I thought you might like my limerick about Alec Baldwin so here goes There once was a man we'll call Rust, Made a film where real guns were a must, Made it cheap and in haste, a woman's life he did waste, But he doesn't seem bothered or fussed.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

nothing like a good limerick, albeit more baldwin than bawdy. are you going to be watching the trial?

@teresev1435

11 күн бұрын

Great limerick! Alec Baldwin was another one, he said: “Bang, it goes off.”

@TheAristoKat

11 күн бұрын

Hearings today were very interesting

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@teresev1435 those firearms are always misbehaving!

@teresev1435

11 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698 I hate it when they do that!

The guy that Peter Hyatt and Deceptive Detective learned from is Mark McClish. I started out learning from Peter Hyatt, and found that he explained Statement Analysis much better than Mark McClish. And there's a woman here in Denmark that also took Mark's course, she's likewise way better than Mark, in my opinion. The interview method you mentioned, is that the READ method? I know that Chase Huge, and a couple of the other guys, are trained in the READ method and Statement Analysis. I find your take on the cases you have brought up very fascinating and more in depth than those I have seen doing Statement Analysis, and if I have mentioned the others regarding Statement Analysis, it's most of all to learn what the difference is in what you are doing and Statement Analysis. My goal is essentially to learn to be better at understand who is lying, and if possible why, and what they actually are saying. Furthermore, I think that Statement Analysis is relatively easy to learn and implement, but I would love to take it to another level like you seem to do. Mark McClish have written books on the subject, "I Know You Are Lying: Detecting Deception", "Don't Be Deceived" and "10 Easy Ways To Spot A Liar", so you don't have to take Peter Hyatt's courses, since he learned from Mark and those books. Keep up the good work.

@loug8186

11 күн бұрын

Great background info, thanks for sharing

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@JC_dk thanks for your engagement. Yes, that book title rings a bell now. I think I have read at least two of the titles but found them to be a bit shallow. 'Three is a liar's number, " etc. How did you like the course?

@YellowJello57

11 күн бұрын

Great comment. Thanks for the info

@JC_dk

10 күн бұрын

@@YellowJello57 Thank you. I'm glad that I could help. Both book are great btw. I'm fascinated by Statement Analysis, it's like a superpower that makes you able to see things different. On the one hand, I think that Statement Analysis have rules that make it easy(er) to analyse, and @Plingu698 takes it to another level, I wonder if it's possible to combine the two.

It’s important to share your insights to provide a bit of balance and context! Your videos are very insightful and I even love the way your genuine character comes across in them! It’s so common for the more popular things in this world to be of mediocre quality 😅😉 Fair play for standing your ground! ❤

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@@LeilaJane thank you

@gillianlaing1073

11 күн бұрын

Well said,say what you think!!!

Thank you for making your video a bit longer It’s like a wonderful nighttime gift to me!

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@@NunyaBeeswax-ck8ox thanks for saying so. You are welcome.

@minkcoat6561

11 күн бұрын

Cute comment! 🤠

For people who interpret this video as bashing Peter, take pause and consider the following: In the world of academia; academics are continually disputing each other’s theories. In all fields of study there are opposing thoughts and approaches. Scholars or experts in those fields go back and forth discussing, debating, sometimes agreeing and sometimes they remain in opposition (on some or all aspects). This is one of the ways knowledge areas and the practice of that knowledge is established. They obtain followers; students of their specific approach/ideologies/practices and the cycle continues. Bob is presenting an example and he is applying his expertise based on his knowledge/credentials. Peter is doing the same.

@penelopehughes-jones5265

10 күн бұрын

@riac5388 Indeed...and Peter always says that criticism and peer review are essential to analysis.

@riac5388

10 күн бұрын

@@penelopehughes-jones5265 exactly! thank you!

@penelopehughes-jones5265

10 күн бұрын

@@riac5388 Thank you!😊👍

@AlpineArts

10 күн бұрын

I agree. I appreciate the analyses of both individuals.

That was really interesting. Thank you.

I appreciate you being precise.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@@bohdananovakova2512 thanks. i appreciate your comment.

For me, I don’t see Hyatt as a linguistics expert as I do you; I see him more as crime expert: He seems to be an expert at detecting guilt and analyzing crime based on words people use, but he doesn’t seem to use “linguistics.” It seems to be more patterns and analysis based on his knowledge of crime and analysis of criminals from the past. For example, when a child is missing, he will talk of what a mother who did nothing to her child will say vs the mother who did something or has knowledge of what happened to her child will say. He doesn’t seem to delve into the details as you do. But I enjoy listening to both of you. And regarding what he charges, if people are willing to pay it, so be it; if people are willing to pay me $12.5k to hear me talk, I become a professional speaker. Plus, I would think it’s likely much of his business is from government funded sources (police, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and the list goes on and on) or large corporations.

@penelopehughes-jones5265

11 күн бұрын

@@pammc2783 well said, agree with all that.👏👏👏

@AlpineArts

10 күн бұрын

Very well said.

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

i don't disagree with any of that

One of the things that occasional viewers of Peter's videos might not know is that he is very open to being proven wrong. He likes to have his work tested by his colleagues and even by subscribers in his live videos, especially when new evidence in a case comes out. At around 12:15 you say that Peter claims Gerry McCann was deceptive because of his use of passive voice. Sounds reasonable enough. But that is not the only evidence he cites. Listening to the way you phrase it makes it sounds like Hyatt's whole McCann thesis hinges on this one sentence. In fact you say his argument hinges on this. I'm not 100% convinced that is the case. Peter's interview with Richard D Hall is long and covers many aspects of the McCann's deception over and beyond this one admittedly flawed example. As far as I can see, Peter confused personification (and some other linguistic processes) with the passive voice. As he says, and you agreed, the gun cannot go off by itself so there is deception on the part of the speaker, Gerry McCann. So his main tenet remains - the speaker, in this case Gerry McCann is being deceptive. Having said that, I do appreciate your perspective on it all. Some years ago, when I first discovered his channel, I too found it difficult to learn exactly what qualifies Peter to do what he does. His line seems to be - I have testified and I have taught others how to do this. Even so, I do often find myself agreeing with his conclusions. I think you said it best that you come from a linguistics background and have an interest in true crime whereas he comes from a crime background with an interest in linguistics. Although, what is his crime background? Again, you are right to point out that details of his training are sparse. And charging a lot for courses is a little odd - a guy has to make a living I suppose. I have been on many livestreams and someone asks what book they should read to start learning about Statement Analysis - Peter often recommends Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning which is about how a group of otherwise normal German men became Nazi a death squad. It's a book about human nature, not Statement Analysis. I can only conclude that Statement Analysis is a sort of pseudoscience (a quick wiki search agrees) with no associated academic literature. It seems Peter is its most famous practitioner but is he also the only one (apart from his students) and where are the books? Fair questions that probably should be answered. I will continue to watch both your channels and selfishly hope there won't need to be too much more in the way of takedowns, however mild-mannered and well reasoned. I get that it must be tiresome to get the same comments 'You should watch Hyatt' over and over. A side note - I got quite sick of Michelle After Dark a while back when she wouldn't stop moaning about the fake dog handlers. I don't love when KZreadrs get on a 'I'm right and others are wrong' kick. Ken Mains from 'Unsolved No More' lost me ages ago when he started heaping scorn into the camera about stupid commenters and stupid armchair sleuths (his viewers). I think the audience for true crime is large enough and smart enough for every channel to simply do their thing without the need for it to descend into arm-wrestles. I'm not saying that's what you're doing. This video was well reasoned and quite fair. My 2c is - take the high road, keep doing your thing and success will surely follow. You will have your own army of loyal fans in no time because you deserve it. And it will have little to do with whether Peter Hyatt is right, wrong, qualified or not. Keep up the stellar work. Respectfully, YJ

