Differential Intelligence Among the Races

Bregunn writes:

Again, I’m sorry but there is no vast amount of evidence supporting an intellectual equivalence among the races. From IQ tests, high school graduation rates and sat scores to attendance numbers at elite universities, employment levels in cutting edge science and tech companies and peer reviewed science publications, Africans lag behind Europeans and Asians by quite a distance in all of these and surely many more not mentioned. This pattern is consistent and long standing, I have yet to read a satisfactory explanation other than an innate difference in intelligence and/or aptitude.

I would agree with this to a great degree. Certainly in US society, the following would seem to be markers of intelligence:

1. high school graduation rates
2. PISA scores
3. SAT scores
4. college attendance rates
5. college graduation rates
6. representation at top universities
7. employment in high intelligence fields
8. professorships
9. peer reviewed publications

One could argue, I suppose, that the reasons some races do better than others in these variables is because they try harder, are richer, come from better cultures and so on. That argument would mean that all the races in the US have the same intelligence level, but some races just try harder than others, have more money or have a better culture, hence their success. However, that does not seem to be a good argument.

Furthermore, we note that IQ scores line up very well with every variable above, adding weight to the notion that they can be considered markers of intelligence.

This implies that there are in fact differential intelligence levels among races in the US at the moment. The lineup looks something like this:

                  IQ
Jews              116 
NE Asians         108
White Gentiles    103
US average        100           
Filipinos          97
Indians            96?
Hispanics          93
American Indians   90
Polynesians        90
Blacks             90

Note: Scores normed at US average.

Those IQ scores line up pretty well with the other variables above. In particular, on all variables above, a familiar Jews – NE Asians – White Gentiles – Hispanics – Blacks continuum is seen.

So the notion that there are racial differences in intelligence among US races is simply what ought to be a noncontroversial fact. Yet this is what Jason Richwine of the Heritage Foundation said, and he was fired over it, and a huge hullabaloo resulted. The man simply stated the truth. Certainly it should not be against the law to state the truth. You should not be fired for stating the truth.

What is still up in the air is what is making some races smarter than others. Perhaps it is genetics, perhaps it is the environment, perhaps it is both. No one really knows, and there is ferocious arguing on both sides. Liberal Race Realists may be agnostic about what is causing these differences or may take one of the positions from genetic to environmental to both, but they must agree that there are real cognitive differentials among races.

From a liberal point of view, one could certainly argue that deprived environments, poverty and lousy cultures are making some races smarter or stupider than other races. I would not have a problem with an argument like that if these liberals would first argue that there are intelligence differences in the first place, which seems obvious.

One thing that Liberal Race Realism does is we acknowledge that there are behavioral and intelligence differences between the races at the moment. We may be agnostic about what is causing them, but these differences are surely important in all sorts of ways.

A Capitalist World is a World of Crime, Corruption and Wars of Agression

Dota says:

I think Roger Hill is onto something here. Robert mistakes capitalism for opportunism and sociopathic behaviour in general. As I’ve pointed out before, we’ve seen exploitation in non-capitalist societies during various periods of history. Feudalism and Caste immediately come to mind.

Lee Kwan Yew once said that in order to spread the wealth around, a society must first create it. Capitalism is a good engine for wealth creation. Historically, its egalitarian societies that have been expansionist. The Arabs and Mongols come to mind. They were expansionist because they failed to create any wealth for themselves. Once they acquired wealth through conquest, they divided it amongst themselves equally (more or less).

It’s obvious that the Rockerfellers/Fords etc. represent a ‘capitalism’ that is alien to Smith’s wealth of nations. Capitalism is merely privately owned factors of production. The elites mentioned above represent plutocratic sociopathic insanity at its highest degree.

Under capitalism, all manner and degrees of opportunism, corruption, lying, cheating, stealing and sociopathic behavior becomes positively epidemic.

That is because in pursuit of money, humans will do just about anything: lie, cheat, steal, become opportunists or corrupt, and behave sociopathically in every manner and degree possible. They will also commit tons of crime and will tend to abuse women in all sorts of ways.

We saw much less of this behavior in the socialist societies of the last century. When these socieites such as Eastern Europe, the USSR and China went to capitalism, the crime rate went through the roof, entire nations became corrupt to the core, and the abuse of women increased dramatically. In fact, some socieites were almost completely taken over by organized crime. Russia to this day is significantly controlled by Organized Crime. Organized crime elements run Russia and rule it via the state.

In the past century, the most egalitarian societies committed little aggression, started few wars and committed few acts of conquest in order to obtain more land and acquire new markets and resources. On the contrary, almost all aggression in the past century was committed by unequal capitalist (and imperialist) countries trying to conquer new lands and peoples for new markets and to steal their resources for the capitalists.

In fact a world regime of capitalism virtually guarantees almost continuous wars among capitalist countries over dividing markets and resources. Capitalist countries will always fight each other over markets and resources.  This is almost guaranteed under capitalism, and there does not seem to be any way around it. A world of capitalism is a world of constant war with no way out.

Under more socialist systems, crime, corruption, abuse of women, wars of aggression, homelessness, hunger and preventive disease are dramatically reduced, as is all manner of egoistic sociopathic behavior.

As those societies transition to a capitalist model, crime, corruption, abuse of women, aggressive (imperialist) wars, homelessness, hunger and deaths due to preventive disease often skyrocket.

Bottom line is capitalism is bad for your health.

Bigfoot News May 2, 2013

Warning: Long, 33 pages.

More on the Hank photos. There are some new photos of Hank out from the movie Shooting Bigfoot. These are all the same photo, but it has been manipulated in various ways, rendered into drawn art by artists, overlaid with other photos and compared with other photos.

In the photo below, it is true that the Tent Video Bigfoot does not resemble well the Bigfoots on either side of it. However, I think the Hank still from the movie compares well with the drawing of Hank on the far right.

Click to enlarge. Three images, Hank from Shooting Bigfoot, the Tent Video Bigfoot (Hank?) and an artist’s rendition of Hank as described by Musky Allen.

Check out the chiseled drawing below based on the Hank photo from Shooting Bigfoot.

Click to enlarge. Very nice artist’s rendition resembling a sculpture of Hank from Shooting Bigfoot. This drawing looks very much like a Neandertal!

Look at how closely the photo of Hank from the movie lines up with the drawing based on Musky’s observation, with the movie still used for the lower part of the face the drawing for the upper part of the face. The comparison is excellent and the two fit together quite well.

Click to enlarge. Overlay of the Hank photo from Shooting Bigfoot with the drawing of Hank based on Musky’s description.

Below is the Hank movie still fleshed out into a whole face using software. Look how much that looks like a Neandertal!

Click to enlarge. The Hank still from the movie fleshed out with software into a complete face.

Via Facebook Find Bigfoot, a photo of a possible Bigfoot sticking its face into a game cam in Minnesota from 2007. The comments below the photo mostly say it is some sort of a wild animal. Only a couple said it was a man.

That is not a wild animal. It is either a man, a Homo sapiens sapiens, or it is a Bigfoot. For some reason, I think this might be a Bigfoot. Look how much it resembles a Neandertal, the Musky Allen sketch, the video still of Hank and even the other game cam shot of a Bigfoot licking the game cam from the Olympic Project. One comment said this photos resembles Homo Heidelbergensis. That is a possibility.

A photo of a possible Bigfoot from a game cam in Minnesota in 2007.

Double rows of teeth observable in Hank movie still? In the Hank still from Shooting Bigfoot, the jaw has an odd appearance, almost as if the Bigfoot is chewing tobacco. A commenter suggests that what we may be seeing here is the double rows of molars that Dyer says Hank has. It is certainly possible.

I Chew Tobacco, Levi Garrett, and the first thing I noticed about the Hank Photo was that He Looked Like He had a Side Chew on Both Sides……THEN IT HIT ME!! The Double Rows of Teeth That Dyer mentioned from the Canines to the back of the mouth……

Why the funny appearance of the Shooting Bigfoot Hank still? From the comments:

Here’s a thought:

Why is it so grainy? Answer: It’s night vision, so it’s grainy no matter the pixel count.

Why is it so blurry even at 4-6ft? Answer: Subject is moving in faster than auto-focus can handle.

The paradox: if it was “clear” footage in night vision, then the people that know the answer to the above questions would claim CGI because it’s supposed to be grainy.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t.

Face it. Everything that has been stated so far is coming to fruition as truth. Everything leading up to now, except the length of footage, has been discovered as truth.

Reiterating again: if the Tent Video would have never been leaked, then know one would know of “Hank.” Everyone would be surprised in August by a news release with science and a body with Rick standing over it saying, “Everyone who doubted me can suck it” (which would end up being “bleeped” out because he would actually say that on national news).

People should be thanking Rick for delivery of product.
Moneyfaker takes your money and shows you whooping and hollering without delivery of product.

So, who’s the real hoaxer here? Moneyfaker takes money from millions of viewers through TV and delivers no product, or Rick who doesn’t demand money from anyone and still delivers product? He delivered product to you even surrounded by hate. Alas, you still try to poop on him. I just don’t get it. So engulfed with disbelief that it’s Rick that you are looking right past it…Delivery of Product…

A very nice technical explanation for why the Shooting Bigfoot still looks the way it does.

Do the Tent Video and Shooting Bigfoot stills portray two different Bigfoots? Commenters are suggesting that there the discrepancy between the appearance of the Tent Video Bigfoot and the Shooting Bigfoot Still Bigfoot may be resolved if we posit that they are two separate creatures altogether. This makes sense because according to JR Dobbs’ interviews with the homeless in the area, there is apparently another Bigfoot that is still in the area, even after the purported killing of Hank.

