this can lead to violence.  In untreated mental health issues, it is even worse.    

Yet, those who have long recognized that one who sees something that is not is in need of mental health intervention, suddenly, in just a few short years, now defend their position by attacking discussion. Here you see even the defenders acknowledge the mental health issue justifying why one must watch his words around the sufferer of sexual dysmorphia:

The defenders are the actual insulters. 

To claim a man is a woman is a fabrication of reality.  Where once professionals treated such as depression, and later dysmorphia, politicians have made it a "civil right" and has led to the same results of all identity politics:  division.  

The lie brings loss and destruction.  

Today, would any mental health professional dare attempt to treat the dysmorphia?

Yet, the 40% suicide rate remains. 

Taking the same logic, what of the dangerously underweight teen who "identifies" as overweight? 

Is is "respectful" to indulge her lie or should she receive help?

We are not better people or "morally superior" for maintaining a lie.  Only politicians tells us that we are.  

Politicians join in to exploit with the new claim:  "hate speech is not free speech."

Question:  Why is it so important that you change your belief and say that a man is a woman?

Answer:  Because it is not true.  It must be coerced, one way or another, because there is no wall of truth.  

This is why liars like the McCanns must keep up the pressure and have dedicated  their entire lives to this "fight."  It is not a fight for Madeleine, as many note; they rarely dedicated words to her.  It is about them.  

People dedicate websites, not to disprove the McCann analysis but to impugn the analyst.  Recently, it was "he is making money off a dead child."

What does that mean?

If a journalist covers a story and gets a promotion for a job well done, and the story is a dead child, is he making money off of a dead child?

Besides...isn't Madeleine "kidnapped"? 

Free speech was part of our fabric as hate speech against tyranny.  It is, in its historical sense, hate speech.  

Lies must be defended by violence because it is not truth, and, the restraint of lying as taboo is not only removed, but lying now becomes "morally" correct.  This is to increase fuel towards violence. 

Danger:  Deception + Emotion + Faux Morality + Testosterone 

Young males see the videos of black hooded attackers and they see this as exciting.  It appeals to violence but it is violence that is now "justified" by false morality.  If a male wanted to be violent but was reluctant due to his upbringing, the false morality allows him to overcome the resistance. 

Once he is in the crowd, mob psychology takes over and we see the cowardly professor hitting someone in the head, then hiding.  

We can laugh when Al Gore said air conditioners led to the creation of the Islamic State (they certainly laugh) but he is a politician and politicians are adept at separating you from your money for their causes.  

Yet, even a few years ago, few Americans would have ever called for the end of free speech, defining "hate speech" as anything I disagree with.  
It is  dangerous because it has no restraint. It is outright fabrication and with this restraint removed, it is now combined with emotion (moral narcissism or virtue signaling).   Remove restraint and you get violence.  This is why the fascist protesters wear masks.  

Human desensitization.  Fuel with false morality and the end can be dehumanization for the purpose of bloodshed.  This was the argument in the French Revolution, The Marxist Revolution, Nazi Germany, and so on, and the bloodshed was severe. 

Those who maintain a lie will be desensitized similar to the outright liar.  Eventually, the maintained lie will lead to offensive strategy, seeking to harm others. 

Example:  McCann threats as the lie is perpetuated for 10 years.  

Why the need to silence via lawsuit?  Will any of these suits bring their child back? 

Context is Key 

The context is a "missing" child.  If saying, "I don't believe their story" resulted in being terminated at their job because they have been portrayed as child killers, perhaps, professionally they would need protection. 

The context is that they have been building a movement on a lie, and cannot let it go.  

No loss of income like a tv personality falsely accused.  

Those who say they do not believe the parents will not impact the issue:  Madeleine. 

The need to silence is the  indicator of weakness.  

Lance Armstrong sued people of out of business, and destroyed lives and reputations.  Why?

Because they told the truth.  

The list of victims is unknown.  Even in his sport, what of those who rode clean and were cheated out of lawful competition? What of those who lost endorsements in their country because they could not keep up with him?

Liars take their toll on society and the more lying becomes acceptable, especially when disguised as morality, the greater the overall impact.  This is the essence of "third world banana republics" in the insulting language:  they are corrupt.  

Language is the currency. 

Deception is counterfeit currency.  

