On the Vetting of Sources

Back when I was working in radio doing news, one of the most important things I was taught to do was to vet a new source as thoroughly as possible and to stay on top of old ones. People sometimes lie when it’s to their advantage.

The Cabin Boy™ claims that the 3per screenshot from an account was alleged to be mine was sent to him by a source. That may be true. There’s some evidence to support that. If one examines the html code for the webpage that he published, one finds this as the URL for the screenshot:


The name of the image is consistent with the default naming convention used by Mac OS X, and it timestamps the image at 10:38:06 am. However, the timestamp for the posting on the image itself is 12:36 pm. So either the screenshot was taken almost two hours before the post existed, or it was taken by a computer which had its clock set to the Pacific Time Zone.

Here’s another interesting bit of data. The Cabin Boy™ included another screenshot from the 3per forum in subsequent post, and the timestamps on the post captured and his image both align in the Central Time Zone.

Now, it could be that the Cabin Boy™ just happened to reset his computer’s clock between 12:38 and 2:46 pm yesterday, but another possible explanation is that the first screenshot was sent to him by someone west of the Rockies. That would absolve him of creating the forgery, but convict him of negligence in vetting his source (at best) or conspiracy with his source in publishing the forgery.

Either way, Bill Schmalfeldt has made a fool of himself again by participating in the creation of false evidence, in this case by possibly engaging in identity theft.

Exit question: Who in the Pacific Time Zone would do such a thing?

UPDATE—Another possible explanation for the timestamp offset would be the use of a Mac that was physically in another time zone but still had its clock set to the default Cupertino time.

UPDATE 2—The Cabin Boy™ seems to believe that he is owed sort of explanation from me when some third-party trolls him.NQ201601201517ZThat belief is thoroughly, totally, and utterly wrong. I have no obligation to do the research for his “investigative reporting” for him. If he fancies himself a real journalist, he can do some real basic journalism.

Moreover, I find it amusing that after all of his protestations of how I have supposedly lied about so many things, he wants to rely on my word as a check on the veracity of anything.

I couldn’t make this stuff up it I tried.

UPDATE 3—Why does the Cabin Boy™ think that my experience in broadcasting was similar to his?NQ201601201835ZAmpex 300It’s true that I’ve done my share of rip’n’read newscasts torn from an AP or UPI teletype, especially when I was covering the midnight to 6 am shift. It’s also true that I’ve spent my share of time schlepping a battery-powered tape recorder around recording events and doing interviews. I’ve spent hours with a razor blade, slicing block, and an Ampex 300 or 351 tape machine (the old kind with tubes) editing stories for the 15 minute newscast at 6 or 10 pm. I was doing all this before the Cabin Boy™ got out of middle school.

It’s really quite sad that the Cabin Boy™ can’t seem to find anything positive to write about, but … oh, let’s just leave it at he’s in a truly sad situation.

75 thoughts on “On the Vetting of Sources

  1. I applied a different test to measure the validity of the 3% post.
    First I measured the prior validity of William D.F. Schmalfeldt’s actions and statements.
    unit: BSFactor
    Next I measured how much I care about this little Fake-n-Bake.
    unit: FIGive
    Next I constructed a ratio comparing the two metrics:
    result = WGaS.
    The numerator is almost identical to zero with nugatory differences.
    The denominator, while small is a non-zero number, keeping the result from becoming irrational.
    Conclusion: 4 out of 5 doctors ask “you gotta be kidding me?” and the fifth complains that he picked the wrong day to quit huffing roofing tar.

    Suggestions for improved performance: W.D.F. Schmalfeldt needs to come up with better fiendishly cunning schmese that at least surpass a 4 year old childs version of “I stole your nose”.

  2. Even if the fool who created the fake identity hadn’t forgotten to log out, the tenor of the post was not “you.” Everyone has tendencies and habits to their writing… it’s like a fingerprint. And when some Asshat tries to fake someone else on a post, it becomes blatantly obvious.

    You (or one of your mental midget fellow travellers) have tried this crap a couple of times now, Blobbosaurus. You and your “crew” are too (self redacted) stupid to pull it off. Of course, it is wonder that you and the geniuses in Team Dumb-as-a-Stump can remember to breathe.

  3. Cabin Boy™ is now claiming that he was trolled by someone using your name.

    Why doesn’t he just tell us who the person is so that he can clear his own name?

    • If that’s true, he should turn everything over to the St. Francis Police Department. I’m sure that they will cooperate with the Maryland State Police in solving the case.

      • I can just imagine how the conversation would go with his new friends at the St. Francis police department…

        • Imagine the conversation in the dispatch room.

          “Hey, the guy with all the restraining orders from across the country is at it again!”

          “There’s some sterling character in that one, that’s for sure!”

          • “Oh, and there’s a gaggle of nuns here to see you.”

            “Lemmee guess: Canticle and Juniper Courts?”


            “We’re gonna need a bigger box…of restraining order forms…”

          • “Oh, and there’s a gaggle of nuns here to see you.”

            “Lemmee guess: Canticle and Juniper Courts?”


            “We’re gonna need a bigger box…of restraining order involuntary psychiatric hold forms…”


          • Hey, the guy with all the restraining orders from across the country is at it again!

            The question they need to answer is: Do they call in SWAT, or HAZMAT?

