Author Topic: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB  (Read 358140 times)

0 Members and 15 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Brietta

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3015 on: February 07, 2021, 10:37:07 AM »
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2335.msg76470#msg76470

Thank you ~ that is a bit of an improvement; now do you see why your original link was inadequate to illustrate the cherry picking indulged in your original post now that we are privy to sufficient information to make an informed judgement without prejudice and in context of the whole.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline G-Unit

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3016 on: February 07, 2021, 10:44:22 AM »
I've explained it. It's factually sound when it's based on facts and hard evidence... It really is that simple..

So you think different opinions can't be formed about the same facts and hard evidence? What about when a judicial opinion is overturned by a higher court?
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Brietta

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3017 on: February 07, 2021, 10:55:48 AM »
I've explained it. It's factually sound when it's based on facts and hard evidence... It really is that simple..

Thankyou for taking the time and trouble to wade through what I consider to be misinformed garbage.  I think you have shone a light yet again on clarifying the misconceptions which form the basis of this rather bizarre cult with a belief system (my opinion) which you have rightly summarised as "GIGO...garbage in...garbage out".

At this time and in this place I think there is little to be said other than GIGO for assertions of the non existent sedative properties of CALPOL. 
It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetically sad.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3018 on: February 07, 2021, 10:56:46 AM »
So you think different opinions can't be formed about the same facts and hard evidence? What about when a judicial opinion is overturned by a higher court?
Opinions are subjective, they are either valid or invalid based on the facts and hard evidence. The earth is flat is an opinion, based on the evidence and hard facts it is an invalid opinion.  Calpol us a sedative is an opinion, based on the facts it is an invalid one.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2021, 10:59:28 AM by Vertigo Swirl »
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Brietta

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3019 on: February 07, 2021, 10:58:52 AM »
So you think different opinions can't be formed about the same facts and hard evidence? What about when a judicial opinion is overturned by a higher court?

I know CALPOL is not a sedative ... these presenters apparently believe it is ... what do you think?
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3020 on: February 07, 2021, 10:59:58 AM »
I know CALPOL is not a sedative ... these presenters apparently believe it is ... what do you think?
SNAP
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3021 on: February 07, 2021, 11:05:29 AM »
Validity is the quality of being logically or factually sound. You now need to explain how one person's opinion about the McCanns is more logically or factually sound than another person's.
Who says I do?  I know some are "more logically or factually sound than another person".  Well, at least that's true IMO.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline kizzy

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3022 on: February 07, 2021, 11:16:19 AM »
I opt for the evidence and most certainly would never allow myself to be deceived by belief in a botched unfinished investigation.

Makes me wonder a bit about those who prove inability to think for themselves and place their reliance on the perpetration and perpetrators of error and falsehood.

WOW!!! yet another link to an instruction video to enable opinion to be further cemented firmly in the past from which the rest of the world moved on from so long, long ago.

which the rest of the world moved on from so long, long ago.


How has the world moved on - have you proof of that or is it just your opinion.

To the world, you are but one B.


Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3023 on: February 07, 2021, 11:19:54 AM »
which the rest of the world moved on from so long, long ago.


How has the world moved on - have you proof of that or is it just your opinion.

To the world, you are but one B.
your podcast made the claim that over 50% of people think the McCanns dunnit, what is the statistical basis for this factoid?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline kizzy

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3024 on: February 07, 2021, 11:20:16 AM »
I simply cannot ignore such a patently incorrect and misguidede post.

Validity is predominately  objective because its based on evidence not opinion.

These two podcasters present their opinions but to assess validity we should look at what evidence they base their opinions on. Ive watched a few snippets and noted these points they use as evidence for their opinions.

The children may have been sedated with calpol....calpol is not a sedative so...Garbage

Whilst others searched kate refused to answer questions...Garbage

The smell of a rotting corpse was detected in the hire car....Garbage.


theres a phrase GIGO...garbage in...garbage out

Their opinions are therefore garbage. that is not  asubjective opinion...its an objective opinion based on evidence

I have to qualify my post with ...all my opinion...I actually think its fact.

Why watch it ...what difference does it make to anything apart from it just not fitting in with your agenda.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3025 on: February 07, 2021, 11:27:05 AM »

A particularly ill informed discussion is what I thought.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3026 on: February 07, 2021, 11:37:13 AM »
Why watch it ...what difference does it make to anything apart from it just not fitting in with your agenda.
Why watch it?  You recommended it, that’s why.  Thanks for that.  Somehow I doubt you would have drawn our attention to it if they concluded at the end that Madeleine was most likely abducted, and only did so because it suited YOUR agenda.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3027 on: February 07, 2021, 11:52:37 AM »
Why watch it ...what difference does it make to anything apart from it just not fitting in with your agenda.

I watched some of it because I'm open minded and open to have my opinion changed if new evidence comes to light. I've watched some David Icke stuff.. Not because I believe him but I can't dismiss him from a position of ignorance.
Thats the sign of someone who is truly open minded and forms a valid opinion based on evidence.
How much of Wolters have you listened to?

Offline kizzy

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3028 on: February 07, 2021, 12:02:00 PM »
Why watch it?  You recommended it, that’s why.  Thanks for that.  Somehow I doubt you would have drawn our attention to it if they concluded at the end that Madeleine was most likely abducted, and only did so because it suited YOUR agenda.

Was I talking to you - but there again I talk to anyone I'm nice like that VS

It didn't suit my agenda as such but the conclusion was they did not know what happened that night.



Same as you and me really

Offline kizzy

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #3029 on: February 07, 2021, 12:02:25 PM »
Why watch it?  You recommended it, that’s why.  Thanks for that.  Somehow I doubt you would have drawn our attention to it if they concluded at the end that Madeleine was most likely abducted, and only did so because it suited YOUR agenda.

Right-back atya