An Introduction to the Moral Standing of the two opposing groups in the case McC

[Meadow]

I don't believe that the moment Mr Smith committed himself to a second contact with the police, had anything to do with facial recognition.  In fact had he known he was looking at Mr McCann or was attentive, I don't think he probably would have had his recognition of the 'whole' concept of gait & stance and the one thing that gave him that moment of recognition\perception.  I wonder in fact that his conscious would have overruled his sub-conscious.  But it is a fact that it happened, but of course he could have been totally wrong.

But what can not been ruled out to the sequence of events that night. The family saw a man carrying a child at about 10 pm.  That sighting has not been accounted and remains a loose end.

[HiDeHo]

Could you show me one video that I have entered the 'facts' incorrectly (except the 'arguido' comment that I have attempted to correct)

I am surprised you haven't made any coment regarding my post above. Is there a reason?

DO you want to choose the video to critique, or should I choose?

I would be happy for you to point out/list anything you claim is incorrect in my videos and I will most certainly review them and correct if I agree.

The reason I was surprised you did not respond to my above post is, because this thread is titled about 'moral standing' in the two opposing groups and I was pointing out that I feared that you did not consider yourself in either of those groups as your interest/agenda lays elsewhere.

[John]

Could you show me one video that I have entered the 'facts' incorrectly (except the 'arguido' comment that I have attempted to correct)

I am surprised you haven't made any coment regarding my post above. Is there a reason?

DO you want to choose the video to critique, or should I choose?

I would be happy for you to point out/list anything you claim is incorrect in my videos and I will most certainly review them and correct if I agree.

The reason I was surprised you did not respond to my above post is, because this thread is titled about 'moral standing' in the two opposing groups and I was pointing out that I feared that you did not consider yourself in either of those groups as your interest/agenda lays elsewhere.

We all look forward to the list of errors and quotes taken out of context with interest.

[debunker]

Could you show me one video that I have entered the 'facts' incorrectly (except the 'arguido' comment that I have attempted to correct)

I am surprised you haven't made any coment regarding my post above. Is there a reason?

DO you want to choose the video to critique, or should I choose?

I would be happy for you to point out/list anything you claim is incorrect in my videos and I will most certainly review them and correct if I
 agree.

The reason I was surprised you did not respond to my above post is, because this thread is titled about 'moral standing' in the two opposing groups and I was pointing out that I feared that you did not consider yourself in either of those groups as your interest/agenda lays elsewhere.

I do not consider that I am in either group. I do not deny the possibility of abduction so am obviously not an Anti. I do not deny the possibility that the McCanns may have covered up an accident s I am not  a Pro. I support the McCanns right to fair treatment by Justice systems and by press, other media including new media; I do not particularly like the McCanns nor especially their child care routines. I agre with the conclusions of the Portuguese legal system which essentially found no case to answer.

With respect to your videos, you make major errors regarding the dog deployment. Are you willing to debate exactly what the dogs did and why the Portuguese legal system discounted it as evidence?

[debunker]

Could you show me one video that I have entered the 'facts' incorrectly (except the 'arguido' comment that I have attempted to correct)

I am surprised you haven't made any coment regarding my post above. Is there a reason?

DO you want to choose the video to critique, or should I choose?

I would be happy for you to point out/list anything you claim is incorrect in my videos and I will most certainly review them and correct if I agree.

The reason I was surprised you did not respond to my above post is, because this thread is titled about 'moral standing' in the two
opposing groups and I was pointing out that I feared that you did not consider yourself in either of those groups as your interest/agenda
lays elsewhere.

We all look forward to the list of errors and quotes taken out of context with interest.

HiDeHo makes great play with the dog behaviour but her interpretation is misperceived. I propose that she and I debate what the dogs actually do in a separate thread. I am also happy to discuss her misinterpretations of the LCNDNA result from the Renault Scenic.

[Eleanor]

I don't believe that the moment Mr Smith committed himself to a second contact with the police, had anything to do with facial recognition.  In fact had he known he was looking at Mr McCann or was attentive, I don't think he probably would have had his recognition of the 'whole' concept of gait & stance and the one thing that gave him that moment of recognition\perception.  I wonder in fact that his conscious would have overruled his sub-conscious.  But it is a fact that it happened, but of course he could have been totally wrong.

But what can not been ruled out to the sequence of events that night. The family saw a man carrying a child at about 10 pm.  That sighting has not been accounted and remains a loose end.

It has been said that it was the way in which Gerry was carrying the child.  But since this is a normal way to carry a supposedly sleeping child in comfort, this doesn't really wash.

[HiDeHo]

I am happy to do that debunker as I mean what I say about respecting your knowledge.

However, it will be done with the knowledge of what 'happened' before that I have previously alluded to and as long as it is with the intent of correcting me as opposed to attempting to discredit me and evaluate my behaviour.

I am attempting to get information to those that are not aware.  I really do not want to become 'the latest project', and I also would not like to think that your agenda may prevent some information being believed.

