Madeleine McCann: here come the psychic predators.

[Admin]

Do we have a source for this claim?

Probably himself as is often the case with these people!

[Matt]

Probably himself as is often the case with these people!

Which would explain why there aren't enough details to check the facts

[SKIRRID5]

Predictably enough someone (Beverly?) brought in the old chestnut about our using only part of our brain's abilities. Would someone explain how this idea can be reconciled with Natural Selection. If any living creature wasn't using a certain ability, how could that ability be selected and so become generally present in the species? Or do these folk reject evolution? I wouldn't be surprised.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Predictably enough someone (Beverly?) brought in the old chestnut about our using only part of our brain's abilities. Would someone explain how this idea can be reconciled with Natural Selection. If any living creature wasn't using a certain ability, how could that ability be selected and so become generally present in the species? Or do these folk reject evolution? I wouldn't be surprised.

Next person who claims we only use 10% of our brain - I'm coming round to take the other 90% out with a drill and a scalpel. We'll finally find out whether it is truth or myth....

[Julia]

If you need any help I'll bring the mop and bucket. ;)

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Anyone surprised at this? Words cannot express how angry this makes me feel, if true. I guess enough time has passed, it is now acceptable to profit directly from this case.



Psychic investigators from a hit US television show will attempt to solve the Madeleine mystery. Three clairvoyants from Haunting Evidence will travel to Praia da Luz in a bid to find the missing four-year-old.



The programme's makers claim to have previously made a breakthrough in an unsolved murder case in the US.

They have approached the McCanns for their co-operation but have not yet received a response, Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas reported


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=507313&in_page_id=1811

[vbloke]

Surely this is just a rehash of Brian's abortive attempt.

If the rules haven't changed, they could find themselves in legal trouble, if they're interfering with an ongoing police case.

[Matt]

Surely this is just a rehash of Brian's abortive attempt.

If the rules haven't changed, they could find themselves in legal trouble, if they're interfering with an ongoing police case.

Like most of us, what I know about Portuguese law could be written on the back of a list of homopathic side effects. However if I remember correctly the case recently reached an 8 month watershed where the police were required to make public whatever information they had. As I understand it they're seeking (or have allready gained) an extention.

I wonder if this watershed also affects the status of private investigators.

So long as these folks have not declared an intention to break into Murat's house they're not in line for as much as a smakdown as Brian was.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

No, it would appear to be something different, an entirely new set of predators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunting_Evidence



The cast is currently comprised of psychic profiler Carla Baron, medium John J. Oliver, and paranormal investigator Patrick Burns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Burns_%28paranormal_investigator%29). The premise of the series is to shed new light on unsolved crimes utilizing this "team of unconventional investigators".


I think this show has been on some of the lesser Sky channels at times.

There is a link to a Skeptical Enquirer article about the programme on that page, but I can't click it at the moment to see what it says.

[Cuddles]

The programme's makers claim to have previously made a breakthrough in an unsolved murder case in the US.

So they haven't actually solved it then? There's a surprise.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

So they haven't actually solved it then? There's a surprise.

Isn't that a minor point in the scheme of things? They did make a "breakthrough" afterall. ::)

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

When I was young, one of our neighbours dressed up as a banshee once, just larking about I guess. I think the word 'banshee' scared us more than anything. He lived in an average looking white bungalow, but we always felt uneasy afterwards, and the house gained a bit of a horror-esque reputation, even though we all knew it was the guy who lived there that was under the sheet.

[Mulder]

From the 'Haunting Evidence' Wikipedia entry referenced above:

"No cases were solved in the first season."

I don't think anyone should get their hopes up!

[filippo lippi]

Burns is a frequent speaker at Dragon*Con (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%2ACon),

Rolling to disbelieve here at +2 for his complete lack of success in series 1

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

When I was young, one of our neighbours dressed up as a banshee once, just larking about I guess. I think the word 'banshee' scared us more than anything. He lived in an average looking white bungalow, but we always felt uneasy afterwards, and the house gained a bit of a horror-esque reputation, even though we all knew it was the guy who lived there that was under the sheet.

Oops, wrong thread

[siestatime]

It's about missing children, so not really off topic, this is all over the news here in Spain:

I got this from the ThinkSpain website, which my McAfee doesn't like, so I'll cut and paste it here.



Police in Gran Canaria have been searching a defunct animal crematorium accompanied by a man arrested for the bungled kidnapping of a 10 year old girl last Friday in Telde, who used to work there. A police spokesman said that, at this stage of their investigation, they cannot rule out the possibility that the 30 year old man (photo, second right), who has previous convictions for sexual abuse, may also be linked to the recent disappearances of two other youngsters from the same area: Yeremi Vargas (7), who has been missing since March last year and Sara Morales (14), who has not been seen since July 2006.
According to a report on the teldeactualidad website, although the crematorium was closed down four years ago, its oven is still operational and was last used some two months ago.



For more information on Yeremi, see the link.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/01/wmaddy301.xml



I can't think what to write first - I hope they've caught the person responsible, I wish the children were still alive somewhere, I hope they didn't suffer....


