http://tinyurl.com/yeruhj7

The article is from Forbes. The author is critical of the press
that swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker. He says he found
several flaws that a newsman should've found.

On 3/15/2010 10:40 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yeruhj7

The article is from Forbes. The author is critical of the press
that swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker. He says he found
several flaws that a newsman should've found.

Today's "newsmen" are idiots. They write faster than they think, if
they think at all. Unfortunately most of the public believes them.
This story smelled from the beginning.

On 03/15/2010 10:40 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yeruhj7

The article is from Forbes. The author is critical of the press
that swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker. He says he found
several flaws that a newsman should've found.
It's not news, it's sensationalism. People's attention span is too short
for news.
Besides, all he had to do was shut the switch off. How numb can one get?

--
LSFT

Drive a little slower than the posted speed.......
And you too can become a fracking prick.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:23:11 -0400, Frank wrote:
On 3/15/2010 10:40 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yeruhj7

The article is from Forbes. The author is critical of the press
that swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker. He says he found
several flaws that a newsman should've found.

Today's "newsmen" are idiots. They write faster than they think, if
they think at all. Unfortunately most of the public believes them.
This story smelled from the beginning.

It's market driven and today's public love prefer hysteria over
substance. If you want news, get it in a newspaper; if you don't
want to deal with paper, get the same over the internet.

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

It's market driven and today's public love prefer hysteria over
substance. If you want news, get it in a newspaper; if you don't
want to deal with paper, get the same over the internet.

"People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers with
news."

-A.J. Liebling

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

On Mar 15, 9:40*pm, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yeruhj7

* * The article is from Forbes. *The author is critical of the press
that swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker. * He says he found
several flaws that a newsman should've found.

If 34 times using the F word offends you don't click the link, but he
lays it down fairly, strange he needs a mask though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ4Pt...layer_embedded

On Mar 16, 9:10*am, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:55:39 -0700 (PDT), Eric in North TX

wrote:
On Mar 15, 9:40*pm, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yeruhj7

* * The article is from Forbes. *The author is critical of the press
that swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker. * He says he found
several flaws that a newsman should've found.

If 34 times using the F word offends you don't click the link, but he
lays it down fairly, strange he needs a mask though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ4Pt...layer_embedded

So, we have now firmly established that you can stop a Prius by
putting it in neutral IF THE CAR IS OPERATING NORMALLY.

Big Deal. I think most people already accept that.

If it bleeds it leads .......

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

It's market driven and today's public love prefer hysteria over
substance. If you want news, get it in a newspaper; if you don't
want to deal with paper, get the same over the internet.

"People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers with
news." -A.J. Liebling

Yeah, well said. I was going to mention that about the last place I would
go to get news is from the local newspaper. Well, unless I wanted the kind
of "news" that was made up adults acting like whining children living in a
fantasy world, anyway.

About the only place I've ever seen anything approaching objective coverage
is the WSJ.

Jon

On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:40:32 -0500, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/yeruhj7

The article is from Forbes. The author is critical of the press
that swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker. He says he found
several flaws that a newsman should've found.

As told in the article from Forbes, where it says he was afraid to
shift to neutral, afraid to turn off the car, if it's a hoax as it
sounds, how did the driver think he would get away with it?

Maybe he didn't. I can easily imagine Toyota paying him 10, 20, 50G to
be a bogus complainer, to make all the other complainers seem more
likely to be bogus.

Jon Danniken wrote:

About the only place I've ever seen anything approaching objective
coverage is the WSJ.


On the Editorial Page.

On Mar 16, 7:17*pm, mm wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:40:32 -0500, Dean Hoffman

wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yeruhj7

* *The article is from Forbes. *The author is critical of the press
that swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker. * He says he found
several flaws that a newsman should've found.

As told in the article from Forbes, where it says he was afraid to
shift to neutral, afraid to turn off the car, if it's a hoax as it
sounds, how did the driver think he would get away with it? *

Maybe he didn't. I can easily imagine Toyota paying him 10, 20, 50G to
be a bogus complainer, to make all the other complainers seem more
likely to be bogus.

It seems somewhat paranoid every time some story that may have some
doubtful angles to suggest that thre is some as yet undiscovered plot?

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:29:41 -0700 (PDT), terry
wrote:

On Mar 16, 7:17*pm, mm wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:40:32 -0500, Dean Hoffman

wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yeruhj7

* *The article is from Forbes. *The author is critical of the press
that swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker. * He says he found
several flaws that a newsman should've found.

As told in the article from Forbes, where it says he was afraid to
shift to neutral, afraid to turn off the car, if it's a hoax as it
sounds, how did the driver think he would get away with it? *

Maybe he didn't. I can easily imagine Toyota paying him 10, 20, 50G to
be a bogus complainer, to make all the other complainers seem more
likely to be bogus.

It seems somewhat paranoid every time some story that may have some
doubtful angles to suggest that thre is some as yet undiscovered plot?

Not to me. 50,000 is enough to buy an hour's time from a lot of
people, as well as any time he ends up spending with reporters later,
and any embarrassment he might feel by being called a hoaxster. They
won't be able to charge or convict him of anything with what they have
now. Even if they somehow find out about such a plot, and can prove
it, I think "filing a false police report" might be the most he is
guilty of. Maybe he needs a new car now. So they can throw in
40,000 more or whatever one of those costs.

At first this was for me just a mathematically derived possibility,
but on second thought it seems very possible. After all, as some room
freshener's advertisement says, we don't just cover up bad odors (as
more advertising by Toyata would do), we make the odors disappear (as
discrediting complainers would do.) For 10, 20, 50 thousand dollars
paid to Sikes, they can accomplish a lot more than a million dollars
of advertising would. One such phony complaint can make the real
complaints seem a lot more likely to also be bogus.


This reminds me of the Canuck letter, forged and planted by Nixon's
employees, to discredit Muskie, and lots of other things done by the
Plumbers for the benefit of Richard Nixon. Or the break-in at Daniel
Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. Most discussions of that fail to
mention the motive. The motive was to find something humiliating
about Danel Ellsberg, that he told his psychiatrist, in order to
discredit Ellsberg, and in so doing, discrredit the Pentagon Papers,
which embarrassed the Nixon administration. Even though nothing about
Elllsberg personally really makes the Pentangon Papers any less
embarrassing to Nixon and his administration. But they still thought
it would help and in fact it probably would have. All the things in
this paragraph really did happen.