This also helps explain why Hank would be so stupid as to come back and grab more ribs that night after a man with a gun had nearly killed him that morning. We can resolve this by saying that Bigfoot A was scared off by Rick’s gun in the morning and Bigfoot B, who knew nothing about Rick’s threatening behavior with the gun vis a vis Bigfoot A, came around in the night not knowing any better and was killed for his ignorance. From the comments:

I also agree that although this picture looks like the same basic facial structure of the BF on the Tent Video, it seems to be a different creature. This lends credibility to Dyer’s story because not only would he have to have one mask; instead he would have to have two separate masks altogether. The homeless people have indicated that there is still a Bigfoot out there, and that could be the one on the Tent Video or another one altogether. I had never heard that someone from the BBC said it was all factual,so that’s a plus too.

Some good arguments why Shooting Bigfoot could not be a hoax. From the comments section:

I tend to maintain the idea that this is not a hoax. There are five main compelling arguments to support my opinion and the reasoning for my beliefs.

1. Morgan Matthews changed the title from Of Monsters and Men to Shooting Bigfoot while the film was still in production. One can only assume that this was not by coincidence.
2. Rick Dyer has continued to describe the same EXACT story for months now and has not diverged from the original story once.
3. The ending of the film does not line up with the order that Rick describes the events to have happened. This may be due to clever editing by Morgan to stick to his original theme of the documentary, which was essentially to mock those who look for Bigfoot.
4. Minnow Films may be using the Shooting Bigfoot documentary as a set-up for an additional film that will reveal any information or footage that may have been withheld. This is the best way to maximize the production dollar to profit ratio.
5. Morgan Matthew would not put his reputation of an unblemished 20-year career on the line by being involved in a hoax. Although it is possible that Rick hoaxed the Minnow Films crew, Morgan Matthews would not include it in film, as it is possible he could be accused of being involved in the hoax.

Three explanations for Morgan Matthews’ baffling behavior.
From the comments section:

Either Morgan Matthews is part of a Hoax, has filmed the best hoax of all time or he has signed the queen mother of all NDA’s.

This is an excellent point. It may all be down to the NDA’s that Matthews had to sign with Rick and his investors. What if those NDA’s say that Morgan may not under any circumstances say that there was a real Bigfoot in the film?

The Man Who Cried Bigfoot video. Via JR Dobbs, we have the 9th in a sequence of videos from the homeless people who live around the area where Dyer purportedly shot Hank. This 9th video is devastating to Rick’s case. The homeless man, Jeff, pretty much says that Rick hoaxed the whole thing.

Jeff said that he was paid to stand on a hill above the shooting scene at night and was given a radio to keep in contact with the crew below. His job was to keep people away from the site while shooting was going on. Jeff says there were many shots fired and what seemed to be repeated takes of the shooting scene. He also said that some live shots were fired, but many blanks were also fired, all by Rick.

Jeff now says that there may well be a Bigfoot in the area: “There is definitely something out here.” He also says that Rick Dyer slit his dog’s throat. Jeff took the dog to the vet’s, and the vet said that the dog’s throat had been cut by a knife or some sort of a blade.

Jeff says he took a photo with Dyer the morning after the shooting of Hank, and he never saw any Bigfoot body. He says he saw Morgan Matthews walk away from the site the morning after the shooting, and Morgan appeared to be hale and hearty, carting an 80 pound camera like it was nothing. Jeff says the whole crew, including Rick, left that morning and has never been seen again.

Jeff appears somewhat spacy and he may be a heavy or regular drug user. It is said that most of the homeless people in that area are meth users, and that many of them steal to survive or to get money to buy dope. They leave the area at night to go steal to get dope money and come back in the daytime with dope and get high.

Unfortunately, Jeff has completely changed his story compared to the initial story he gave to JR Dobbs, and hence, he is not very credible.

Rick Dyer’s response to JR Dobbs 9th video above. If you can stand to listen to Rick Dyer talk on video for a few minutes, then you will be able to listen to Dyer’s rejoinders to all of the charges made by the man in the video above.

Jeff says there were many shots, including blanks. In his initial video, Jeff said there were only two shots. Now there are many.

Blanks were fired. Jeff produces a 30.06 shell, but produces no blanks.

Jeff says he was given a radio and put on a hill while multiple rehearsals of the shooting scene were shot. Rick said that instead, efforts were made to keep Jeff away from the scene in the period after Hank was killed.

Dyer slit my dog’s throat. Dyer says that the dog was killed by pulling too hard on too tight of a leash. Instead of killing the dog, Dyer says he tended to its wounds. Dyer says he would never hurt any animal, but this is not true, as he has already killed one Bigfoot.

Shot taken with Jeff and Dyer the next morning. Not true, Dyer says the photo of Jeff and Dyer was taken the night before. Jeff is not usually around in the daytime.

Jeff says there may well be a Bigfoot in the area. In his first video, Jeff said there was no Bigfoot in the area.

Jeff says he is the only homeless person living in that area. Rick says that there are actually a number of homeless folks living in that area, and Rick gave some of them jobs so they could leave, move into shelter, and live more normal lives, leaving the homeless life behind.

Bottom line is Jeff does not appear to be very credible. He is a marginal homeless fellow who seems a bit shady and dangerous. Who knows what kind of life he lives? He may well be a heavy or regular drug user, possibly of methamphetamine. He has changed his story in quite a few ways, and Rick has contradicted most of his testimony. At the end of the day, JR Dobbs’ 9th video is not particularly credible.

Did Rick Dyer make a $200,000 surrogate human? Via Tim Fasano’s site, Tim runs through the possibilities surrounding Musky Allen’s testimony.

Tim says there are three possibilities:

1. Musky saw a Bigfoot.
2. Musky is lying.
3. Musky got fooled by an excellent Bigfoot replica.

Fasano dismisses (2) as not credible and I agree with him. I do not think that Fasano is lying. And I do agree that Musky saw either an excellent replica or a real Bigfoot. One wonders why Rick would have gone through the trouble to pay $200,000 for a fancy fake human with no guarantee of any returns on the investment.

It also seems dubious that the US government facility housing Hank would allow their place to be used to house a fake Bigfoot. And it seems dubious that the medical model company would have the expertise to construct a fake Bigfoot, even on order. They make fake Homo sapiens sapiens, not fake Bigfoots. Bigfoots are not H.s.s.; they are something else entirely.

From the comments section, an excellent rejoinder to the medical company body theory:

I read the post on the blog about Rick Dyer having a fake body made from some company that makes medical dummies and I have to ask “Why?”

There are only two reasons to pull a hoax

1. A practical joke
2. A con that nets you money

The first makes no sense. Neither does the second to anyone that can think a little. Think about it.

To provide a manufactured product, Rick Dyer has to pay $200,0000 have the Bigfoot-medical dummy that would fool a vet doing an autopsy for only about 10 minutes. He then has to gain access to a facility, either a real one or a very elaborate hoaxed site that has apparently dozens of people pretending to work there so that Musky Allen thinks it is a real place. He has to pay those people, and he has to pay rent on the location.

All this is possible, but tell me, How does he make money at this? Where is the pay off? It would take a lot of $29.99 monthly subscriptions to cover that cost, much less make a profit. If Rick Dyer is smart enough to design and set up a hoax like that, then he is smart enough to know this wouldn’t work. This is not taking people into the woods and having your redneck brother-in-law dress up in a ghillie suit and run past the groups yelling “I’m a Bigfoot, Look out I’m gonna eat you!”

I don’t know what is going on, but the “manufactured body” theory is just the stuff of idiot who have watched to many Matrix movies.

Theory on how Morgan Matthews may be cutting the footage into two separate films to maximize returns. From the comments:

Here is what happened (maybe):

Mr. Mathews produced a film about Bigfoot hunters in the vein of Trekkies – a group character study about a selection of the odd and obsessed. This was all the film was ever supposed to be. And then San Antonio happened – my guess is it was pretty deep into the production calendar – and the fun film he had about some kooks became something altogether different – and the footage, the first ever A#1, landmark, groundbreaking footage of a Bigfoot, now he has that. And that, friends, is found gold.

So, do you put rarest of rare footage into the tail-end of the semi-serious character study, with the modest budget and modest marketing plan? No, that would be a terrible idea. Why? Because you have another, much more serious, and cash-worthy film on your hands. And there is NO WAY, let me repeat, NO WAY you put the money footage in the first film.

Because, let’s be honest, Mr. Mathews is a professional, and that means he wants and deserves to be paid for his work. If anyone thinks that the pics and footage are going to be released without some form of payment, they are delusional. The second film (Bigfoot shot?), which is already in the works and has been, no doubt, pre-sold to a major distributor, will have what you desire – just make sure you have your credit card ready.

The opportunity to turn two films, one with better backing based on groundbreaking footage, and one that was already in the can and of a completely different tone, is absolutely the road to take if you want to maximize your production dollar to profit ratio. The payoff is still there, just delayed. Plus, two films.

That’s showbiz!

I’m not saying that’s what happened. As usual, there isn’t enough evidence to make any conclusive judgement. I’m saying it is the route to take if you had that footage (both sets) and were a filmmaker. The film ends with a cliffhanger, yes?

It is improbable, but possible: a theory based on film strategy.

Frankly, I hope it is not the case, and the beast remains unproven.

