McCanns' Embedded Confessions - Statement Analysis ( Richard D Hall release)

[misty]

What?!  Only a sick, sick mind could look at that video and see child sex abuse.  Seriously.

You know that. I know that. I just think I can see exactly where Hyatt will be attempting to turn an innocent video snippet into something far darker.

[Robittybob1]

I thought I did in this instance. But to abbreviate and not be abusive or indeed not to try to get one over on you:
I find it droll if not paradoxical that with something like a pseudoscience, some will swear by it while others will swear at it depending upon what suits their argument and/or prejudices* at the time. I find pseudo science just that, pseudo, all of the time. The principle has worked for me so I doubt I will change unless.................................

* in the wider sense of the word.

..... unless the McCanns confess.
 ..... unless someone confesses.?

[Robittybob1]

You know that. I know that. I just think I can see exactly where Hyatt will be attempting to turn an innocent video snippet into something far darker.

I think you are on shaky ground (as we are in NZ) when predicting that.

[misty]

I think you are on shaky ground (as we are in NZ) when predicting that.

Maybe I am; but ask yourself why, out of all the interviews the McCanns have participated in, Hall/Hyatt chose this particular one.
The sceptics are queuing up over on Statement Analysis blogspot to participate in Friday's Q&A session. Maybe they believe Hyatt is going to solve the case which proper policeman haven't cracked in over 9 years.

[Robittybob1]

Maybe I am; but ask yourself why, out of all the interviews the McCanns have participated in, Hall/Hyatt chose this particular one.
The sceptics are queuing up over on Statement Analysis blogspot to participate in Friday's Q&A session. Maybe they believe Hyatt is going to solve the case which proper policeman haven't cracked in over 9 years.

That will be interesting, for he only knows if he is right when he gets a confession. 

[Mr Gray]

That will be interesting, for he only knows if he is right when he gets a confession.

as therevwill never be a confession...and as the case is very unlikely to be solved...hyatt is safe in the fact that he cannot be proved to be wrong...its called mud slinging...and thats all he is...a mud slinger

[Robittybob1]

as therevwill never be a confession...and as the case is very unlikely to be solved...hyatt is safe in the fact that he cannot be proved to be wrong...its called mud slinging...and thats all he is...a mud slinger

Well I hope to solve the case.  Not sure how though.  I'm looking to others rather than Kate McCann.
How long will it take?  How long is a piece of string?  Have I got the time and energy? 

[Alfie]

I thought I did in this instance. But to abbreviate and not be abusive or indeed not to try to get one over on you:
I find it droll if not paradoxical that with something like a pseudoscience, some will swear by it while others will swear at it depending upon what suits their argument and/or prejudices* at the time. I find pseudo science just that, pseudo, all of the time. The principle has worked for me so I doubt I will change unless.................................

* in the wider sense of the word.

I don't swear by junk or pseudo science ANY of the time, so whoever your post is aimed at, it surely ain't me.

[Alfie]

as therevwill never be a confession...and as the case is very unlikely to be solved...hyatt is safe in the fact that he cannot be proved to be wrong...its called mud slinging...and thats all he is...a mud slinger

Exactly right.  That's one reason why this case is so attractive to most "sceptics" - they know that the chances of them ever being proven wrong once and for all are very slim indeed, so can continue to doubt and question safe in the knowledge that they will never have to eat their words.

[Mr Gray]

I thought I did in this instance. But to abbreviate and not be abusive or indeed not to try to get one over on you:
I find it droll if not paradoxical that with something like a pseudoscience, some will swear by it while others will swear at it depending upon what suits their argument and/or prejudices* at the time. I find pseudo science just that, pseudo, all of the time. The principle has worked for me so I doubt I will change unless.................................

* in the wider sense of the word.

you seem to be joining the ranks of the mud slingers.........you should provide a cite for belief in junk science rather than make baseless accusations against nameless posters

[slartibartfast]

you seem to be joining the ranks of the mud slingers.........you should provide a cite for belief in junk science rather than make baseless accusations against nameless posters

Post #154.

[Lace]

You know that. I know that. I just think I can see exactly where Hyatt will be attempting to turn an innocent video snippet into something far darker.

Yes he will,  maybe also the 'make up' photo that some pour over all the time, an innocent photo,  yet some will turn it into something else.   Quite sickening imo.

[ferryman]

Post #154.

There is a clear difference between junk science and junk practitioners of legitimate science. 

I think it is possible to tell from someone's body language whether they are telling the truth or whether they are lying.

And I think there are many people who claim the ability without the slightest foundation of knowledge or insight to back the claim.

[jassi]

Is 'junk science' November's buzz-word?

[ferryman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke3TEBbOdFU