I'll try and translate a bit more tonight.



On a lighter note, no psychics were used for this arrest.

[DrS]

There's not too much more at the moment Siesta, other than the Court has ordered the man's detention in custody without bail for attempted kidnapping, illegal possession of weapons, and vehicle theft.

Over the past 24 hours, the defunct crematorium which he co-owned was searched, as you say, and evidence was removed from the oven there. In addition, searches have been carried out in three other locations in Gran Canaria, as well as in a business premises next to the man's house, and a workshop where he also worked. Finally, a van in the grounds of the crematorium was searched, and it appears that blood traces were discovered in it. Police investigators forecast that the analysis of the evidence gathered will take some time given the quantity involved and the state of disrepair and dirtiness of the locations.

An identity line-up (can't think of the phrase in English now) has been held, for three girls to try to identify the man; among the three was Sandra Domínguez, the victim of the most recent attempted kidnapping. Police are still investigating possible links between this incident and the previous disappearances of Jeremi Vargas and Sara Morales. The Court has declared all but this basic information to be sub judicae.

All this is a paraphrased translation from Canarias24Horas, link HERE (http://www.canarias24horas.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43452&Itemid=387).

[Mongrel]

An identity line-up (can't think of the phrase in English now)

ID parade, and they're mostly obsolete over here now. The police have gone technical and run video IDs, you get put in a cramped room with two officers and shown a composited video of the suspect and 9 other people who appear vaguely similar. The good thing about this is they can use other arrested subjects clips (they're the ones that look P****d off) for greater variety, the bad news is police line-up's were £20 a session and 60% were called off because the victim didn't turn up :-[

[DrS]

ID parade, and they're mostly obsolete over here now. The police have gone technical and run video IDs Thankyou! I lose my own language at times when I get engrossed in another ::)

They're not that technical in the Canaries, I fear. :sad:

[siestatime]

Here is a whole load of press reports, translated from Spanish, on the Mirror forum:

http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=36459&start=0

[siestatime]

Here we go again ....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/maddie/article687891.ece

- and no doubt there'll be more in the Mirror, Star, etc, etc.

I must buy a hat so I can eat it if she's found here.

[KEEPITREAL]

Although I obviously claim no psychic powers, I tend to agree with the sentiment that their behaviour has been a little odd. They have spent an inordinate amount of time and energy making noise and fuss, seeking publicity and undertaking utterly pointless (but all-expenses paid) trips around the world to "look for" Madeleine, but don't actually seem to be all that upset. I would expect anybody whose child was kidnapped to be totally floored by it, with very little energy left for media whoring and meetings with the Pope.

They have annoyed the hell out of me from the beginning with what seems like over-acting and attention-seeking, and although it is far too early to jump to conclusions, the merest suggestion that there might have been deception involved is extremely interesting. Having just joined im dismayed to your rantings, and comments like yours make me wonder at your state of mind.

[Admin]

Having just joined im dismayed to your rantings, and comments like yours make me wonder at your state of mind.

Are you convinced that the psychics have helped in some way then?

If so, I'd love to hear your views!

[tolman]

The way i read the post, I thought our new poster was talking about the views of someone casting aspersions on the McCanns.

[chillzero]

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=2437

The McCanns will be on this show tomorrow, for those interested in further discussion of the case in the context of a missing person.

[SKIRRID5]

The Madness Hamsters sound even more dangerous than the Underpants Gnomes!

[Admin]

The way i read the post, I thought our new poster was talking about the views of someone casting aspersions on the McCanns.

Actually, I think you're right. I think I must have read something else first and then confused it with what Keepitreal quoted! ::)

Apologies Keepitreal, I think I got my wires crossed there.

[Bat E Bird]

::)

Man with a special Power

Paul Taylor
6/ 5/2008

HE claims to have received messages from the other side about a litany of infamous killings, including Rhys Jones, Helen McCourt and Lynsey Quy.

But Joe Power is well aware of the credibility gap he has to overcome.

...

Knowledge

The medium even claims knowledge of the disappearance on May 3 last year of Madeleine McCann. He has a sketch of a house to which he says the four-year old was taken after being abducted from her holiday apartment in Portugal.

If a medium is claiming knowledge of such a case, there is only one logical conclusion about Madeleine's fate, I venture. But no, Power says his information does come from beyond the grave but 'from relatives, from Madeleine's family and people who work closely with me in the spirit world, spirit guides, that type of thing'.

He believes five people were connected with the disappearance of Madeleine. He says he passed his information on to police in Portugal early in the investigation.

...

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/entertainment/days_out/s/1048345_man_with_a_special_power

[Julia]

::)

Man with a special Power

Paul Taylor
6/ 5/2008

HE claims to have received messages from the other side about a litany of infamous killings, including Rhys Jones, Helen McCourt and Lynsey Quy.

---------------------------------

He believes five people were connected with the disappearance of Madeleine. He says he passed his information on to police in Portugal early in the investigation.

...

