Why do some people ardently believe the McCanns version of events?

[Sunny]

As we have a thread regarding why sceptics may doubt the McCanns I though we should, in the interest of balance to have one for those with a different opinion.

So, why do some people believe the McCanns and why does it appear that everything that they appear to say or do has to be justified.

Despite what some supporters say, I have found that sceptics generally are mostly different and have differing opinions as to what happened to Madeleine and what evidence is important or not,   

What evidence is considered important by supporters and what made them chose to believe the couple.

I would be particularly interested to hear from those of you who have changed your views from a sceptical to a supporter position.

[Venturi Swirl]

For one thing there has never, ever, EVER been a plausible, cohesive  theory regarding how the McCanns hid the child’s body, when, where or why, and how they managed to do it so well, in a country that was mostly unfamiliar to them, without access to any of the tools that might come in handy for such a task, at night, without torches, car, etc etc etc.  Someone post up a theory that sounds plausible and fits all the known facts then I’m ready to reconsider my position.  Faithlilly and Pathfinder have both had a go but their theories are easy to rip holes in, unless you are prepared to go down the rabbit hole and believe most or all the Tapas crew are in on it too.

[faithlilly]

For one thing there has never, ever, EVER been a plausible, cohesive  theory regarding how the McCanns hid the child’s body, when, where or why, and how they managed to do it so well, in a country that was mostly unfamiliar to them, without access to any of the tools that might come in handy for such a task, at night, without torches, car, etc etc etc.  Someone post up a theory that sounds plausible and fits all the known facts then I’m ready to reconsider my position.  Faithlilly and Pathfinder have both had a go but their theories are easy to rip holes in, unless you are prepared to go down the rabbit hole and believe most or all the Tapas crew are in on it too.

As you know any discussion of either mine or PF’s theories are quickly deleted so I’m at a loss at how you have come to the conclusion that you can ‘rip holes in them’.

As to going down the rabbit hole, to believe that the parents aren’t involved you’d have to ignore so many coincidences and odd occurrences that it would make your head spin.

[ShiningInLuz]

For one thing there has never, ever, EVER been a plausible, cohesive  theory regarding how the McCanns hid the child’s body, when, where or why, and how they managed to do it so well, in a country that was mostly unfamiliar to them, without access to any of the tools that might come in handy for such a task, at night, without torches, car, etc etc etc.  Someone post up a theory that sounds plausible and fits all the known facts then I’m ready to reconsider my position.  Faithlilly and Pathfinder have both had a go but their theories are easy to rip holes in, unless you are prepared to go down the rabbit hole and believe most or all the Tapas crew are in on it too.

Dispatches 2007

Presumably as this programme is 11 years old and on YouTube, this reply will be allowed to stand.

The only relevant test is occulted.

[barrier]

For one thing there has never, ever, EVER been a plausible, cohesive  theory regarding how the McCanns hid the child’s body, when, where or why, and how they managed to do it so well, in a country that was mostly unfamiliar to them, without access to any of the tools that might come in handy for such a task, at night, without torches, car, etc etc etc.  Someone post up a theory that sounds plausible and fits all the known facts then I’m ready to reconsider my position.  Faithlilly and Pathfinder have both had a go but their theories are easy to rip holes in, unless you are prepared to go down the rabbit hole and believe most or all the Tapas crew are in on it too.

The question of the thread is why do some ardently believe the McCann's, not the sceptic point of view.

[Venturi Swirl]

Dispatches 2007

Presumably as this programme is 11 years old and on YouTube, this reply will be allowed to stand.

The only relevant test is occulted.

What is the theory?

[Venturi Swirl]

As you know any discussion of either mine or PF’s theories are quickly deleted so I’m at a loss at how you have come to the conclusion that you can ‘rip holes in them’.

As to going down the rabbit hole, to believe that the parents aren’t involved you’d have to ignore so many coincidences and odd occurrences that it would make your head spin.

There’s a whole thread on Pathfinder’s theory elswehere in this forum, and you know full well I have repeatedly exposed the holes in yours, and would gladly do so again given the opportunity.  There are no notable coincidences or or odd occurrences pointing to parental involvement IMO, certainly none that can’t be explained, the problem is you don’t want to accept any explanation other than that the parents are lying and guilty.

[ShiningInLuz]

What is the theory?

Body occultation by person/persons unknown.

[faithlilly]

There’s a whole thread on Pathfinder’s theory elswehere in this forum, and you know full well I have repeatedly exposed the holes in yours, and would gladly do so again given the opportunity.  There are no notable coincidences or or odd occurrences pointing to parental involvement IMO, certainly none that can’t be explained, the problem is you don’t want to accept any explanation other than that the parents are lying and guilty.

Saying ‘that couldn’t have happened’ is not ripping holes in my theory VS. Apologies if this comes as a surprise to you.

And I’m sure all the coincidences and odd occurrences can be explained by even odder excuses.

[Venturi Swirl]

Body occultation by person/persons unknown.

Then that is not a theory of parental involvement, sorry.

[Venturi Swirl]

Saying ‘that couldn’t have happened’ is not ripping holes in my theory VS. Apologies if this comes as a surprise to you.

And I’m sure all the coincidences and odd occurrences can be explained by even odder excuses.

Saying “that couldn’t have happened” is not how I ripped holes in your theory, much as you would like to believe it was.  The “oddness”is all in your mind IMO. 

[faithlilly]

Saying “that couldn’t have happened” is not how I ripped holes in your theory, much as you would like to believe it was.  The “oddness”is all in your mind IMO.

That’s exactly what you did.

[jassi]

Saying ‘that couldn’t have happened’ is not ripping holes in my theory VS. Apologies if this comes as a surprise to you.

And I’m sure all the coincidences and odd occurrences can be explained by even odder excuses.

As Clarence said, "There are wholly innocent explanations for anything the police may or may not have found."

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/quotes-of-the-day-clarence-mitchell-time-magazine--t18687.html

[Venturi Swirl]

That’s exactly what you did.

Gerry couldn’t have been Smithman, and that’s a fact established by the PJ.  Tell them they’re wrong then.

[ShiningInLuz]

Then that is not a theory of parental involvement, sorry.

It does not exclude parental involvement.