What did the body language lady think about Dr. Blasey Ford?

I dont believe a word she says... everything in my mind says she is lying.....i know it !

a reply to: Fools

As some have posted, reading body language is not an exact science. Sure. But what science of the human mind is?

As some have posted, we could find an expert claiming something different about her actions during the testimony. Probably true, but where are those experts?

Here we have someone who studies this and lends her insight. It may not be 100% bulletproof but it sure is enlightening.

Thanks for posting this.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
I liked when she had to keep re-checking her script for the real emotional parts that were so life-changing for her.

Psh

Total bs.

To be fair, I thought Kavanaugh was checking a script and read when to get emotional as he said the part about her 10 year old praying for the woman. When you look at this through the eyes of someone who is non-partisan you see the whole thing looks set up, both sides but you can't see that with political bias.

She's a professional victim.

Think about what that means. You become a professional in appearing hurt and raped etc.

She seems to be hiding a smile/trying not to laugh throughout her testimony.

Another tell tale sign is that most men probably wouldn't rape her if she paid you.

Even if it did happen, it'd be more like the ugly teen girl with glasses and looks like Garth who thrust herself onto a young successful dashing man that didn't want any of it.

She's got no evidence just a weak ass sob story. They need to sympathize with her but I don't. I'm a random joe, I don't really need to be sympathetic to the supposedly raped by the Bill Cosby of Yale party. She's a professional victim or at least utilizing that trope, I 100% agree myself.

That's not to say I don't like Kavanaugh's reluctance to some FBI questioning, but personally find not answering that (and not wanting it) to be fairly just in this case. I doubt MOST of us would really want FBI to go through our college years lol. She might, cos she was likely a frump that didn't go to parties or even go out much instead studying, making her "college years FBI investigation" pretty clean.

Such bull#tery! Blasey Ford fits in with SJW extremism profile pretty well. Stronger at least, than anything fits with corroboration of her side of the story, of which there is none.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: Fools

As some have posted, reading body language is not an exact science. Sure. But what science of the human mind is?

As some have posted, we could find an expert claiming something different about her actions during the testimony. Probably true, but where are those experts?

Here we have someone who studies this and lends her insight. It may not be 100% bulletproof but it sure is enlightening.

Thanks for posting this.

We don't need a body language expert. All we have to do is listen to her try to make it sound like she is holding back tears and trying to make her voice shake when she describes the "incident."

Full-on acting.

I can't believe the public- and ATS! - is falling for this whole orchestrated circus. The whole thing is manufactured- all the drama, the witnesses and fake witnesses, the ridiculous "news" "coverage," the fake outrage and virtue signaling of these asshole scumbag politicians: it's all a show, and even ATS has gotten duped.

a reply to: Fools

This is about as scientific as the polygraph test.

But I have a feeling you don't trust the polygraph results do you?

Following Ford's interview she was given a polygraph examination with the following two questions: Is any part of your statement false? Did you make up any part of your statement? Ford answered "no" to both questions. "Blasey's responses to the above relevant questions are not indicative of deception," the report read. Two more analyses of Ford's responses also suggested she had been truthful.

www.cbsnews.com...

originally posted by: NthOther
If she's a "body language" expert, she should know it's impossible to determine a person's truthfulness based on nonverbal cues alone.

probably as revealing or believable as a polygraph

This is the same woman who did a "read" on Jimmy Savile, she is utter rubbish! She is only "reading" what she wants too, going against popular opinion, hence her "there is nothing wrong with Savile, but that woman interviewing him was totally into him and blah blah blah...".

www.youtube.com...

Why I know Savile is a dirty rotten beast to the core? 'Cos I read him when I was a little girl and I knew he was just plain wrong. So I trust my instinct and I am inclined to believe in the numerous accusations.

So, take what this woman says with a large chunk of salt!

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Fools

This is about as scientific as the polygraph test.

But I have a feeling you don't trust the polygraph results do you?

Following Ford's interview she was given a polygraph examination with the following two questions: Is any part of your statement false? Did you make up any part of your statement? Ford answered "no" to both questions. "Blasey's responses to the above relevant questions are not indicative of deception," the report read. Two more analyses of Ford's responses also suggested she had been truthful.

www.cbsnews.com...