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@YellowJello57 thanks for your feedback. I'll investigate that book recommendation. Actually, the sample Peter is talking about is taken from jonbenet ramsay's father, but I take your point. I am not a huge fan of Michelle's but I do watch her channel from time to time to walk in the English countryside!

@YellowJello57

11 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698 The English countryside is heaven to be sure. I only mentioned Hyatt's book recommendation in the context that he seems to have no books on Statement Analysis to recommend which is a bit strange.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@YellowJello57 actually someone in the comments just reminded me of a couple of books by a person called mcclish. I had forgotten them, but I did read them a few years ago. They are not academic textbooks, and I remember reading them with a slight sense of disappointment.

It must have been so annoying for you, with your followers recommending you watch Peter. Fair play to you for explaining your opinions so professionally and respectfully. Very interesting topic. Respect!

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

thank you.

@TheTruthDetective

11 күн бұрын

@@lovehearts8486 as if people told Mozart to listen to Rolling Stones. Although, a comforting thought perhaps, the world is big enough for both of them.

@lovehearts8486

11 күн бұрын

@@TheTruthDetective absolutely

@minkcoat6561

11 күн бұрын

@@TheTruthDetective Ha! 😂

I think I see what may be the issue here: you are both speaking correctly about two different things. You are an English specialist and very learned person who can teach and apply their knowledge in many ways, including statement analysis; Peter Hyatt is someone who works in the field with the police and in business applying the statement analysis developed in the States to cases, he is not an English professor. What you mean by the passive voice is of course 100% correct; what Peter means by passive voice is what the layperson means by that phrase, something we instinctively notice. Mr Ramsey’s statement ‘and there she was’ has a passivity to it, just as, ‘the gun went off’ does, not literally in terms of linguistics but in meaning, otherwise one would say, ‘I shot the gun’. You’re both right!😊👍

@penelopehughes-jones5265

11 күн бұрын

PS Three more thoughts, if I may?! Re the expensive courses, the courses are aimed at law enforcement and corporations, they’re subsidised for individuals who are paid to be there, they are absolutely out of the reach of most individuals. Re the book I actually communicated with Peter about that, he was badly let down by the very amateur printer; aside from the typos a lot of the actual content is fascinating. Re the lack of literature on the subject it’s a relatively new thing and is still evolving. I’m sure it could be assisted by someone like you who can iron out the terms and refine it. Stuff is messy when it’s first coming together, we’re so used to disciplines going back to Ancient Greece! In general I get what you’re saying but I get what Peter’s saying too and though you often come to the same conclusions you are doing so from different standpoints…be wonderful if you could work together.

@anneonimous9306

11 күн бұрын

I think what you are trying to say, and what Peter was trying to point out (but he didn't know how to word it correctly) is that the speaker avoided using the pronoun "I". In other words, rather than saying "and then I saw her there" the speaker chose to say "and there she was". Avoiding using the pronoun "I" is not the same thing as the passive voice. It just means that the speaker is choosing to use a different subject pronoun with the verb.

@penelopehughes-jones5265

11 күн бұрын

@@anneonimous9306 I was saying that what Peter means by ‘passive voice’ isn’t what an English professor means by passive voice.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

i know what you mean, those sentences have a sense of passivity to them, and the meta-language he uses may satisfy a non-professional audience, but one cannot take a disparate set of exemplars to make a model and expect a student to be able to apply it correctly to other samples. how well can a student learn a subject if the teacher himself has a less than intermediate understanding of the basic material. he has a sense of how to explain it but he needs to get it right.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@@penelopehughes-jones5265 Penelope, you are being very kind to me as I see now that you are close to Peter and his work, but I will be frank- there is nothing new under the sun. this is discourse analysis rebranded.

You should listen to Peter Hyatt (sorry, couldn’t resist!)

1:34 BOB, HEYYYY, Long time no talk 😘. Hope all is well😊 I’m gonna watch this video today and then I’ll get back to you. Like you, I have mixed feelings about Peter; however, I am curious if our mixed feelings are in the same areas…I can’t wait to find out 😜

I would imagine Peter would be happy to debate your interpretations. That would be an interesting video. I have also listened to Peter since he appeared on Richplanet and I have found his work excellent, Is there some jealously on the part of yourself and Michelle, I listened to this video for 15 minutes and it appeared to me you were nit picking.

@AlpineArts

10 күн бұрын

I find Michelle comes off as a know-it-all, I had to unsubscribe from her a while back because it also seems she’s inconsistent. I respect Peter Hyatt and learn something from him every time I watch him.

@riac5388

10 күн бұрын

Bob and Michelle have both put their educational credentials out there. Bob has a graduate degree in Linguistics and Michelle has a graduate degree in Psychology. I will also add Pat Brown who has a graduate degree in Criminal Justice. Do you know Peter's educational credentials? I don't either, he has not put it out there. However, I still follow Peter because he has exemplified his experience in criminal cases. All Bob has done, was apply his knowledge of linguistics to Peter's example and quetioned the basis of his analysis. That is what experts do.

@valleygirl2530

10 күн бұрын

Yes but he’s picking the right nits.

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

The term, 'to guard something jealously.' has always confused me, but I think that is part of the emotion I feel, yes.

I love love love your process and analysis. I’m a retired teacher, and I would have loved to have had your analysis and expertise as I was teaching “English” and how to write and analyze written and spoken language. I’ve always had an interest in the hidden parts of body language and spoken language.

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

@@kamidsjournee it's an endlessly giving subject. i am sure you can find samples like i do and dissect them- all of the skills you have are all you need.

Thank you for saying something. He’s a good salesman.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@@autumn.melody1715 haha! you have to give him credit for that!

