Sceptics beliefs ?

[Robittybob1]

Don't we need to make it clear if we are, stating opinion

Beliefs are opinions aren't they?

[G-Unit]

When have you ever said what you believe or what you don't believe?  A precis would be helpful.

Was that a yes or a no?

[Mr Gray]

You are going to become a perfect poster one day at the rate you are going.

Not if I accuse gunit if being child-like  and behaving as though she's in denial.. But who knows

[G-Unit]

Beliefs are opinions aren't they?

Strictly speaking they are but some beliefs are based on faith rather than evidence.

[Brietta]

With reference to the opening post and the title of the thread ... Re: Sceptics  beliefs ? ...

Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg518505#msg518505


Please note that from now on I shall delete everything else which I consider is Off Topic ... thank you

[Mr Gray]

Strictly speaking they are but some beliefs are based on faith rather than evidence.

I think you are, wrong.... In this case there is plenty of evidence to support beliefs

[G-Unit]

I think you are, wrong.... In this case there is plenty of evidence to support beliefs

My definition of the word belief is correct. 

[Mr Gray]

My definition of the word belief is correct.

I never said it wasn't.... But imo it's belief based on evidence

[Miss Taken Identity]

With reference to the opening post and the title of the thread ... Re: Sceptics  beliefs ? ...

Do sceptics believe that in spite of the ongoing investigation into Madeleine's disappearance by both NSY and the current ongoing investigation by the Portuguese police that Madeleine's parents are guilty of whatever they believe they are guilty of?
The guilt has to be qualified because the guilt suspected by sceptics has a very wide range
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10634.msg518505#msg518505


Please note that from now on I shall delete everything else which I consider is Off Topic ... thank you

The guilt has to be qualified? LOL ask the supporters to qualify their belief.

The parents are guilty of leaving their children alone every night to go and drink, socialise, and eat.  This is not a belief this is an actual fact.

The mother claims she put the children to bed and in particular recalls Madeleine was snuggled UNDER the covers as it was a cold night. The father claims He last saw Madeleine alive in bed on top of the covers where he left her as it was a Warm night

The mother claims the curtains were blowing as it was a windy night The searchers never claimed that to be the case.

This is not a belief this is FACT.


The parents both claimed a door had been moved -which was the main reason MBM was allegedly abducted.

We cannot establish how wide the door was open/closed. how would Gerry on his visit know the door was moved AND as Gerry did look in he could only see Madeleine- which means the door was only ajar/slightly open. So, was it really moved on his visit?

Door was more open on Kates visit, why would it be more open if an abductor came and went out of a window?

These are written facts -not beliefs- by people who see these FACTS do not suggest an abduction in the way it was described by the mother.

So to sum up:   As I wasn't there. I have no idea what happened to Madeleine Beth McCann, I BELIEVE she was a victim of some horrific crime- I don't know what that crime was- as the police have failed to ascertain it I do not pretend to know.

The circumstantial evidence could include the dogs to enforce a particular theory. The supporters point blank refuse to believe that the theory of walk and wandered is plausible- even though it is more believable that the whooshing curtain, jemmied shutters version.

[John]

The slightly opened bedroom door would also suggest support for the woke and wandered theory.

[jassi]

The guilt has to be qualified? LOL ask the supporters to qualify their belief.

The parents are guilty of leaving their children alone every night to go and drink, socialise, and eat.  This is not a belief this is an actual fact.

The mother claims she put the children to bed and in particular recalls Madeleine was snuggled UNDER the covers as it was a cold night. The father claims He last saw Madeleine alive in bed on top of the covers where he left her as it was a Warm night

The mother claims the curtains were blowing as it was a windy night The searchers never claimed that to be the case.

This is not a belief this is FACT.


The parents both claimed a door had been moved -which was the main reason MBM was allegedly abducted.

We cannot establish how wide the door was open/closed. how would Gerry on his visit know the door was moved AND as Gerry did look in he could only see Madeleine- which means the door was only ajar/slightly open. So, was it really moved on his visit?

Door was more open on Kates visit, why would it be more open if an abductor came and went out of a window?