An acceptance of lies leads to destruction.  In Ferguson, the police officer told the truth about what happened, and eventually, witnesses came forth to say, "there was no 'hands up; don't shoot', yet an entire racist movement is underway, well financed and even received in the White House, based upon a lie.  Police officers have died, particularly in 2016, because of this false narrative that came from the top, beginning in earnest in 2008.  

The spouses and children will never be the same.  

Anti-cheating and sportsmanship lessons were once given to children to help establish an inner point of resistance to the corruption of lying and cheating.  

When you have someone who has overcome the internal stress of lying working for you, he will not "steal" from you; but he may "reimburse" himself, or even use the language of Marxism:

He will "redistribute the wealth."

There is no bottom.  

This form of theft is at the heart of the socialistic ideology:  successful people owe those who are not successful and if they disagree, we will coerce them.  This is what we are seeing today in America, and it is based upon a lie.  

The successful did not get their by hard work and sacrifice, they had to steal. 

The unsuccessful did not get that way by government disincentive. It was a vast conspiracy to hold them down.  

These absurdities are lies in which politicians exploit and use to create violence.  This is why politicians want to control the internet. 

Truth stands upon its own strength.  The "need to persuade" from a liar is incessant.  

If you do not believe him, it will continue to pester. 

If you still do not believe him, the very weakness of a lie will force the only method of acceptance possible:


In any circumstance, none of us knows how low a liar will go. 

Even those who may have once been honest, who will not yield from their lies, will only become more and more desensitized due to their lies.  

Some comment with, "they actually believe their own lies."

No, they do not. If they did, it would not show up as deception in language and in their behavior:  

If they did, they would have no need to attempt to coerce through pressure, through law suits, or through violence.  

The McCanns show a willingness to destroy others careers and lives through threatened suits. 

Yet, would winning a suit bring back Madeleine?

If she was their cause, they would not care who did or did not believe them.  

They spent their energy attacking others and their focus upon their own selves. 


Because Madeleine was never "missing."  

They have lied by omission but the same pattern of desensitization is active.  

This is evident from their own words, and has been consistently remained the same, for a decade.  

Expect the increase in offensive attacks to continue.  It is their life.  Searching for Madeleine was not in their language, nor in their labors.  

For them, maintaining a lie has become an industry.  


Anonymous said...

What an incredibly insightful, intelligent and educational discourse. I am very grateful to have read this. I will be sharing this widely on social media and with (via Twitter) Hillary Clinton, George Bush Sr, Dick Cheyney, Donald Rumsfeld, Obama, et al and the lamestream Media as well as with what I believe to be credible and honest news outlets. Thank you. Wonderful piece.

Tania Cadogan said...

Thanks Peter. It has never been about Maddie, it has been about them, their reputations, the money.

They want to maintain the lifestyle they want to become accustomed to.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I don't follow them much, but I am willing to bet, $ makes its way into the language, via various means. It is all about them. I think even suits are not so much about silence but about silence and gain .

Vicki said...

What do you all think?

Went to Fleet Farm today to do some shopping. Paid for all my items and went to leave, was told I couldn't use the wheelchair to go to the car. Returned all my items and had to walk out on my hands and knees. Just trying to make people aware of how Fleet Farm treats handicapped customers.

Anonymous said...

Why can't you use the/or your wheelchair to go to your car? I'm betting it wasn't your wheelchair. You were using the companies wheelchair. Perhaps they don't allow customers to remove their chairs from the building. In my area, stores loan them for shopping, but not to the parking lot.

Oh, and you didn't own any of that statement. You omitted 'I' every time.

Anonymous said...

It's very different if you said,"I couldn't use my wheelchair to go to my car".

Unknown said...


C5H11ONO said...

Peter! Is this an example of leakage?! (Apparently literally and figuratively)

Jane Fonda leaked some personal info about herself!!!

IrishGuy said...

I had always wondered what had happened to Madeleine, the story was huge in the media over here at the time and would pop up now and again in the intervening years. It's sure to pop up in a big way again in a few days with the 10th anniversary. I had a bad feeling about the parents but could never put my finger on why that was. Until, that is, I recently saw your interview with Richard Hall on youtube. After watching it I now know why I felt that way.

