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

[sika]

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

[stephen25000]

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Total cliche and said by someone who clearly doesn't understand the principles.

[stephen25000]

Forgive me for butting in.

Stephen, did I miss your views on the evidence given by the Smith family? (Regarding the sighting by the beach).

So how do you know Mr. Smith was incorrect ?

P.S. I am well aware of the other family members comments.

By the way do you believe Tanner is capable of receiving visual data beyond the visible spectrum ?

[stephen25000]

Forgive me for butting in.

Stephen, did I miss your views on the evidence given by the Smith family? (Regarding the sighting by the beach).

So how do you know Mr. Smith was incorrect ?

P.S. I am well aware of the other family members comments.

By the way do you believe Tanner is capable of receiving visual data beyond the visible spectrum ?

I don't know Mr Smith was incorrect.

Stop accusing me of saying and believing matters on which I have expressed no opinion.

You are merely projecting your fantasies of a Pro onto me. Reality check time.

I was replying to another poster, so why are you replying ?

:-)

[sika]

I don't know that Mr Smith wasn't correct, of course.

I would however suggest that his assertion that the man carrying the child was Gerry, is, on balance, false.
There are a number of witnesses who, quite positively claim to have seen Mr McCann at the apartment, at and around the material time.

I'm not sure about Mrs Tanners evidence. I am in no doubt that she saw a man carrying a child, I mean why would she lie? But as for the description given later, I can see why many may doubt its accuracy.

[sika]

Stephen, may I ask (again!) for your views on the Smiths evidence and that of Mrs Tanner?

[Meadow]

sika  May I just give an opinion  From what I have read about the Smith sighting and then subsequently when Mr Smith contacted the police again, after seeing the McCanns return to the UK.

Can you just recall to yourself when you have been watching  film, t.v. programme or perhaps an item of news, and you haven't given it your fullest of attention,  then suddenly your are amazed that you have spotted in a split second something in the background shot that is familiar to you.  Then spend the next few minutes puzzled by it. I was recently watching the old t.v. programme Butterflies - just suddenly out of the blue I recognised a background shot... why after all these years, and how could recognise it.

I think for Mr Smith, this unconscious stimulus happened when presented with the stance & gait of Mr McCann..... perhaps Mr Smith is wrong, I don't know.  But he seemed to have struggled with his conscience before contacting the police.  And from the official file released (unheard of in the UK) there seemed to be little of follow up or a Rogatory interview (due to misunderstanding that he didn't live in the UK) of course, further information from him my purely not been released and if the MET are worth their £3.5m+ one would hope he has been reinterviewed.

So was it a eureka moment? or merely a false sensory perception !

One can argue until the cows come home about the case of missing Madeleine McCann.  Sorting fact from fiction\speculation.  But what remains ambiguous are the TALES OF THE UNEXPLAINED, for example the Gaspar statements.  Somewhat fall into the same category as Mr Smiths second witness statement. un-expected & un-explained.

[debunker]

sika  May I just give an opinion  From what I have read about the Smith sighting and then subsequently when Mr Smith contacted the police again, after seeing the McCanns return to the UK.

Can you just recall to yourself when you have been watching  film, t.v. programme or perhaps an item of news, and you haven't given it your fullest of attention,  then suddenly your are amazed that you have spotted in a split second something in the background shot that is familiar to you.  Then spend the next few minutes puzzled by it. I was recently watching the old t.v. programme Butterflies - just suddenly out of the blue I recognised a background shot... why after all these years, and how could recognise it.

I think for Mr Smith, this unconscious stimulus happened when presented with the stance & gait of Mr McCann..... perhaps Mr Smith is wrong, I don't know.  But he seemed to have struggled with his conscience before contacting the police.  And from the official file released (unheard of in the UK) there seemed to be little of follow up or a Rogatory interview (due to misunderstanding that he didn't live in the UK)
 of course, further information from him my purely not been released and if the MET are worth their £3.5m+ one would hope he has been reinterviewed.

So was it a eureka moment? or merely a false sensory perception !

One can argue until the cows come home about the case of missing Madeleine McCann.  Sorting fact from fiction\speculation.  But what
 remains ambiguous are the TALES OF THE UNEXPLAINED, for example the Gaspar statements.  Somewhat fall into the same category as
Mr Smiths second witness statement. un-expected & un-explained.

It is worth reading up about the unreliability of facial recognition and memory in the Psychology literature
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ucGkLW4v-94C&pg=PA96&lpg=PA111&ots=moZ_E3k8rl&dq=identity+parades+psychology&output=html_text

[HiDeHo]

I have always welcomed discussions regarding this case, particularly from those with opposing views as it often serves to have me second guess myself, and I would quite freely correct myself if I discover an inaccuracy.

However, my knowledge of the case is of no comparison to 'fight' against someone of your level of knowledge, debunker. You not only have an interest in the case but you are also highly skilled at the study of 'behaviour' and particularly, with  the discourse in this case.

Although I respect your expertise in analysing the members responses and you certainly have a knowledge of the case, an interest that was the result of your studies, I feel that your need to keep 'middle ground' may prevent some of the true facts from being debated.

 I have a good knowledge of the case but your expertise and ability to bring the points being discussed to 'ground level' make it difficult to discuss further.  Thats sad. I certainly do not have the time to respond to some of your posts as to do so would entail lengthy posts with the details and corresponding links that would be ultimately  ignored.

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

I try to show the details from the files that are not freely available in the UK, and although the details may never get to those that do not use a computer, I do my best to make them available in a video format that contains as many of the details in one video, leaving the viewers the freedom to decide for themselves.

As mentioned before, I respect your stance on the case but I cannot always respond directly to your posts as explained above. 

I feel you are not posting because of an opinion that you hold, but it appears to be more of an exercise for your own 'agenda'. I apologise if I am incorrect.

I enjoy and love discussions but I have to bow out from trying to 'fight' to have the details known.  Your expertise will guarantee you will 'win' any discussion.

My videos are available and they show the details of the case.  I have spent enough time on the case that I need to allocate it to something more important than to become (whether directly or as a result of) a subject in one of your projects.

Keep up the good work for those that have the time to 'discuss' with you. No question you are very knowledgeable and one day you may become 'one of us' and have an opinion. 

[Meadow]

Well said

So have we been analysed?

Or have we been leveled\equalised? 

On this occasion!

[Eleanor]

Well that's a good cop out, I must say.

[HiDeHo]

A 'cop out' Eleanor?

[debunker]

@HiDeHo

I have watched many of your videos. They are all riddled with errors of fact and inference and add nothing to any debate.

Choose one to represent your output and I will be happy to debate its contents with you- perhaps your views on the dogs or the DNA findings.

[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?

[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?