I’m glad you got into the Peter Hyatt “love fest” - I appreciate his work up to a point. I’ve often thought “Sounds like he made that rule up”. I object to his moralizing; his religious beliefs often color his conclusions. I enjoy your forays into academia - grammar rocks!

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

hey valleygirl- i didn't know he had religious beliefs too. Can you give any examples?

@valleygirl2530

10 күн бұрын

⁠@@Plingu698. No, not offhand. It’s a theme I’ve picked up on in him and a few other “experts”. I’m not a fan of mixing analytics with morality. If I find a pertinent quote from Hyatt I’ll share it with you.

@valleygirl2530

10 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698. Maybe I should have used “morality” in place of “religious beliefs”.

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

@@valleygirl2530 thank you. you make an excellent point about mixing analytics with morality. I agree with you 100%. It is unnecessary showboating and it never fails to irritate me.

@valleygirl2530

6 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698. Right - this is why I love your channel - no preaching. You get right to the point.

Interesting video!! Thank you!!

I have some higher linguistic training, not top qualifications, but I have had some of that feeling you are pointing out. I think you pointed out some important issues. Any valid scientist would handle that with curiosity and reflection. Now, the omission of background qualifications may be hidden for many reasons. I know I have been told that I do not need to mention all my educational background. The point is, does it count in relation to your goal? So obviously, Peter Hyatt does not aim at being taken seriously by scholars. Who is his target audience,? That is what counts.

@Plingu698

9 күн бұрын

normally one wouldn't pry, but if the man is selling himself in a product called 'Hyatt Analysis', then buyer has a right to know.

I believe you all have something to offer to the table. Rather than going down this road as so many creators have of criticism you should all be supporting one another. Your craft is important and you all give us food for thought. There is enough division and conflict in the world and viewers come on here to escape all the hate and hopefully learn something. You say you are not disparaging peter, yet we all know the video is exactly that. Sometimes it's better to rise above, despite the comments and not fall to pressure. The fact that you did, says more about you, and the integrity of peter who never has, than any video you could make.

@Plingu698

9 күн бұрын

thanks for your feedback.

@bleedingbitzy

9 күн бұрын

@Plingu698 Thank you. You are a highly intelligent man held in impeccable regard. As a fellow English woman we do not usually fall for the American way and lay our cards out all on the table with our most inner thoughts. Some things are best left unsaid. All this infighting between creators is distasteful. Sometimes the mystery of a man can create more intrigue and curiosity growing his audience in a unique way rather than the brash tell all American method. Just my opinion. I hesitate to write anything as ppl of your calibre will analyse every word🤣

@Plingu698

9 күн бұрын

@bleedingbitzy well I do note that your first comment is an embedded phenomenon within a mental process, which is precisely the subject of the video I was uploading when your post came in!

@bleedingbitzy

9 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698 A crafty move to get me to watch it out of curiosity, I presume 🤣

I appreciate the linguist's perspective. "Guilty Words" is a very small YT channel that's also very good.

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

i'll check it out

When I saw the costs of Peter's classes, my jaw dropped, and is still open. I personally don't care for Peter. Something about him nauseates me.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@@keepitsimple4629 there is a distinct lack of material for the miserly.

@penelopehughes-jones5265

11 күн бұрын

Peter’s courses are aimed at law enforcement who are subsidised and corporations who claim them back. They’re not aimed at us, that’s why he makes so many videos free. If a decent person who spends time helping others ‘nauseates’ you, you must find the world hugely challenging.

I will try to keep this as brief as I can. I, too, was impressed a few years ago when I saw Hyatt's original analysis of the McCann case and I took a lot of what he said on board, it made sense to me. After that I didn't give him any thought until he turned up in my feed lately. I was interested in his output and watched a couple/few of his videos. I couldn't put my finger on precisely why at the time, but I was bothered by aspects of his approach and some of the things he came out with. Without going into huge detail the most obvious was what I feel is his very earnest, but slap dash presentation, but more importantly it was some comments he made about a couple of true crime cases. I forget the initial one, but I would have let that go through (as it was the first), but then later when I listened to him talking about the first time he heard about the death of JonBenet Ramsey, about the photo of 6 year old girl presented on the news I was taken aback, and definitely got the "ick" factor. He explained that he was sitting with his then young daughter when a photo of JonBenet was put up on the screen and that she was dressed as a Las Vegas showgirl and expressed his feelings about her "appearance". I can't speak for anyone else, but my first thoughts when I see a child "dressed up" (regardless of the type of dressing up), is not to go "there", if you know what I mean. To me it was just way too much emphasis being placed on it, and as I say it gave me the "icks". What came to mind was the saying "thou doth protest too much". When I was 8 yo I dressed up for a fancy dress competition as Carmen Miranda (complete with bikini top, colourful skirt & fruit on my head - that is showing my age). This was probably a recommendation or option given by someone/organisers, which I relished and proceeded to prance/dance around the floor hoping to win a prize. I'm certain most normal/stable individuals saw it for what it was, and not that I was being sexualised in some way. In addition, Hyatt talked about John Ramsey's comment about "opening the door" and concluded from this comment that it is a sign of child abuse experienced by the person saying it. It all seems wrong to me, I'm no expert but my instincts tell me there's more in Hyatt's comments and approach than meets the eye, and I've not been interested in or drawn to his videos since. Note, this doesn't mean I don't suspect the Ramsey's involvement in the murder/cover up of JonBenet, or that there was dysfunctional familial behaviours going on, but I cannot agree with Hyatt's particular slant.

@Plingu698

9 күн бұрын

I was just having a swim, which is a meditation for me where i let go of all my thoughts- but Peter popped into my head and the very point you make posed itself as a question to me- " Did Peter's social-worker background give him a particular perspective on life and language?" Of course, the answer is that it cannot fail to have done. And I wondered if it was that viewpoint that causes him expect the unsavoury things to which you allude in your post being a factor in a case. Sorry - I am dancing around words here to appease the KZread gods. I don't know his work well enough to see a strong pattern but it shows up in the analyses of his that I have seen. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail, perhaps. I had never considered 'the protesting too much' angle. To be honest I don't want to even consider it publicly! But isn't it funny that I was thinking about this whilst swimming and now here you are with your thoughts on the same thing!

@srsly5570

9 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698 What a co-inkidink as some would say here in Australia. Possibly a bit of synchronicity too - I've been gently re-familiarising myself with Jung on this concept recently. I didn't know about Hyatt's social worker background. I started a BA in Social Work many moons ago, and reluctantly quit a year into it due to this sort of phenomenon, as well as other concerns I had about the "industry" as a whole.

@SigMaQuint

8 күн бұрын

I was glad he mentioned it. I did not like how JonBenet was presented. And that was not just for some party. Maybe it is a cultural reaction IDK.

