Debunker. your stance ids not in the middle. You clearly back the Mccanns.
I have seen no criticism from you towards the 'pros'.
Personally, I have seen a load of rubbish and hatred spew from both sides of the fence.
You like to use the word 'evidence', yet when asked for something concrete as regards 'abduction', youn reply with hyperbole.
You do not know the Mccanns or their associates told the truth, you assume they did.
If Madeleine died as the result of an accident in the apartment as I believe she did, then the Mccanns would have good cause to lie, and to
a lesser extent their associates.
Debunker. your stance ids not in the middle. You clearly back the Mccanns.
I have seen no criticism from you towards the 'pros'.
Personally, I have seen a load of rubbish and hatred spew from both sides of the fence.
You like to use the word 'evidence', yet when asked for something concrete as regards 'abduction', youn reply with hyperbole.
You do not know the Mccanns or their associates told the truth, you assume they did.
If Madeleine died as the result of an accident in the apartment as I believe she did, then the Mccanns would have good cause to lie, and to
a lesser extent their associates.
You are wrong on every count.
I believe there is insufficient evidence to prove either abduction or harm by people close to Madeleine.
I do not assume the McCanns 'told the truth'.
I do criticise the Pros and have been banned from Pro boards for critiquing their myths.
I do not back the McCanns; I do support their rights under the law.
I suggest that your view is warped by your own assumptions, myths and prejudices.
Here we go again
''Friday, 28 August 2009
This whole saga started when I noticed the high emotions surrounding the Madeleine McCann Case. I lecture and research in Social Psychology and have a particular interest in fixed belief systems – how they start and how they are defended. The dramatic arguments between the groups that became known as the Pros and the [ censored word] in the McCann Case were excellent material for recording the initiation, growth, continuation and decline of belief systems and particular sub-system beliefs.
I have posted very occasionally on Discussion Boards but have used PMs and emails at great frequency and length to discuss posters' emotions, beliefs and actions.''
http://beachydebunkeddebunkerbeached.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/this-whole-saga-started-when-i-noticed.html
''I am a retired NHS Clinician and University Lecturer. I used to get my kicks pointing out fallacies in Fascist and Racist Right Wing sites and DeBunking their CRAZY ideas. Then I found the Madeleine Forums and saw the same CRAZY reasoning and applied the same treatment to them on Sky, Mirror and eventually on the3Arguidos. Before this no DeBunker existed and references to other DeBunkers are fallacious. I hold no brief for the McCanns. I post merely to expose the wild theories and anti-libertarian views of the [ censored word ]s- those who believe that being judged guilty by a small group of extremists allows them to destroy the life of a suspect. ''
http://daily[ censored word ].blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/debunker-starts-thread-reintroducing.html
So here we have the wonderful world of the academic social equalizater on the case of missing Madeleine McCann.
Whooooosh no pro or anti debate. No chewing the cud looking for ambiguities - but cosh bang the heads of the idiots together.
Sit back and watch the flames fly.
Debunker. your stance ids not in the middle. You clearly back the Mccanns.
I have seen no criticism from you towards the 'pros'.
Personally, I have seen a load of rubbish and hatred spew from both sides of the fence.
You like to use the word 'evidence', yet when asked for something concrete as regards 'abduction', youn reply with hyperbole.
You do not know the Mccanns or their associates told the truth, you assume they did.
If Madeleine died as the result of an accident in the apartment as I believe she did, then the Mccanns would have good cause to lie, and to
a lesser extent their associates.
You are wrong on every count.
I believe there is insufficient evidence to prove either abduction or harm by people close to Madeleine.
I do not assume the McCanns 'told the truth'.
I do criticise the Pros and have been banned from Pro boards for critiquing their myths.
I do not back the McCanns; I do support their rights under the law.
I suggest that your view is warped by your own assumptions, myths and prejudices.
As to criticizing the 'pros', I have yet to see on example, and as to your being removed from boards, we have only your word for that.
Also, a pertinent point statistically, most disappearances/abuse/neglect of children occur within the family.
