Sceptics beliefs ?

[Brietta]

The belief that the shutter could not be raised from outside was firmly defended for many years.  I think Amaral may have mentioned it in his book.

That belief is something which has been debunked by a leading sceptic and we have all seen demonstrations of it being done.

Has that belief finally hit the dustbin of history ... or is it still raised on social media?

[faithlilly]

The belief that the shutter could not be raised from outside was firmly defended for many years.  I think Amaral may have mentioned it in his book.

That belief is something which has been debunked by a leading sceptic and we have all seen demonstrations of it being done.

Has that belief finally hit the dustbin of history ... or is it still raised on social media?

Diane Webster proved the shutter couldn’t be opened without damage on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, a media crew a few weeks later. I really don’t know who benefits from misrepresenting already established facts.

From the files:


- Yesterday at 21.16 the Portimao DIC received a phone call from a security officer who worked for the OC to say that a few minutes ago somebody had forced up the shutters of the window of the bedroom Madeleine had disappeared from. The undersigned, together with two of his colleagues went to the scene, where they saw the shutter was hanging obliquely in front of the window and noted that it had been effectively forced open from the outside. However, there were no signs of anyone trying to breach the window.

[pathfinder73]

The belief that the shutter could not be raised from outside was firmly defended for many years.  I think Amaral may have mentioned it in his book.

That belief is something which has been debunked by a leading sceptic and we have all seen demonstrations of it being done.

Has that belief finally hit the dustbin of history ... or is it still raised on social media?

"However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm

[G-Unit]

I have claimed the evidence shows smoking causes lung cancer... You and others have claimed this is not a fact... It might be better if you actually read the, article you quoted... It contains...

The rates of lung cancer are much higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Does this prove that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? No. In order to prove that cigarette smoking is the factor causing this increase in lung cancer, it was necessary to expose animals to tobacco smoke and tobacco smoke extracts. This was done under highly controlled conditions where the only difference between the controls (animals not exposed to smoke) and treated animals was the exposure to smoke. These laboratory studies proved the causal association between smoking and increased risk of cancer....


So the paper YOU quoted confirms the causal link between smoking and lung cancer... Hopefully this will be the last post on the topic and you should now accept you have been wrong all along

If there was no difference between a cause and a causal link there would be no need to use different words to describe them. I understand the difference but I will stop trying to explain it now. Heads and brick walls come to mind.

[G-Unit]

One of the sceptic beliefs which is still under discussion by and can apparently be found repeated on twitter even today is 'blood spatter'.  The myth of blood spatter just isn't substantiated in the files ... in fact the files indicate the exact opposite http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7281.msg336681#msg336681
Yet it still persists 12 years down the line defying evidence that there was no such thing ... and ultimately defying logic.

Why believe? something which just isn't true ... as the mythical blood spatter demonstrates.

I assume that's a rhetorical question?

[Venturi Swirl]

If there was no difference between a cause and a causal link there would be no need to use different words to describe them. I understand the difference but I will stop trying to explain it now. Heads and brick walls come to mind.

There is no proof that uv rays cause skin cancer so I guess you don’t believe that either.

[Mr Gray]

If there was no difference between a cause and a causal link there would be no need to use different words to describe them. I understand the difference but I will stop trying to explain it now. Heads and brick walls come to mind.

have you read the article you linked to...did you read and understand my post...have another look...



The rates of lung cancer are much higher in smokers than in non-smokers. Does this prove that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? No. In order to prove that cigarette smoking is the factor causing this increase in lung cancer, it was necessary to expose animals to tobacco smoke and tobacco smoke extracts. This was done under highly controlled conditions where the only difference between the controls (animals not exposed to smoke) and treated animals was the exposure to smoke. These laboratory studies proved the causal association between smoking and increased risk of cancer....


it says cigarrettes are the factor causing the increase in lung cancer...how much clearer does it need to be....


what this shows to me is you have a totally closed mind and just will not accept clear evidence taht contradicts it.....

[Brietta]

I assume that's a rhetorical question?

Feel free to answer it if you are so inclined.

[Brietta]

"However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm

As I said ... despite watching a demonstration of exactly how the shutter was raised there is huge resistance to relinquishing the sceptic belief that it was impossible to do.

[faithlilly]

As I said ... despite watching a demonstration of exactly how the shutter was raised there is huge resistance to relinquishing the sceptic belief that it was impossible to do.

Dianne was there on the night of the disappearance and tried the shutter that night. Peter Mac raised the shutter years later so who knows what had happened to it in the meantime.

It always amuses me when individuals who weren’t there on the night attempt to second guess individuals who were. Why would Dianne Webster say that she couldn’t raise the shutters if she could ? What would she have to gain.

John would it be possible to have a fingers in ears emoticon?

[Venturi Swirl]

Dianne was there on the night of the disappearance and tried the shutter that night. Peter Mac raised the shutter years later so who knows what had happened to it in the meantime.

It always amuses me when individuals who weren’t there on the night attempt to second guess individuals who were. Why would Dianne Webster say that she couldn’t raise the shutters if she could ? What would she have to gain.

John would it be possible to have a fingers in ears emoticon?

But you yourself have posted an excerpt from the files in which the police themselves say they saw the shutter forced open.  How was this possible if Dianne Webster could not perform the feat?

[G-Unit]

Feel free to answer it if you are so inclined.

It's nothing to do with me. I just wondered who you were talking to. 

[Brietta]

It's nothing to do with me. I just wondered who you were talking to.

??? ... you did after all respond to my post which I think does make it 'something to do with' you otherwise why bother? ... but hey-ho ...

[pathfinder73]

As I said ... despite watching a demonstration of exactly how the shutter was raised there is huge resistance to relinquishing the sceptic belief that it was impossible to do.

On 3 May 2007 they could not be raised by Dianne as seen in crime scene photos. They had stuck that's why that weren't fully down! They normally fall back down but there's a gap at the bottom which means the shutters had stuck! Elementary like the evidence found on the alleged open window!

[Brietta]

On 3 May 2007 they could not be raised by Dianne as seen in crime scene photos. They had stuck that's why that weren't fully down! They normally fall back down but there's a gap at the bottom which means the shutters had stuck! Elementary like the evidence found on the alleged open window!

Snip
He does not know if the window next to the front door, and that gave access to the children's bedroom, was locked, given that he assumed that the outside blinds could not be opened from the outside.
___________________________________________________________________

 ... the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back ...
___________________________________________________________________

----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.  G McCann 10/05/2007
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm


Sceptics believe that the crime scene was 'staged'.
They've never come up with an explanation as to why having carefully opened the window and raised the shutter to 'simulate' an abduction ... this 'master criminal' went to the bother of destroying the 'set up' by closing the shutter before the police could see it.