I haven’t had time to watch the whole video yet. I will try to come back and watch it later. Here are my initial thoughts about the part I've watched so far. I agree that “the gun went off” is not the passive voice. “The gun was fired” would have been the passive voice, and would have led one to question “the gun was fired by whom?” I share your love of grammar and I agree with the points that you have made. However, you have to bear in mind that average members of the public don’t know much about grammar at all. Most of what you said in this video would only be understood by fellow linguists and appeals to a niche audience. 95% of people won’t understand it or will tune out when they hear all the grammar jargon that is unfamiliar to them, because most people (sadly) find grammar boring. Many people struggle to remember what a “noun” and an “adjective” and a “verb” are, let alone things like possessive adjectives, past participles, auxiliary verbs, phrasal verbs, prepositions, transitive and intransitive verbs, verb subjects and objects, or the passive and active voices. When I start to mention all those wonderful things, most people get instantly bored. I greatly admire Peter Hyatt and have learned a lot from watching his videos. I think that he would benefit a lot from studying English grammar and it would help him to improve his analysis and become even better. It does make me wince when he uses grammatical terms incorrectly and doesn’t appear to know what he is talking about in terms of grammar. However, in fairness to Peter, he is not (and doesn’t claim to be) a linguist. He calls himself a Statement Analyst. I think that combining the two areas of knowledge (statement analysis / deception detection being combined with a good knowledge of grammar) would make for the ideal combination. What Peter does is, he attempts to describe things that he is instinctively picking up on, but he doesn’t know how to describe them correctly because he has not made a study of English grammar. So he often uses grammatical terms to refer to things, but he uses the grammatical terms incorrectly because he doesn’t know what they actually mean. That is unfortunate.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

Thank you. I can't tell you how much it means to me to have someone out there who sees it the way I do! I was thinking I'd be the only one. Peter's a good bloke, and he has a good nose for a lie but us boring people know better, don't we! We own the thing that he aspires to know. I agree with everything you say but I don't think grammar lessons are optional if you are marketing yourself as a 'branch of psycholinguistics' .

@penelopehughes-jones5265

11 күн бұрын

Very well put, we see things very similarly. I don’t see why the ‘two definitions’ (in effect) can’t become one and that someone like the gentleman who creates these videos can’t work with Peter, Mark McClish etc to iron out such basics. I’m an English graduate but I definitely see both sides on this one, let’s just bring them together!

@anneonimous9306

11 күн бұрын

@@penelopehughes-jones5265 The problem is though, there aren't two definitions of "the passive voice." There is only one. Words have meanings and when somebody uses them incorrectly and then says "oh, by the way, I'm using this specialised word to mean something else than what it really means, because I don't actually know what it means so I want to issue a disclaimer that I have given it my own special meaning, so that no one can criticise me for using it incorrectly" it is irritating to people who are specialised in that particular field and who know what those words actually mean. Imagine if I said you were a "graduate" but when I say "graduate" I actually mean someone who likes to eat green snow. You would doubtless try to argue that that's not what the word "graduate" actually means, because you know what it really means. But I could keep arguing that when I say "graduate" it means a person who eats green snow. We can't merge the two definitions because one is right and one is wrong.

@penelopehughes-jones5265

11 күн бұрын

There are two versions of the ‘passive voice’, the one that is used in linguistics and the other very literal one that we might use in conversation. If I said, ‘Jon spoke in a passive voice,’ it doesn’t mean that he was consciously using a form of a verb. I get that English scholars feel that this is a term set in stone but the vast majority just hear ‘passive’ and understand the difference between, ‘the gun went off’ and ‘ I shot the gun’. If those involved with FBI analysis change the phrase to, ‘passive language’, can we all leave it at that?

@anneonimous9306

11 күн бұрын

@@penelopehughes-jones5265 There is only one version of "the" passive voice. There aren't two. In everyday language, "passive" is an adjective that usually means someone is being the opposite of assertive. So if someone were to use "a" passive voice (as opposed to "the" passive voice) it would mean that someone was talking in a meek voice and being compliant and agreeing to do whatever the other person says. However, someone do correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Peter Hyatt ever said that the person was speaking in "a" passive voice. That would imply that Peter would be listening to their speaking voice and analysing how they spoke the words, which he always makes a point of not doing. He is always very insistent that he wants to work with written transcripts only. He does not analyse body language, tone of voice, volume, eye contact, or anything like that. So he cannot possibly have been referring to the speaker's tone of voice, because he analyses only the written word and uses transcripts. He wasn't saying that the person was using "a" passive voice. Rather, he was trying to claim that they were using "the" passive voice, which is a linguistic term that Peter Hyatt does not seem to understand and he was therefore using it incorrectly. [Edit: I watched the clip again and he did in fact use the expression "a" passive voice, which makes no sense for the context because he is not analysing audible spoken words, but written words.] The problem here is non-linguists hearing a word they know in another context, and assuming that they know what it means in the context of linguistics. In reality, the general public don't know what the words "passive" or "voice" mean in the context of linguistics. Take the word "love" as used in tennis, for example. The word "love" in tennis means a score of zero. But the word "love" in everyday life means that beautiful emotion that we feel for people of whom we are fond. People who don't know anything about tennis might hear the word "love" being used in tennis and wrongly assume that it's describing an emotion, when it's actually describing a score of zero points because words used in specific fields can have radically different meanings. "The passive voice" in linguistics is rather like that. People think they know what "passive" and "voice" mean, so they wrongly assume that they know what "the passive voice" is in linguistics. Hence some people are attacking the linguist who made this video and telling him he's wrong. But he's right. "The passive voice" has absolutely nothing to do with the voice of the speaker, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not the speaker is being passive or demonstrating passivity. "The passive voice" in linguistics is about the construction of the sentence itself and the word order, and is not related to the voice or the personality of the speaker at all. "Voice" in the context of linguistics is either "the active voice" or "the passive voice". Those are the only two options. "Voice" here does not mean the voice of the person who is speaking. Nobody is speaking. We are analysing written words. "Voice" here means the structure of the sentence. Here are some quick examples of the two types of "voices" (sentence structures). Active voice: the linguist in this video has made a valid point. Passive voice: a valid point has been made by the linguist in this video. Active voice: people who do not understand linguistics are missing the point. Passive voice: the point is being missed by people who do not understand linguistics.

While I often find Peter's videos entertaining, it's helpful to hear your thoughts and the reasons behind them. Initially, he presented an appealing image and, to a novice like me, sounded extremely competent. However, as time went on and I watched more videos, I perceived some hints to his personal views that caused me take his analysis with that recommended "grain of salt". Thank you for sharing your knowledge and insights, especially while knowing they might not be well-received.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@Cykey1111-dv2ty thanks for your feedback. Can you give an example of his personal views?