New information purportedly from Minnow Films sources lends support to hoax theory. I recently contacted a new source who tells me that they have film industry connections via family. A family member of theirs knows two people at Minnow who worked on the film and they asked the Minnow workers about the film. What the Minnow employees reported, if true, is devastating to Rick Dyer’s story and implies that he is hoaxing the killing of a Bigfoot. Here is the testimony:

I have some info for you. I spoke to my Uncle X last night for about 45 minutes regarding the Minnow Films and the rumors about the Sasquatch. He was able to speak with two different people that were heavily involved with the film over the past few years.

It’s interesting to note that they had an enormous amount of footage, as Morgan Matthews (director of Shooting Bigfoot) likes to leave his options open when “assembling” a documentary. X gave me some names but asked me to not use his name or theirs. However, it would not take very long for you to figure out who they are based on what I have told you (specific possibly identifying information deleted).

So, here is the info that we covered, and take it for what it’s worth. Considering X has never mentioned Bigfoot before, and this was the first time he’s even heard I was interested, I think it’s safe to assume that his info was unbiased.

X told me:

- There was an enormous amount of footage.

- Morgan did not see a dead Bigfoot nor was he party to anything regarding a Bigfoot body.

- There was a man at the camp site that Rick was familiar with and had met before on a prior expedition to San Antonio. This man was homeless and lived in the area. Morgan thought it strange that this man had been expecting their arrival and knew so much about what they were doing there. Over the course of the first couple of days, Rick spent a lot of time with this man privately and on several occasions, Rick and this man left the campsite together and were gone for long periods of time.

- Morgan DID NOT film any footage of what’s being called the Camper or Tent Video. Nobody on Morgan’s team saw any Bigfoot during day time hours.

- Rick was very familiar with the area they were in and mentioned that he had been there before.

- Morgan and his team did not enjoy Rick’s company, and Rick made them very nervous. One of the “logistics” people that acted as the go-between to help with travel and planning commented that Rick was “often manic and always appeared to be either very sad or jubilant.”

- Morgan was injured one night by what Rick claimed to be a Bigfoot. However, the “Bigfoot” was not very big, and the reason it was shown in black & white is because the color version made it look “hokey.”

-The Bigfoot was not shot or harmed by Rick. He did fire some shots in a different direction from the Bigfoot, and that’s what scared Morgan the most. Morgan thought Rick had gone insane and was killing random homeless people.

- The Bigfoot that knocked Morgan down was about 6 feet tall, maybe a tiny bit taller. Morgan was not expecting this to happen, and the only reason it did was because he was holding the camera. If it was a real Bigfoot, then he said, “There’s nothing to be scared of…LOL,” and that’s a direct quote.

That’s about all of the info I received, and although the source did not come out and say it was not a genuine Bigfoot, the description given was done with some humor and a few giggles. What was confirmed 100% was that there is no dead Bigfoot, no clear color footage and nobody came close to killing one either.

One more detail, Morgan HATED Dyer during the shooting and thought he was self- centered, insecure and a know-it-all. They did not get along at all, and Morgan also mentioned that Rick treated everybody in a rude and abrupt manner as if he had no social skills whatsoever. Even when the producers would contact Rick to get info on something, he acted as if he were doing them a favor and always felt the need to make ugly comments or offer unwanted critiques of Minnow, Morgan and the other parties that were in the film.

Anyhow, that’s all I have and X and his wife Aunt are going to some kind of industry reunion in a couple of weeks so he expects to hear more about this film, when he’s there.

Well, there you have it. If this information is true, it is devastating to us believers, and it is a shot in the arm for the deniers. The problem is that testimony conflicts with certain things, including my excellent source at Minnow who insisted to me that Rick’s story was true.

The part about Dyer’s a-holish personality and arrogant and clueless, narcissistic abuse of Matthews and the film crew certainly seems highly credible.

If this story is true, it means that Rick faked the several photos of the dead Bigfoot the next morning and the photo of the Bigfoot being loaded into the truck after it was shot. Either that or Musky is lying about the existence of the photos, and I doubt if he is. I also doubt that Rick is lying about the existence of these photos. Further, the creature in the movie does not appear to be man in a suit or a mask in any way, shape or form.

Rick Dyer’s personality. I hate to beat a dead horse here, but it is a topic of general interest. The one reviewer described Dallas and Wayne as “borderline retards” and Rick Dyer as an “a-hole.” That’s a pretty good summation. I rather like Dallas and Wayne, especially Wayne, but they don’t exactly come across like the sharpest tools in the shed. The description of Dyer as an “a-hole” is absolutely spot on, and sums him up better than most psychological diagnoses. This is simply how he comes across. When I watch his videos, he screams “a-hole” all the way through the video, from :01 all the way to the end.

A Canadian friend of mine said, “well, up here in Canada, we would call somebody like Dyer an idiot!” I asked him what he meant by that, and he said that in Canadian English, “idiot,” means something a bit different than it does here. He told me, “Well here in Canada, an ‘idiot’ means someone who causes so much trouble, so many problems and is such a pain in the a-, that you just need to stay away from them.” That’s an interesting description and seems to describe Dyer well. Here in California English, we would call someone like that something like a “total f-tard.”

Dyer also reminds me of some of the wild Christian fundamentalist preachers we used to have on early cable TV in Southern California about 30 years ago. One middle aged clown, Dr. Gene Scott, was a rather nice looking guy who often wore a cowboy hat. He changed outfits a lot and sometimes appeared drunk, stoned, medicated or tired. He rambled on narcissistically about everything under the sun.

He was a One-Man Show that never shut down. It was a One Man Ultimate Egotist Jerk-off Fest. We would watch the show, laugh at him and wonder why anyone would ever watch him. We often described him as “crazy,” and we wondered if maybe he had a mood disorder like manic-depression.

Another thing that I think when I watch Dyer is that this is a guy who is “totally unhinged.” He seems like someone who thinks with his mouth open and has no inhibitions whatsoever. Furthermore, he is always “on.” No matter what time of day it is or what day of the week it is, it’s always, “The Rick, Rick Show.”

Others have pointed out that unlike a pure sociopath, Rick does display a fairly wide range of emotions, and he does seem to have some decent and sensitive emotions. He has a positive side to his personality, and he has good traits that no pure sociopath would ever have.

He’s a complicated fellow!

Older Guy Having the Time of His Life with Young Women

I recently received this comment in the comments threads, from an older guy, age 67, who is having the time of his life partying with young women aged 19-23.

I don’t know what to say about this issue; it is mainly because all the old bags have made it to where older guys liking younger women is looked at as something bad. As a consequence, many older guys will either try to stay away or they are married. I am now 67, still in good shape and look maybe 54. Since my divorce, I am having the time of my life with women aged 19-early 20′s. They are a crack up to party with if you party.

I can supply drinks and even some Mollys (MDMA or Ecstasy), and they love to have a safe place to party at. I make sure they make it back to get to their real boyfriends or home safe afterwards. Sometimes I get lucky and one of them likes me. I love them calling each other “bitch” LOL. It’s funny as hell, and you only live once. I been there and done the boring marriage thing.

These young women enjoy doing things and have never done many things or gone many places. They are hot, and they are fun…What the Hell else is there? I am loving life, and of course I help them with gas in their car or school books as that is a part of me I acquired from raising a daughter. No is sex required as I am calm and easy going, so they like that. I’m in Orange County, California and have 3 different girls coming around. Love it…to hell with you rejected old bags that never want sex and only want to bitch.

This is a great article! 67 year old guy partying down with hot young chicks aged 19-23! He is good to them, responsible and doesn’t pressure them for sex, but nevertheless, now and then he gets lucky. If this guy is creepy, then I say let’s hear it for creeps! A lot of older guys are not really interested in young women to be honest, contrary to all of the insane paranoia. Around here, I almost never see an older man with a very young woman. You simply don’t see it. So what’s all the fuss about?

After about age 47, it is very hard to interest them in you anyway, or at least that has been my experience.

I know quite a few young women in my daily life, and as a general rule, they really don’t like me too much. I’m not sure what it is all about, but I suspect they think I am a dirty old man! Of course, I am a dirty old man, not that there is anything wrong with that!

Most of them don’t even want me talking to them, not even the slightest bit of small talk about the most innocuous subjects. They tend to shut the conversations down very quickly, and I get the message all right. I am starting to act pretty rude back to them, so what goes around, comes around. I’m not trying to pick up on any of them; I just want to talk about this, that or whatever.

At my age, I can still get nice looking young women about age 27-29, but that is about as low as I can go anymore. How this guy, who is 12 years older than I am, has these 19-23 year old chicks coming around, I have no idea, but props anyway Pops!

As far as his complaints about older women, in my experience, the female sex drive remains potentially very strong all the way into the forties, from 40-48 at the very least. For some it keeps going pretty strong until 50. So the female sex drive then seems to come on at age 13 (my calculation based on present rates of maturation in the US) and remains quite strong in many cases all the way to age 45-48 or so. I have known some women aged 40-48 who are extreme sex maniacs.

I do not think the female sex drive changes much between 13-48, but studies show it peaks at age 33-39. These same studies also showed that the drive at that age was quite a bit higher than that of teenage girls. This same study showed a high rate of female “sexual responsiveness” whatever that means, extending far past the 40′s and into the 50′s and even old age.

However, after menopause hits, there does seem to be a lowering of the sex drive. This seems to hit women around age ~50 or thereabouts.

Game/PUA: The Importance of a Sexy Voice

Do I sound like this guy?

A friend of mine said I sound like a “subdued James Spader” on the phone and in interviews. I had no idea who this guy is, so I had go check him out on Youtube. This clip is from Pretty in Pink (1986). Damn he is one sexy bastard, and I love his voice. If I talk like this motherfucker, I am one happy man.

