Who Is “bobfrombrockley” – Part 2

Introduction

In the first part of this investigation I revealed evidence that proves that Professor Ben Gidley is indeed “bobfrombrockley“.

Given the positive feedback I received and the surplus of evidence uncovered, I decided to compile an additional post.

As noted previously, both accounts were setup in November and December of 2010. “Bob’s” first tweet on was November 30 2010:

Ben’s was on December 8, 2010 when both accounts tweeted the same tweet, using “Twitter Web Client”, 4 minutes apart:

As time goes on and “Bob’s” identity is established it gets harder to pick out the similarities, but not impossible. Hence why I decided to look back at the beginning of Ben’s Twitter career. This is when mistakes are much more likely to have been made in innocence as someone tries to find their way on the platform and also gets used to the idea of living a double-life. It was during this period that an abundance of errors was made by Gidley. This article again only brushes the surface, I could write another 5 articles and still have examples remaining unpublished.

On Holidays?

For a period during July and August of 2011 we see both the Ben and “Bob” accounts falling silent, only to resurface on the same date of August 15, 2011 with the same style of tweet.

Using the search string “(from:bengidley) until:2011-8-16 since:2011-7-22 -Ben” I was able to determine Ben’s last tweet was on July 22. The reason for the “-Ben” tag was to subtract the results for his automated blog entries that are posted daily and that contain the word, “Ben”.

Using the same string on the “Bob” account returns this:

“(from:bobfrombrockley) until:2011-8-16 since:2011-7-22 -Bob”

Bar a single tweet on July 26, his account had also fallen silent on July 22 – August 15. Again I used the “-Bob” tag to also exclude his daily automated blog advertisements.

But it gets more interesting on August 15 when they both come back online. Both accounts declare that they are “back” after having “Been away,” (comma included).

Both accounts also thank “@June4th” and both accounts use the same platform to send these tweets, “Twitter Web Client”.

As above, here is the same tweet, tweeted from both accounts, on the same day, using the same Twitter platform and 4 minutes apart.

Both accounts simultaneously fall silent between 23/12/10 and 29/12/10:

The following graphic may seem confusing at first, however, I’ve colour coordinated it to assist. Left side are tweets from “Bob”. Right from Ben. They are automated ads that go out at set times informing of daily blog posts from both accounts. What is most intriguing about that collection is April 20 (red). Note the change in language of the ad from the usual “The Bob/Ben Daily is out!” to “Read the Bob/Ben Daily”.

Next up is a #ff, “Follow Friday”, tweet from each account that gives a nod to the same person “@fleshgrass”. Tweets are made on the same day, same platform, 6 minutes apart.

Next we have both accounts again #ff using the same language, 2 minutes apart:

Having been “Friends” on Twitter for years, living in the same town of Lewisham, sharing the same hobbies, interests and political beliefs. Reading the same authors, listening to the same artists, attending the same events, they have never sent a single tweet to each other. Not one!

Same Events – Quick Refresh

Here are two events that “both” accounts attended. Neither account “Likes”, “RTs” or communicates with the other, ever, but more curiously here, when both accounts attend the same events and yet don’t exchange a single “Like” or a passing comment:

Both accounts opt to switch between iPhones and iPads and vice-versa:

Both accounts like to listen to @ResonanceFM:

Both accounts like to broadcast their blog posts using the same ad format and tagging @ResonanceFM:

The Slam-Dunk

Each one of the evidences I have provided in both reports could well be enough for some, however, I accept that some evidence may be more convincing than others. Taken as whole, they amount to proof. But if you needed that final piece to convince you – the number 171 may be what you’re looking for!

But is that enough? Gidley wrote an article on a blog called “171bus” – so what? Right?

It’s his own blog!

But what about the bagels? Only with “cream cheese” please.

Conclusion

I could go on like this ad nauseam. However, I think you all get the idea at this stage?

The evidence is conclusive and it all supports the proof I was shown a while back.

As I stated at the beginning at Part 1 of this investigation. I have no gripe with someone having an alias Twitter account – personally I feel living a double-life and trying to manage two accounts would take way too much effort and you’d need a great memory to be careful not to tweet stuff you have previously from your other account. But, Twitter allows it and if that’s your thing, then so be it. The issue I take is a UK Professor using his alias account to launch attacks on those of us that support the right of whistleblowers to be heard, regardless of what field they come. I find that abhorrent and cowardly and something that the world of academia should condemn. On top of that he uses his alias to attack other UK academics and edit their Wikipedia pages, whilst attempting to smear and damage their reputations.

This is the type of activity you’d expect from a troll. Not what you’d expect from a university professor.

**There may be further additions to this exposure.