Statement analysis is an interesting field of study this interview also opened up to me. It seems at the same time intricate, detailed yet plainly obvious. Thank you for doing what you do. Best of luck.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Peter- I have a question on fabricating reality. Is it the same thing when a Narcissist fabricates reality or is that something different, like fabricating to benefit themselves? We have a narcissistic extended family member who regularly brags to others how well loved her children were by their peers. For example,her daughter was the first girl on an all-male team ("pushed" by the feminist mom) and all the boys thought of her as their little sister, some of them "liked" her, etc.. The reality was that she was ditzy and a terrible player, the boys didn't want her on the team because she was no good and they didn't want to lose games and they told the girl so.

Is fabricating, as opposed to lying, common to narcissism? Or is this the 10% kind of person to be concerned about? Is it a different animal when you're dealing with a narcissist?

Hey Jude said...

I would love to be able to share a remarkable fabrication of reality by one who had claimed he was the victim of such - the trouble is, it would be too unkind - plus, he'd threaten to sue me, idle threat though it would be. Still, I can say that I doubt I would have picked up on a sensitive word, that of what he said he was doing, when it turned out he was doing something quite different, were it not for reading here. I am used to his telling lies, but I did not realise quite how many or how often. I hinted I know, without outing him - he does a good enough job of that himself.


I wonder how persistent fabricators of reality manage the disparity between how they portray themselves, and the actual reality of who or what they are, or what they know, or did, or are hiding. Surely, there must come a point at which the reality must make the fabrication too much to sustain, and their act will implode.

It is a disturbing thought, that for some there is no bottom - so no limit to how low they might go - they do just keep going, not caring who they take with them or harm on the way.

The McCanns have never cared about the fear caused to little children, (perhaps they worried about their own), by the story of Madeleine's abduction while she slept - to them the peace of mind of a generation of British children could and should have been sacrificed to the narrative. They even wanted bookmarks advertising Madeleine's abduction to be distributed in every Harry Potter book - I don't recall if that happened, only that they wanted it. Their campaign to 'increase awareness' had the effect of frightening children - yet they knew it was all a lie. I still don't understand why the media indulged and encouraged it - the most reasonable seeming explanation is that they do not care either, whenever Madeleine was on the front page, the newspaper sales increased.

They did not care about Gonçalo's reputation or how they were ruining his life, in their determination to prevent him telling the truth - Kate even wishing suffering upon him, for daring to comtradict their Claims about what had become of Madeleine.

They did not care about Brenda, who committed suicide after being doorstepped because she would not stop questioning the narrative - 'We're not interested in trolls', snorted Gerry.

One has to hope there is a limit with the McCanns, because so far, their response to those who question the narrative is one of contempt. I suppose, seeing that, the twins might have a psychological aversion to asking questions of their parents, but they are bound to have some - which will leave them with the internet, and even more questions. Surely it all has to implode, and sooner or later one or the other will tell the truth.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for an excellant and intelligent analysis. We so much need to hear it and read it, that what you have done, in order to maintain a little hope for mankind. Susanne - Denmark.

Anonymous said...

@1:37, better share with trump. Not only is he revealing himself as one of the biggest liars, but he will probably respond to you, since his skin is much too thin to accept criticism.

HS said...


Anonymous said...

@3:48.......There are bogus SA practitioners in these blogs who present themselves as experts while refusing training, nonetheless, they monopolize the comments section with their often faulty analysis, all the while, presenting themselves with utmost confidence (in themselves, apparently, and not in an expertise they do not possess but are too oblivious to recognize their own lack of ability).

One of these more prolific "analysts,"
who dominates discussion, analyzed me (on more than one occasion) as one of the prime subjects discussed in a murder case. That shows a lack of mastery, not to mention a disconnect with reality.

Of course, that was very simple to debunk, but it hasn't discouraged her ridiculous and egregiously elemental and flawed attempts at SA.

Who would take her seriously?

So......try to curtail your amateurish SA attempts. You most likely are mistaken. You are not Peter.

Anonymous said...

Fabrication is the creation of a lie. There is virtually no difference. Both are used as deceptive measures to mislead.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
Fabrication is the creation of a lie. There is virtually no difference. Both are used as deceptive measures to mislead.
April 29, 2017 at 8:22 AM

The difference is stark and efficacious.


Anonymous said...

They are different methods of deceit, but a fabrication's purpose is to create a false impression. A lie is also used to deceive and create a false impression. Motivation may be different, but deception is deception. Fabrication of qualifications on a resume, for instance, is used to deceive and acquire, but it is nothing more than an elaborate or embellished lie, and a potential employer will categorize the person who has fabricated as a liar.