What does your voice sound like? Has anyone ever given you feedback on your voice? I do think that voice is important to a man in terms of getting women and even getting along well with other guys. For a very long time, since I was 20 or so, women and girls have been telling me I have a sexy voice. I haven’t the slightest idea how I managed to do this, except maybe trying. I made as my heroes a number of my friends who were basically the biggest players that the Lord ever created on Earth, then I consciously went about adopting their personas and even voices.

I remember once I was trying to pick up this chick in Aspen, Colorado on a ski trip. I called her at her hotel room and one of her roommates picked it up. The chick said, “My roommate says you have a sexy voice.” If I want to try to develop that voice better, I just plug back into that that scene and recreate that voice, or I use other similar scenes in my past. I make it as synthetic as possible so it’s seems like a real channeling and not some sort of an act. This means it is part of your actual skin at this place and time and not some acting job where you are probably unsuccessfully trying to mine some buried memory deep in the rubbled past.

On the Net, I used to go into voice chatrooms and start talking to the room. Other folks are talking to the room too, so there is some competition going on. You need a mike to do this. A few times, I started talking to the room and women, often young women, would start typing, “I love Calvin’s voice!” “Damn, Calvin has a sexy voice!” and things like that (my handle was Calvin).

A sexy voice works both ways. If you always sound sexy, a lot of people are going to get annoyed. Specifically, many women you meet will think you are trying to pick up on them even when you are not. I unfortunately have to deal with this on a regular basis. I am not sure it is the voice bit or not but a lot of young women think I am trying to pick up on them even when I am not., and this causes problems.

A sexy voice is a good thing, and I think this might be overlooked in Game/PUA theory. But I am not sure. Do Game/PUA sites talk about the importance of a sexy voice?

Bigfoot News April 20, 2013

“Hank” to be released along with Shooting Bigfoot on April 30? Hank is the name of the Bigfoot that Rick Dyer shot and killed in Texas last year. Up until now, it has been in storage near Las Vegas. However, the release of Hank’s body is problematic. The typical question is, “Why doesn’t Rick release Hank’s body?” The answer to that question is that it is not Rick’s to release. Apparently that refers to the fact that Rick was an employee of Minnow Films when Hank was killed. Therefore, the release of Hank to the public has to be coordinated with Minnow.

Soon after the Rick Dyer was broken by me, I reported that Hank’s body would be released at the same time as the movie. Now with this very interesting and obscure notice on the Ammoland website (Why there?), we learn that in fact Hank is due to be released to the public on April 30 in Toronto, Canada, at the same time as the film Shooting Bigfoot is premiered.

The site states that Minnow Films will release the body. I have no idea who Ammoland is or how they came up with this scoop, but it is sure a great story. Is Ammoland on the level? I have no idea, but it is interesting that this story lines up perfectly with the release schedule that I postulated originally in first release of this story on Thanksgiving 2012.

I broke the Rick Dyer Bigfoot shooting story. For some reason, this fact keeps getting lost in all of the hoopla over the story. Sooner rather than later, Hank will be released and the world will be a whole new place. Rick will be world famous for the rest of his life or until he implodes, which he may do. The story will be all over the news, magazines, Internet, TV and radio. Unfortunately, I am quite certain that my name will be lost amidst all of the chaos along with the huge role I played journalism-wise in the breaking of the story. This will be right in theme with the rest of my life though, so I will probably be ok with it in the end.

Don Boucher et al Hank Facebook photo release story is fake. Don Boucher, Stefan Beaudoin and the rest of the morons who broke this news to us have informed us that this is all a gigantic hoax supposedly designed to make some idiotic point about gullibility. That is, anything that anyone says to any of us at any time by anyone could very well be a lie.

Well, duh, morons, but the world doesn’t work that way. The world only slightly functions at all when most folks we interact with on a personal level are being more or less truthful to us most of the time (white lies and lies of self-protection excepted). When you have a society where everyone is lying to everyone all the time, you end with India. You get Calcutta writ worldwide. You can see the results of what happens when trust vanishes. Total collapse of society.

Of course the government is lying to us most of the time, as are most of its agencies. Of course corporations are lying almost continuously, as is anyone employed by a corporation. If there’s money involved, someone is probably lying. Business interests will always lie when money is at stake. Politics, especially at a world level, is based on the most savage, vicious, idiotic and criminal lying.

But the lies of the snakes, sharks and monsters at the top of human society have little to do with the day to day affairs of most of us. White lies excepted, most of my friends are telling the truth to me most of the time. As are most of my acquaintances. In fact, once I figure out you are lying to me a lot, you tend to go on one of my “Do not call” lists. My social world only functions when most of those in it are being straight with me most of the time.

It is similar with journalism. We journalists have folks we call sources. If I can’t trust my own sources, I may as well hang it up and call it a day. In fact if all of our sources were lying to us most of the time, investigative reporting would grind to a halt. Most other fields are based on a certain amount of truthfulness. Plagiarism in authorship is pretty big deal. Scientific fraud can ruin a career. People are routinely jailed for perjury. Lying to an officer is a crime for which you can be arrested. If cops don’t tell the truth to each other, all law enforcement breaks down and collapses. Even criminals have a code of conduct that enables them to more or less trust each other at least enough to survive.

So the point of Don Boucher and the other scumbags was no point at all. That these folks are scumbags is nothing new. After all, Bigfootery attracts more dirtballs, lowlifes, trash and human garbage than most other endeavors.

Boucher hoaxed previously. This is not the first time that Mr. Boucher has attempted to hoax the field. Steve Kulls uncovered another instance here where Boucher discusses how and his special effects team created a model of the dead Hank all the way down the bullet wound for a Hollywood special effects studio. It’s nothing but a lie. So Boucher, Beaudoin and the rest of the garbage are hoaxing everyone in the field and why? Because they hate Rick Dyer so much that they are hoaxing us to destroy Rick. Why do they hate Rick so much? Because Rick is a hoaxer. They hate hoaxing so much that they are hoaxing themselves.

Rick Dyer: Is there a place in the world for a man like you? A commenter writes on my blog:

Robert: you might be right on many things about Rick Dyer’s character. But three points:

- Rick Dyer is not an intellectual, not an educated man of great ideas and high ideals. He did not grow up reading all sorts of books on bigfoot or cryptozoology. Bigfoot entered his life only in 2008, when he was already 30 or 31 years old.

His relationship to this “myth” was/ is

1) fun,

2) money

3) narcissism

- not necessarily in this order.

Therefore he lacks – in most cases – the emotions more educated people would expect after having made the greatest discovery in the history of biology.

- Despite point 1: he sometimes show deep emotions. Two examples: the radio shows in which he tells the story of the killing and in which he talks about Musky’s encounter with the body in Las Vegas.

- so many people think education and eloquence are basic needs for investigative skills. Just because Dyer cannot spell his own name does not mean that he is a bonehead in every aspect of life.

Quite the contrary:  his idea not to look for bigfoot in the remote forests of the Northwest, but in the bush forest of Texas and to make contact there with the homeless people and get their support  was a masterstroke. He knew that the chances were greater there, where bigfoot was potentially used to human contact. Do you think any researcher with academic background would do this, establish contact and try to find support from the homeless “white trash”?! Nobody has done that so far, nobody. That’s why Dyer really is a strategic genius…

And one final thing: if he would be totally normal, he would not have managed to (hopefully) bring compelling evidence for the existence of Bigfoot – I am absolutely sure about that. That’s why all the academics and interested laymen with ordinary jobs always fail. It needs a cool, hard-bitten and partially insane maverick like Rick Dyer. And therefore: Love or hate him, good that he is there…

This is a fascinating point. I have discussed at length on my site Rick’s personality and psychological makeup. The reasons for this are because he is so obviously pathological and he infuriates so many folks with his abrasive behavior, annoying at best and antisocial at worst. If Rick were some boring bookkeeper type, there would not be too much to talk about. I don’t wish to rehash Rick’s psychological makeup in this post as it would be redundant. Most folks know full well what sort of a fellow he is, after all, that’s why he has a world full of frothing enemies.

But the commenter’s point is fascinating. Does the world need narcissists? Worse, does the world need antisocials? Do narcissists and antisocials do anything positive in this world in addition to the monumental negativity they generate?

Perhaps they do! And perhaps they get certain things done that would not otherwise be done or would be done later. Pull the pathological narcissism out of the world of great musicians, actors, politicians, authors and artists and what do you have left. Probably not much. You have to be a bit nuts to be an artist in the first place. You have to subscribe to the ludicrous notion that you can act, play guitar, give speeches, write or draw better than anyone else. You have to believe that people would actually pay good money to hang your scribbles on the wall, to read your silly prose ramblings, to watch you cavort about the stage like a monkey or watch you ham it up in front of a camera.

Why would anyone believe such an idiotic thing. The only person who believes this is a narcissist. He really does think that his guitar playing, scribbling, brush strokes, over-dramatization or dishonest, bellicose speechifying BS is so great, so much better than everyone else’s, that people will not only pay good money as nothing more than tribute to this secular God but that he is better than most of the other performers doing their own version of jumping up and down screaming look at me self-indulgence and utter selfishness.

And where does this leave antisocials? The best surgeons are sociopaths. Who else can handle all that blood and barely bat an eye? The finest lawyers are antisocials. They will coldbloodedly massacre the opposition in the dirtiest way possible to win your case and get you the best deal. Law enforcement and the military is not the place for kind hearted folks. Brutal antisocials thrive in this vicious world. Many of our finest products were brought to us by corporations headed by persons who if they were not in a boardroom would likely be incarcerated.