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/entertainment/days_out/s/1048345_man_with_a_special_power

And no doubt Power's information was every bit as useful as that he provided in the Lynsey Quy case. As I wrote to his manager:


I'm reminded of the fact that Mr Power also claimed to have assisted police in the Lyndsey Quy murder enquiry, but was obliged to remove this statement from his website when it was emphatically denied by Detective Superintendent Geoff Sloan of the Southport Police:

“I wish to state, categorically, that as Senior Investigating Officer on the Lyndsey Quy murder, I made a policy decision not to use psychics on the investigation. Joe Power has allegedly made claims that he assisted the enquiry but this is not the case.”

What exactly did Mr Power contribute to the search for Shannon Matthews and the murderer of Sarah Payne? Was it the kind of assistance you described after the Quy fiasco:

"Joe Power did how ever make a statement in the Southport Police station where he spoke with a women officer who gave Joe a receipt for the statement made."

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=2442

[Bat E Bird]

Thanks Julia


But Joe Power is well aware of the credibility gap he has to overcome

I guess you've just added to that "credibility gap". :smiley:

[davron]

We have a lot of this here (Israel). People just get stoned because an offended party went to a psychic instead of the police. I suppose a law of averages must apply to predictions? We used to have a chap on TV who would make about 6 or 7 predictions for the year. When one of them came half true he would get very excited, media, media, media, etc.

What he did not predict was when they did his tax audit and found out about his barrell in the back yard.


Davron

[daz madrigal]

Although I obviously claim no psychic powers, I tend to agree with the sentiment that their behaviour has been a little odd. They have spent an inordinate amount of time and energy making noise and fuss, seeking publicity and undertaking utterly pointless (but all-expenses paid) trips around the world to "look for" Madeleine, but don't actually seem to be all that upset. I would expect anybody whose child was kidnapped to be totally floored by it, with very little energy left for media whoring and meetings with the Pope.

They have annoyed the hell out of me from the beginning with what seems like over-acting and attention-seeking, and although it is far too early to jump to conclusions, the merest suggestion that there might have been deception involved is extremely interesting.

Best start off on a positive note.

Was alerted by the somewhat odd exclamation in responce by the inconguously named Keep it Real.

Best lay my cards on the table from the off. I'm an astrologer with an interest in the case. I'd be interested to know whether any psychics come to a different conclusions to the abducted/alive theory.

They seem generally to peddle a rather sentimentalised view with little bearing on reality. Of course I'd accept that sceptics are liable to pigeon hole everyone and stick them under the same heading but on a more detached note its worth pointing out a down to earth perception that suggests that there is a sharp differentiation here between astrologers and psychics.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Best start off on a positive note.

Was alerted by the somewhat odd exclamation in responce by the inconguously named Keep it Real.

Best lay my cards on the table from the off. I'm an astrologer with an interest in the case. I'd be interested to know whether any psychics come to a different conclusions to the abducted/alive theory.

They seem generally to peddle a rather sentimentalised view with little bearing on reality. Of course I'd accept that sceptics are liable to pigeon hole everyone and stick them under the same heading but on a more detached note its worth pointing out a down to earth perception that suggests that there is a sharp differentiation here between astrologers and psychics.

Hi daz madrigal,

Why should any astrologer have anything to say about this case under the auspices of Astrology, as opposed to stating it is their personal opinion?

Ok, Psychics and Astrologers may differ, but what on what basis do their 'skills' have anything to do with a missing child?

The number of psychics involved in this case (involvment as in self-declared obviously) would tend to indicate that either she should have been found dead or alive, or all these psychics are just incompetent and have no powers. Why should astrology have anything different to say?

[daz madrigal]

I agree, I don't think there is much - if anything - to contribute in a practical sense i.e. located the missing child. Having started off with the perception that the parents were at fault it seemed a good idea to use astrology to add weight to any suspicions but on a purely personal basis.

I'm just struck to the relentlessly hopeful tone of most psychics and would like to ask them (is anybody there? ^-^) why the seem incapable of straying off the 'abductor narrative'.

Goin back to the original point it is possible to glean information by studying the astrology of the time of so-called abduction and by using this method I've come to the conclusion that any misdeed was done during evening of May 2nd rather than the May 3rd date commonly held as gospel truth.

[tolman]

Having started off with the perception that the parents were at fault it seemed a good idea to use astrology to add weight to any suspicions but on a purely personal basis.
That does seem to be an dangerous order to do things in - forming a gut opinion first, and then trying to confirm it.
Unless the method of possible confirmation was rigidly objective (all astrologers would come up with the same answers without the same preconceptions), the likelihood of being selective seems to be great.

[Bat E Bird]

I agree, I don't think there is much - if anything - to contribute in a practical sense i.e. located the missing child. Having started off with the perception that the parents were at fault it seemed a good idea to use astrology to add weight to any suspicions but on a purely personal basis.

I'm just struck to the relentlessly hopeful tone of most psychics and would like to ask them (is anybody there? ^-^) why the seem incapable of straying off the 'abductor narrative'.