Well, her lawyers paid for it and controlled the questioning, so no, no I do not. Also, all of this doesn't matter - her testimony would be thrown out in any and every court in this country because none of the people she asked to verify her story would, not even her so called female best friend that she publicly threw under the bus as well saying something to the effect that she has mental issues. Totally normal for a democrat cultist though.

a reply to: KansasGirl

I never stated my opinion on what she said, simply what others have stated and thanked the OP for the content.

However, since you have brought it up...

I do not know anybody involved in the matter and I was not there umpteen years ago. All I can do is make an educated guess. No doubt drunken teenagers do stupid, if not illegal, things from time to time. It is possible that is what happened here.

HOWEVER, I would not put money on her being fully honest. Or at best, remembering things accurately. I did not believe her. The way she spoke and acted left me highly skeptical.

I agree with you this is whole thing is Kabuki Theater for political agendas. I do not like it. But, people seem to love a good soap opera and this played right into it.

a reply to: Dae

I pretty much agree with you about Ms. Mandy of Bombard's Body Language (the OP video). I used to watch some of her stuff until it became very apparent that she "reads" whatever confirms her beliefs and biases. I watched one video where the whole thing was her ignoring obvious things and practically making up other things so that her "conclusions"'would intersect with her political belief on the subject. She can be pretty terrible, but she's got a large following of people who also like to have their biases confirmed.

Mandy and her body language reading or not, Ms. Ford is acting, acting, acting. Or she is crazy, or both.

Fascinating.

I am trying to figure out how to use this open source voice stress analysis tool. Going to do hers, and Feinstein's half-denial of leaking the letter to the press.

a reply to: djz3ro

Agreed. I saw parts of Kavanaughs testimony that clearly looked scripted...but not in the sense of it being faked.

There's a difference in real-rehearsed and fake-rehearsed.

A2D

a reply to: Fools

A body language "expert" would not be used in court ether.

originally posted by: NthOther
If she's a "body language" expert, she should know it's impossible to determine a person's truthfulness based on nonverbal cues alone.

Ever watch the Mentalist?

Jane does it all the time.


Personally I totally dismiss her claims.

No evidence whatsoever.

Claims brought with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...

Part of a series on Atheism ConceptsHistory [show] Types[show] Arguments for atheism[hide] Against God's existence Atheist's Wager Evil God Challenge Fate of the unlearned Free will God of the gaps Hitchens's razor Incompatible properties Inconsistent revelation Nonbelief Omnipotence paradox Poor design Problem of evil Problem of Hell Russell's teapot Theological noncognitivism Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit People[show] Related stances[show] Category Category Portal Portal WikiProject WikiProject vte Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Overview The concept is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who in a 2003 Slate article formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".[1][2] The dictum also appears in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, a book by Hitchens published in 2007.[3] Hitchens's razor is actually an English translation of the Latin proverb quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur ("What is freely asserted is freely dismissed"), which was commonly used in the 19th century.[4][5] It takes a stronger stance than the Sagan standard ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"), instead applying to even non-extraordinary claims.

I love ''body language ghost'' what a brilliant channel.

the more i watch her, the more it looks like she's a very clever PHD in Psychology

She holds a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology: Research Design, and, according to the Palo Alto University website, has a teaching/research emphasis in statistics

yet she's portrayed as a fragile and traumatized little girl

its a total con job
is it really true her grandfather was CIA and her father is Ralph Blasey the III ?

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: NthOther
If she's a "body language" expert, she should know it's impossible to determine a person's truthfulness based on nonverbal cues alone.

Claims brought with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.

Except in a Senate hearing.
Apparently.

Here's a good video. If you can enjoy a video for its content, and not who presents it or which way they swing (might be hard for some, sure). But although they don't go directly into "body language" I think they do cover some points (in the later part of the video) that relate to it.

One of the points raised is that she remembers a table on the left of the bed but doesn't remember the building where this event took place, or something of that nature. That her recollection/selective memory is extremely inconsistent. Also the part about her not telling her parents she got raped and apparently almost murdered because they would have told her off for drinking a beer.