During World War 2, it was found that sociopathic pilots in the Air Force were very good at shooting down other planes. They shot down many more planes than non-sociopaths. The reason was that they were ruthless and absolutely fearless. But the AF kept running into a problem. Sociopathic pilots kept getting shot down and dying in flaming crashes. The reason was the same: they were so fearless that they took too many chances, and this is why they kept getting shot down. Eventually, the AF starting making tests to try to keep the antisocials out of the force.

Which brings us to Rick Dyer. The commenter notes that if Rick was healthy, he would never have tracked down Hank and killed him the way he did. It took a real nut to pull that off. So maybe there is a place in the world for a man like Rick after all.

The commenter also notes that Rick is a strategic genius. I think this is correct. That is exactly what Rick is. He can barely spell his own name, but he has his very own type of street smarts, and in his own way, he’s a genius. An egghead never would have thought to go to San Antonio, hang out with the homeless, and shoot a Bigfoot slumming it up in the homeless camps.

Rick likes to call himself the greatest Bigfoot tracker of all. Despite the repulsive narcissism of that statement, there may be something to it. If Rick Dyer really is the first man to shoot and kill a Bigfoot and present it to science, he truly is the greatest Bigfoot tracker of all, dubious accomplishment though that may be.

Controversy about Dyer charging for Gold and Silver memberships on his site. For these outrageously overpriced memberships, you get a variety of benefits, none of which seem to be worth the $150 you need to cough up to join Rick’s club. Rick at first said that all of the proceeds would go to charity. If it’s all going to charity, why charge such a ripoff price?

Last nite on his show, Rick melted down as usual and exploded, saying it was no one’s business where the membership money was going. Where is the money going? Presumably right into Rick’s swollen pockets. Why would you expect anything else? The memberships are a ripoff, but they are to be expected. After all, this is Rick Dyer we are talking about here. He is not exactly a choirboy, eh?

Bigfoot Forums and the BFRO Forums in a battle to see which Bigfoot forum is more worthless and stupid. The problem with Bigfoot forums is that they are run by Bigfooters. Bigfooters in general are the scum of humanity, and those who lead their organizations are like the green stuff that floats to the top of the pond on a hot summer day. You get the picture.

The BFRO is run by Matt Moneymaker, who, for all he has done for the field, is one of the biggest fools, clowns and idiots in the game. Matt’s idiotic forum is run by some of the worst forum Nazis on the Web. Any subject about any of Mattie-boy’s eeeeeevil competition is completely shut down, and in general, the poster is instantly banned. I am very proud to say that I was banned from the BFRO is only 2 hours. It’s a badge I carry with honor, right over my beating heart!

The BFRO of course has banned all discussion of the Dyer shooting. They have also banned discussion of Dr. Melba Ketchum’s DNA study, Justin Smeja’s Bigfoot shootings in the Sierra Kills, and honestly anything that doesn’t have to do with Matt’s fat head itself! This juvenile mindset of course means that the children over at the BFRO are going to miss out on the greatest Bigfoot story of all time in 10 days, but they won’t bat an eyelash. They will step right out of their own muck smelling like a rose and not missing a beat somehow, just like hucksters always do.

The Bigfoot Forums is quite another story. The Forums is set up in such an odd way that one can hardly have any sensible discussion about just about anything Bigfoot related, unless I guess if you fork over $20 to the boneheads to join their groovy “secret” forum, where they take the dumb rules down so people can actually talk to each other like humans normally do, you know, to communicate stuff?

I am very proud to have been banned from this horrid viper’s nest, but the viciousness with which they hate me makes no sense. All threads mentioning my site and all links to my site are banned and immediately taken down, my IP was given out to any member who wanted it and I am regularly libeled on the site with no penalties being leveled at those doing the libeling. The sheer viciousness of the hatred of bizarre and over the top and makes my think the people running the site are nutcases.

Like complete fools, Bigfoot Forums has not only shut down the finest Rick Dyer thread on the web, but they have also banned any new Dyer threads, and not only that, if you mention Dyer, you will get an immediate ban. That means that these ultra-losers are of course going to get blindsided by the biggest story in Bigfoot history, which these boys and girls were so silly and petty as to decide that they would not discuss  without getting all butthurt. Bigfoot Forums will of course admit to doing nothing wrong and will stride forth from the ashes of their own self-immolation smiling and looking look a million bucks. What a bunch of douchebags.

Bottom line is we could really use a good Bigfoot discussion site. Bigfoot Warz is up now, with a strong focus on Rick Dyer, but there is not a lot of activity. Shawn’s Bigfoot Evidence has a discussion forum, but it could also use some more activity. Hardly anyone is banned from either site, and you can talk about most anything. You know…like…the American…way?

Bigfoot News April 16, 2013

Photos of Hank (the Bigfoot Rick Dyer shot) released on Facebook. Hank is the Bigfoot that Rick Dyer killed in Texas last September. There is a private group on Facebook made up of many folks who have, among other interests, the belief that Dyer is hoaxing his story about the Bigfoot he killed.

Today, April 16, a photo of dead Hank was released by someone in the group to some of the group members. The person who released it has an NDA with Dyer. Everyone who saw the photo also now has an NDA. Either no one saved the photo, or they have all pledged not to release it until after April 30. All of the folks who saw the photo are now convinced that the Dyer story is true.

The person who first posted this story is named Don Boucher, and was one of Dyer’s fiercest critics. Stefan Beaudoin was similarly a ferocious critic of Dyer’s who has now converted. A number of people who formerly thought Dyer was hoaxing are now converting to believers en masse. They are issuing apologies to Dyer, and a number say they are going to see Shooting Bigfoot in Toronto on April 30.

The photo shows Hank dead on the ground with considerable damage to his mouth and jaw from a 30.06 bullet. A number of people are standing around Hank in a circle, including Dyer, Morgan Matthews, director of  Shooting Bigfoot, and members of the Shooting Bigfoot crew.

One problem with this photo is that the damage described in the photo does not line up with the more minimal damage described by Musky Allen when he went to see Dyer’s Bigfoot.

No copies of this photo have been released on the Web, but as you can see if you remember that Musky Allen got two copies of dead Hank photos in his email, copies of dead Hank are definitely starting to float around the Internet. It is perfectly possible that one may turn up before April 30.

Here is the text of Boucher’s message:

Don Boucher
There is a group of us “haters” who have been discussing this thing for quite some time now. Recently, one of our members asked for any proof whatsoever, and someone sent us a pic, one that we have heard mentioned, but didn’t believe existed.

The pic I saw showed the body of a what is undeniably a bigfoot, which definite facial trauma evident from what a 30-06 round to the back of the head would do. Standing around the body is Rick, Morgan Matthews and several of the “Shooting Bigfoot” crew.

I would like to apologize to FB/FB, and Rick Dyer, as well as Dyer’s supporters. I have been mean, vindictive and un fair, but in light of this humbling evidence, I’m going to have to say that I have crossed the fence.

Rick Dyer webpage up. Rick Dyer has a webpage up for Rick Dyer Films, a film company he has started. This is one of the worst webpages I have ever seen. There are horrible grammar and spelling errors all over the place, and design is horrific.

Why Morgan Matthews is not coming forward with information about the killing of a Bigfoot during the shooting of his movie, Shooting Bigfoot. A commenter notes astutely that Matthews is a professional filmmaker, and this would not be a smart thing for him to do:

He is, first and foremost, a professional filmmaker, a successful and experienced one, and he knows that he will not only deflate the impact of his film’s debut by coming forward prior to its release but also look like a nutjob and idiot as well; this should be very simple for most to understand without having to spend too much time thinking about it.

It’s funny how often so many attempt to deal with their own impatience, fear of disappointment and inability to achieve instant gratification by attempting to invalidate who or what they perceive as the source of their self-generated expectations and fear.

In a vacuum bereft of the answers they want and for which they cannot wait, they suddenly become Sherlock Holmes. They must rationalize their impatience rather than simply acknowledge it as such. This has to do with emotional IQ; there is a notably famous study from the 50s involving children and jellybeans, but I digress. It’s the same tendency that causes a guy to leave message after message on a girl’s voicemail when he’s worried he’s about to get dumped or that she’s cheating, and she hasn’t called him back in 15 minutes.

No damage to Hank’s face proves Hank was not shot with a 30.06. Supposedly, a 30.06 causes such extensive damage that if Hank was shot with such a weapon, his face would be badly messed up. Since Hank’s face is not damaged as per Musky Allen’s report when he went to see it, therefore the story is a lie. The rejoinder to this accusation is that Musky did say that there was jaw damage to the Bigfoot, but it was minimal.

Government research facility housing Hank was built specifically to house and study him. One interesting story coming out lately is that the US government agreed to build the storage facility housing Hank if Dyer would let the state store it there and study it while it was there. Dyer apparently convinced the government to build this small facility where Hank is being housed.

The government agreed to build it apparently on the grounds that they would have a chance to study it for several months before it was released. I know it seems odd that the state would build a facility just to house and study Hank on Rick’s request, but that it’s certainly possible, and that is what people are saying was done.

Rick Dyer, sociopath? As Dyer is about to become world famous, it is certainly topical for us to explore Dyer’s past, including his criminal record and repeated hoaxing. We also need to explore the considerably pathological personality of this fellow, which the world will find out about soon enough anyway. The personalities of famous people are always topical, especially if they are as pathological and antisocial as Dyer’s is.

A commenter on my site objects to my calling Dyer a sociopath and provides evidence that Dyer is either not a sociopath or that he is not very sociopathic.