How many more things like the things Nixon did have been done by
others, but not learned of because there was no investigation. The
Canuck letter wasn't disclosed iirc until years later, after the
Watergate burglary and the investigation that came from that. Had it
not been for Watergate, no one would have known about their role in
the Canuck letter or the other things that Nixon's Plumbers did.


Also, I can't recall details but I have a vague feeling there have
been other such attempts to discredit a manufacturer. Maybe all my
recollections are from movies, but if movie writers can think of such
things (or copy them from true stories) , a Toyota exec can also. It
also reminds me of inserting people who look like union picketers to
start violence on a union picket line, to discredit a union; or to
insert those who appear like violent radicals into left-wing groups,
to plan and execute violent acts, to discredit peaceful radicals.
IIRC, the FBI itself did that. Again, I can't remember if those
things actually happened, if I saw them in movies, and if so, I
probably never knew if the movies were based on real life.

On Mar 17, 4:16*am, mm wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:29:41 -0700 (PDT), terry





wrote:
On Mar 16, 7:17*pm, mm wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:40:32 -0500, Dean Hoffman

wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yeruhj7

* *The article is from Forbes. *The author is critical of the press
that swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker. * He says he found
several flaws that a newsman should've found.

As told in the article from Forbes, where it says he was afraid to
shift to neutral, afraid to turn off the car, if it's a hoax as it
sounds, how did the driver think he would get away with it? *

Maybe he didn't. I can easily imagine Toyota paying him 10, 20, 50G to
be a bogus complainer, to make all the other complainers seem more
likely to be bogus.

It seems somewhat paranoid every time some story that may have some
doubtful angles to suggest that thre is some as yet undiscovered plot?

Not to me. 50,000 is enough to buy an hour's time from a lot of
people, as well as any time he ends up spending with reporters later,
and any embarrassment he might feel by being called a hoaxster. *They
won't be able to charge or convict him of anything with what they have
now. *Even if they somehow find out about such a plot, and can prove
it, I think "filing a false police report" might be the most he is
guilty of. * Maybe he needs a new car now. *So they can throw in
40,000 more or whatever one of those costs.

At first this was for me just a mathematically derived possibility,
but on second thought it seems very possible. *After all, as some room
freshener's advertisement says, we don't just cover up bad odors (as
more advertising by Toyata would do), we make the odors disappear (as
discrediting complainers would do.) * For 10, 20, 50 thousand dollars
paid to Sikes, they can accomplish a lot more than a million dollars
of advertising would. *One such phony complaint can make the real
complaints seem a lot more likely to also be bogus. *

This reminds me of the Canuck letter, forged and planted by Nixon's
employees, to discredit Muskie, and lots of other things done by the
Plumbers for the benefit of Richard Nixon. * Or the break-in at Daniel
Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. *Most discussions of that fail to
mention the motive. *The motive was to find something humiliating
about Danel Ellsberg, that he told his psychiatrist, in order to
discredit Ellsberg, and in so doing, discrredit the Pentagon Papers,
which embarrassed the Nixon administration. *Even though nothing about
Elllsberg personally really makes the Pentangon Papers any less
embarrassing to Nixon and his administration. *But they still thought
it would help and in fact it probably would have. * All the things in
this paragraph really did happen.

How many more things like the things Nixon did have been done by
others, but not learned of because there was no investigation. * The
Canuck letter wasn't disclosed iirc until years later, after the
Watergate burglary and the investigation that came from that. * Had it
not been for Watergate, no one would have known about their role in
the Canuck letter or the other things that Nixon's Plumbers did.

Also, I can't recall details but I have a vague feeling there have
been other such attempts to discredit a manufacturer. *Maybe all my
recollections are from movies, but if movie writers can think of such
things (or copy them from true stories) , a Toyota exec can also. *It
also reminds me of inserting people who look like union picketers to
start violence on a union picket line, to discredit a union; or to
insert those who appear like violent radicals into left-wing groups,
to plan and execute violent acts, to discredit peaceful radicals.
IIRC, the FBI itself did that. * Again, I can't remember if those
things actually happened, if I saw them in movies, and if so, I
probably never knew if the movies were based on real life.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're being way excessively paranoid. The downside of such a scheme
backfiring is so totally overwhelming as compared to the marginal
benefit that no one with any sense would consoider it for more than a
moment.

Clearly this guy has issues that existed long before the toyota
problems. When you put 300 million people in the mix some nut jobs
that own toyotas are going to crawl out of the works.

Most real cases of runaway cars can be traced to throttle confusion
when the post mortem can't find anything mechanically wrong. The high
percentage of elderly in these mystery runaway cases supports that.

On Mar 17, 1:16*am, mm wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:29:41 -0700 (PDT), terry





wrote:
On Mar 16, 7:17*pm, mm wrote:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:40:32 -0500, Dean Hoffman

wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yeruhj7

* *The article is from Forbes. *The author is critical of the press
that swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker. * He says he found
several flaws that a newsman should've found.

As told in the article from Forbes, where it says he was afraid to
shift to neutral, afraid to turn off the car, if it's a hoax as it
sounds, how did the driver think he would get away with it? *

Maybe he didn't. I can easily imagine Toyota paying him 10, 20, 50G to
be a bogus complainer, to make all the other complainers seem more
likely to be bogus.

It seems somewhat paranoid every time some story that may have some
doubtful angles to suggest that thre is some as yet undiscovered plot?

Not to me. 50,000 is enough to buy an hour's time from a lot of
people, as well as any time he ends up spending with reporters later,
and any embarrassment he might feel by being called a hoaxster. *They
won't be able to charge or convict him of anything with what they have
now. *Even if they somehow find out about such a plot, and can prove
it, I think "filing a false police report" might be the most he is
guilty of. * Maybe he needs a new car now. *So they can throw in
40,000 more or whatever one of those costs.

snip

" Even if they somehow find out about such a plot, and can prove
it, I think "filing a false police report" might be the most he is
guilty of. "

Try again. If they prove that, then the charge will be fraud and he
would have a felony conviction on his record. Not worth 50,000 to me.

Harry K

"Harry K" wrote
Try again. If they prove that, then the charge will be fraud and he
would have a felony conviction on his record. Not worth 50,000 to me.

Harry K

How much then??? I'm holding out for $250k if no jail time. $1 million if
jail time.

On Mar 18, 7:59*am, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:53:37 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"

wrote:

"Harry K" wrote
Try again. If they prove that, then the charge will be fraud and he
would have a felony conviction on his record. *Not worth 50,000 to me.

