Is there now grudging but growing acceptance that the McCanns didn't do it?

[G-Unit]

Well I happen to believe Madeleine was abducted by a stranger which should in theory make me a supporter of the idea that Gerry was seen in Lagos begging someone not to hurt Madeleine.  You seem to think that idea is credible but I don't - because I am able to process the information and reject it on the basis that it simply doesn't fit with all the known facts.  You however try to make it fit with the known facts. Rejecting it doesn't make me close minded, it means I can process the information logically.  There is no merit in entertaining every single cockamamie theory just because there is an inkling of a suggestion of evidence to support it.  IMO.

How does it not fit?

[Alfie]

How does it not fit?

How does what not fit?  Gerry being in Lagos on the phone moments after appearing in front of the world's media in PdL do you mean?  The same Gerry who didn't hire a car until weeks later?  We've discussed this already.  If you want to discuss it again let's do so on the relevant thread.  In the meantime it's heartening to see that abduction does fit in with some of the evidence as far as you're concerned.

[G-Unit]

How does what not fit?  Gerry being in Lagos on the phone moments after appearing in front of the world's media in PdL do you mean?  The same Gerry who didn't hire a car until weeks later?  We've discussed this already.  If you want to discuss it again let's do so on the relevant thread.  In the meantime it's heartening to see that abduction does fit in with some of the evidence as far as you're concerned.

You brought it up and you made a statement of 'fact' about it not fitting. As per usual it's not a fact though, which I have explained on the relevant thread.

Were you under the impression that I had rejected abduction completely? How you misunderstand my position!

My position is I don't know what happened, because there's so little evidence. There's definitely not enough evidence to suggest that abduction is the only possibilty.

[Alfie]

You brought it up and you made a statement of 'fact' about it not fitting. As per usual it's not a fact though, which I have explained on the relevant thread.

Were you under the impression that I had rejected abduction completely? How you misunderstand my position!

My position is I don't know what happened, because there's so little evidence. There's definitely not enough evidence to suggest that abduction is the only possibilty.

Why is it then that most of your posts seem an attempt to throw doubt on or undermine the McCanns' version of events?  I've never seen you post in  support of the theory that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, apart from your attempt to shoe-horn in Gerry being in Lagos making a desperate phone call to a kidnapper.

[Benice]

What I see happening on here is supporters going to extraordinary lengths to reject anything except abduction by a stranger. As a result others spend time pointing out that there are other possibilities. That doesn't mean they are committed to any of those possibilities, it just means they are open minded.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'going to extraordinary lengths.....' G.    Can you elaborate please.  IMO both sides give their opinions and in the main both try to back them up with evidence -  if it is available.       I don't see any difference between the two sides in that respect. 

One difference between the opposing sides IMO is that supporters do not resort to  'conspiracy' theories to explain away facts/evidence which do not concur with their own beliefs. 

[stephen25000]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'going to extraordinary lengths.....' G.    Can you elaborate please.  IMO both sides give their opinions and in the main both try to back them up with evidence -  if it is available.       I don't see any difference between the two sides in that respect. 

One difference between the opposing sides IMO is that supporters do not resort to  'conspiracy' theories to explain away facts/evidence which do not concur with their own beliefs.

'One difference between the opposing sides IMO is that supporters do not resort to  'conspiracy' theories to explain away facts/evidence which do not concur with their own beliefs.'

Really.

 


Perhaps you should read  the Mccann supporting sites.


Meanwhile, what evidence that 'supports' abduction, can't be explained by other means/scenarios ?

 &%+((£

[Mr Gray]

'One difference between the opposing sides IMO is that supporters do not resort to  'conspiracy' theories to explain away facts/evidence which do not concur with their own beliefs.'

Really.

 


Perhaps you should read  the Mccann supporting sites.


Meanwhile, what evidence that 'supports' abduction, can't be explained by other means/scenarios ?

 &%+((£

So once again you admit that there is evidence to support abduction
Seems like Alf is correct

[G-Unit]

Why is it then that most of your posts seem an attempt to throw doubt on or undermine the McCanns' version of events?  I've never seen you post in  support of the theory that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, apart from your attempt to shoe-horn in Gerry being in Lagos making a desperate phone call to a kidnapper, however once again your purpose for doing seems to be to suggest that Gerry is withholding information and being deceitful.