I’m more than a bit confused as to why you continue to maintain that Dyer is an “extreme sociopathic personality”.

To my understanding, sociopaths have little to no concern for the welfare or happiness of others, which is inconsistent with Dyer’s activities in helping the homeless, which he does in his home of Las Vegas, not just with the homeless people who were in the camp in San Antonio. I suppose one could stretch things and claim that he is such a devious sociopath that he does this to mask his tendencies and give the appearance of a “good person”, but that could be, potentially, nothing more than specious conjecture.

He regularly admits to being wrong about previous misstatements and apologizes readily, something sociopaths generally are extremely loathe to do, yes? The few times detractors have the nerve to call into his show, he doesn’t seek to take control by constantly speaking over them, shouting them down or hanging up (not the traits of a control-freak, arguably). In multiple cases, I have witnessed him “become ok” with people whom he was feuding and who apologized and cleared the air with him (sociopaths aren’t usually very forgiving, to my knowledge).

He also frequently expresses admiration for people who “do the right thing”, in his eyes; again, giving praise freely and without clear opportunity for reward is not a very sociopathic tendency (unless, again, we label this as nothing more than cultivated behavior intended to give the appearance of nobility and that is the reward he seeks).

From watching the guy’s shows now for the last several months, as he sits in front of a webcam, unscripted, for hours at a time, I see someone who becomes indignant and snarky towards people who malign him, but that’s not an exclusively sociopathic trait, it’s extremely common behavior which all of us see regularly and most of us have engaged in from time-to-time, I’m certain.

As far as why he hates you, it’s for this reason: he can’t hang with being labeled a sociopath; and if he were to be reasonably diagnosed as one, I don’t think one needs a degree in psychology to conclude that he is far from an “extreme” type; by that definition, I’d have to say that about 50% of everyone I meet is an “extreme” sociopath.

This is a good comment, and in Dyer’s favor, we should present the other side to the argument that he is sociopathic.

In response, I would say that I never called him an “extreme sociopath.”

If he is sociopathic at all, he is a “controlled sociopath,” as I have discussed previously. Controlled sociopaths are “legal criminals” whereas uncontrolled sociopaths are “illegal criminals.” The ranks of law, medicine, politics, business, law enforcement and the military are filled with controlled sociopaths. Crooked lawyers, crooked doctors, crooked cops, crazy/psycho soldiers and officers, crooked businessmen, crooked politicians – you get the picture.

The controlled sociopath has simply controlled his sociopathic tendencies enough to keep himself for the most part out of jail or prison. The motivation is that the controlled sociopath does not want to go to prison, so he controls his behavior and channels it in a legal direction.

Rick is not an extreme sociopath. Mostly what he is is a narcissist. But he does have sociopathic tendencies. This is abundantly clear. There is a Psychopathy Checklist out there, the PCL-R, authored by Robert Hare. Obviously he is going to get an elevated score on that list.

Certain professions such as used car salesman are full of controlled sociopaths. Rick is a used car salesman.

Rick is a con artist. It has been theorized that most con artists are sociopaths.

Some sociopaths do engage in things like helping the homeless, being gurus dedicated to the common good, etc. Although I agree with the commenter that helping the homeless shows a good side to this complicated fellow’s personality.

The viciousness with which he goes after his enemies is totally over the top and makes no sense at all. For instance, he is currently libeling me. He is making up lies about me out of whole cloth. He knows full well that these are lies, but he just makes them up anyway.

One of them is that I served two years in a state prison. I have never incarcerated in any prison, much less a state prison, and I have not spent more than six hours in jail in my entire life. If I had actually served two years in prison, that should be pubic record, and anyone could go and look it up for themselves. But there is nothing there because it never happened.

Dyer has hoaxed many times. He is a serial hoaxer. Hoaxing is antisocial behavior.

He brags that he made $650,000 off of defrauding the American public. Taking pride in defrauding others is antisocial behavior.

At least $50,000 of that was simply stolen money. Rick just stole that money, period. The victim didn’t pretty charges because he was in on the hoax, but Rick did steal that money. Stealing money is antisocial behavior.

In 2010, Rick bragged that on his Bigfoot hunting expeditions, he had a friend run by in a Bigfoot suit to fleece the people he charged $500 a head to go on his expeditions. Rick laughed about what idiots they were as he ripped them off. Defrauding people on your expeditions is antisocial behavior.

Sociopaths think others are morons who deserve to be fleeced. They laugh about their victims and think they deserve to get taken for being stupid. This is Rick’s behavior towards his victims.

Rick recently stole $17,000 from a victim in Canada. The guy ordered two Corvettes from Rick, and Rick just stole the money and never delivered the Corvettes. Rick avoided a conviction by agreeing to deliver the Corvettes. That’s very antisocial behavior – stealing $17,000.

Rick beat up his pregnant wife, Lily Dyer. She called the cops and had him arrested. He avoided conviction by agreeing not to beat her up anymore. Beating up your pregnant wife is antisocial behavior.

However, the commenter makes an interesting case that Dyer is a complicated fellow, and in certain respects he does not display classic sociopathic behavior. Instead, in these regards, Rick is quite normal. And to be fair to Rick, I think my commenter above notes that Rick indeed appears to have a good side. I would certainly agree that Dyer is not a pure sociopath, but I believe he is a pretty antisocial fellow, and he would probably get an elevated PCL-R score.

I am not particularly upset by Dyer’s past if I saw some evidence that he was going to knock it off and turn it all around. But I don’t see that. Rick’s going to keep on being pathological and antisocial into the foreseeable future, even after he becomes world famous. No doubt we will be reading about his misdeeds in the paper.

Chuck Prahl provides evidence for Dyer’s sociopathy. In his interesting article here, Chuck asks (italics mine):

I must admit if Dyer does have a dead Bigfoot on ice, and his name is linked to Bigfoot forever more in every history book and documentary on the big fella, I personally will cry and laugh at the same time.

If you listen to the guy and watch his facial expressions on his adults only Internet/Youtube radio show, he doesn’t act like a man who has made the most important biological discovery in 500 years.

That tells me he is either lying about the whole thing or more likely the guy has no emotions about the subject at all. I have heard him try to be emotional about the circus he has made of his life since this alleged shooting went down last September, and he comes off like a Grade B actor without any heart or soul. He puts more emotion into discussing a car deal he just completed then a man who just made the most important discovery concerning our human ancestors in 500 years.

I have seen how just a fleeting few second encounter with bigfoot as changed men and woman’s entire life and how they become obsessed with getting just one more sighting just so they can say they were not hallucinating the first time. Then you have Rick Dyer who says he shot and killed one and gets more excited talking about the new wrap for his SUV then I ever heard him talk about seeing an 8 foot hairy monster lying on the ground where he just put a bullet through its brain.

On the other hand it might take a narcissist like Dyer to actually kill one of these creatures without having the emotional baggage that might haunt a normal human being having murdered a creature that resembles us in so many ways.

Prahl inadvertently proves an excellent point about Dyer. Dyer shows little or no emotions when discussing the scientific find of the century.

Others have seen Bigfoots for only a few seconds and were changed for life, and Rick put a bullet in one’s head while it was charging him and a filmmaker, then spent the next few months trucking the thing around, having it embalmed and autopsied, having the government build a place to store it, dealing with cops ready to arrest him for homicide on a moment’s notice, having his whole life turned completely upside down with all of the sordid details of his antisocial past revealed for the world to see, on and on, and Rick hardly even bats an eye.

He gets more excited about the newest detail he put on his SUV than he does about the incident that is going to land him in the history books for all time.

The answer to the riddle of this paradox is simple: Rick is a sociopath. Rick lacks any emotional baggage about murdering a fellow hominid because he doesn’t have any emotions to store in his limbic suitcase. You need have some emotions in the first place to get to where you are lugging around emotional baggage, and Rick doesn’t have any. Sociopaths don’t have emotional baggage. They never do.

Chuck says:

If you listen to the guy and watch his facial expressions on his adults only Internet/Youtube radio show, he doesn’t act like a man who has made the most important biological discovery in 500 years. That tells me he is either lying about the whole thing or more likely the guy has no emotions about the subject at all.

Exactly! Rick’s not lying, so the opposite is true. Rick simply lacks any complex emotions at all, as all sociopaths do. The Facebook Find Bigfoot guys described Rick as having “balls of steel” to come out of a tent hoisting a rifle and bead on a Bigfoot only yards away, then chase it as tries to run you down while you pump two bullets into it. Of course he has balls of steel. Rick is fearless. All sociopaths are fearless. It’s a hallmark of the disorder.

Chuck again:

I have heard him try to be emotional about the circus he has made of his life since this alleged shooting went down last September, and he comes off like a Grade B actor without any heart or soul. He puts more emotion into discussing a car deal he just completed then a man who just made the most important discovery concerning our human ancestors in 500 years.

Precisely! Since the sociopath lacks real emotions, he tries to mimic them. What emotions he does display are typically fake emotions, conjured up just for the use of other people. The sociopath figures out what emotions you want him to feel in that situation or what emotions he needs to feel in a situation and then he conjures up fake emotions to show everyone what he thinks they want and need from him. But they aren’t real feelings – they are fakes, acting jobs.

Dyer vows to continue murdering Bigfoots. Dyer recently commented that he is committed to live capturing a Bigfoot, but if he can’t do that, he will shoot and kill another one. This is a depressing comment. Many of us thought that Dyer had a human element in his heart when he appeared to break down and express remorse over the killing of Hank.