Goin back to the original point it is possible to glean information by studying the astrology of the time of so-called abduction and by using this method I've come to the conclusion that any misdeed was done during evening of May 2nd rather than the May 3rd date commonly held as gospel truth.

There are many posters on the 3 Arguidos forum that have already reached that conclusion.

None of them, that I know of, are astrologers.

[daz madrigal]

That does seem to be an dangerous order to do things in - forming a gut opinion first, and then trying to confirm it.
Unless the method of possible confirmation was rigidly objective (all astrologers would come up with the same answers without the same preconceptions), the likelihood of being selective seems to be great.

Well that would be accurate if it were a case of actively 'trying' to fit the astrology into preconceptions already made. Oddly enough the reverse is the case. I started off with the view of the events taking place on May 3 and was met with all indicators suggesting this was in fact incorrect.

[daz madrigal]

// There are many posters on the 3 Arguidos forum that have already reached that conclusion.

None of them, that I know of, are astrologers. //

No intention of arguing about that although its far from being the establishment view. I suspect most people would view it in the light of being vaguely 'conspiracy theory' material in that the photo put forward as being taken on May 3rd could not have been taken on that day plus several witnesses would also have to be misguided/lying.

[tolman]

Well that would be accurate if it were a case of actively 'trying' to fit the astrology into preconceptions already made. Oddly enough the reverse is the case. I started off with the view of the events taking place on May 3 and was met with all indicators suggesting this was in fact incorrect.
But you said you started off with the perception the parents were at fault, then found by astrology things to support that preconception.

Surely, moving the date from what everyone suggested was the case is a fairly cast-iron way of suggesting the parents must be to blame fault?

Casting doubt on the time isn't even vaguely novel - all kinds of conspiracy theorists have done the same, to some extent or another. Indeed, they'd pretty much have to do so, given the generally suggested timetable of events - the child couldn't have disappeared when she is supposed to have done if the parents are to blame.

Especially given that one of the main outputs of astrology seems to be in predicting dates, predicting a different timing to the official story seems to be one of the few outputs that could be expected, whether or not someone considers the outputs of astrology to have any actual meaning beyond being an educated guess of the astrologer.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Goin back to the original point it is possible to glean information by studying the astrology of the time of so-called abduction and by using this method I've come to the conclusion that any misdeed was done during evening of May 2nd rather than the May 3rd date commonly held as gospel truth.

I don't really understand how astrology can drive you to a conclusion. What definitive signals did your charts give you that allows you to draw this conclusion? Surely, as tolman as pointed out, what you are suggesting is based on interpretation and personal bias?

[tolman]

A skeptic might also find it interesting that someone comes up with a date that is pretty much exactly what many parents-did-it theorists may predict.

If you're going to have a different timing than the official timeline, it can't easily be any *later* than the reported date, nor can it be hugely earlier.
It really has to be earlier the same day, or possibly on the previous day if any one feels emowered to dismiss any claimed sightings on the 3rd.

Doing astrology to determine 'what day?' could therefore only really have two answers - the 3rd, or possibly the 2nd, unless someone is going to couple some different date to an increasingly awkward conspiracy theory.

Given a choice of two days, the 2nd squares only with the parents being deeply involved, whereas the 3rd fits with basically anyone being involved.

[daz madrigal]

// Surely, moving the date from what everyone suggested was the case is a fairly cast-iron way of suggesting the parents must be to blame fault? //

Not really. I have to be brief sadly but as far I'm personally concerned its pure common sense to believe that the parents were somehow to blame hence the comple dismissal of any date they choose to mention.

[daz madrigal]

A skeptic might also find it interesting that someone comes up with a date that is pretty much exactly what many parents-did-it theorists may predict.

If you're going to have a different timing than the official timeline, it can't easily be any *later* than the reported date, nor can it be hugely earlier.
It really has to be earlier the same day, or possibly on the previous day if any one feels emowered to dismiss any claimed sightings on the 3rd.

Doing astrology to determine 'what day?' could therefore only really have two answers - the 3rd, or possibly the 2nd, unless someone is going to couple some different date to an increasingly awkward conspiracy theory.

Given a choice of two days, the 2nd squares only with the parents being deeply involved, whereas the 3rd fits with basically anyone being involved.

I think thats perfectly reasonable.

I'm not sure what you're getting at re. a later date though. If theres an abductor then yes the scenario continues but I'm suggesting a full stop to the proceedings.

[daz madrigal]

I don't really understand how astrology can drive you to a conclusion. What definitive signals did your charts give you that allows you to draw this conclusion? Surely, as tolman as pointed out, what you are suggesting is based on interpretation and personal bias?

Interpretation yes. I would dispute bias because in effect this is one of astrologys strengths and I could give lots of examples of this. The interpretation is set within fairly strict limits traditionally and as a keen astrologer I'm more faithful to them than I am to any personal prejudices. Its an excellent tool for gaining a detached view which may explain why I was so badly criticised for pointing out Gerry McCanns ability to influence people due to his personable nature. ;)

Its a good point though because its a well known truism that say liberal americans tend to draw up kindly interpretations for their favourite Democrat whilst demonising the Republican candidate.

