Richard Hall's film 'When Madeleine Died?' uploaded to YouTube 19th Feb

[Carana]

it wasn't weather..in Faro...or Sagres


what was on the film was ...........Luz/Lagos

A still of that weather chart from the video doesn't offer a label as to the origin.

Hello Xtina.
This is what I can see of that chart as captured on Hall's video:

[Carana]

That's it. No horizontal scale, no wind speed, no location.

If there is a fuller screenshot of that unidentified chart with those missing details, could someone kindly show me where that is?

And is there any particular reason why these details aren't registered (at least on the screenshot at the time in the video that I've shown)?

[Carana]

What makes you so sure that this weather chart came from Luz / Lagos? There's no indication on the chart itself, unless I've missed something.

[Eleanor]

I have had just about enough of, "If no one questions my allegations, then they must be true."

[Carana]

stop twisting my words/post ...you shouldn't do that ...especially the position you are in...how can you respond fairly ...when you admit to not seeing the film also



Surely the content of your post indicates a major flaw in Richard Hall's claims

no it certainly does not claim there is a flaw in what R H says..............he hasn't been proved wrong....

Is he conjuring up something that isn't there?  On balance ... I would say so if his 'research' can neither be sourced or replicated.

it is Carena ....who is searching for something that isn't there.....

Well, yes, quite right: I was looking for any indication as to where this weather chart was taken -  it isn't there, or at least not in that segment.

[xtina]

I have had just about enough of, "If no one questions my allegations, then they must be true."

i know just how you feel Eleanor............i feel just the same when i see mccs are not suspects ..SY say so

[xtina]

One of the forum rules is that personal attacks are not permitted, so I have been very careful in not discrediting Mr Hall per se.  However, I am able to analyse/criticise ideas or theories raised on this forum, and Mr Hall's work has been allowed to remain as a topic, even despite suggestions the entire topic should be deleted.  And analysing/criticising Mr Hall's work is what I am doing.

There is nothing to prevent Mr Hall from passing comment, here or elsewhere, on my analysis.

Mr Hall has, to date, posted a single comment on my blog.  The comment pointed out a piece of faulty analysis in one of my articles.  As his comment was civil, I approved it, even though I thought he was wrong at the time.  After giving it further consideration, I came to the viewpoint Mr Hall was correct on that occasion.  I therefore added a comment stating that I realised Mr Hall was correct.  So I am hardly closed-minded.

This is not an advertising forum, but Mr Hall's work now has many links to it from this topic, which I understand boosts search engine ratings, thus aiding the promotion of Mr Hall's work.

As to the issue of whether Mr Hall's work has been challenged, it most certainly has in this topic.  It does not need McCann aides or supporters for that.  Indeed, the reaction of supporters on here has been in the main dismissive rather than analytical/critical, IMO.

You appear to be generally supportive of Mr Hall's video and you state Mr Hall is easy to reach.  You are well-placed, therefore, to pass on to Mr Hall any issues that you cannot personally resolve.

I can well remember the days when I was a newbie, and I found it very difficult to sort fact from fiction.  I am trying to ensure that readers of this thread who are less familiar with the case do not suffer this issue.

hi S I L

firstly i would like to say ....i am not promoting R H .....he does a very good job of that himself ....they are all over the net

i don't see either why i should have to personally resolve ...anything RH says..

what i do appreciate here ....is Rh has a platform ...and he uses that platform ...to show the abduction didn't necessarily take place ....something that UK have been starved of many years ...no one has ever been allowed to go against the mccs ...for fear of being sued .....what the fund mony was used for it seems....

this case is a mystery ...it is not cut and dried as in abduction only scenario... ...of which to date not one bit of proof to back it up

in various videos put out by the Macs .....[there version]...i cannot see RH video's any different to those ....he shows various accounts that can be questioned ....and has done so



there are a multitude of inconsistencies in this case ....also things that do not add up


I can well remember the days when I was a newbie, and I found it very difficult to sort fact from fiction.  I am trying to ensure that readers of this thread who are less familiar with the case do not suffer this issue.



absolutely.........

but i think at this moment in time ....it is impossible to sort fact .....from......fiction .....[maddie was abducted because the mccs said she was]

you need to know both sides of the story to do this ....not just one ...to then see which one is the most credable to justify what you believe

i just never have ...believed maddie was abducted .......G A ...should never have been removed from the case

[ferryman]

i know just how you feel Eleanor............i feel just the same when i see mccs are not suspects ..SY say so

You feel that Scotland Yard, professional detectives, who have read the original source files, somehow have done so less thoroughly than an army of armchair sleuths pouring over computers in their living-rooms?

[Brietta]

i know just how you feel Eleanor............i feel just the same when i see mccs are not suspects ..SY say so

**snip
While the investigation is at a very early stage, Mr Redwood said: "The review has given us new thinking, new theories, new evidence and new witnesses."

The senior detective said he "genuinely" believes that Madeleine may still be alive, and appealed to the public to keep looking for her.

"Over the last two years what the review has told me is that there is no clear definitive proof that Madeleine McCann is dead. So on that basis I still genuinely believe that there is a possibility that she is alive.

"I would ask the public to continue to look for her. If you look on the Metropolitan Police website you will see the image that we presented last year to the public and all the contact details.

"If the public aren't happy to talk to police then they can call Crimestoppers.

"Everything we are doing is focused towards trying to find Madeleine McCann. There are no guarantees of any outcome, but I can assure you of our absolute determination to try and establish what has happened to her."