Debunker. your stance ids not in the middle. You clearly back the Mccanns.
I have seen no criticism from you towards the 'pros'.
Personally, I have seen a load of rubbish and hatred spew from both sides of the fence.
You like to use the word 'evidence', yet when asked for something concrete as regards 'abduction', youn reply with hyperbole.
You do not know the Mccanns or their associates told the truth, you assume they did.
If Madeleine died as the result of an accident in the apartment as I believe she did, then the Mccanns would have good cause to lie, and to
a lesser extent their associates.
You are wrong on every count.
I believe there is insufficient evidence to prove either abduction or harm by people close to Madeleine.
I do not assume the McCanns 'told the truth'.
I do criticise the Pros and have been banned from Pro boards for critiquing their myths.
I do not back the McCanns; I do support their rights under the law.
I suggest that your view is warped by your own assumptions, myths and prejudices.
As to criticizing the 'pros', I have yet to see on example, and as to your being removed from boards, we have only your word for that.
Also, a pertinent point statistically, most disappearances/abuse/neglect of children occur within the family.
Chinagirl backs me up on being banned from STM for arguing that technically there was evidence against the McCanns (just not adequate to prosecute or even charge) and for pointing out that having the investigation shelved does not mean that the McCanns have been absolved. I have been refused p posting rights on .....2.
Statistics are not predictive of individual events- anyone studying statistics is reminded of that as soon as the study begins. Exceptions and outliers always occur.
On the balance of probabilities, murderers are overwhelmingly likely tobe male.
Therefore any murder must be by a man.
You are mistaken when you say you understand statistics.
On the balance of probabilities, murderers are overwhelmingly likely tobe male.
Therefore any murder must be by a man.
You are mistaken when you say you understand statistics.
Incorrect yet again.
I suggest you read up on hypothesis testing procedures, including Significance Testing, to evaluate the test result.
You might learn something.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
I would be happy for you to point out/list anything you claim is incorrect in my videos and I will most certainly review them and correct if I agree.
The reason I was surprised you did not respond to my above post is, because this thread is titled about 'moral standing' in the two opposing groups and I was pointing out that I feared that you did not consider yourself in either of those groups as your interest/agenda lays elsewhere.
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?
I would be happy for you to point out/list anything you claim is incorrect in my videos and I will most certainly review them and correct if I
agree.
The reason I was surprised you did not respond to my above post is, because this thread is titled about 'moral standing' in the two opposing groups and I was pointing out that I feared that you did not consider yourself in either of those groups as your interest/agenda lays elsewhere.
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?
I would be happy for you to point out/list anything you claim is incorrect in my videos and I will most certainly review them and correct if I agree.
The reason I was surprised you did not respond to my above post is, because this thread is titled about 'moral standing' in the two
opposing groups and I was pointing out that I feared that you did not consider yourself in either of those groups as your interest/agenda
lays elsewhere.
We all look forward to the list of errors and quotes taken out of context with interest.
I don't believe that the moment Mr Smith committed himself to a second contact with the police, had anything to do with facial recognition. In fact had he known he was looking at Mr McCann or was attentive, I don't think he probably would have had his recognition of the 'whole' concept of gait & stance and the one thing that gave him that moment of recognition\perception. I wonder in fact that his conscious would have overruled his sub-conscious. But it is a fact that it happened, but of course he could have been totally wrong.
But what can not been ruled out to the sequence of events that night. The family saw a man carrying a child at about 10 pm. That sighting has not been accounted and remains a loose end.
I don't believe that the moment Mr Smith committed himself to a second contact with the police, had anything to do with facial recognition. In fact had he known he was looking at Mr McCann or was attentive, I don't think he probably would have had his recognition of the 'whole' concept of gait & stance and the one thing that gave him that moment of recognition\perception. I wonder in fact that his conscious would have overruled his sub-conscious. But it is a fact that it happened, but of course he could have been totally wrong.
But what can not been ruled out to the sequence of events that night. The family saw a man carrying a child at about 10 pm. That sighting has not been accounted and remains a loose end.