[daz madrigal]

// Indeed, they'd pretty much have to do so, given the generally suggested timetable of events - the child couldn't have disappeared when she is supposed to have done if the parents are to blame. //

hmm.. but they could surely disappear a few hours before?

Y'see even the PJ say that she disappeared on May 3rd so presumably if it goes to trial they shall continue to say that.

[Mongrel]

Sorry about this...

Daz, it makes it a lot easier for everyone to read if you use the Quote button at the bottom of a post, you can snip the comment to make it more manageable.
If you wish to rebut on a point by point basis you can split it into multiple quotes using quote tags, like so.

Quoted text will show
Quoted text

I now return you to your normal discussion :smiley:

[daz madrigal]

// I don't really understand how astrology can drive you to a conclusion. What definitive signals did your charts give you that allows you to draw this conclusion? //

You can only really work with the material thats given to you so without an abductor you just hope that the correct birth times are given for the main parties. As the parents have now become almost famed it was fairly easy to get the correct birth data for them. Another plus lays in the Scottish preference for recording exact birth times therefore Gerrys data was easily verified.

I think if you can find a few peculiarites of character embedded in the charts you are off to a good start. The next step is to look up the co-ordinates of Praiz de Luz during that period and note any combinations that point to something unusual having happened.

Finally you try to unify all the charts into the most likely triggering point that would result in the disappearance of a child and attempt to conclude an eventual likelihood for this disappearance.

[daz madrigal]

Sorry about this...

Daz, it makes it a lot easier for everyone to read if you use the Quote button at the bottom of a post, you can snip the comment to make it more manageable.
If you wish to rebut on a point by point basis you can split it into multiple quotes using quote tags, like so.
will show

I now return you to your normal discussion :smiley:

Will do.

[tolman]

Not really. I have to be brief sadly but as far I'm personally concerned its pure common sense to believe that the parents were somehow to blame...

That rather depends on what one means by 'somehow to blame'.
It's obvious (as in, more strongly concludable than from 'common sense') that if what they claim is entirely correct, they could have avoided tragedy by behaving differently.
It's also obvious from what innumerable people say that many/most people reckon they wouldn't have done what the parents did.

However, leveraging one's righteous disapproval of how they claim to have behaved into concluding that what they claimed happened didn't happen anything like the way they say it did is rather a leap well beyond common sense, though a leap that many people seem very eager to make.


...hence the comple dismissal of any date they choose to mention.

If you completely dismiss what they say (and maybe what other people who agree with them say), you're left with next to no information apart from "At some point in time, a child disappeared"

All kinds of people sitting in their armchairs seem to make extraordinary yet fairly definite conclusions based on things like feeling that the parents, during the small fraction of time that they're in front of the media, are not really sad enough, or that they aren't doing the precise things that the person would like to think they might do in a similar position.

Unfortunately, if someone tries to back up a gut feeling with a few dollops of woo, all they have is still no more than a gut feeling.
No doubt, if the gut feeling happens to be correct, that's proof of the Power Of The Woo.
If it doesn't, either some other explanation to fit the woo will be found, or there must have been something we're not being told.


hmm.. but they could surely disappear a few hours before?
So even if it wasn't the 2nd, it's still the case that something fishy must be going on


Y'see even the PJ say that she disappeared on May 3rd so presumably if it goes to trial they shall continue to say that.
Does that mean the PJ are in some kind of conspiracy, or are so dumb that they can't work out everything happened on the 2nd?

[tolman]

The interpretation is set within fairly strict limits traditionally and as a keen astrologer I'm more faithful to them than I am to any personal prejudices.


...Finally you try to unify all the charts into the most likely triggering point that would result in the disappearance of a child and attempt to conclude an eventual likelihood for this disappearance.
So your strict traditional limits allow you to combine various birthdates (even if you don't know all the precise times) with location data, and then pluck a date from the "likeliest time for a child to be abducted" category?
Or are the categories somewhat less-narrowly defined, leaving a bit more room for conscious or unconscious selection?

It's hard to believe in where the Earth happening to be during the process of someone's birth making them more likely to do something several decades later on one day rather than the next.
Let alone that being objectively determinable by someone who has already decided that the story of an event happening at one possible time is to be dismissed.

[daz madrigal]

That rather depends on what one means by 'somehow to blame'.
It's obvious (as in, more strongly concludable than from 'common sense') that if what they claim is entirely correct, they could have avoided tragedy by behaving differently.
It's also obvious from what innumerable people say that many/most people reckon they wouldn't have done what the parents did.

However, leveraging one's righteous disapproval of how they claim to have behaved into concluding that what they claimed happened didn't happen anything like the way they say it did is rather a leap well beyond common sense, though a leap that many people seem very eager to make.



