Author Topic: Sceptics beliefs ?  (Read 239430 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline The General

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1155 on: April 17, 2019, 01:05:51 PM »
Sceptics believe the alerts are evidence.... You I seem to recall have referred to them as circumstantial evidence..
If you keep trotting that out, maybe everyone will start to believe it.
'Sceptics believe' - all of them? All believe the same? No grey, no slightly differing views? No divergence on a particular aspect? All singing along in harmony?
I think this is officially a wind up now dAveL.
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1156 on: April 17, 2019, 01:31:04 PM »
If you keep trotting that out, maybe everyone will start to believe it.
'Sceptics believe' - all of them? All believe the same? No grey, no slightly differing views? No divergence on a particular aspect? All singing along in harmony?
I think this is officially a wind up now dAveL.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a MCCann sceptic (ie those who believe the McCanns covered up Madeleines death) who doesn’t believe the dog alerts are highly significant. 
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline The General

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1157 on: April 17, 2019, 01:40:42 PM »
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a MCCann sceptic (ie those who believe the McCanns covered up Madeleines death) who doesn’t believe the dog alerts are highly significant.
Could be. My point is, I'm sure there's loads of people who maybe are just sceptical about the whole thing seemingly not tying together, but have formed no real opinion either way - they're still sceptical though.
I get your drift though and actually, perhaps that's a decent definition - those who believe the McCann's covered up Maddie's demise
The 2nd Youngest Member of the Forum

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1158 on: April 17, 2019, 01:50:22 PM »
If you keep trotting that out, maybe everyone will start to believe it.
'Sceptics believe' - all of them? All believe the same? No grey, no slightly differing views? No divergence on a particular aspect? All singing along in harmony?
I think this is officially a wind up now dAveL.
Ive yet to come accross a sceptic who acccepts that the, alerts have no evidential value... That's my personal experience...

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1159 on: April 17, 2019, 01:52:30 PM »
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.
Are you a sceptic?  or more of an a McCann agnostic?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1160 on: April 17, 2019, 01:57:43 PM »
Ive yet to come accross a sceptic who acccepts that the, alerts have no evidential value... That's my personal experience...
95% reliability of evidence of something.  But evidence of what?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1161 on: April 17, 2019, 02:18:30 PM »
Perhaps you could provide some cites of posts you have made that support the opinion that the parents are innocent.

I don't think I've made any and why should I? I don't know if they are innocent or not. There are, however, many such posts by others. In my opinion many of those posts are either expressing opinions or are misunderstanding or misquoting the evidence. My input has often been to point these things out.

For example the fact that the parents howled, cried and prayed on 3rd May isn't evidence which supports the theory that their daughter was abducted imo. I think those who believe that it is are ignoring other possible reasons.

It was suggested for a while that no tracker dogs were used by the GNR in the search for Madeleine. It took me ages to show that some of the search and rescue dogs from Lisbon were actually trained tracker dogs. That was a case of evidence being misunderstood imo.

Misquoting and paraphrasing can change the meaning of evidence. In my opinion cites are very important in case people are deliberately or accidentally getting the evidence to say somthing it doesn't.   
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1162 on: April 17, 2019, 02:27:04 PM »
95% reliability of evidence of something.  But evidence of what?

I don't agree... They have no evidential value or reliability.... According to the experts

Offline G-Unit

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1163 on: April 17, 2019, 02:27:25 PM »
Are you a sceptic?  or more of an a McCann agnostic?

It depends how you define sceptic. I'm not a sceptic as defined by some supporters, but I'm sceptical of aspects of the McCann's version of events. 
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1164 on: April 17, 2019, 02:29:38 PM »
I don't think I've made any and why should I? I don't know if they are innocent or not. There are, however, many such posts by others. In my opinion many of those posts are either expressing opinions or are misunderstanding or misquoting the evidence. My input has often been to point these things out.

For example the fact that the parents howled, cried and prayed on 3rd May isn't evidence which supports the theory that their daughter was abducted imo. I think those who believe that it is are ignoring other possible reasons.

It was suggested for a while that no tracker dogs were used by the GNR in the search for Madeleine. It took me ages to show that some of the search and rescue dogs from Lisbon were actually trained tracker dogs. That was a case of evidence being misunderstood imo.

Misquoting and paraphrasing can change the meaning of evidence. In my opinion cites are very important in case people are deliberately or accidentally getting the evidence to say somthing it doesn't.
Would it be an accurate assertion that you very rarely if ever question evidence put forward by other sceptics to supprt their belief that the parents are complicit in some way, even if said evidence can also be evidence of something else, eg abduction? 
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Brietta

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1165 on: April 17, 2019, 02:31:12 PM »
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.

I have firm opinions based on what some might refer to as 'research' ... and I am not so ashamed of my opinions that I fear to voice them.

You have admitted that McCann sceptics exist in your posts.

You have posted that some of these sceptics have formed themselves into groups to express and promote their scepticism of the McCanns.

You don't seem to be able to bring yourself to admit that either as individuals or groups these sceptics hold certain beliefs the similarity of which is apparent to most observers.

The thread topic is 'sceptic beliefs' of which there is a myriad of research material to chose from: fora ~ newspaper comment sections ~ social media ~ ebooks ~ podcasts and videos; which makes it a valid topic for discussion.

I am interested in what motivates sceptics ... quite obviously you are not ... but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from ad homs directed at me ... telling me what I do and do not believe ... or forecasting that I "will not believe" you.

Your 'question' is unanswerable since you are very careful not to express your opinion ... therefore without you telling the forum what you do or don't believe ( which is what I asked for clarification) please don't invite presumptive and speculative answers referring to you personally at which I have no doubt you may take offence.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1166 on: April 17, 2019, 02:32:33 PM »
I don't think I've made any and why should I? I don't know if they are innocent or not. There are, however, many such posts by others. In my opinion many of those posts are either expressing opinions or are misunderstanding or misquoting the evidence. My input has often been to point these things out.

For example the fact that the parents howled, cried and prayed on 3rd May isn't evidence which supports the theory that their daughter was abducted imo. I think those who believe that it is are ignoring other possible reasons.

It was suggested for a while that no tracker dogs were used by the GNR in the search for Madeleine. It took me ages to show that some of the search and rescue dogs from Lisbon were actually trained tracker dogs. That was a case of evidence being misunderstood imo.

Misquoting and paraphrasing can change the meaning of evidence. In my opinion cites are very important in case people are deliberately or accidentally getting the evidence to say somthing it doesn't.

You accuse others of misunderstanding the evidence... I think you and others misunderstand the evidence...


Offline G-Unit

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1167 on: April 17, 2019, 02:33:50 PM »
Sceptics believe the alerts are evidence.... You I seem to recall have referred to them as circumstantial evidence..

I can see no reason why alerts can't be used as part of a case made up of circumstantial evidence.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1168 on: April 17, 2019, 02:38:08 PM »
I can see no reason why alerts can't be used as part of a case made up of circumstantial evidence.

Because the expert says they have no evidential value and Harrison says no inference can be drawn from them

Offline Brietta

Re: Sceptics beliefs ?
« Reply #1169 on: April 17, 2019, 02:38:31 PM »
95% reliability of evidence of something.  But evidence of what?

Did you watch the Netflix episode featuring Martin Grime?
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....