Harry K

How much then??? *I'm holding out for $250k if no jail time. *$1 million if
jail time.

So far, Sike's and the CHP officer's account have not been disproved -
just attacked by those with an incredibly strong motive to want to
cover this up.


Aye Karumba. Anybody who's followed these various discussions here
over the last few weeks, knows I've been open to the possibility that
in some of these incidents, something could be going on that prevents
people from simply stopping the car if it starts to accelerate. But
to say this guy is being unfairly attacked is just not true. This
case is the most highly suspicious one and stinks to high heaven.

Far from being attacked, Forbes is right that most of the media just
swallowed it hook line and sinker. They didn't use words like
alleged, when describing the incident. Fox News, to their credit is
the one news organization that did dig into his background and find
out that he filed for bankruptcy for $700K last year, is months behind
on his Prius payments, has had a couple reports of stolen property and
insurance claims for substantial amounts in the last few years,
etc. He also had taken the Prius to the dealer for a recall and
they told him, apparently incorrectly, that there was none for his
car, providing him with the perfect settup to try to make a case.

You have, according to Forbes, the 911 operator telling him many times
during the call to put it in neutral or turn off the engine. He
refused to do so. And also according to Forbes, it's impossible to
be able to reach the accelerator peddle while driving and pull it up
as he claimed he tried to do. Why don't the local cops start acting
like cops and ask him to get back in the car and show us how he did
it? NTSB and Toyota have analyzed the cars brakes and found no
burning consistent with applying the brakes extensively for a long
time. Then the guy hires a lawyer.

This guy is just like the Balloon Boy parents. Perhaps the stupist
one here is the chief of police and or patrol officer that says they
believe Sikes. That is what the sheriff said in the Balloon Boy case
too, until he finally woke up.

As for claims that this could be a Toyota grand conspiracy to
discredit others, that's beyond ludicrous too. Yeah, there's a
chance of that. About .0001%, compared to the 99% probability that
Sikes is a fraud.

On Mar 18, 6:45*am, wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:59*am, wrote:





On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:53:37 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"

wrote:

"Harry K" wrote
Try again. If they prove that, then the charge will be fraud and he
would have a felony conviction on his record. *Not worth 50,000 to me.

Harry K

How much then??? *I'm holding out for $250k if no jail time. *$1 million if
jail time.

So far, Sike's and the CHP officer's account have not been disproved -
just attacked by those with an incredibly strong motive to want to
cover this up.

Aye Karumba. * Anybody who's followed these various discussions here
over the last few weeks, knows I've been open to the possibility that
in some of these incidents, something could be going on that prevents
people from simply stopping the car if it starts to accelerate. * *But
to say this guy is being unfairly attacked is just not true. * This
case is the most highly suspicious one and stinks to high heaven.

Far from being attacked, Forbes is right that most of the media just
swallowed it hook line and sinker. * They didn't use words like
alleged, when describing the incident. *Fox News, to their credit is
the one news organization that did dig into his background and find
out that he filed for bankruptcy for $700K last year, is months behind
on his Prius payments, has had a couple reports of stolen property and
insurance claims for substantial amounts in the last few years,
etc. * *He also had taken the Prius to the dealer for a recall and
they told him, apparently incorrectly, that there was none for his
car, providing him with the perfect settup to try to make a case.

You have, according to Forbes, the 911 operator telling him many times
during the call to put it in neutral or turn off the engine. * He
refused to do so. * *And also according to Forbes, it's impossible to
be able to reach the accelerator peddle while driving and pull it up
as he claimed he tried to do. Why don't the local cops start acting
like cops and ask him to get back in the car and show us how he did
it? * *NTSB and Toyota have analyzed the cars brakes and found no
burning consistent with applying the brakes extensively for a long
time. * Then the guy hires a lawyer.

This guy is just like the Balloon Boy parents. *Perhaps the stupist
one here is the chief of police and or patrol officer that says they
believe Sikes. * That is what the sheriff said in the Balloon Boy case
too, until he finally woke up.

As for claims that this could be a Toyota grand conspiracy to
discredit others, that's beyond ludicrous too. * Yeah, there's a
chance of that. * About .0001%, compared to the 99% probability that
Sikes is a fraud.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Really OT but on subject of press 'buying into stories'. Balloon Boy
is a fine example. They bought the story of the kid being in there
and that went on for hours and hours. Not once, not nobody, even
mentioned that had the kid been in there he was dead. You cannot
breath a helium atmosphere and live.

That story stunk from the git go as the balloon was obviously too
small to lift the kid. I watched the whole thing and waited and
waited for _someone_ to point out the scientific impossibilities.

Harry K

On Mar 18, 10:06*am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:45:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:59 am, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:53:37 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"

wrote:

"Harry K" wrote
Try again. If they prove that, then the charge will be fraud and he
would have a felony conviction on his record. Not worth 50,000 to me.

Harry K

How much then??? I'm holding out for $250k if no jail time. $1 million if
jail time.

So far, Sike's and the CHP officer's account have not been disproved -
just attacked by those with an incredibly strong motive to want to
cover this up.

Aye Karumba. * Anybody who's followed these various discussions here
over the last few weeks, knows I've been open to the possibility that
in some of these incidents, something could be going on that prevents
people from simply stopping the car if it starts to accelerate. * *But
to say this guy is being unfairly attacked is just not true. * This
case is the most highly suspicious one and stinks to high heaven.

The CHP is a fairly respected organization, who has absolutely no
motive to lie about what happened. In fact, it is their job to make
sure the facts are reported. Their account, which they are standing
by, includes input from eyewitnesses.

So far, nobody has anything factual to refute the official CHP report.
Nothing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No one is suggesting they lied about what happened. However, any
reasonable interpretation of what they reported, including the 911
call itself, would lead to the conclusiong that it's 99% certain this
guy is a liar. How about what Forbes pointed out? The guy claimed
on the 911 call at one point he wouldn't shift to neutral because he
didn't want to take his hands off the steering wheel. Yet, he also
claimed he reached down, grabbed hold of the gas pedal, and couldn't
bring it back up while driving along. Forbes tried it with an
average size person and found that they could barely touch and
UNPRESSED pedal with their finger tips and could not get at a
depressed pedal at all. Then Sikes changed his story to he was
afraid to put it into neutral because he thought the car might
"flip". He was also afraid to just turn the car off for 20+ miles.
Yet finally the car miraculously slows down to 50 and stops when the
officer is driving next to him and tells him to put on the brakes and
turn it off. The analysis of the brake pads showed no indication that
they had been used for hard braking. The onboard computer showed the
accelerator and brakes had been applied hundreds of times.