Anonymous said...

Casey Anthony fabricated incessantly, but it boils down to lying to achieve her purpose. She is now widely known as a liar because of her fabrications.

Anonymous said...

The most destructive fabrication of reality in maybe the last 2,000 years: WMD's in Iraq = must invade. Mission Accomplished = hasnt ended yet. "The people who knocked down these buildings are gonna hear from all of us soon" = still not clear who did it, 16 yrs later..... ALL DESTRUCTIVE LYING..... Widows & orphans = destructive lying. Diversity is our strength = destructive lying. "Thats not who we are", = fabricating a paradigm = destructive lying.

happyuk said...

10 years on and complicit in all of this is the mainstream media. The McCanns are the bees, the media are the hives, both are necessary for each other. What I find particularly disturbing is the role of British intelligence in maintaining the deception. It is a fact that intelligence agencies the world over actively seek to install leaders with known 'weaknesses'. The potential for blackmail and enslavement of such persons is immense, making them pliable and ready to implement hugely unpopular decisions (handing over a nations sovereignty to foreign entities, engaging in infinitely destructive wars?) - rather than getting them to seek the treatment they really need.

I am going into the realms of conspiracy but could something similar have been going on here? Richard D Hall in one of his talks mentions Maddie McCanns last known photograph in which she is shown wearing blue eyeshadow, looking distinctly unhappy in what is a highly sexualized photograph. A truly awful thought I know, but something I think needs consideration.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Not to seem stupid or argumentative , but I'm still trying to work out the difference in fabrication and a lie and how that applies if your subject is narcissistic.

If I understand correctly (that's a big "if"), a fabrication has zero basis in reality while a lie has some basis? Because words matter, that's why the fabricator is actually the more dangerous of the two as he will literally invent whatever to further his objective or agenda, at anyone's expense. He has the potential to destroy, with whatever means are available to him, anyone who threatens to expose him (the no bottom, no limit boundary)?

I expect a narcissist to lie to either promote or protect the reality he needs to project. So what is the defining line between a lie and fabrication in analyzing a narcissist?

Anonymous said...

Anon @ WMD fabrication: it was a fabrication (a lie) meant to deceive for a specific purpose (or purposes). One, IMO, was retribution and vengeance exacted upon Saddam on behalf of W's dad, George H. W. Bush, dating from Desert Storm. DS expelled the invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait, but HW didn't "get" Saddam. I believe W intended to finish business.

Failure. Tragic failure, causing even more instability.

Anonymous said...

Fools, you're making it much more complicated than it is. In fact, while its important to distinguish between fabrication and lying, there's very little difference in goals. The fabrication is more apt to be far-reaching in scope, but lies (fabrication is a lie, BTW) have the potential to destroy just as does fabrication.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like you are trying to refine a legal argument...

...trying to make up an excuse for creating a story (lying) that was not true?

...or an admission that seeks to validate fabrication?

Hey Jude said...

My observations, based on my experience of personally known, and of one unknown fabricator whose 'reality' I know one victim of:

Fabrication of reality is the creation of a reality which does not exist, except, possibly in the mind of the person who created it. I think really they know it is not real - they put a lot of effort into sustaining the fiction with the intention others will believe it to be true. The fabricated 'reality' is self-serving, and no-one who enters the fabricator's sights will be off limits if their presence threatens the narrative. The 'reality' includes some truth with lies, maybe also accusations, threats, slandering, ridicule, attempts to humiliate and intimidate - maybe attempts to gain funds or compensation. The person may invent relationships which do not exist, or create a history based off a single meeting. They may claim support from others in slander. Fabricators of reality are intelligent; their intelligence leads them to believe they are superior to others, which can make them reckless - as if they believe they are invincible. They have a sense of entitlement - they cast themselves as victims whilst making victims of others. They might 'champion' certain others whilst privately holding them in contempt. They are takers and fakers. There might be variety in the fabrications, but they are all a means of avoiding taking responsibility for their failings, which if known, others regard as severe. Some such fabricators at least have the excuse of mental illness - the McCanns have no such excuse for what they did to Amaral Gonçalo.