@penelopehughes-jones5265

11 күн бұрын

@@Cykey1111-dv2ty That’s an interesting subject, if I might hop in?! Do the views someone holds impact upon their work? Is the artist’s life inseparable from his craft? I agree with Peter’s views as often as I disagree with them but it’s not changed my opinion of his work, generally speaking the very black & white thinking he appears to have* probably helps him get it right 99% of the time, I don’t have to agree, say, that a man can’t think like a woman, in his experience he’s seen that our language is vastly influenced from day one by everything we are, like hormones, society’s norms…he’s been doing this for years and sees patterns which have served him time and again. Peter would say we have to start from the premise that a man doesn’t think like a woman, or not do the work. His opinion and he has much more to back it up than I have. Peter may not have known, like many of us, several people who seemed wholly complete having changed gender; we have not spent years analysing statements and developing the analysis of deception detection. *It’s hard to see shades of subtlety online, the bigger the overview one has, the easier it is to get to the heart of the matter but generally we get snapshots that can be misinterpreted. That’s true for all of us, Peter included.👍

I first listened to Peter when the Sebastian Rogers case began. I was struck with him insisting Sebastian had been put out the door. He's held on to this theory like a dog with a bone & that didn't sit right with me. If this were the case, why was there no scent leading away from the door? Obviously, Sebastian is not still standing at the door. No one heard the child shouting or banging from the door in protest to being put out. This didn't make sense. Later, as I watched a few past videos of Peter, I noticed he had said this in a number of other cases. I now wonder if Peter was put outside for punishment as a child himself because he seems so hung up on it. In my life experience, I have noticed a lot of people who train and get into the psychology field are often masking their own childhood trauma by pretending to help others with childhood trauma as opposed to healing their own trauma. I didn't even make it through high school, but from information given by LE of no break in signs, no scent trail & no camera footage of this child, the logical explanation is he was carried or secreted out of that house by someone with familiarity to the child & household. I guess LE have their reasons for not being so forthcoming & astounded at the level of stupidity from commentators. Either that or I am the big dummy?

@penelopehughes-jones5265

11 күн бұрын

There’s a lot more to Peter’s analyses and he explains it fully. To suggest that he’s in some way projecting trauma goes against the very essence of statement analysis, which is peer reviewed. can’t think of one other case where he’s said a child was pushed outside, can you remember which?

@loug8186

11 күн бұрын

I agree that a lot of social workers, therapists, drug counsellors etc are often damaged people and do have an interest in these fields from their own trauma. It’s an interesting thought to wonder why PH got into this field, and where how he got his training.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@lisarua255 hi Lisa, It's interesting that you say that. I have met one or two troubled psychologists in my time. Peter did impress me when he noticed the significance of the trash can in the Sebastian Rogers case. I didn't see that at all until Chris proudfoot spoke about it in connection to a punishment. As I say, I cannot knock Peter. He gets to a good analysis albeit via mysterious methods

@AlpineArts

10 күн бұрын

To be fair, it was based on Sebastian’s mother and stepfather’s limited statements that were available at the time.

@valleygirl2530

6 күн бұрын

Yes - I thought PH jumped the gun with his THEORY. There was nothing to show that Sebastian went out the door as in to “run away in the night”. That is so unlikely - Peter might not have watched all the interviews with the mother and stepfather.

Love the analogy of standing on the street and arguing with nobody. I'll remember that one. It's not just those with a KZread profile that get "slammed" by cult followers when daring to question a given idol/cult figure. I pop my head above the parapet now and then (when I feel the urge or can be bothered), but inevitably find these people unable to entertain anything other than 100% support of their particular idol, with no other options dare it suggest they reflect on their own beliefs/attitudes (which they may or may not have the ability to do). With the "idols" I have at times questioned or criticised, I have also followed and been involved with them, admired, and agreed with much of what they stand for and with their output -- but not all of it. I think this is normal. So I do question them from time to time. To me, it should never be an "all or nothing" approach ... but a "most, but not all", or a "sometimes, but not all" approach. I do find myself torn between "I can't be bothered dealing with it", and the knowledge that otherwise all will eventually be 'won' by the easily led and the sometimes unscrupulous people that they follow. So it's a tricky landscape to navigate. Do I want a quiet life not bothering or being bothered, or do I speak up from time to time and hopefully someone, somewhere is listening, and the chain reaction hopefully goes on?

@Plingu698

9 күн бұрын

I don't mind the trolls. One cannot consider oneself to be 100% right about everything so when a viewer has a negative reaction, one has to force oneself to think that a little tiny bit of what they are saying might apply, no matter how much one's initial thought is to reject it out of hand. Have I over-stepped societal limits on iconoclasm and crossed into wanton sacrilege ? - this is something I have been forced to think about for example, and that is not a bad thing because it makes one wonder what the limits might be and who sets them. On a channel I once watch, the host always asks his guests 'truth or kindness?' I think I err towards truth, others may think you should err the other way.

I understand that you possess a level of understanding of the language that few people do. One thing that you have touched upon which I would love to learn more about is how language can be used in manipulation. (I am thinking of the episode in which you explained ‘loops’ and the man who willingly gave away his wallet.) I know a person who seems to be able to “plant” words into the minds of people. He seems to have the ability to make people repeat his words as if they were their own. (I can give you examples if you want to). If you know how this is done please make an episode about it. You mentioned linguistic mirroring, can that have something to do with it?

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@@TheTruthDetective that sounds fascinating. please do give examples

@TheTruthDetective

11 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698 Ok I’ll try to explain. I am thinking of an individual who has a son with a neuropsychiatric disorder. The parents are in a custody battle since several years. The father claims that the mother manages to control the people involved in the case. The mother has no training in medicine nor psychology but manages somehow to get professionals to concur with her in denying the son’s diagnoses. Not only the neuropsychiatric diagnosis but also other psychiatric or medical diagnoses, including allergy. Like a reversed Munchhausen by proxy. Recently, she managed to influence a doctor who was tasked with writing a certificate of the boy’s health status and expected need of care in the future. Despite medical journals, school reports etc the MD seems to have absorbed the mother’s thoughts and ideas, which is evident by the MD’s conclusions. What was pointed out to me, and what I found fascinating, is that several ”key words” and phrases that the mother uses in her arguments are found in the certificate. According to the father this happens frequently with other professionals, assessors etc, independent of one another. The mother is successful in her professional life; makes lots of money etc. In her private (hidden) life, there are signs of anti social behaviors (doesn't pay bills etc) and she has been reported to the authorities for harassment against two of his previous partners. She reads extensively, mostly about historical figures, world leaders, politicians, warlords etc. Perhaps there are linguistic techniques that she has picked up that can be used to manipulate people? This is how I came to think of your episode with the people who handed over their wallets. Do you know how this phenomenon can be explained? Also, I came to think of forensic linguist named Julia Kupper. She has done an analysis of the Jon Benet Ramsey case (not online). She collaborates with one of the world's foremost authorities on personality disorders, threat assessments etc - a psychologist named Reid Meloy. It would be super exciting if you could break one of her (ot their) analyses down for us in one of your analyses. Thank you!