However, with this statement, it shows that Dyer has learned nothing. He knows that Bigfoots are human and killing them is murder. But he has no real remorse for killing Hank as he has vowed to kill another Bigfoot. This is classic sociopathic behavior as sociopaths in general do not experience remorse for their antisocial acts.

The Rick Dyer mental trap. People are locked into a trap.

The Dyer skeptics are a classic example of this.

Dyer Skeptic (A). I hate Rick for all sorts of excellent reasons based on observable truths, therefore Rick is lying. Dyer is a scumbag and a repeat hoaxer, therefore, he could not have possibly killed a Bigfoot. But that fails Logic 101. It’s perfectly possible for Dyer to be a scumbag and a repeat hoaxer and also to have killed a Bigfoot. Rather unlikely, but it’s quite possible. Ask any Logic professor.

The other side is locked into an identical trap.

Dyer Believer (B). Rick killed a Bigfoot, and we believe him, therefore we love Rick Dyer, he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, and we hate all of Rick’s evil enemies.

Almost no one seems to take the position that I do:

1. Rick Dyer is lower than whale crap, and that’s at the bottom of the ocean, and he’s also a serial hoaxer and a criminal. I hate him with every fiber of my being.

2. As unlikely as it sounds, despite (1) being true, he did indeed shoot and kill a Bigfoot! That means I believe him.

“I hate Dyer’s guts, but he killed a Bigfoot” seems to be so mentally contorting that almost no one is capable of twisting their brain into the cerebral pretzel that’s needed to think that way.

David Paulides tried to strong-arm habituation site owner into handing over all of his Bigfoot hair samples to Paulides. The man in question owns the Smith River habituation site and may be named Kirk Stewart. This site was written up in the papers. The owner reported that a possible Bigfoot had been coming onto his rural Del Norte County, California property for some time, eating his watermelons and stealing pheasants from his shed.

What was odd when the pheasants were taken is that the gate has a latch on it. The invader would go to the shed, unlock the latch, go inside and steal a pheasant or two, re-latch the shed on its way out, and take off with the pheasants! This convinced the owner that no ordinary animal was stealing his pheasants.

This man is very mad at Paulides, accusing Paulides of trying to strong-arm the man into handing over all of his Bigfoot samples. Paulides tried to cajole, threaten, browbeat, con and strong-arm the guy into handing over all of his Bigfoot hair samples to Paulides. The man did end up handing over most of the samples to Paulides, but he kept two samples for himself which Paulides kept on demanding he hand over to Paulides. The guy then told Paulides to “f– off”.

One of the two retained samples has been given to Dr. Brian Sykes of Oxford, who is running his own Bigfoot DNA study. The man has a sample in to Dr. Melba Ketchum’s Bigfoot DNA, but has zero confidence in Melba and Paulides (who is sort of Melba’s partner in the DNA study) to deliver the goods. Hence he is quite happy that Sykes has the hairs, and the man is hopeful that Sykes can find something usable out of them.

Paulides is now running around all over the place touting the man’s hair samples as his own.

Paulides is a real scumbag, and he’s one of the worst people in Bigfootery. He has a history as a con artist (he was forced to resign from the Palo Alto Police Department for engaging in a fraud using city government stationery). I don’t mind that Paulides has a bad history as long as he changes and knocks it off, but all indications are that Paulides is still as slimy as he was when he was a crooked cop, and he hasn’t changed one bit. He’s just changed professions, from crooked cop to crooked Bigfoot organization leader.

In addition, many have accused Paulides of continuing to con people with his Bigfoot books. The books contain many false statements, lies, incorrect inferences and false sources. The excellent Steven Streufert has done a great job of taking apart Paulides’ books on Steven’s website.

Paulides has authored a number of Missing 411 books that are, granted, interesting. I have copies of them and have looked them over. Paulides is apparently making the case that Bigfoots are running around North America abducting and killing children and adults from wilderness areas and national parks. While this may indeed be true, and Paulides may have uncovered cases of people being hauled off and killed by Bigfoots, unfortunately, his books do prove that, and some of Paulides inferences are just wrong.

For instance, two of the oddities that Paulides addresses are removal of clothing in cold or freezing weather and burrowing into the ground. However, both clothing removal even in very cold weather (paradoxical undressing) along with burrowing are well known responses to hypothermia (a collapse in body temperature due to exposure to cold weather). But clothing removal and burrowing in these cases are probably just related to hypothermia in the woods and no doubt have nothing to do with Bigfoot abductions. So part of Paulides’ theory is simply wrong.

In addition, Paulides has not been forthcoming about the theme of his books.

While his books are obviously meant to imply that Bigfoots are kidnapping and killing people in the woods, in multiple interviews he denies that this is what the books are about; instead he says the books are simply about missing persons in the woods. That there are missing persons in the woods is not particularly interesting, and one wonders why it was necessary to write three whole books about such a mundane topic. So Paulides is misleading us about the purpose of his books.

In addition, all of Paulides’ books were self-published by CreateSpace. CreateSpace is a good self-publishing outfit, but self-publishing itself is a dubious enterprise because the finished product looks so unprofessional. I have now received several self-published books via CreateSpace, and all of them look quite unprofessional, though some have been well-written. They have layout problems, and they all look like they badly needed an editor. The overall effect screams amateurish and unprofessional.

This is also the case with Paulides’ books. Paulides is not a particularly good writer, though he writes better than the average man on the street. There are all sorts of writing errors strewn through his books. The guy needs an editor something awful. The layout is very bad, and the organization of the books is chaotic and makes little sense.

Nevertheless, if Bigfoots are indeed kidnapping and killing folks in the woods, Paulides’ books are a good “pilot study” that will help to stimulate hopefully much better studies of this phenomenon.

Melba Ketchum violating her agreement with Wally Hersom and Derek Randles. The agreement states that the Bigfoot steak tissue from the Sierra Kills that she did not use is the property of Hersom and Randles. She apparently has quite a bit of tissue left after her testing, and she is simply refusing to hand it over to Derek and Wally as per her charming personal style.

Both men have made repeated requests to Melba to sent the rest of the tissue to them, but nothing has been forthcoming, and it’s been three weeks so far. Melba keeps saying that she is going to send the tissue, but nothing ever shows up.

If I know her well, nothing ever will show up. This looks very bad as apparently she is already on record saying that she did not want 3rd party testing of the Sierras tissue, or at least this is how Bart Cutino and Justin Smeja read things.

No Haplotype A in Bigfoot steak. The tissue from the Sierra Kills was sent out by Cutino and others to be tested to see if results matched up with Ketchum’s. The results came back “human” and “Black bear.” Skeptics of these results say that two different human haplotypes were found in the sample – Amerindian or “A” and European. Actually, only a European haplotype was found in the sample, and that haplotpye is assumed to be Justin’s. The haplotype is “Eastern European,” and Justin is Polish.

Evidence that Justin Smeja is telling the truth about the Sierra Kills. Bart Cutino eavesdropped on Justin and the driver talking about the Sierra Kills when they had no idea that he was listening to him. They spoke about it as an actual event that really occurred. If they really faked the whole thing, why would they talk about it as an actual event when they thought no one was listening?

Evidence backing body recovery story for the Sierra Kills. According to Justin, he and the driver went back 1 month later, on November 12, 2010, and found the Bigfoot steak under three feet of snow. Many have questioned this story for a variety of reasons. However, Cutino has seen photos from the body recovery mission of that day. The photos show Justin holding up the Bigfoot steak, and they are time-stamped with November 12, 2010 on them. So it appears that Justin’s body recovery story is true at least in part.

Why Do I Say “Uhh” and “Umm” So Much?

Here.

Apparently it’s something called an intellectual stammer. Obama has it. William Buckley had it. I have it. It’s common in university professors and other such types. Lots of brainiacs have it. Supposedly it is because your mind is moving too fast your mouth, but that’s not the case with me. I actually cannot find the word I am looking for, or alternatively, my mind seems to “go blank.” I also often forget what I was saying in the middle of the conversation, forget what I was going to say next, etc. That is because my mind is wandering around so much that it is wandering away from the conversation itself!

Why does my mind “go blank”? I don’t get it.

There is actually a phrase for this called speech disfluency, and most people have it except for those people, mostly female, who think with their mouths open. The words differ among various languages, and some research indicates that ~20% of our conversational words are this sort of filler, white noise, space junk, garbage, nothingisms, or whatever the Hell you want to call them.

Indian Horndogs on the Internet

Dota writes:

Some interesting points, especially regarding creepy behavior. Indians get subtlety, but generally in the context of etiquette, which resembles the Persian ‘Taruf’ in its mode of implied communication. I am not sure about the etiquette patterns of the lower castes since I’ve never had any extended interaction with them, knowing how segregated Indian society is. This is worth looking into. You are also generally correct about Indian men failing to read signals properly, especially with regards to non Indian women

I have been dealing with Indians on the Net for a long time now. All I know is that they are regarded as the bane of the Internet by many women, and not just Western women. I knew a Kuwaiti and a Filipina who despised them also. They were simply way too forward and often aggressively and immediately sexual, and the women regarded them as creeptastic. The basic impression that I have gotten from these Indian guys, who I feel immense sympathy for, is that these guys simply do not know how to act around women at all! That’s just all there is to it. A bunch of guys who simply do not know how to behave or act around chicks.

As a guy who knows women very well and theoretically at least knows how to act around them, I can spot this clueless behavior a mile away.

My conclusion was that these guys grew up in some sort of a gender segregated environment, and they simply never learned how to act around chicks.