It's interesting that quite a lot of that fits Casey Anthony, too - maybe there is a common pattern. The behaviour can be criminal or criminal-like, even if it does not get prosecuted. These are not the only ways in which reality can be fabricated - I am considering some examples where there has been potential, and sometimes intention, to harm, in the course of preserving a narrative.

Anonymous said...

So what is the defining line between a lie and fabrication in analyzing a narcissist?

Muddy the waters. Have fun with that.

Hey Jude said...

I think a fabrication is different to a lie, it's more like a structure which is designed to contain a lie, or lies? Maybe the fabricator doesn't even have to lie, they create a different reality by ignoring a truth, the truth, or truths of a situation.

Anonymous said...

Omission vs. commission.

Anonymous said...

Creation of an alternate reality, which isn't reality at all, but rather, it is a lie. The narcissist lives behind fabrication to disguise true motives and to deceive. Lying....narcissism....fabrication. Second nature.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...

Anon @ WMD fabrication: it was a fabrication (a lie) meant to deceive for a specific purpose (or purposes). One, IMO, was retribution and vengeance exacted upon Saddam on behalf of W's dad, George H. W. Bush, dating from Desert Storm. DS expelled the invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait, but HW didn't "get" Saddam. I believe W intended to finish business.

Failure. Tragic failure, causing even more instability.

How do you know it was a lie, and not error?


Anonymous said...

Did you steal swisher sweets from the corner store? "No"!......(thats a lie). But:

Did you steal swisher sweets from the corner store? "No, but I saw who did. We were in the store at same time they were. They stole. We were in line to pay at the same time they were but they didnt pay but ran out. I got scared that I'd be accused of being with them so I ran". They got into a blue 300 and drove away ......(fabrication).

Anonymous said...

Error or lie? But its a straight line to BHO and a rabid left.

Hey Jude said...

Each person has their own reality which may appear a non-reality, or a fabrication to others, because each person's reality is a creation of perception, culture, upbringing, community, religious belief or non-belief, how they see the world, and their own place within it. Those of a different culture, belief system, and standard of living, for whom reality is quite different, may not accept that the other's reality is not some type of fabrication.

A person who has never owned a pair of shoes lives in a different reality to one who owns many shoes and a house in which to keep them. An atheist believes a Christian lives in a fabricated reality, while to the Christian the atheist lives in less than full reality - yet each is the 'real' reality to the person who is living it. Well, unless he or she is also fabricating a different reality - but generally, reality is not the same to everyone.

If one were to go to North Korea, and try to convince those who live far outside of Pyongyang that theirs is not the best most advanced country, that their leader is not the most beneficent, their army the greatest, their education the best, so many would not believe it, even if they secretly suspected or wondered if that might be so, even despite so many have died of starvation through the years. The Kim dynasty have been expert fabricators of reality, if only within their own country - unravelling year on year as more and more of their people tune into illegal broadcasts, and to US TV shows, see the world beyond and realise they have been brainwashed and duped, on a massive scale.

Anonymous said...

Cindy Sheehan asked one simple question that was not & has not been answered. What is the "Noble Cause," we're fighting for in Iraq?

Anonymous said...

The Admin may've understood that oil is the WMD that can be used as an economic weapon. Maybe they knew that reason wouldnt fly with the US public,but claims of Freedom & democracy would. Remember the nasty rhetoric from the Right at that time? Any disagreement or criticism brought down indignation and vilification.

Hey Jude said...

*Kim Dynasty has* - not have

Anonymous said...

How do you know it was a lie, and not error?


Well, that's something we may never know; however, many from that administration have said it was a lie, including the CIA director at the time, Mike Morell.

I wonder what statement analysis would reveal.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

RE: Bobcat April 29, 2017 @ 5:13 PM
You said...

It sounds like you are trying to refine a legal argument...

...trying to make up an excuse for creating a story (lying) that was not true?

...or an admission that seeks to validate fabrication?
I'm not sure if you were responding to my original post about narcissists, fabrications, and lies or what. If this was directed to me, no to all three of your guesses. Our family has a narcissistic extended family member who regularly tells "family stories", except few (if any) are actually what happened and it's causing strife and division. We're trying to determine is this a lying issue, a narcissism issue, or a fabricating reality issue. As Peter was using this article to teach the difference between a "plain" liar and a fabricator, I directed the question to Peter. I'm not sure why my question seems to be irritating anyone.