@TheTruthDetective

10 күн бұрын

​@@Plingu698 I’ll try to explain: I am thinking of an individual who has a son with a neuropsychiatric disorder. The parents are in a custody battle since several years. The woman claims that the father manages to control the people involved in the case. The man has no training in medicine nor psychology but manages somehow to get professionals to concur with him in denying his son’s diagnoses. Not only the neuropsychiatric diagnosis but also other psychiatric or medical diagnoses, including allergies etc. Like a reversed Münchhausen by proxy. Recently, he managed to influence a doctor who was tasked with writing a certificate of the boy’s health status. Despite medical journals, school reports etc the MD seems to have absorbed the man’s thoughts and ideas, which is evident by the MD’s conclusions. What I found fascinating is that several ”key words” and phrases that the man uses are found in the certificate. According to the mother this "planting of words" happens frequently with other professionals, assessors etc, independent of one another. The guy is successful in his professional life; makes lots of money etc. He reads extensively, mostly about Churchill, Hitler, Napoleon, Mao, Kim Jong-il, famous politicians, warlords etc. Are there any linguistic techniques, or warfare strategies that could explain the "planting of words" and ideas into the minds of people?

@TheTruthDetective

10 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698 Hi Bob, I tried to post a reply but they seem to disappear. Please confirm if you are interested, otherwise I will assume that you remove them for some reason.

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

@@TheTruthDetective no, i am not removing them at all. i haven't received anything. try again if you like.

Excellent work, I have been 😀 a fan of Peter but no one is infallible and I appreciate your analysis. You make an excellent argument, I don’t think Peter is as well versed in the grammar of the language like a linguist. Which is actually quite shocking for someone at his level. Btw I had to chuckle when u mentioned Bognor Regis…my exs granny lived there and I visited on my honeymoon back in 1991 😅

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@loug8186 haha, I don't know why I mentioned bognor. I am sure it's lovely, it's just that it has bog in its name!

I have noticed i'm on his last thumbnail, I have to agree with you, it's not about what he thinks, it's about what people say.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@@gateshead_angel hi angel, you are one of those people who just fall into the limelight!

I always appreciate your knowledge and videos. Though listen again and PH clearly says passive here is a psychological term not a language term . (In the case )

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@@EarsToSeeYou yes, i address that point

@EarsToSeeYou

11 күн бұрын

Oh, next time I’ll listen all the way to the end . 🙈

I appreciate your take here. I like and respect Peter, and I also agree with you entirely. I also think you proved your case well using the principles of linguistics. Whether out of habit, indifference, or ignorance, I think many people are less bothered with formal language. Totally fair and understandable when you're not a nerdy lover of language and the truth. I get it. It's a thankless job 😊 I respect your opinion and your courage for throwing yourself to the wolves.

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

thank you.

Here's another question on a slightly different aspect of what you covered in your video. Does "indirect vs direct" enter into all this talk of passive and active voice? I am feeling a need for a grammar glossary reading through the comments...📚

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

Good point. Passives only work with transitive verbs, meaning that to create the passive voice from an active, you need at least one object. That is why behavioural process can't be made passive. " the gun went off" is in the active voice and it can never be made passive because it has no object to move into the subject position.

Thank you for doing this. I recalled some criticism on one of PHs videos which may have been his misapplication of the term "passive voice" and PH not responding. My concern right now is that PH is making commentary on active cases. Should Sebastian Rogers materialize and is able to give an account of his home life prior to leaving, will he confirm what PH has said about CP? I think some of the appeal of PH is that he is somehow affiliated with LE and it is reassuring to hear him say "I believe what he [the arrestee] says". Here in the US, LE has really gone down hill and we likely would appreciate someone who sounds as reasonable as PH does while engaged in the interrogations/research/investigation work. Please keep doing your videos here, I really appreciate your offerings! Now, I get to go see if I am a B or C level English Language learner!

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@@AWanderingEye I agree with him that you should always believe the speaker. The truth is always there, albeit that it is sometimes obscured in one way or another.

I dont agree with Hyatt on John Ramsey. There was DNA underneath JonBenets fingernails that doesnt match anyone in the family. Also, some of us doesn't speak proper English. Like me.

I think you could argue that Passive Voice is an SA term that refers to a statement where there is no ‘actor’

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

yes, but that's the point i'm making. A lack of human agency doesn't necessarily make a passive voice.

@retroactivejealousy-worldl1805

10 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698 It probably needs a different term

PS, you are much better than Peter at statement analysis

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

that is praise indeed. i do have a lot of respect for the guy.

Do a video on the “Behavior Panel” next, perhaps. Too many people take what they say as gospel and it makes me cringe. I appreciate your research. Kind of makes me second-guess Peter Hyatt a bit now. I edited my comment to say that Mossad has been instrumental in training American law enforcement, including the implementation of Krav Maga. Not sure if you were aware of that, but I don’t like it one bit, personally.

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

sorry, i don't know what Krav Maga is

@AlpineArts

10 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698 Krav Maga is Israeli martial arts 😉

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

@@AlpineArts oh, i see.

@valleygirl2530

10 күн бұрын

I think it’s healthy to second guess everyone and everything.

What do you think of Mark McClish? I did some SA training with him?

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

brilliant! how did it go? did you enjoy the course? what's in it? "Hyatt Analysis" course outlines have no content descriptors at all. they are black boxes with expensive price tags. I read McClish's book, 'I know you are lying' , which I would describe as anecdotal rather than academic.

@retroactivejealousy-worldl1805

10 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698 It was great. I just did the introductory online one. Well-priced, clearly outlined, an assessed assignment at the end and Mark was available online for questions and help. As to the how the content differs from PH , I can’t say. I would like to try Steve Johnson’s course next

@valleygirl2530

10 күн бұрын

@@retroactivejealousy-worldl1805. Did you catch the “Interview Room” where Steve was a guest and analyzed statements by Don Wells? Amazing.

@retroactivejealousy-worldl1805

10 күн бұрын

@@valleygirl2530 Yes, that’s where I discovered him

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

@@retroactivejealousy-worldl1805 thanks, I'll take a look

I am really not familiar with Peter and Yourself. I believe i need to familiarise myself with linguistics ( your ongoing definitions help greatly ) I am always interested when criticism is addressed in a professional manner. Nothing wrong with a differing opinion.. Ramsey case , the FBI had cleared the family four weeks into the case . None of the of the family matched the DNA found on the child .