These are written facts -not beliefs- by people who see these FACTS do not suggest an abduction in the way it was described by the mother.

So to sum up:   As I wasn't there. I have no idea what happened to Madeleine Beth McCann, I BELIEVE she was a victim of some horrific crime- I don't know what that crime was- as the police have failed to ascertain it I do not pretend to know.

The circumstantial evidence could include the dogs to enforce a particular theory. The supporters point blank refuse to believe that the theory of walk and wandered is plausible- even though it is more believable that the whooshing curtain, jemmied shutters version.

I've never understood how Kate could claim the door had moved, considering that both Gerry & Matt had visited since she left .

[Brietta]

I've never understood how Kate could claim the door had moved, considering that both Gerry & Matt had visited since she left .

Precisely why the alarm bells didn't ring immediately ... she thought exactly as you did in the knowledge others had been in the apartment before her.
It was only in retrospect that the changes in the door positions took on a chilling significance.

[G-Unit]

When have you ever said what you believe or what you don't believe?  A precis would be helpful.

There are beliefs galore on the internet about this case. Some people are quite happy to tell the world what they believe about it. Some are utterly convinced of the McCann's innocence, others of their guilt. I'm not convinced of either because I think the evidence can be used to support both opinions. A lot of my posts address this subject. 

Those who are convinced of the McCann's innocence, for example, firmly believe that the police advised them to show no emotion during appeals and that they were able to comply.

Others wonder if the police really give such advice and, if they do, whether such self control is possible.

My opinion? I don't know, but on balance I find it unlikely that such advice was given and I think it would be very difficult to follow.

My opinions, therefore are not beliefs imo. I can't prove I'm right and I accept I may be wrong. All my opinions are similarly vague.

You, on the other hand, do have beliefs, one of which is;

"I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics." 

You seem convinced that you know what sceptics believe and why. You appear reluctant to accept that you may be wrong, which, imo, is why you didn't answer my question.

Therefore there's no point in me explaining my position because you won't believe what I say anyway imo.

[Venturi Swirl]

There are beliefs galore on the internet about this case. Some people are quite happy to tell the world what they believe about it. Some are utterly convinced of the McCann's innocence, others of their guilt. I'm not convinced of either because I think the evidence can be used to support both opinions. A lot of my posts address this subject. 

Those who are convinced of the McCann's innocence, for example, firmly believe that the police advised them to show no emotion during appeals and that they were able to comply.

Others wonder if the police really give such advice and, if they do, whether such self control is possible.

My opinion? I don't know, but on balance I find it unlikely that such advice was given and I think it would be very difficult to follow.

My opinions, therefore are not beliefs imo. I can't prove I'm right and I accept I may be wrong. All my opinions are similarly vague.

You, on the other hand, do have beliefs, one of which is;

"I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics." 

You seem convinced that you know what sceptics believe and why. You appear reluctant to accept that you may be wrong, which, imo, is why you didn't answer my question.

Therefore there's no point in me explaining my position because you won't believe what I say anyway imo.

Perhaps you could provide some cites of posts you have made that support the opinion that the parents are innocent.

[Mr Gray]

There are beliefs galore on the internet about this case. Some people are quite happy to tell the world what they believe about it. Some are utterly convinced of the McCann's innocence, others of their guilt. I'm not convinced of either because I think the evidence can be used to support both opinions. A lot of my posts address this subject. 

Those who are convinced of the McCann's innocence, for example, firmly believe that the police advised them to show no emotion during appeals and that they were able to comply.

Others wonder if the police really give such advice and, if they do, whether such self control is possible.

My opinion? I don't know, but on balance I find it unlikely that such advice was given and I think it would be very difficult to follow.

My opinions, therefore are not beliefs imo. I can't prove I'm right and I accept I may be wrong. All my opinions are similarly vague.

You, on the other hand, do have beliefs, one of which is;

"I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics." 

You seem convinced that you know what sceptics believe and why. You appear reluctant to accept that you may be wrong, which, imo, is why you didn't answer my question.

Therefore there's no point in me explaining my position because you won't believe what I say anyway imo.

Sceptics believe the alerts are evidence.... You I seem to recall have referred to them as circumstantial evidence..