You believe this crap?

As for the police, while not lying, if they were doing their job, they
would have asked him to show them how he could have reached the gas
pedal while driving. And detained him for some serious questioning.
And asked him to take a lie detector test. They did none of that yet
if this is just an honest guy, not out for something, why did he
lawyer up?

I don't know what level of "proof" you need. You'll never have that
in a situation like this unless the guy confesses. But clearly this
one stinks to high heaven.

On Mar 18, 12:27*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:54:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Mar 18, 10:06*am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:45:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:59 am, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:53:37 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"

wrote:

"Harry K" wrote
Try again. If they prove that, then the charge will be fraud and he
would have a felony conviction on his record. Not worth 50,000 to me.

Harry K

How much then??? I'm holding out for $250k if no jail time. $1 million if
jail time.

So far, Sike's and the CHP officer's account have not been disproved -
just attacked by those with an incredibly strong motive to want to
cover this up.

Aye Karumba. * Anybody who's followed these various discussions here
over the last few weeks, knows I've been open to the possibility that
in some of these incidents, something could be going on that prevents
people from simply stopping the car if it starts to accelerate. * *But
to say this guy is being unfairly attacked is just not true. * This
case is the most highly suspicious one and stinks to high heaven.

The CHP is a fairly respected organization, who has absolutely no
motive to lie about what happened. In fact, it is their job to make
sure the facts are reported. Their account, which they are standing
by, includes input from eyewitnesses.

So far, nobody has anything factual to refute the official CHP report.
Nothing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No one is suggesting they lied about what happened. * * However, any
reasonable interpretation of what they reported, including the 911
call itself, *would lead to the conclusiong that it's 99% certain this
guy is a liar. * *

That borders on insane.

How about what Forbes pointed out? * The guy claimed
on the 911 call at one point he wouldn't shift to neutral because he
didn't want to take his hands off the steering wheel. * Yet, he also
claimed he reached down, grabbed hold of the gas pedal, and couldn't
bring it back up while driving along. * *

So? He was panicked. Hardly surprising in his situation.


Uh huh. So panicked that he couldn't just turn the car off or shift
to neutral as he was repeatedly instructed to do by the 911
operator. But not panicked so that he could stand on his head and
try to pull up the accelerator. I'd say that is very surprising,
unless you're a liar.




Forbes tried it with an
average size person and found that they could barely touch and
UNPRESSED pedal with their finger tips and could not get at a
depressed pedal at all. *

Now THERE'S incontrovertable proof!

Then Sikes changed his story to he was
afraid to put it into neutral because he thought the car might
"flip". *He was also afraid to just turn the car off for 20+ miles.
Yet finally the car miraculously slows down to 50 *and stops when the
officer is driving next to him and tells him to put on the brakes and
turn it off. *The analysis of the brake pads showed no indication that
they had been used for hard braking. * The onboard computer showed the
accelerator and brakes had been applied hundreds of times.

You believe this crap?

The brake pads were down to metal, and there was tons of evidence of
recent hard braking.


Not according to the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6912748.html
"The brake wear was not consistent with the brakes being applied at
full force for a long period, the Wall Street Journal reported
Saturday, citing three people familiar with the probe, whom it did not
name. The newspaper said the brakes may have been applied
intermittently."


Sure you can burn up a set of brake pads driving 94mph with partial
braking and your foot on the accelerator at the same time.


As for the police, while not lying, if they were doing their job, they
would have asked him to show them how he could have reached the gas
pedal while driving. *

And you know for a fact that they didn't?


According to all the news reports they just took the skunk at his
word. I do know that in my own cars, reaching down to pull up an
accelerator would be extremely difficult if not impossible while
driving down the freeway at 94mph.




And detained him for some serious questioning.
And asked him to take a lie detector test. * They did none of that yet
if this is just an honest guy, not out for something, why did he
lawyer up?

Wowsers! You really think they could just arrest someone and make them
take a lie detector test without so much as probable cause to believe
a crime was committed, or a warrant?


Apparently you don't understand the difference between police
questioning someone and asking if the will submit to a lie detector
test and arrest. They are distinctly different events. People are
questioned and asked if they will take a lie detector test all the
time without being under arrest.


I don't think Police have
casually used lie detectors for a long time. I'm not sure they even
can.

Then you must not watch the news. I see lie detectors used
frequently during investigations. They aren't admissable in court,
but that is a different issue.



There is ZERO evidence that he broke any laws. He didn't even get
a speeding ticket for going 90 MPH.- Hide quoted text -



I'd say there is a good deal of evidence that he committed a number of
crimes. The probablilities of the brakes not working, refusing to put
the car in neutral, refusing to turn the car off, then doing exactly
that after 20 miles when the cruiser arrives is 1 in a billion.. I
suppose if you were on the OJ jury, you'd have let him off the hook
too.

In article ,
wrote:

Wowsers! You really think they could just arrest someone and make them
take a lie detector test without so much as probable cause to believe
a crime was committed, or a warrant? I don't think Police have
casually used lie detectors for a long time. I'm not sure they even
can. There is ZERO evidence that he broke any laws. He didn't even get
a speeding ticket for going 90 MPH.

They cannot compel someone to take a lie detector test even with a
warrant. Its been awhile, but IIRC that was hinged on that can't make
you testify against yourself stuff.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:59:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:53:37 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Harry K" wrote
Try again. If they prove that, then the charge will be fraud and he
would have a felony conviction on his record. Not worth 50,000 to me.

Harry K

How much then??? I'm holding out for $250k if no jail time. $1 million if
jail time.

So far, Sike's and the CHP officer's account have not been disproved -
just attacked by those with an incredibly strong motive to want to
cover this up.

http://hosted2.ap.org/CTMID/APUSnews/Article_2010-03-18-US-Runaway-Prius/id-p19140421bf1742938cfb3ed8d72b4cdc


California Highway Patrol's official position:

"Pennings reaffirmed CHP's position that no evidence has emerged to
doubt Sikes' version of events."


Did this "chippy" graduate from the same police college as the one who
killed himself and his family instead of using his brakes properly and
shutting off the Lexus???

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:12:05 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Wowsers! You really think they could just arrest someone and make them
take a lie detector test without so much as probable cause to believe
a crime was committed, or a warrant? I don't think Police have
casually used lie detectors for a long time. I'm not sure they even
can. There is ZERO evidence that he broke any laws. He didn't even get
a speeding ticket for going 90 MPH.