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

that is one case i have not covered. The author of 'the cases that haunt us', which I read recently thinks it was someone from outside the home.

@valleygirl2530

10 күн бұрын

DNA is science - opinion is not.

Deception Detective states he is a lawyer “trained in statement analysis “. I wonder if that was in law school?

@minkcoat6561

11 күн бұрын

He takes too long to get to the point most of the time. I’ve lost interest in him. I’d like to know his educational details as well.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@@loug8186 I wonder why he isn't practising as an attorney. He is in the prime of his life.

@penelopehughes-jones5265

11 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698 I thought he was, hence the sporadic uploads?

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@@penelopehughes-jones5265 I don't know. I have only seen his channel a couple of times.

@AlpineArts

10 күн бұрын

Deception Detective may not be a lawyer… that is just what he presents himself as.

I don’t like that you picked on Peter Hyatt. There’s no reason for it. It makes you look less confident and peaceful.

@Plingu698

3 күн бұрын

Thanks for your feedback

@jenean7374

2 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698 you’re welcome

I do like Peter’s work but “Wise as a serpent gentle as a dove” can best be described a great read for insomniacs. Also today I learned that I don’t understand English at an intermediate level 😂. Keep up the videos please 🙏

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

Please don't tempt me to comment on that book! I am not saying anything.

How much does he charge 🤑 He is on a good little earner, I'm too busy to go to his classes 😂 not that I want too!! Fools and their money 💰

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

it's a lot of chicken feed!

@gillianlaing1073

10 күн бұрын

@Plingu698 oh,I have chickens 🐔

@Plingu698

10 күн бұрын

@gillianlaing1073 I know!

“The gun went off” - this lacks any context, so let’s say one person has shot another, and that’s what he or she says to the police. A gun doesn’t fire without the trigger being pulled, triggers can’t be pulled without the action of a person - and “the gun went off” lacks a pronoun. In Statement Analysis you follow the pronouns, and lack of a pronoun here makes it passive voice, as understood in SA. Also, you don’t draw a conclusion on just one point, rather an accumulation of sensitivity indicators, of which this would be just one. How else might “the gun went off” be conveyed were the person not trying to avoid any responsibility? “I accidentally fired it” “I must have fired it” “I don’t remember firing it” People avoid lying. Here, you’d note that the subject was not willing to say they had fired it even accidentally. We also know that the gun did go off, and that guns don’t fire by magic. - Avinoam Sapir is the name you are looking for - he is the father of the SCAN (Scientific Content Analysis) technique, on which SA is based. The LSI Lab SCAN website is easy to find, also Avinoam Sapir is on various KZreads, and podcasts,not always the easiest of listens. If you are interested in Statement Analysis, Steve Johnson also offers courses, lower priced than Peter’s, and he has a KZread, ‘Truth2Lies’; he also sometimes is a guest analysing cases on ‘The Interview Room’s KZread. In addition to Peter’s book, there is, Mark McClish’s, “I Know You Are Lying”, and other books, also available on Amazon. Doesn’t do much on KZread, but he offers courses. There’s Martin Decoder, who these days does a lot about Meghan Markle, but besides all that, great analyses, and he uses other disciplines in addition to SA. “Never a Truer Word” - new SA channel, great content. - Practical Linguistics does not seem very practical, to me - it looks formula like, complicated, and not what I would consider accessible. I won’t drag you personally for it, though - I haven’t studied, or tried to study, your particular discipline; each to their own.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@heyjude4679 hey hey dude. I'm not going to argue. If you want to call active voice passive voice, go ahead. It is no skin off my nose. Yes, that's the fellow, the Israeli. Well done. I have read "I know you are lying." It is not the sort of academic text that models a unified theory. It reads like a series of disparate anecdotes. I think I have read one of the others you mentioned. If you haven't already, i recommend reading a proper academic text on linguistics. Try something by MAK Halliday. It will give you a more professional perspective on the field. Anyway, thanks for your feedback

@heyjude4679

11 күн бұрын

@@Plingu698 You’re welcome.

@anneonimous9306

10 күн бұрын

You say "the gun went off” lacks a pronoun. You say "In Statement Analysis you follow the pronouns, and lack of a pronoun here makes it passive voice, as understood in SA." What you are saying is complete nonsense and displays a total lack of understanding or knowledge of the basics of linguistics and grammar. It sounds like you are parroting what you've heard Peter Hyatt say about pronouns, without even understanding what pronouns are or why they are used. I don't think Peter knows what pronouns are either. Pronouns (or lack thereof) have absolutely nothing to do with the passive voice. Knowing what a pronoun is, and when it is used, is very very very very very very very basic knowledge in linguistics. Pronouns are used IN PLACE OF A NOUN once that noun has already been introduced once. I'll say it again: Pronouns are used IN PLACE OF A NOUN once that noun has already been introduced once. If people don't even know how and why pronouns are used, they need to educate themselves before commenting on a video about linguistics. Pronoun lesson 101 for beginners. I'll say it again: Pronouns are used IN PLACE OF A NOUN once that noun has already been introduced once. Pronouns are used to avoid needlessly repeating a noun. That is their purpose. They have nothing to do with "passivity". The only reason that the statement "the gun went off" is lacking a pronoun is because it is the first time that the noun is being introduced. We can't use the pronoun "it" yet, because we don't yet know what "it" is. We first have to tell the reader / listener what we are talking about, and we do that by using a noun. "The gun". A pronoun is not yet used because THE NOUN IS BEING INTRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME. Nothing to do with "passivity" at all. The noun is "the gun". We introduce "the gun" as the noun (and as the subject of the verb) and following that, the reader / listener knows what the noun is, and after that, any time we want to refer to "the gun" again, we can use the pronoun "it" in its place, so we don't have to keep repeating the noun. Example: "The gun went off. It was loud. It was a small short black gun. I don't know where it came from". In this example, the first time we introduce the subject of the verb, we use a noun ("the gun"). After that, the next three times, we use a pronoun ("it") because the reader / listener now knows what the noun is, so there is no need to keep repeating the noun. Here is what my example sentences would be like if we didn't use the pronoun "it" in place of the noun "the gun": "The gun went off. The gun was loud. The gun was a small short black gun. I don't know where the gun came from". In this second example (which sounds odd and unnatural) I didn't use a pronoun "it" after introducing the noun. I just kept saying "the gun. The gun. The gun. The gun". It sounds unnatural if you keep needlessly repeating a noun when the listener already knows which noun you mean. Hence pronouns were invented. Pronouns have NOTHING to do with passivity. Pronouns are a way of SUBSTITUTING A NOUN that has already been introduced and we already know what the noun is, so we don't need (or want) to keep saying the noun again and again. In your example "the gun went off" you are claiming that the lack of a pronoun shows passivity. That is completely and totally nonsensical. The lack of a pronoun is REQUIRED and NECESSARY and absolutely grammatically CORRECT, because it is the first time that "the gun" has been introduced as a topic, so we need to use a noun "gun". In your example "the gun went off" you are taking one statement out of context and claiming that the lack of pronoun indicates "passivity". You can't take one statement out of context. You have to look at what came before. It is very probable that other nouns came before. We can't use a pronoun "it" otherwise people would assume that "it" was referring back to the last previously stated noun. Pronouns ALWAYS refer back to the last previously stated noun. I'll say that again: pronouns ALWAYS refer back to the last previously stated noun. Pronoun lesson 102 for beginners. I'll say it again: Pronouns ALWAYS refer back to the last previously stated noun. Example. Imagine if I said: "The car smashed into the wall. It went off." People might wrongly assume that "it" means "the wall" or "the car". Did the wall "go off"? Did the car "go off?" No. What went off was a gun. But people don't know that, because in this weird example sentence, a pronoun has been introduced before a noun. Which doesn't happen. The grammatically correct way is to introduce a noun before a pronoun. People would have no idea that "it" means a gun, unless I told them so, because pronouns ALWAYS refer back to the last previously stated noun. So to say it correctly and naturally, I would have to say it like this: "The car smashed into the wall. The gun went off." Here, me using "the gun" (noun) instead of using "it" (pronoun) has absolutely nothing to do with "passivity". It is simply NECESSARY (and grammatically correct) to use a noun before substituting that noun with a pronoun, so that the listener / reader knows what I am talking about.