Your key word there is 'seem'. That's your perception of my posts, that's all. Supporters of the McCanns ignore, excuse or deny anything which casts doubt on their version of events. A lot of ny posts highlight those inconvenient facts.

[G-Unit]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'going to extraordinary lengths.....' G.    Can you elaborate please.  IMO both sides give their opinions and in the main both try to back them up with evidence -  if it is available.       I don't see any difference between the two sides in that respect. 

One difference between the opposing sides IMO is that supporters do not resort to  'conspiracy' theories to explain away facts/evidence which do not concur with their own beliefs.

Not even in respect of Martin Grime and Amaral? Please!

[stephen25000]

It is quite remarkable that some posters seem unable to grasp the content of other posts, and twist it to their own ends.

Consequently reaffirming why they are on here in the first place.

[Alfie]

Your key word there is 'seem'. That's your perception of my posts, that's all. Supporters of the McCanns ignore, excuse or deny anything which casts doubt on their version of events. A lot of ny posts highlight those inconvenient facts.

There are literally no facts that you have highlighted that cast doubt on the stranger abduction theory - nothing which rules it out, nothing which makes it improbable or unlikely to have happened, so all we have is YOUR perception of the evidence, your perception versus mine.  You even admit that abduction is a possibility, you even believe it's possible that the McCanns were in contact with an abductor.  I don't go THAT far!

[Benice]

Not even in respect of Martin Grime and Amaral? Please!

It is claimed by sceptics that the Tapas 7 deliberately conspired with the McCanns to cover up the death of their daughter - and still maintain that conspiracy is still operating 10 years later.

Some sceptics explained away the SY statement that the McCanns are not suspects or persons of interest by suggesting that this was part of a conspiracy between SY and the Oporto team to lull the McCanns into a false sense of security.

I do not believe there is a conspiracy between newspaper editors and the McCanns to publish articles to coincide with other news items.

I do not believe the McCann are so important they have to be protected by 'people in high places'.

I do not believe that Madeleine died before 3rd May and that photographs proving otherwise have been photoshopped

There are a myriad of conspiracy theories amongst sceptics - thankfully most of the really barmy ones (like the substitute child) are not on this forum.

My point is that in my experience supporters are not conspiracy theorists by nature - but many sceptics are.

AIMHO

[slartibartfast]

It is claimed by sceptics that the Tapas 7 deliberately conspired with the McCanns to cover up the death of their daughter - and still maintain that conspiracy is still operating 10 years later.

Some sceptics explained away the SY statement that the McCanns are not suspects or persons of interest by suggesting that this was part of a conspiracy between SY and the Oporto team to lull the McCanns into a false sense of security.

I do not believe there is a conspiracy between newspaper editors and the McCanns to publish articles to coincide with other news items.

I do not believe the McCann are so important they have to be protected by 'people in high places'.

I do not believe that Madeleine died before 3rd May and that photographs proving otherwise have been photoshopped

There are a myriad of conspiracy theories amongst sceptics - thankfully most of the really barmy ones (like the substitute child) are not on this forum.

My point is that in my experience supporters are not conspiracy theorists by nature - but many sceptics are.

AIMHO

I assume you will provide cites from this forum for all that? Otherwise it's just another strawman.

[Alfie]

I assume you will provide cites from this forum for all that? Otherwise it's just another strawman.

Pretty much everything on Benice's list has been mooted or implied by numerous sceptic posters over the years - to claim otherwise is the height of disingenuousness IMO.  We could start by examining in depth the posts of Pathfinder and Faithlilly for starters if you like...shall we start a new thread?

[slartibartfast]

Pretty much everything on Benice's list has been mooted or implied by numerous sceptic posters over the years - to claim otherwise is the height of disingenuousness IMO.  We could start by examining in depth the posts of Pathfinder and Faithlilly for starters if you like...shall we start a new thread?

So we can say that supporters think Madeleine was the second coming?