They cannot compel someone to take a lie detector test even with a
warrant. Its been awhile, but IIRC that was hinged on that can't make
you testify against yourself stuff.
A lie detector test cannot prove you guilty, but it can sure help
prove you innocent.

Refusing to take one just ups the ante.

On Mar 18, 10:12*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
Wowsers! You really think they could just arrest someone and make them
take a lie detector test without so much as probable cause to believe
a crime was committed, or a warrant? I don't think Police have
casually used lie detectors for a long time. I'm not sure they even
can. There is ZERO evidence that he broke any laws. He didn't even get
a speeding ticket for going 90 MPH.

* They cannot compel someone to take a lie detector test even with a
warrant. Its been awhile, but IIRC that was hinged on that can't make
you testify against yourself stuff.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
* * * --Eric Clapton

Well, that and the fact it is unrealiable. Regardless, people are
asked to submit to one fairly often and most of them agree to it. Has
nothing to do with being under arrest.

Harry K

On Mar 18, 7:41*am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:36:05 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:

Really OT but on subject of press 'buying into stories'. *Balloon Boy
is a fine example. *They bought the story of the kid being in there
and that went on for hours and hours. *Not once, not nobody, even
mentioned that had the kid been in there he was dead. *You cannot
breath a helium atmosphere and live.

I don't recall that anyone ever reported that he was inside the helium
filled envelope. There was a small "box" on the underside.

Only one of the kids at the beginning, daddy and mommy a couple
times. The original 911 call was 'kid in the baloon'

No, there was no 'box' attached. There was one unconfirmed report
that someone had "seen" one but Daddy never confirmed nor denied that
there was one. There was also the report that someone had seen the
kid fall out of the thing. Also uncofirmed and proven false.

At the end, when they found the baloon, therewas no "box" attached.

Harry K

In article ,
wrote:

A lie detector test cannot prove you guilty, but it can sure help
prove you innocent.
All a lie detector tells is how nervous you are. Most of the time,
under the circumstances, that is same thing. But there are a high number
of false positives.


Refusing to take one just ups the ante.

Has absolutely no impact on the trial since, at least in the US, you
can't introduce refusal to take a lie detector at trial. Makes the cops
marginally more interested, but most of the more seasoned detectives
know that refusal means nothing in real life. They still like to raise
their eyebrows and pretend otherwise, but that is mostly to elicit other
guilt responses in the person.
BTW: At least when I was more active in the area in the 80s, most of
the polygraph operators said they would only take voice stress analysis
tests if it was them or their families. They thought it measured
truthfulness better.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:16:05 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:40:07 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:59:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:53:37 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Harry K" wrote
Try again. If they prove that, then the charge will be fraud and he
would have a felony conviction on his record. Not worth 50,000 to me.

Harry K

How much then??? I'm holding out for $250k if no jail time. $1 million if
jail time.

So far, Sike's and the CHP officer's account have not been disproved -
just attacked by those with an incredibly strong motive to want to
cover this up.

http://hosted2.ap.org/CTMID/APUSnews/Article_2010-03-18-US-Runaway-Prius/id-p19140421bf1742938cfb3ed8d72b4cdc


California Highway Patrol's official position:

"Pennings reaffirmed CHP's position that no evidence has emerged to
doubt Sikes' version of events."


Did this "chippy" graduate from the same police college as the one who
killed himself and his family instead of using his brakes properly and
shutting off the Lexus???

This "chippy" is a large professional law enforcement department with
a whole division just for investigating accidents.

I'm quite sure their expertise exceeds yours by a very wide margin.
In some ways, most definitely - in others, doubtful.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:23:06 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:54:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:12:05 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Wowsers! You really think they could just arrest someone and make them
take a lie detector test without so much as probable cause to believe
a crime was committed, or a warrant? I don't think Police have
casually used lie detectors for a long time. I'm not sure they even
can. There is ZERO evidence that he broke any laws. He didn't even get
a speeding ticket for going 90 MPH.

They cannot compel someone to take a lie detector test even with a
warrant. Its been awhile, but IIRC that was hinged on that can't make
you testify against yourself stuff.
A lie detector test cannot prove you guilty, but it can sure help
prove you innocent.

Refusing to take one just ups the ante.

Wrong on all counts.
That's what my cop nephew says.

On Mar 18, 5:25*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:20:08 -0700 (PDT), Harry K





wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:41*am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:36:05 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:

Really OT but on subject of press 'buying into stories'. *Balloon Boy
is a fine example. *They bought the story of the kid being in there
and that went on for hours and hours. *Not once, not nobody, even
mentioned that had the kid been in there he was dead. *You cannot
breath a helium atmosphere and live.

I don't recall that anyone ever reported that he was inside the helium
filled envelope. There was a small "box" on the underside.

Only one of the kids at the beginning, daddy and mommy a couple
times. *The original 911 call was 'kid in the baloon'

No, there was no 'box' attached. *There was one unconfirmed report
that someone had "seen" one but Daddy never confirmed nor denied that
there was one. *There was also the report that someone had seen the
kid fall out of the thing. *Also uncofirmed and proven false.

At the end, when they found the baloon, therewas no "box" attached.

Harry K

The balloon, complete with box was shown repeatedly on television. It
was never alleged by anybody that the kid was in the envelope. He had
supposedly been yelled at previously for playing inside the box under
the balloon.

Oh, look!

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/10/16/...boy-presser-42...

...and here's a picture of the balloon as it landed, with the box
still attached to the bottom:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2...e5387411x.jpg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Better look again. That is not a "box", it is part of the balloon.
News reports all day were full of "in" the baloon and you must have
missed the shots of the cops frantically slashing at it looking for
the kid.

The "box" report was of someone sayting the saw a 'box' or 'car'
_suspended_ from the baloon.

Harry K

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:45:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Mar 18, 7:59*am, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:53:37 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"

wrote:

"Harry K" wrote
Try again. If they prove that, then the charge will be fraud and he
would have a felony conviction on his record. *Not worth 50,000 to me.

Harry K

How much then??? *I'm holding out for $250k if no jail time. *$1 million if
jail time.

So far, Sike's and the CHP officer's account have not been disproved -
just attacked by those with an incredibly strong motive to want to
cover this up.


Aye Karumba. Anybody who's followed these various discussions here
over the last few weeks, knows I've been open to the possibility that
in some of these incidents, something could be going on that prevents
people from simply stopping the car if it starts to accelerate. But
to say this guy is being unfairly attacked is just not true. This
case is the most highly suspicious one and stinks to high heaven.