He stressed that neither her parents nor the McCanns' friends who were having dinner with them that night are among the 38 people identified.

"Neither her parents or any of the members of the group who were with her are either persons of interest or suspects.

"They (the McCanns) are parents who have lost their daughter and we are doing all we can to bring resolution for them to find out what has happened to Madeleine."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13112306.British_police_launch_new_hunt_for_Madeleine_McCann_and_say_she_may_still_be_alive/

[xtina]

You feel that Scotland Yard, professional detectives, who have read the original source files, somehow have done so less thoroughly than an army of armchair sleuths pouring over computers in their living-rooms?

okay................didn't the PJ ...say they were not suspects

and as i said ..........it annoys me personally in answer to Eleanor .........okay

[G-Unit]

You feel that Scotland Yard, professional detectives, who have read the original source files, somehow have done so less thoroughly than an army of armchair sleuths pouring over computers in their living-rooms?

If, as seems possible according to their remit, Operation Grange is investigating just one possibility in this case, then it's logical for them to announce that the McCanns are not suspects. If they are only investigating an abduction then these professional detectives will have no interest in exploring other possibilities.

[ShiningInLuz]

hi S I L

firstly i would like to say ....i am not promoting R H .....he does a very good job of that himself ....they are all over the net

i don't see either why i should have to personally resolve ...anything RH says..

what i do appreciate here ....is Rh has a platform ...and he uses that platform ...to show the abduction didn't necessarily take place ....something that UK have been starved of many years ...no one has ever been allowed to go against the mccs ...for fear of being sued .....what the fund mony was used for it seems....

this case is a mystery ...it is not cut and dried as in abduction only scenario... ...of which to date not one bit of proof to back it up

in various videos put out by the Macs .....[there version]...i cannot see RH video's any different to those ....he shows various accounts that can be questioned ....and has done so



there are a multitude of inconsistencies in this case ....also things that do not add up


I can well remember the days when I was a newbie, and I found it very difficult to sort fact from fiction.  I am trying to ensure that readers of this thread who are less familiar with the case do not suffer this issue.



absolutely.........

but i think at this moment in time ....it is impossible to sort fact .....from......fiction .....[maddie was abducted because the mccs said she was]

you need to know both sides of the story to do this ....not just one ...to then see which one is the most credable to justify what you believe

i just never have ...believed maddie was abducted .......G A ...should never have been removed from the case

I consider that it is possible to sort many instances of fiction from fact, and IMO, Mr Hall has used considerable fiction in his latest video. 

I don't see why anyone who is not completely familiar with case needs to 1) watch, in considerable detail, Mr Hall's 4 hour video and 2) bone up on the case to see that the work contains significant errors that Mr Hall should have spotted.

I cannot for the life of me understand why Mr Hall can get the crèche sign out procedure completely wrong.  I have a choice between very poor research indeed, or something considerably worse.

I do not know what happened to Madeleine, and I do not work/think to the restrictions of the OG remit.

However, High Tea took place on 3 May 2007, as verified by Mr Raj Balu in his witness statement, as anyone can check, including Mr Hall.

And Madeleine was there, as per Kate's book and the crèche records.

Mr Hall's massive conspiracy theory needs the involvement of Kate McCann, Gerry McCann, David Payne and Cat Baker (or A N Other) just to get over Madeleine at high tea on 3 May.  Then it gets bigger and bigger as he works back.

I would say Mr Hall's massive conspiracy theory is about as realistic as Textusa's massive conspiracy theory.  Neither of them worries much about the true facts.  IMO

[Benice]

If, as seems possible according to their remit, Operation Grange is investigating just one possibility in this case, then it's logical for them to announce that the McCanns are not suspects. If they are only investigating an abduction then these professional detectives will have no interest in exploring other possibilities.

Groundhog day?

No matter what the remit was  -  the exact same evidence would be investigated.    Do you think that if SY came across evidence which strongly pointed to the McCanns and they friends, they would simply ignore it because it didn't fit in with their original remit?    Surely not.

[Brietta]

If, as seems possible according to their remit, Operation Grange is investigating just one possibility in this case, then it's logical for them to announce that the McCanns are not suspects. If they are only investigating an abduction then these professional detectives will have no interest in exploring other possibilities.

The assumption you appear to be making is that Operation Grange undertook a review of all the evidence available to them ... collated the evidence from that ... then discarded it to go for abduction because the McCann's said it was so.

They could have saved themselves the bother by cutting out the middle man by instead of starting to plough through the evidence in 2011 ... they had just plumped for it then instead of waiting two years.

Richard Hall may have built a name for himself by exploiting abysmal research to propound his conclusions ... I believe Scotland Yard might use more sophisticated methods than that ... and when they say that they are looking for an abductor it is as a result of analysis of the evidence.

[stephen25000]

The assumption you appear to be making is that Operation Grange undertook a review of all the evidence available to them ... collated the evidence from that ... then discarded it to go for abduction because the McCann's said it was so.

They could have saved themselves the bother by cutting out the middle man by instead of starting to plough through the evidence in 2011 ... they had just plumped for it then instead of waiting two years.

Richard Hall may have built a name for himself by exploiting abysmal research to propound his conclusions ... I believe Scotland Yard might use more sophisticated methods than that ... and when they say that they are looking for an abductor it is as a result of analysis of the evidence.

...and we know where SY's endeavours have led..............