If you completely dismiss what they say (and maybe what other people who agree with them say), you're left with next to no information apart from "At some point in time, a child disappeared"

All kinds of people sitting in their armchairs seem to make extraordinary yet fairly definite conclusions based on things like feeling that the parents, during the small fraction of time that they're in front of the media, are not really sad enough, or that they aren't doing the precise things that the person would like to think they might do in a similar position.

Unfortunately, if someone tries to back up a gut feeling with a few dollops of woo, all they have is still no more than a gut feeling.
No doubt, if the gut feeling happens to be correct, that's proof of the Power Of The Woo.
If it doesn't, either some other explanation to fit the woo will be found, or there must have been something we're not being told.


So even if it wasn't the 2nd, it's still the case that something fishy must be going on


Does that mean the PJ are in some kind of conspiracy, or are so dumb that they can't work out everything happened on the 2nd?

Well there a lot of spurious waffle contained in there.

Now what exacty is your point (in a few sentences please!).

[daz madrigal]

That rather depends on what one means by 'somehow to blame'.
It's obvious (as in, more strongly concludable than from 'common sense') that if what they claim is entirely correct, they could have avoided tragedy by behaving differently.
It's also obvious from what innumerable people say that many/most people reckon they wouldn't have done what the parents did.

However, leveraging one's righteous disapproval of how they claim to have behaved into concluding that what they claimed happened didn't happen anything like the way they say it did is rather a leap well beyond common sense, though a leap that many people seem very eager to make.



If you completely dismiss what they say (and maybe what other people who agree with them say), you're left with next to no information apart from "At some point in time, a child disappeared"



Yes..and so?

[daz madrigal]

So your strict traditional limits allow you to combine various birthdates (even if you don't know all the precise times) with location data, and then pluck a date from the "likeliest time for a child to be abducted" category?
Or are the categories somewhat less-narrowly defined, leaving a bit more room for conscious or unconscious selection?

It's hard to believe in where the Earth happening to be during the process of someone's birth making them more likely to do something several decades later on one day rather than the next.
Let alone that being objectively determinable by someone who has already decided that the story of an event happening at one possible time is to be dismissed.

hmm I wouldn't say totally dismissed. The balance of probabilities is weighted very much against the abduction theory and the astrology just adds weight to that improbability. So yes I would say that narrative given according to the McCanns can indeed be dismissed.

And it will be!!

[tolman]

hmm I wouldn't say totally dismissed. The balance of probabilities is weighted very much against the abduction theory...
Could you explain that a bit more?

[Bat E Bird]

// There are many posters on the 3 Arguidos forum that have already reached that conclusion.

None of them, that I know of, are astrologers. //

No intention of arguing about that although its far from being the establishment view. I suspect most people would view it in the light of being vaguely 'conspiracy theory' material in that the photo put forward as being taken on May 3rd could not have been taken on that day plus several witnesses would also have to be misguided/lying.

There has been much research done on the supposed last photo and many people following Madeleine's disappearance don't believe it was taken on 3rd May. Some say it has been Photoshopped. Some also believe the other photos released by the McCanns weren't taken on that particular holiday.

Sorry to mention another forum again but I am trying to emphasise that what you're saying has already been said many times. Firstly on the Mirror Forum and then repeated and research continued on 3A.

I'm not 100% sure, as no-one apart from PJ and Leicester police know for definite, but I think the only sightings of Madeleine on 3rd May were reported by the friends of the McCanns. Unless you know differently, there are no independent witnesses that I've heard of who saw her on that day.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Interpretation yes. I would dispute bias because in effect this is one of astrologys strengths and I could give lots of examples of this. The interpretation is set within fairly strict limits traditionally and as a keen astrologer I'm more faithful to them than I am to any personal prejudices. Its an excellent tool for gaining a detached view which may explain why I was so badly criticised for pointing out Gerry McCanns ability to influence people due to his personable nature. ;)



Oh god, you don't really believe this do you? You do know astrology is just complete garbage?


Well there a lot of spurious waffle contained in there.

Now what exacty is your point (in a few sentences please!).


Yes..and so?

You are an astrologer, do you see the irony?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

There has been much research done on the supposed last photo and many people following Madeleine's disappearance don't believe it was taken on 3rd May. Some say it has been Photoshopped. Some also believe the other photos released by the McCanns weren't taken on that particular holiday.

Sorry to mention another forum again but I am trying to emphasise that what you're saying has already been said many times. Firstly on the Mirror Forum and then repeated and research continued on 3A.

I'm not 100% sure, as no-one apart from PJ and Leicester police know for definite, but I think the only sightings of Madeleine on 3rd May were reported by the friends of the McCanns. Unless you know differently, there are no independent witnesses that I've heard of who saw her on that day.

I just had my first look at that forum.

They, emm, have their fair share of nutters.

Just picking a random post which seems fairly representative:


Lets look at the events...

Two supposedly responsible doctors leave their children alone and have dinner...50+ yards away from their three children (all of whom are under the age of 4) in a foreign country in the middle of the night...

And like a genie from a lamp, a campaign as slick as anything that a US presedential candidate could come up with goes into full steam...