Far from being attacked, Forbes is right that most of the media just
swallowed it hook line and sinker. They didn't use words like
alleged, when describing the incident. Fox News, to their credit is
the one news organization that did dig into his background and find
out that he filed for bankruptcy for $700K last year, is months behind
on his Prius payments, has had a couple reports of stolen property and
insurance claims for substantial amounts in the last few years,

This is just the kind of guy who would make a false report for money,
who would risk embarrassment and even criminal charges if any apply
for money. QED Quod Eratica Demolitiones.

etc. He also had taken the Prius to the dealer for a recall and
they told him, apparently incorrectly, that there was none for his
car, providing him with the perfect settup to try to make a case.

You have, according to Forbes, the 911 operator telling him many times
during the call to put it in neutral or turn off the engine. He
refused to do so. And also according to Forbes, it's impossible to
be able to reach the accelerator peddle while driving and pull it up
as he claimed he tried to do.

I have doubts about that. I need to try it on my car, which of course
is not a Prius. But couldn't he at least reach the rear end of the
mat and pull the whole mat back. Although I guess he didn't say that.

Why don't the local cops start acting
like cops and ask him to get back in the car and show us how he did
it?

When there is no victim, I think acting like cops means taking a
report.

NTSB and Toyota have analyzed the cars brakes and found no
burning consistent with applying the brakes extensively for a long
time. Then the guy hires a lawyer.

This guy is just like the Balloon Boy parents. Perhaps the stupist
one here is the chief of police and or patrol officer that says they
believe Sikes. That is what the sheriff said in the Balloon Boy case
too, until he finally woke up.

Balloon boy could have happened, couldn't it. The sheriff didn't see
the balloon until after it landed.

As for claims that this could be a Toyota grand conspiracy to
discredit others, that's beyond ludicrous too.

Exactly. Beyond ludicrous all the way around to reasonable.

Yeah, there's a
chance of that.

Good enough.

About .0001%, compared to the 99% probability that
Sikes is a fraud.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:54:38 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You believe this crap?

I think it was a big plot to convince people that a Prius could go 91
mph. I still have trouble believing that.

Was he on batteries at the time, or the engine?

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:27:47 -0400,
wrote:


And detained him for some serious questioning.
And asked him to take a lie detector test. They did none of that yet
if this is just an honest guy, not out for something, why did he
lawyer up?

Wowsers! You really think they could just arrest someone and make them
take a lie detector test without so much as probable cause to believe
a crime was committed, or a warrant? I don't think Police have
casually used lie detectors for a long time. I'm not sure they even
can.

Right.

There is ZERO evidence that he broke any laws. He didn't even get
a speeding ticket for going 90 MPH.

BTW, lie detectors are (often?) crap. They talk about liars fooling
the examiner, but the problem they don't talk about is non-liars being
labeled as liars.

After my first year in college, at my summer job, I used to get groggy
at my desk during coffee breaks (I don't drink coffee). I was at the
doctor for something else and mentioned this and he sent me to some
big specialist in Chicago, who saw me for free as a courtesy to his
friend. The doctor, head of neurology at Univeristy of Illinois
Medical Center, gave me a sleeping EEG and said I didn't have
epilepsy and never did. (The GP had thought I did since I was 13)

I told them how I felt faint (and did faint once or twice) when I
stood up suddenly. They called a lab in the building to check that
out but they couldn't set up until Monday. My mother wanted to leave
the next day so we ended up going to the leading lie detector place in
Chicago. Only for the blood pressure part, but he asked me if I would
like the whole test (same price) and being an 18-year old boy, I was
curious. My mother told me later that before the test even started,
he came into the waiting room and told her, "Don't worry Mrs. MM2005,
we had a case like this last week and it was all in her mind."

When I got the report back it was full of omissions and factual
mistakes, that distorted everything I had said. Especially the parts
he paraphrased. He concluded I was making up my symptoms and I can
assure you I wasn't. In fact all I had was "orthostatic hypotension"
a drop in blood pressure when standing up, something more than a third
of people have, but mine was enough to make me pass out a few times,
and a few times since then, when I stretched my muscles, and now when
I cough a lot. But it's never come close to happening when I'm
driving.

This lie detector place in Chicago was even known the Acting Medical
Examiner of NYC when I talked to him, and the guy who "examined" me
was supposed to be one of their best (although maybe not since he was
the one they had come in on Saturday, but he was still good enough to
work there.) I think the guy wished he had a better education and a
better job and was pretending to himself to be a wise and knowledgable
doctor, instead of a polygraph examiner.

I left out some details, like what the omissions and mistakes were,
but this is a major reason that lie detector testimony is not
admissable in court.

I have no reason to lie about this. There were no consequences to me.
The specialist relayed the lie detector report with very little
comment, only to say that it said I was malingering, and my own GP may
have also been annoyed at me, especially since he was disproven about
the epilepsy (which I was glad of. He hadn't told me I had epilepsy.
If he had, I would have known he was wrong, because epileptic seizures
occur seemingly at random times, not when you stand up), but there
were no consequences to that either. I was away at school 9 months a
year and by the next year my parents had moved to another city, so I
never saw him again anyhow.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:24:06 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Mar 18, 5:25*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:20:08 -0700 (PDT), Harry K





wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:41*am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:36:05 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:

Really OT but on subject of press 'buying into stories'. *Balloon Boy
is a fine example. *They bought the story of the kid being in there
and that went on for hours and hours. *Not once, not nobody, even
mentioned that had the kid been in there he was dead. *You cannot
breath a helium atmosphere and live.

I don't recall that anyone ever reported that he was inside the helium
filled envelope. There was a small "box" on the underside.

Only one of the kids at the beginning, daddy and mommy a couple
times. *The original 911 call was 'kid in the baloon'

No, there was no 'box' attached. *There was one unconfirmed report
that someone had "seen" one but Daddy never confirmed nor denied that
there was one. *There was also the report that someone had seen the
kid fall out of the thing. *Also uncofirmed and proven false.

At the end, when they found the baloon, therewas no "box" attached.

Harry K

The balloon, complete with box was shown repeatedly on television. It
was never alleged by anybody that the kid was in the envelope. He had
supposedly been yelled at previously for playing inside the box under
the balloon.

Oh, look!

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/10/16/...boy-presser-42...

...and here's a picture of the balloon as it landed, with the box
still attached to the bottom:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2...e5387411x.jpg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Better look again. That is not a "box", it is part of the balloon.