I am not here to try and influence people to blindly believe the MCanns are guilty.
Am I correct in thinking that you have produced hundreds of hours of videos (all of which paint a very prejudiced and negative picture of the McCanns) which you have not only posted on youtube, but have also repeatedly linked to in hundreds of tweets and forum posts and also sent links of your videos to the Metropolitan Police, ? Yet you claim you are not here to try and influence people that the McCanns are guilty? So, what exactly is your agenda then?
I have just posted an explanation to you on the other thread that I hadnt seen, however I am still interested on your thoughts regarding my post on page 1 of this thread, which hopefully you will reply to, as to whether you are continuing with your agenda of using these debates to analyse the behaviour of the two opposing 'groups' in this case, or whether you truly have an opinion that you choose to share with us.
OK, but you don't deny that your original reason for becoming involved with the McCann case was based on another agenda, and that was to study behaviour of the two groups, 'pros' and '[ censored word]'? (and may in fact be a part of your reason for remaining impartial and maybe influencing others so you can analyse your acheivements?)
Great post. 8@??)(
The information released to the UK is very one sided.
The information coming out in the UK was for months very one-sided against the McCanns, I'll grant you that. Then when it became apparent that the Portuguese case against them was built on straw, the UK media grew more circumspect. The tabloids especially realised that they had been reporting extremely biased anti McCann propaganda and some of them apologised and recompensed the McCanns for the harm done to their reputation and the search for Madeleine.
QuoteThe PJ police from the start of the investigation were under judicial secrecy so the only information available was via the McCanns and their spokespersons.
Wrong. The information upon which most of the Anti McCann headlines of 2007-2008 were based were clearly not put there by the McCanns or their spokesman (what on earth would be the point of that?), they were very obviously leaked by the PJ investigation to the PT Media.
QuoteWhen the dogs were brought in and the McCanns were declared Arguidos they hired a company that WON AN AWARD for their efforts in turning public opinion about the McCanns from hostilty to sympathetic. (ie money helped buy public perception)
I expect if your reputation had been trashed by the police so that there was worldwide suspicion that you had caused the death of your child and hidden her body you might feel moved to take proactive steps to repair that reputation, particularly if you felt that doing so would get people looking out for your missing child rather than writing her off as dead and her body dumped down the nearest volcano.
QuoteThe McCanns have made great efforts to stop anyone who opposes the abduction theory.
Not really. They have attempted to counteract myths and lies spread by the most high-profile individuals such as Tony Bennett and Goncalo Amaral, and by certain newspapers - however the vast majority of those anonymous internet beings who daily trash Kate & Gerry's reputations and spend all their free time trying to convince the world that Madeleine is dead do so without any restrictions placed on them by the McCanns whatsoever.QuoteMy videos are compiled with the intention of allowing those details to be seen ESPECIALLY in the UK where many people are not aware they exist and are therefore unable to form their own opinions.
Your videos make no attempt at even-handedness and are riddled with Anti McCann spin, propaganda and innaccuracies.QuoteMy friends and family still contact me when sightings of Madeleine appear in the news. I do not have an agenda to change their opinions, other than casually mention a few details. I would hope that no-one believes entirely what they are told unless they research for themselves, but I can understand the UK perception because they have only heard one side of the story.
Anyone in the UK, or the world for that matter, is quite able to make up their own minds about this case without the "help" of your propaganda videos. The PJ Files are freely available to all and these are the only resources needed for anyone interested in researching the case. Your videos are wholly biased and fortunately anyone with more than a dozen braincells can see them for what they are and recognise your very determined Anti McCann agenda.
While we're at it - why do you frequently remind your followers on Controversy not to post libellous or offensive comments about the McCanns and their friends, then turn a blind eye to the daily stream of libellous and hateful comments that are made about them on that facebook page?
Great post. 8@??)(
Martha wroteGreat post. 8@??)(
While we're at it - why do you frequently remind your followers on Controversy not to post libellous or offensive comments about the McCanns and their friends, then turn a blind eye to the daily stream of libellous and hateful comments that are made about them on that facebook page?