    • Interesting …

      The Cabin Boy™ says he gets trolled everyday by someone using my name, and he decided to publish that 3per image without the most rudimentary vetting. That might go a long way to establishing that he acted with reckless disregard for the truth of the matter. I don’t know how that’s viewed at the GS13-level, but the Supreme Court has offered its opinion on such behavior. Perhaps the Cabin Boy™ should seek advice from the New York Times.

      Meanwhile, the defendants in his current LOLsuit might want to consider how yesterday’s incident might be used with other events to demonstrate a pattern of behavior by the Cabin Boy™ for possible counterclaims.

      One of the useful things about Schmalfeldt’s compulsion to have the last word is the way it drives him to make so many statements against interest.

      Now, its time to pop some more popcorn.

      • I think the more salient point is that the person impersonating you was not “trolling,” but, rather committing a crime, perhaps even a felony depending on which state has final jurisdiction. A reporter may conceal his “sources.” But, this person wasn’t a “source.” He was a common criminal. A reporter has no ethical duty to privilege criminal acts.

        Maybe, someone should ask some lawyer on the web.

        Of course, another possibility is that the “source” is either Bill Schmalfeldt, or, someone directly working with Bill Schmalfeldt. Then, Bill Schmalfeldt would either be scapegoating an imaginary “troll,” or hiding an accomplice in the full knowledge that his accomplice could or would inform the police of his complicity.

    • What is there to “overthink?”

      You lied. Again. It’s what you do. It’s who you are.

      I’m sure you would love for everyone to “forget it.”

      Not in this lifetime, liar.

          • Diminished capacity (more commonly known as “mental defect”) is a terrible thing live with.

          • Just goes to show, you simply cannot out-stupid the Schmalfeldt.

            Also the stuff about the best way to refute Schmalfeldt…

          • Consider his ego – this was, in his mind, the cleverest of cunning plans and couldn’t fail. He can’t quite bring himself to repudiate it, but he squirms at the thought of all the trouble he may have brought on himself.

            His best hope is to minimize, deflect, confuse and dismiss.

            If he weren’t so nasty, I would at least try to feel sorry for him.

            From my phone on the way to catch a train.

        • That’s right up there with “if I get bad information and I threaten innocent people on the basis of that bad information, then that’s YOUR fault!”

          • “Publish then verify” does seem at odds with the ordinary conduct of JOURNALISM, doesn’t it?

            Not really. At least, not for modern journalists.

          • We can solve this right now. If an item crosses my inbox pertaining to you, allow me to call you to check its veracity. You deny it, noted!
            — No Quarter (@YouGetNoQuarter) January 20, 2016

            Yes, because The Layers and Layers of Fat Checkers© has demonstrated a willingness to believe anything Hoge says.

    • “We can solve this right now. If an item crosses my inbox pertaining to you, allow me to call you to check its veracity. You deny it, noted!”

      The desperate need to get you to speak to him is almost sad. Bill has severe daddy issues. Also mommy issues, women in general issues, a disturbing compulsion to the scatological even while knowing that it feeds into the public perception of him being somewhat obsessed with that particular obsession…issues, so many issues.

  4. I’m sure that Bill Schmalfeldt will want to fully cooperate with any law enforcement agencies investigating this multi-state felony, as he appears to be an axial element of whatever shenanigans took place, and may still be taking place, intentionally or not.

  5. “Allow me to call you” – He’s a crank right out Gavin De Becker’s book.
    By the way, while he’s gullible enough to be trolled by a third party, and more than one of his pals likes forgery and fraud-posting (i’m thinking of to in particular) his irrepressible drive to be a botheration is probably behind it. I think he forged it himself. Only he would be stupid enough to post that screen shot.

  6. wjjhoge wrote: “If he fancies himself a real journalist, he can do some real basic journalism.

    Well, I suppose there is a first time for everything.

  7. From that stupid e-book to the current junk, It’s all about creating the illusion John Hoge is contacting BS. In fact, apart from legalities, he hasn’t. I think it is more an emotional need than anything else.

  8. didnt he, in just the last few days proclaim (in all caps) that you don’t publish stuff you don’t know to be true till you are sure??

    and now it’s whatever hits my in box I’ll run with till told different.

    my my my, and he wonders why no one trust him.

  9. dare I hope you will pursue this matter thru the proper authorities Mr. Hoge?
    with identity theft so rampant, this sort of thing really can’t be laughed off.
    it should be pursued and the miscreant responsible punished to the extent the law allows.

  10. LOL

    So now it appears HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGE was also a much better journalist that Bill can ever pretend to be.

    What else does John do well that Bill fails at? Nevermind, that is a ridiculous question. Look at Bill’s life; Bill fails at everything

    • To be fair, William’s is easier. It always is when you have your conclusion before you even begin “investigating.”

  11. My suggestion to Our Esteemed Host: inform CBBS that as far as you are concerned, he should just assume that any future information he garners on Our Esteemed Host is bullshit and ignore it. And considering how much inaccurate information CBBS has promulgated in the past, that would simply be playing the odds.

    And he should post that here, and not through private e-mails, as engaging CBBS in any one-on-one contact would be ill-advised.

    Finally, would this be grounds for renewing the No Contact order?

Leave a Reply