Amongst many others, so far theyve met the pope, gonzalez from the bush admin, British Ambassadors, Senior FBI agents, theyve had over 150,000,000 hits to their website (which has PPC and a nice donation box in the top right corner), there have been offers of million pound rewards from JK Rowling et al, Beckham & Ronaldo have appeared on TV in appeals, the media have given them more airtime than any kidnapping in modern history...and all this for parents who left their kids alone, at night in a foreign country...

Whats going on? why would such irresponsible parents get such an overwhelming reaction, when hundreds of children go missing every day?

When Gerry McCann went on US TV (Good Morning America) and said in a very matter of fact way..."Europe has very serious lessons to learn..." (after he pointed out that donations could be pledged at www.findmadeleine.com (http://www.findmadeleine.com/)) what did he mean?

12 days after Madeleine went missing an article in the times appeared:
'Would an implanted chip help to keep my child safe? - In the wake of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, every type of child monitoring device is in demand'

The first question it asks is:
"If your child could wear an implant – a microchip that could tell a computer where he or she was at any time to within a few metres – would you buy it? After the horrific snatch of three-year-old Madeleine McCann from her bed in Portugal, the answer from many parents seems to be “yes”. "


So 'many' parents would say yes. Could Rupert Murdoch please provide us with some stats on this 'many'.

Anyway without getting into how microchipping children (which is the NWO's ultimate goal for mankind) would in fact have worse consequences for kidnappings...I would just like to know what people think or if theres any more clues....

[tolman]

There has been much research done on the supposed last photo and many people following Madeleine's disappearance don't believe it was taken on 3rd May. Some say it has been Photoshopped. Some also believe the other photos released by the McCanns weren't taken on that particular holiday.

Some people believe isn't exactly what we call evidence, especially in a context where we already know there are numerous conspiracy theories flying around the internet, attracting the kinds of minds that they tend to attract.

If the parents *had* handed in a doctored photograph to the police as evidence of when their child went missing, it would be an extraordinarily dumb thing to have done, especially if they'd already lined up various other people to give false evidence.

However, unless/until it progresses beyond some people believe to something actually worth taking seriously, I'll take those opinions with a pinch of salt.


Sorry to mention another forum again but I am trying to emphasise that what you're saying has already been said many times. Firstly on the Mirror Forum and then repeated and research continued on 3A.
I think you may be confusing research with a bunch of armchair detectives fellating each other's paranoid fantasies.


I'm not 100% sure, as no-one apart from PJ and Leicester police know for definite, but I think the only sightings of Madeleine on 3rd May were reported by the friends of the McCanns. Unless you know differently, there are no independent witnesses that I've heard of who saw her on that day.
Well, that convinces me.

After all, if some acquaintance of mine came to be and asked me to lie to the police to cover up their killing their child, I'd be all over it, especially if I knew they'd involved other people, any of whom could get nervous and blow the whole thing.
What would I have to lose, apart from my reputation, job and liberty? That'd be a small price to pay, given the gain of either helping a child-murderer evade justice, or helping someone turn an accidental death into a huge criminal conspiracy.

Likewise, if I had somehow accidentally or deliberately killed my child, the very first thing I'd do is try and involve as many other people as possible, without knowing how any of them may react, and concoct an abduction cover story that made me look like a bad parent. Then I'd make sure to stay as controlled in public as possible, rather than being emotional, so as not to arouse anyone's suspicions.

[MischiefMonkey]

The bottom line is there are no facts except Madeleine McCann 'disappeared'

Everything else is speculation.

Personally, I doubt we will ever know the true circumstances. To cast accusation at her parents on nothing more than what you think you can glean from their date of birth is pretty disgusting.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Personally, I doubt we will ever know the true circumstances. To cast accusation at her parents on nothing more than what you think you can glean from their date of birth is pretty disgusting.

Agreed.

[ZERO]

Ophiuchus and precession.

Astrology, lol. :cheesy:

[Bat E Bird]

Tolman, with respect, you missed my point.

I posted in a rush so it's probably my fault. I'm not saying that any armchair detectives are correct, I'm saying that a lot of them have opinions about the actual date of Madeleine's disappearance and also about the last photo.

They have come to these conclusions without the aid of astrology so, for all I know, daz madrigal may just have been reading the forums.

It wasn't my intention to start a debate on what happened to Madeleine and why some people blame her parents. This isn't really the place to do that.

If any psychics' or astrologers' predictions were correct, she would have been found long ago.

[tolman]

I thought I'd already pointed out the lack of novelty in DM's suggestions, though admittedly the suggestions are pretty vague, not really progressing beyond

"I don't like the look of the parents, and I reckon their story isn't correct"

apart from a sprinkling of post-hoc woo to try and justify an allegation/suggestion against the father.

[daz madrigal]

The bottom line is there are no facts except Madeleine McCann 'disappeared'

Everything else is speculation.

Personally, I doubt we will ever know the true circumstances. To cast accusation at her parents on nothing more than what you think you can glean from their date of birth is pretty disgusting.

People speculate about such things all the time, in the office, in the pub, wherever people meet. Even your Grandma has probably speculated about it.