Anonymous said...


No irritation here. My comment was a little out track, I think.

I have an extended family member who used to always have a better story to top whatever anyone else relayed.

From my perspective, I have observed that one who fabricates reality is generally unsatisfied with the reality in which they were raised.

Anonymous said...

off track

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...

How do you know it was a lie, and not error?


Well, that's something we may never know; however, many from that administration have said it was a lie, including the CIA director at the time, Mike Morell.

I wonder what statement analysis would reveal.

Statemet Analysis would not call it a lie unless it was show to be a lie.

Those who fail believe themselves to be mind readers. Those who train and maintain strict discipline achieve near or at 100% accuracy.

Mind readers often have agenda they wish to prove. They avoid training for this reason.

My question, "how do you know?" was not a challenge. I thought there may be statements you have to show deception. The thoughts of others (CIA) is not part of our work. I hoped you had statements that I could view.

What we have heard from governments in the past decade is unreliable, at best. The latest "Hitler" is political often, used by politicians in incestuous relationships with main stream media.

MSM is an insult to the First Amendment.

I have some good marks for the first 100 days and I have some bitter disappointments.

If you view POTUS as an incessant negotiator (or bargainer) he becomes 'the devil you see.'

Many people did not "vote for him" but voted against Hillary and the exceeding corruption.

I will listen to POTUS "very very" closely.

the key is to listen through the lens of the science of deception detection.

Use caution.

The "need to persuade" by MSM in their love affair with all things Obama/Clinton helped Clinton lose the election. When Obama went from ridicule/attacking Trump policy to outright ridicule and dismissal, it was a sign of fear.

MSM would not report on the crowds at the Trump Rallies, nor the dearth at Clinton Rallies.

They even used non-panning camera angles at Trump Rallies, while using strong audio at Clinton Rallies so we could hear the loud ovations given.

A few iPhone videos showed the truth: the standing ovation and loud cheering was by the inordinate sized attendance of Main Stream Media and not a crowd.

America, overall, recognized this.

Even the "Clinton won the popular vote" is misleading. Had it been closer, there would have been a counting of the mail in votes, which is very heavily military.

You likely know which way military votes.

Identify politics is the most divisive weapon in the arsenal. It is "us versus them" with "us" repeatedly divided into different elements.

As one man in Antifa screamed, "I am a gay man!" as if his having sex with another man was an argument that gave him moral superiority.

Why is Milo so popular?

If you read his articles, his obsession with sex is predominant. I don't read him, but the few I did told me all I needed to know.

My hope is that this blog is good advertising for our science and that people will, in the very least, take seriously the need to discern deception.

As May 1 hits, I type this with the heat blaring, as it is cold outside. Yet not believing "global warming" makes me not only immoral, but xenophobic, islamophobic, homophobic, a member of the nazi party and racist.

How long do you think people will bear up under this form of psychological warfare without saying, "enough!"?

Hence, expect violence to increase. Expect Americans to fight back against Antifa, in all forms, and their ties to NAMBLA to become front and center as they say "we are fighting for the rights of youth to have free consensual sex."

Absurdity is the reason why no logic may be employed. All that is left is violence.

It is very sad but inevitable.


Anonymous said...

Oh gosh just imagine what would happen if all the corrupt state lotteries were exposed. The winning numbers selection process and so called live drawings. Deception must be exhausting, its definitely effective. It is a science itself.

Anonymous said...

But you're ignoring that for $19.99 a DNA transfer kit can be purchased from Walgreends. It only takes 15 minutes per day for one week or 5 consecutive treatments. So, lighten up at 6:37pm and get informed. Its 2017, not 1977.

Anonymous said...

Are you real? lol.
There is no wallgreen by my place but tho there is a RightAid. Do they haves them?

Anonymous said...

Anony@ 10:59, Idk..But next to the W/G pharmacy walk up window they're on display next to the Slimfast and reading glasses. No discounts are offered for it. If you can afford the cost then get 2 because they sellout fast so you could sell the extra on ebays. Big secondary markup currently. Like $40 each plus an extra $5 for shipping.

Anonymous said...

No. They're OTC.

Anonymous said...

For SA purposes, Mike Morell former CIA director on WMD "lie":

JStevenson said...

Anonomous. You are an idiot. This is not about Trump, but Mr.Hyatt described you perfectlx