It's covered in mylar like the balloon is, or is made of, but it's
definitely a box.

News reports all day were full of "in" the baloon and you must have
missed the shots of the cops frantically slashing at it looking for
the kid.

If they slashed the balloon itself it's because he wasn't in the box
when they thought he was so they were looking everywhere. In a hot
air balloon, one can crawl into the balloon part, especially when the
flame is off or after it lands.

The "box" report was of someone sayting the saw a 'box' or 'car'
_suspended_ from the baloon.

There are always two usages of "in the balloon". One considers the
entire contraption the balloon and "in the balloon" means in the
basket under the balloon. That's what the meaning is here.

The other refers to the part that holds the hot air, in a hot air
balloon. And in a helium balloon, it refers to the rubber or mylar
balloon, and no one goes into that. It's entrance is probably less
than an inch wide. Even for a 6'foot diameter balloon or bigger the
opening is only an inch or less. But the cops were desperate and
maybe there were multiple rubber balloons and they thought it
possibley he could have slid in between two of them. Are they
supposed to look only in the basket and then say, "I guess he's not
here."



Harry K

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:27:50 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:23:06 -0400,
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:54:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:12:05 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Wowsers! You really think they could just arrest someone and make them
take a lie detector test without so much as probable cause to believe
a crime was committed, or a warrant? I don't think Police have
casually used lie detectors for a long time. I'm not sure they even
can. There is ZERO evidence that he broke any laws. He didn't even get
a speeding ticket for going 90 MPH.

They cannot compel someone to take a lie detector test even with a
warrant. Its been awhile, but IIRC that was hinged on that can't make
you testify against yourself stuff.
A lie detector test cannot prove you guilty, but it can sure help
prove you innocent.

This assumes there are no false positives from lie detector personnel
There are. It can further convince them that you are guilty.

I don't know how many false positives there are, reporting that
someone actually telling the truth is lying, and no one talks about
them but I've been there. And there wasn't even any crime or civil
complaint involved. Please see one of my other posts in this thread.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:56:14 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

A lie detector test cannot prove you guilty, but it can sure help
prove you innocent.
All a lie detector tells is how nervous you are. Most of the time,
under the circumstances, that is same thing. But there are a high number
of false positives.

I guess some people do talk about them.

Some African tribe had a practice, to determine who was teling the
truth, of heating something, maybe it was a ceremonial piece of metal
to which magical properties were attributed, and having the accused or
maybe even witnesses to a crime (I forget) open their mouths and allow
the heated thing to be applied to their tongue for an instant. I do
believe it was thought to be a magical test of telling the truth, but
cynics about magic would say that anyone who was lying was afraid that
his tongue would be burnt and his mouth would dry, making that very
thing happen.

Those who were not lying were confident no harm would come and their
tongues were normally wet, and indeed a moment of being touched didn't
hurt them.

Further making it seem like magic. I'm sure a lot of them knew it
wasn't, but it was the system.


Refusing to take one just ups the ante.

Has absolutely no impact on the trial since, at least in the US, you
can't introduce refusal to take a lie detector at trial. Makes the cops
marginally more interested, but most of the more seasoned detectives
know that refusal means nothing in real life. They still like to raise
their eyebrows and pretend otherwise, but that is mostly to elicit other
guilt responses in the person.
BTW: At least when I was more active in the area in the 80s, most of
the polygraph operators said they would only take voice stress analysis
tests if it was them or their families. They thought it measured
truthfulness better.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:25:29 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:24:06 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Mar 18, 5:25*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:20:08 -0700 (PDT), Harry K





wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:41*am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:36:05 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:

Really OT but on subject of press 'buying into stories'. *Balloon Boy
is a fine example. *They bought the story of the kid being in there
and that went on for hours and hours. *Not once, not nobody, even
mentioned that had the kid been in there he was dead. *You cannot
breath a helium atmosphere and live.

I don't recall that anyone ever reported that he was inside the helium
filled envelope. There was a small "box" on the underside.

Only one of the kids at the beginning, daddy and mommy a couple
times. *The original 911 call was 'kid in the baloon'

No, there was no 'box' attached. *There was one unconfirmed report
that someone had "seen" one but Daddy never confirmed nor denied that
there was one. *There was also the report that someone had seen the
kid fall out of the thing. *Also uncofirmed and proven false.

At the end, when they found the baloon, therewas no "box" attached.

Harry K

The balloon, complete with box was shown repeatedly on television. It
was never alleged by anybody that the kid was in the envelope. He had
supposedly been yelled at previously for playing inside the box under
the balloon.

Oh, look!

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/10/16/...boy-presser-42...

...and here's a picture of the balloon as it landed, with the box
still attached to the bottom:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2...e5387411x.jpg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Better look again. That is not a "box", it is part of the balloon.
News reports all day were full of "in" the baloon and you must have
missed the shots of the cops frantically slashing at it looking for
the kid.

The "box" report was of someone sayting the saw a 'box' or 'car'
_suspended_ from the baloon.

Harry K

It is a box, and if you look around I'm pretty sure you can find
photos or video showing it in detail with the door open and closed. It
was intended for cameras and weather instruments, not human
passengers. It was big enough for a small kid to get inside.

Right. That's why the thing looked like a mushroom. The stem was the
box. There's not a lot of point to building a balloon that won't
carry a payload. If that's all you want, you can buy one fully made
at the supermarket.

The cops slashed the balloon because the wind was catching it and they
wanted to make sure it stayed right where it was.

Oh, yeah. That was why. The balloon wasn't empty, it still had
helium, almost enough to fly since until a littel while earlier it was
flying, so letting out the helium kept the wind from taking it away.

On Mar 19, 1:21*am, mm wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:24:06 -0700 (PDT), Harry K





wrote:
On Mar 18, 5:25*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:20:08 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:41*am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:36:05 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:

Really OT but on subject of press 'buying into stories'. *Balloon Boy
is a fine example. *They bought the story of the kid being in there
and that went on for hours and hours. *Not once, not nobody, even
mentioned that had the kid been in there he was dead. *You cannot
breath a helium atmosphere and live.

I don't recall that anyone ever reported that he was inside the helium
filled envelope. There was a small "box" on the underside.

Only one of the kids at the beginning, daddy and mommy a couple
times. *The original 911 call was 'kid in the baloon'

No, there was no 'box' attached. *There was one unconfirmed report
that someone had "seen" one but Daddy never confirmed nor denied that
there was one. *There was also the report that someone had seen the
kid fall out of the thing. *Also uncofirmed and proven false.