@heyjude4679

10 күн бұрын

@@anneonimous9306 thank you for your lecture. Passive voice in Statement Analysis is not the same as in linguistics. I don’t do linguistics, but I am interested in Statement Analysis. The passive voice part of SA does tend to upset some people, but that’s not my problem. The idea of a car smashing into a wall, and the gun going off is not as good as the police chief shooting his wife in the head. It’s a lot more likely that the police chief shot his wife, than that the car fired the gun, IMO. People don’t care about grammar or linguistics if they have just shot someone in the head - that’s what makes what they do say interesting. Anyway, it was not “a gun” which went off, it was “the gun” - these also are not the same thing.

@penelopehughes-jones5265

10 күн бұрын

@heyjude4679 I agree, the two are different and the linguistics are insisting that it means the same thing. It's a shame the other commentator got so pedantic and rude whilst wildly missing the point. There's just no need for anything beyond polite discussion. Well done for not making it bad, indeed, for taking a sad song and making it better, Jude.😉

Peters cult followers must be those who paid the 12k for his course! They don’t want to feel ripped off. Excellent work on digging into his background, very interesting. Pat Brown is self taught in profiling and makes that quite clear, but she does have a Masters degree too. Peters analysis of hand washing and sexual abuse in the McCann case always left me a bit uneasy. Quite a claim from just a few words.

@penelopehughes-jones5265

11 күн бұрын

Peter may have a couple of typical obsessives who follow him through now fault of his own but he’s the first person to insist on peer review and criticism. The cost of his courses reflects that they’re subsidised for cops paid to be there and employees of big corporations, both of whom are paid to be there. Peter makes regular videos so that we can benefit without paying anything. Pat Brown is a friend of Peter’s and highly regards his work. Peter’s claims regarding Madeline McCann have been backed up by Pat Brown and many other experts.

@loug8186

11 күн бұрын

@@penelopehughes-jones5265I don’t know anyone else claiming the sexual abuse, and Pat Brown does often disagree with Peter, as much as she does respect his work overall. I don’t want to speak for her, but to my knowledge she has never claimed the sexual abuse part for M M.

@penelopehughes-jones5265

11 күн бұрын

@@loug8186 Peter didn’t claim sexual abuse, he said there could be a link due to the presence of washing etc where such information is irrelevant. We can all disagree with each other whilst being respectful, it’s a shame to me that we, as humans, seem to look for issues instead of finding ways to share our talents.

@gillianlaing1073

11 күн бұрын

I found this very interesting! Don't be afraid to voice your opinion, everyone should be able to speak ,for whatever their opinion is! Probably not good grammar! I was waiting on you mentioning my love heart on my last reply to you ! I was not flirting, infact I was explaining that lucy,probably put it at end of go fund me,to sook up ,so people gave loads to dosh!, which has happened!!! I put it,as I love listening to your soothing voice& interesting topics! I'm probably the lowest level of linguistics lol

@penelopehughes-jones5265

11 күн бұрын

@@gillianlaing1073 Yes, I thought Lucy’s Go Fund Me sounded like typical kid of her age. I don’t think she’d be that fussed about being outed as taking drugs, everyone knows that’s exactly what kids go to raves to do. I did wonder if she’s missing out some kind of disagreement with Jay, about leaving with those guys but was really impressed that this channel pointed out she was likely relaying a voice message, not a conversation. Most ingenious!

Peter Hyatt gives linguistics analysis a bad name. Deception Detective is worse. I thought this was pseudoscience until I finally found one of your videos. Not only do they get all the facts in the cases they cover wrong, but they go onto it with their mind already set one way or another. The worst part - which drives me INSANE- is when they ASSUME something without any proof or evidence, and then base their entire analysis around that incorrect assumption. Deception detective made a video on Richard Allen, early on assumed that the previous lawyer recused himself(which he didn't); then based every conclusion he arrived at, on that assumption. Every single video is that way. It sucks that they make this field look so bad. Only thing worse than those two is the Behaviour Channel 😖😣🙄😒

@AfterBurner369

3 күн бұрын

You can tell TBC guys are limited hangouts.

Do you realize you’ve disparaged Peter Hyatt? Do you realize you’ve disparaged Statement Analysis? Do you realize you’ve disparaged those who’ve benefited from Statement Analysis? Do you realize the life saving effects that Statement Analysis has in identifying and stopping those who #%?^%#! individuals and communities? Do you realize the time saving aspects of Statement Analysis? Do you realize the cost saving benefits of Statement Analysis? I believe Peter’s primary focus in his career was the protection of children. Quack? Cult? Wrong? Possibly, Peter Hyatt may practice principles that you haven’t practiced. And you practice “linguistics.” And both he and you have knowledge and experience (when shared respectfully) that helps everyone.

@Plingu698

11 күн бұрын

@Supercalifragilistic_ thanks for your feedback 😊

@riac5388

10 күн бұрын

In the field of academia, academics are always disputing each other theories. You call it "disparaging" tomato/tahmatoe. This is how it works. Academics argue all of the time. This is one of the ways knowledge and the practice of this knowledge is established.

@missq3989

10 күн бұрын

Since when did challenging theoretical practice become abhorrent.