Of course I have acted creepy and clueless countless times in my life. I was corrected by females and others in all sorts of ways for this creeptastic behavior such that I know don’t really do it very much. The way a guy learns to act around chicks is by going through a creeptastic phase and getting spanked countless times. After a while you start to figure out what is ok and what is not ok.

I know quite a few Facebook chicks. I met them on a FB dating site a long time ago. When I go to these women’s homepages, every post they make has one or more (often quite a few) Indian guys jumping all over the post saying stuff to the woman. The stuff they say varies, but in general they are coming across overeager and overenthusiastic. Many of these women are Filipinas (some were Thais), and they are not that easy to score anyway. I have asked many of these Filipinas with Indian guys all over their page if they have anything going on with any of these Indian guys. 100% of them have told me, “No, those guys are just friends.”

Over time, I noticed that a few of my Filipina friends hooked up with men and started relationships with them. 100% of the guys they hooked up with were Western guys, either Europeans (often Swedes) or Americans, New Zealanders, Australians, etc. Indian guys were having a 0% success rate with these chicks.

I wondered if there was something inaccessible about these chicks that kept the Indian guys away from them. I got to know some of these chicks via chatting. I know how to talk to women, and it often didn’t take very long before these chicks were inviting me to their countries. I would say, “Where do I stay?” Sometimes they would say, “You stay in a hotel,” but a number of other times they said, “You stay with me baby!”

And a number of them asked me if I wanted to marry them. “You come here to my country, if you meet me and like me, you marry me and take me to USA.” Maybe they just want a green card, but I think a lot of them want to marry an American and get out of wherever.

Some of them sent me dirty pics of themselves, and others talked dirty to me. So these women were definitely accessible, but these Indian guys were completely locked out of them. Now why these Indian guys were batting .000, I am not really certain. Whatever they are doing, I would say that they are doing it wrong.

Rape among Western White Women: An Examination

Here we will look impressionistically at all of the cases that I can recall of females I have known who got raped in one way or another. I am using a pretty strict definition of rape here – forget the insane feminist daffynition. According to that daffynition, I have been raping females for most of my life!

Rape cases can be broken down into two categories: Hardcore Rape or Stranger Rape and what is otherwise known as Date Rape. There is some overlap, but Date Rape usually does not involve overt threats of violence and Stranger Rape almost always does. Stranger Rape frequently involves some sort of actual violence, and in Date Rape, true, hardcore violence is not common. However, some women are beaten and battered in the context of ongoing Date Rapes with a long-term boyfriend, and this complicates the definitions. It is not uncommon to see a bruised, battered woman who is getting raped on a regular basis.

Stranger Rape is much more likely to be prosecuted, and Date Rape is notoriously hard to prosecute. Almost all rapes by boyfriends (especially long-term boyfriends) and husbands fall into the Date Rape category. Nevertheless, Date Rape is still rape, and females who get date-raped often suffer consequences afterwards.

All cases below involved White females from the US or UK. Ages ranged from 9-80, but most were aged 19-24. The male rapists were aged 14-40, with most around 19-24. Four were White, and two were Black.

Case 1- Stranger Rape: A White female (aged ~80?) was raped in Los Angeles. The woman was a schoolteacher in Los Angeles who never married and lived alone. When she was an old lady, a very young Black male, apparently a teenage boy (age 14-16?), broke in and raped her in a brutal crime. At the time I was astonished that such a young boy would rape an old lady.

Case 2 – Stranger Rape: A White female was sexually assaulted at age 11 by a child molester-rapist. Her 11 year old friend was also assaulted. They had hiked to a lake and were walking home through a forest in New York State in a  area where there were no homes or people around when a White man in a ski mask (aged ~30?) with a knife accosted them. He fondled them and then ran off to a truck where he drove away. He was never caught. The 11 year old friend blamed my friend for it happening to both of them, and their friendship ended after that. This may more properly be seen as a sexual assault than as a rape.

Long term consequences are not known, but she has suffered from depression for most of her life. The relationship of the rape to her later mental issues is unknown, however, some say that her subsequent depression was not related to this incident. The crime is a very sensitive topic, and no one has been able to bring it up to her for a long time. In fact rape in general is a sensitive subject when she is around, and if you bring it up, she will usually get angry and throw some sort of a fit.

Case 3 – Date Rape: A White female (age 19-20?) was in Jamaica vacationing with a friend. They met some local Black Jamaican guys their age (19-20?) and hit it off with them. One of the Jamaicans offered to row them out to a nearby island where they could do whatever. He got her out to the island and then said that if she ever wanted to get off that island that night, she had to have sex with him. She didn’t want to be stuck on the island that night, so she gave in and had sex with him. I consider this a case of definite rape, though no prosecutor would ever prosecute it. Long-term consequences are not known, but I think she is over it by now at any rate.

Case 4 – Date Rape: A young female aged 19 is a college student. On New Years Eve, she went to a party and got very drunk. She ended up in a bedroom with some White college guy about her age. The last thing she remembers is she was down on her knees sucking the guy’s cock. After that, she blacked out and apparently passed out. Next thing she remembered, she was waking up and the guy was on top of her fucking her. She yelled at him to get off her, and threw him off her body.

As she was passed out, her vagina did not lubricate (she did not get wet) and he basically “fucked her dry.” The next day she had some minor vaginal bleeding from getting dry fucked. She was depressed about this incident because though she had had anal and oral sex before, she was technically a virgin as far as vaginal sex was concerned, and this is how she lost her virginity, technically getting date raped by some jerk. She had wanted to lose her technical virginity in an important way with someone she cared about. She talked to her friends afterwards, and they all said, “Guess what? You just got raped.” A lot of them also called her an idiot for getting into that situation.

For the next three months, she was unaccountably very angry, and she had no idea of why. It’s a good guess that the mysterious anger may have been caused by being raped. She also said she was tired of being called an idiot for letting this incident happen to her. I do feel that this is rape, but no DA would ever prosecute it.

Case 5 – Date Rape: A woman aged ~40 got involved in a long-term relationship with a White male aged ~40 that turned into some sort of abused or battered woman scenario. The man was quite abusive, had a horrible temper and ranted and raved a lot. He also demanded sex whenever he wanted it. She was often not in a mood for sex, and he simply violently forced it on her anyway despite her strenuous protests. She referred to it as “terror sex.” She may have given in due to fear of him, but it is hard to say. She had hip problems due to a disease called ankylosing spondiitis, and at some point needed a hip replacement. As her hip problems worsened, he stepped up the rough sex in an effort to damage her hip even further.

His behavior was complicated by heavy drug and alcohol abuse. Being in this relationship precipitated a period of heavy drinking and hashish use on her part. She got out of the relationship, but even now, she does not like to talk about it. Long-term effects were unknown, but there was a suicide attempt afterwards and she suffers from debilitating depression. The suicide attempt was related to the depression. I was unable to determine what effect that date raping might have caused the depression, however she has been wary of relationships ever since due to fear of getting involved with another man like this one who picks out vulnerable women. She thought he picked her out due to her vulnerability.

Case 6 – Date Rape?: A woman age 25 was with her young White boyfriend, aged 28, in hotel room. At some point while they were having sex, he took his cock and simply shoved it into her ass, very hard, and started pounding away. So he started having anal sex with her by penetrating her rapidly and violently without any lubrication. This can not only be very painful for the woman but it can also cause anal injury. At some point, she got him out of her ass.

She looked around for a way to retaliate. There was a champagne bottle on the table next to the bed, drained, as they had finished it off earlier. She took the champagne bottle and shoved it neck end right up his ass! It went all the way in, penetrated to a few inches at least. Wow! You go, girl. Then the relationship was over. She refers to this as rape but I am not ever sure if it is.

In the course of normal sex, a lot of folks aggressively try to different positions and moves on their partner without asking the other’s position. They simply do it without being asked. However, I think this guy’s behavior was most ungentlemanly at the least, and I’ve certainly never done such a thing. No DA would prosecute on this, and most law enforcement (LE) folks would even say that no rape had occurred. Nevertheless, the woman said that getting penetrated that way had been extremely painful, and it was not an experience she wished to repeat.

Conclusion: Looking around at popular news stories such as the Steubenville rape case and others in the news lately, we can see that the vast majority of rape cases fall into the Date Rape category. This stuff degenerates into a “He said, she said,” sort of thing, and LE will ask the woman, “Why didn’t you leave? Why did you stay in the relationship? Why did you get so wasted? If you didn’t want to have sex with him, why were you on your knees sucking his cock?” and other questions along those lines. Cases are not commonly reported and even when they are, DA’s usually choose not to file.

The Steubenville case was special because she was passed out cold, and it caught on videotape. Having sex with a passed out female is not only creepy and somewhat necrophilic, but it is also one of the most serious kinds of Date Rape. Cases are much more likely to be filed when the woman is passed out cold.

The fact that most rapes are Date Rapes means that there is not much we can do to stop rape in the US other than educating men to behave in a gentlemanly way and educating females about the slimy ways of males. Date Rapes are hardly prosecuted now, and that’s probably for the best as it is almost impossible to prove. I think a lot of these guys could use a short sentence at least, but in these cases, it is nearly impossible to even prove that a rape occurred in the first place. In cases of dubious evidence of guilt, it is better than no prosecution at all occur. Obviously we can prosecute in cases where rapes are caught on videotape.

Date Rape should not be minimized despite its somewhat hazy nature. Evidence shows that some females indeed suffer long-term consequences from Date Rapes, including anger, depression and suicide attempts.

We are probably doing all we can to stop Stranger Rapes already and I don’t see how we can do more without turning into a surveillance society.

There are simply no easy answers to this painful societal problem!