At the end, when they found the baloon, therewas no "box" attached.

Harry K

The balloon, complete with box was shown repeatedly on television. It
was never alleged by anybody that the kid was in the envelope. He had
supposedly been yelled at previously for playing inside the box under
the balloon.

Oh, look!

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/10/16/...boy-presser-42....

...and here's a picture of the balloon as it landed, with the box
still attached to the bottom:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2...7411x.jpg-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Better look again. *That is not a "box", it is part of the balloon.

It's covered in mylar like the balloon is, or is made of, but it's
definitely a box.

News reports all day were full of "in" the baloon and you must have
missed the shots of the cops frantically slashing at it looking for
the kid.

If they slashed the balloon itself it's because he wasn't in the box
when they thought he was so they were looking everywhere. *In a hot
air balloon, one can crawl into the balloon part, especially when the
flame is off or after it lands. *



The "box" report was of someone sayting the saw a 'box' or 'car'
_suspended_ from the baloon.

There are always two usages of "in the balloon". *One considers the
entire contraption the balloon and "in the balloon" *means in the
basket under the balloon. * That's what the meaning is here.

The other refers to the part that holds the hot air, in a hot air
balloon. *And in a helium balloon, it refers to the rubber or mylar
balloon, and no one goes into that. *It's entrance is probably less
than an inch wide. Even for a 6'foot diameter balloon or bigger the
opening is only an inch or less. *But the cops were desperate and
maybe there were multiple rubber balloons and they thought it
possibley he could have slid in between two of them. * Are they
supposed to look only in the basket and then say, "I guess he's not
here."



Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You can deny it being part of the baloon all you want. It won't
change the facts. That is standard baloon construction method.
Compare it with almost any picture of a baloon. You can also do some
searching on the 'net for a summary of the action that day and yu will
find that there is no 'box'

Harry K

On Mar 19, 3:43*am, mm wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:25:29 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:24:06 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Mar 18, 5:25*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:20:08 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:
On Mar 18, 7:41*am, wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:36:05 -0700 (PDT), Harry K

wrote:

Really OT but on subject of press 'buying into stories'. *Balloon Boy
is a fine example. *They bought the story of the kid being in there
and that went on for hours and hours. *Not once, not nobody, even
mentioned that had the kid been in there he was dead. *You cannot
breath a helium atmosphere and live.

I don't recall that anyone ever reported that he was inside the helium
filled envelope. There was a small "box" on the underside.

Only one of the kids at the beginning, daddy and mommy a couple
times. *The original 911 call was 'kid in the baloon'

No, there was no 'box' attached. *There was one unconfirmed report
that someone had "seen" one but Daddy never confirmed nor denied that
there was one. *There was also the report that someone had seen the
kid fall out of the thing. *Also uncofirmed and proven false.

At the end, when they found the baloon, therewas no "box" attached.

Harry K

The balloon, complete with box was shown repeatedly on television. It
was never alleged by anybody that the kid was in the envelope. He had
supposedly been yelled at previously for playing inside the box under
the balloon.

Oh, look!

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/10/16/...boy-presser-42....

...and here's a picture of the balloon as it landed, with the box
still attached to the bottom:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2...7411x.jpg-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Better look again. *That is not a "box", it is part of the balloon.
News reports all day were full of "in" the baloon and you must have
missed the shots of the cops frantically slashing at it looking for
the kid.

The "box" report was of someone sayting the saw a 'box' or 'car'
_suspended_ from the baloon.

Harry K

It is a box, and if you look around I'm pretty sure you can find
photos or video showing it in detail with the door open and closed. It
was intended for cameras and weather instruments, not human
passengers. It was big enough for a small kid to get inside.

Right. That's why the thing looked like a mushroom. *The stem was the
box. * There's not a lot of point to building a balloon that won't
carry a payload. *If that's all you want, you can buy one fully made
at the supermarket.



The cops slashed the balloon because the wind was catching it and they
wanted to make sure it stayed right where it was.

Oh, yeah. *That was why. * The balloon wasn't empty, it still had
helium, almost enough to fly since until a littel while earlier it was
flying, so letting out the helium kept the wind from taking it away.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try again. STandard instrumentation on such baloons is suspended
_below_ it, not _in_ it.

I listened to the entire thing and the 'box discussion was proven
invalid. IIANM it was even mentioned in summaries at the end of the
'action"

It is amazing how people can get two different 'facts' from the same
show, one wrong, one right and I am on the right side.

Even the construction of your 'box' shows it wasn't. Clearly covered
with the same stuff as the baloon and thus too flimsy to hold
_anything_ heavier than a few pounds and that would ahve to be spread
out.

Harry K

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

Even the construction of your 'box' shows it wasn't. Clearly covered
with the same stuff as the baloon and thus too flimsy to hold
_anything_ heavier than a few pounds and that would ahve to be spread
out.

Harry K

Oh, damn! Looks like you are COMPLETELY WRONG!

http://fwnextweb1.fortwayne.com/ns/e...10/balloon.jpg

He can't spell "baloon", so why would he know anything about how they're
made?

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:42:11 -0400, "h"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

Even the construction of your 'box' shows it wasn't. Clearly covered
with the same stuff as the baloon and thus too flimsy to hold
_anything_ heavier than a few pounds and that would ahve to be spread
out.

Harry K

Oh, damn! Looks like you are COMPLETELY WRONG!

http://fwnextweb1.fortwayne.com/ns/e...10/balloon.jpg

He can't spell "baloon", so why would he know anything about how they're
made?


I don't generally worry about typo's on usenet.


Shrug. If you make the same typo 50 times, it's not a "typo". And the plural
of "typo" is "typos", not "typo's", which is the possessive. Yes, as a
matter of fact I did used to teach English.

wrote
So far, Sike's and the CHP officer's account have not been disproved -
just attacked by those with an incredibly strong motive to want to
cover this up.


The CHP is a fairly respected organization, who has absolutely no
motive to lie about what happened. In fact, it is their job to make
sure the facts are reported. Their account, which they are standing
by, includes input from eyewitnesses.


So far, nobody has anything factual to refute the official CHP report.
Nothing.


The CHP saw an act. They saw a guy allegedly "standing on the brakes" but
he was in a different car with two steel doors between them. The driver may
have been standing on his brakes or he may have been having an orgasm from
jerking off too. Neither can be proved or disproved from a visual in a
different car.

I was watching a James Bond movies and I'm positive that Bond really did
jump out of that plane and land on his feet. I saw it.