I researched many videos and some took more than 70 hours to compile.  I did not spend that time to make a personal point.  I did it because I believe everything I have added to the videos is correct for others to view.

This is about Madeleine, not about analysing and attempting to discredit members.

You are also correct to take it to another thread as I believe this thread is for discussing the 'Moral Standing of the two opposing groups'  of which I would love to hear your views regarding my post.

[Admin]

I don't believe that the moment Mr Smith committed himself to a second contact with the police, had anything to do with facial recognition.  In fact had he known he was looking at Mr McCann or was attentive, I don't think he probably would have had his recognition of the 'whole' concept of gait & stance and the one thing that gave him that moment of recognition\perception.  I wonder in fact that his conscious would have overruled his sub-conscious.  But it is a fact that it happened, but of course he could have been totally wrong.

But what can not been ruled out to the sequence of events that night. The family saw a man carrying a child at about 10 pm.  That sighting has not been accounted and remains a loose end.

You will find in most cases that an account given by a witness will morph over time.  This is not surprising since such a witness will then be influenced by those around him and the Press reports he will see in the newspapers and the tv.

[Eleanor]

The non existent Lichen.  Cited as proof that there was no abductor as this Lichen was undisturbed.  Just a silly lie, but a lie nevertheless.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

You have to scroll down a bit.

Have added photo.
Admin

[HiDeHo]

I am not here to try and influence people to blindly believe the MCanns are guilty.

Am I correct in thinking that you have produced hundreds of hours of videos (all of which paint a very prejudiced and negative picture of the McCanns) which you have not only posted on youtube, but have also repeatedly linked to in hundreds of tweets and forum posts and also sent links of your videos to the Metropolitan Police, ?  Yet you claim you are not here to try and influence people that the McCanns are guilty?  So, what exactly is your agenda then?

Martha
 
The information released to the UK is very one sided.
 
The PJ police from the start of the investigation were under judicial secrecy so the only information available was via the McCanns and their spokespersons.
 
When the dogs were brought in and the McCanns were declared Arguidos they hired a company that WON AN AWARD for their efforts in turning public opinion about the McCanns from hostilty to sympathetic. (ie money helped buy public perception)
 
The website has removed this now
 
http://www.hanovercomms.com/our-clients/case-studies/mccann-family/
 
 

 
The McCanns have made great efforts to stop anyone who opposes the abduction theory.
 
My videos are compiled with the intention of allowing those details to be seen ESPECIALLY in the UK where many people are not aware they exist and are therefore unable to form their own opinions.

My friends and family still contact me when sightings of Madeleine appear in the news.  I do not have an agenda to change their opinions, other than casually mention a few details. I would hope that no-one believes entirely what they are told unless they research for themselves, but I can understand the UK perception because they have only heard one side of the story.

Are UK Public kept in DARK? UK MEDIA not reporting IMPORTANT details about Madeleine McCann?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PylfEhVds6Q

[HiDeHo]

I have just posted an explanation to you on the other thread that I hadnt seen, however I am still interested on your thoughts regarding my post on page 1 of this thread, which hopefully you will reply to, as to whether you are continuing with your agenda of using these debates to analyse the behaviour of the two opposing 'groups' in this case, or whether you truly have an opinion that you choose to share with us.

[debunker]

I have just posted an explanation to you on the other thread that I hadnt seen, however I am still interested on your thoughts regarding my post on page 1 of this thread, which hopefully you will reply to, as to whether you are continuing with your agenda of using these debates to analyse the behaviour of the two opposing 'groups' in this case, or whether you truly have an opinion that you choose to share with us.

My opinion coincides with the conclusion of the Portuguese Legal system: No evidence, no charges, no trial, no more to say.

[HiDeHo]

OK, but you don't deny that your original reason for becoming involved with the McCann case was based on another agenda, and that was to study behaviour of the two groups, 'pros' and '[ censored word]'? (and may in fact be a part of your reason for remaining impartial and maybe influencing others so you can analyse your acheivements?)

[debunker]

OK, but you don't deny that your original reason for becoming involved with the McCann case was based on another agenda, and that was to study behaviour of the two groups, 'pros' and '[ censored word]'? (and may in fact be a part of your reason for remaining impartial and maybe influencing others so you can analyse your acheivements?)

I used to present a course on among other subjects, cult belief systems and the maintenance of cognitively dissonant information. I usedtouse proto-fascist groups as an example but most recently (in Ottawa) have used the McCann case.

[HiDeHo]

Thanks for answering that. (and no, I havent gone to work yet)

After a long time debating (and creating a stir) as debunker you sent that last message to tell us who you were and what you were doing and why.

I really hope you enter into these discussions as a person that cannot fail to have views on the case.  We all know that in a court of law there is no room for error, but in a discussion board its OK to base opinions on a compilation of different facts and circumstances, regardless whether one on its own would be classified as 'evidence'.

So you were near me then and didn't give me a wave?