I don't think you need to be a PHD of anything to get a vague understanding of her body language. One striking thing is that during her statement, she never looks at anyone in particular. Yet Kavanaugh tries to look at people. There's a strange lack of confidence of simply telling a truthful story on her side of it. You would surely just stand there, at least in part, and just tell it, tell it to the world. You wouldn't need to read it word for word verbatim from a statement sheet because presumably, you'd actually remember some of it... Body languageers will also look at the eyes, as I say she's never looking at anyone in particular yet Kav is clearly trying to address all the different people he can not only with his voice but also with his eyes and what's in his mind.

And I'm curious but what's with the meek sound like a 13-yr old girl act? That friends, is the character. The character that has been invented here, call her Macy, or Minnie Mouse, whatever you want. During the video it would seem the actress impresses even herself, and has a little grin inside at how she is pulling it off. Why? Cos she's having to act, but she's not a trained actress, so she can't quite contain moments like that. She has been trained "for the act" absolutely, but not enough "in the act" to pull it off convincingly.

If you can point me to the part where she acted/said something convincing please point it to me cos I haven't seen it yet. By not looking at anyone directly she was also able to pull off the fact inside she's laughing, at what I don't know, the whole charade, something she just said, the character finally out of rehearsal...whatever, it's there. PHD not required to spot it. Just an understanding of women, acting and the extreme left agenda, I suppose...

In this video they also allude to a pretty good reason as to why this has all come about, why the delays, why the sitting on information. The reason is a bit too American-y for me to understand (seats and stuff in house of reps or something) but it still resonated. It resonated because that reason would indicate a last ditch effort which very much fits the profile of this thing and as I said the need to invent a very desperate character, Minnie Mouse, Olive Oyl... a real shocker. The impact of losing this seat is apparently very bad for the Dems. The character needs to be just as shocking, of course not related to house seats though, the average woman can't relate to that. In that sense, we have to assume this "operation" also has a bad director, or writer and director. Rian Johnson, perhaps. The writing is bad, the directing is bad and # me is the acting bad.

Tim Pool says with extraordinary claims you require extraordinary evidence. Sounded like a nice sound bite to me, but this quote has just now become crystal clear to me. The extraordinary evidence is there, it's not a rape, it's a seat in a house in a representatives place in an America. If that seat gets lost then something political in favor of the Republicans happens. By way of creating (fictionalizing) and extraordinary claim, one that the American people can digest and understand, they can hope to secure that precious seat. #ing seats guys! This whole thing is about a chair and who sits on it. LOL.



one guy does look like a Baldwin so it's worth it for that at least anyway, I'm still not buying the CBF side of this AT ALL at this point. And upon further inspection can see a specifically engineered character emerging for the sake of pushing... well at this point others would say one thing or another. All I know is that we're audience to the adventures of Olive Oyl. Fiction.

The nasty part is that real women, genuine women, who have had genuine terrible experiences of this nature - are being played themselves. Played by a bad actress, a bad director and an even worse writer. And it's almost like a total irony of the situation with say, Star Wars, and Kathleen Kennedy today, the Disney agenda. Maybe that's why I call her Minnie Mouse... Dude this whole thing is f*******cked! Lindsey Graham is right, sham central.

IF TRUE, this is pretty damning. Christine Blasey-Ford heads Stanford's CIA Internship Program.

Article: brassballs.blog... -grandfather-nicholas-deak

I told my wife similar things after watching her testimony, in fact, said so in a post. She tried to do this childlike quality but it came across to me as naive. Also said she was on drugs at the time she is obviously high. And if you watch her testimony you see as she comes down from her high the longer she goes the more her speech became erratic and she had difficulty following the conversations. My wife also mentioned something I missed said anytime she didn't know something she immediately went through her notes. As if she didn't write her opening statement and had to make sure that it was not discussed in her opening. The wife believes someone wrote the statement for her and she didn't write it. I'm not sure on that myself though one thing i will say her speech is choppy as she bounced around in her speech. I'll say if she has a PhD that speech doesn't seem to be written by a professor. I don't think people realize her education think about it she is a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford.

With her education, you have to believe she purposely altered her writing style the question becomes why???