No need to get too pompous and anyway I'm sure the police have plenty of evidence. O0

[daz madrigal]

I thought I'd already pointed out the lack of novelty in DM's suggestions, though admittedly the suggestions are pretty vague, not really progressing beyond

"I don't like the look of the parents, and I reckon their story isn't correct"

apart from a sprinkling of post-hoc woo to try and justify an allegation/suggestion against the father.

You obviously don't see any irony in the fact that despite making the same point each time re. bias you yourself are displaying the same bias in presupposing an opinion I don't have and then putting it in quotations as if I've stated as much.

[daz madrigal]

Tolman, with respect, you missed my point.

I posted in a rush so it's probably my fault. I'm not saying that any armchair detectives are correct, I'm saying that a lot of them have opinions about the actual date of Madeleine's disappearance and also about the last photo.

They have come to these conclusions without the aid of astrology so, for all I know, daz madrigal may just have been reading the forums.

It wasn't my intention to start a debate on what happened to Madeleine and why some people blame her parents. This isn't really the place to do that.

If any psychics' or astrologers' predictions were correct, she would have been found long ago.


An unlikely event considering the relative proximity of the coast and two deep oceans to choose from.

Otherwise correct. It would have to be a bizarre theory indeed not to have already been dreamt up by the feverish imaginations on various forums! Again I'm not quite sure what the point is?

You want a totally pristine theory?

[daz madrigal]

There has been much research done on the supposed last photo and many people following Madeleine's disappearance don't believe it was taken on 3rd May. Some say it has been Photoshopped. Some also believe the other photos released by the McCanns weren't taken on that particular holiday.

Sorry to mention another forum again but I am trying to emphasise that what you're saying has already been said many times. Firstly on the Mirror Forum and then repeated and research continued on 3A.

I'm not 100% sure, as no-one apart from PJ and Leicester police know for definite, but I think the only sightings of Madeleine on 3rd May were reported by the friends of the McCanns. Unless you know differently, there are no independent witnesses that I've heard of who saw her on that day.


Highly accurate!

Not sure why the PJ are so insistent on May 3rd but as the evidence will be revealed in less than a month there is no need to be too bothered about this. Personally I think there was an overlap regarding the events . I suspect late evening May 2nd spilled quite accidentally into early hours of May 3rd.

We shall see!! O0

[daz madrigal]

Could you explain that a bit more?

Well it seems to be pinned mainly on a sighting made by Jane Tanner. Most reasonable people would suggest that its discredited.

Now a few people suggest this is idle speculation, whereupon we may ask ourselves whether we are entitled to any opinion whatsoever about anything. Mind you, the UK is fast becoming a Police State so perhaps this is not so surprising!

[tolman]

You obviously don't see any irony in the fact that despite making the same point each time re. bias you yourself are displaying the same bias in presupposing an opinion I don't have and then putting it in quotations as if I've stated as much.

I was paraphrasing, which is why I didn't stick the text in a quote block, but I should have made the paraphrasing clearer.
However, it doesn't seem like what I wrote is a gross distortion of what you've said. If it is, please point out where I've got you all wrong.

Perhaps if you were actually clearer about what your opinions were, and what your astrology came up with, it'd make things simpler.

So far, you seem to just be suggesting something vague along the lines of "The stars are pointing towards the father having done something nasty on the 2nd." without saying any more than that.


People speculate about such things all the time, in the office, in the pub, wherever people meet. Even your Grandma has probably speculated about it.

There's a great difference between speculating in a small face-to-face group and speculating in public where your speculations last much longer and could be read by anyone, where people should act rather more responsibly and cautiously.

Additionally, at least someone down the pub is generally just giving their own opinion, rather than trying to use woo to justify themselves.

[tolman]

Well it seems to be pinned mainly on a sighting made by Jane Tanner. Most reasonable people would suggest that its discredited.
I don't quite see how that relates to:

The balance of probabilities is weighted very much against the abduction theory...
Surely, you can only really assign probabilities when you have something to realistically attach them to?

What 'most reasonable people' might think depends rather on what information they're working from. Given the limited information, I'm not aware that 'most reasonable people' are actually well-informed enough to make much of a judgement either way, certainly not to the extent of judging an explanation as particularly unlikely, unless that explanation itself has real problems.

Even if one supposed eyewitness is mistaken (as eyewitnesses often are, especially when they are already aware of some of the supposed facts), that doesn't actually make things weigh too hugely against an abduction theory, it only removes one possible corroboration, leaving the idea no worse than it would have been if there hadn't been a witness.

I'd suggest that 'most reasonable people' would have the honesty to admit that in the absence of much reliable information, they really don't know what happened, and would rather admit ignorance than jump to conclusions.

[daz madrigal]

Its very simple really, the Jane Tanner "sighting" was put in place to underline the "abduction theory". The very fact that they felt the need to convince a friend to go through the farrago of making this story up surely casts doubt on that theory.

Yes or No?

[daz madrigal]

I don't quite see how that relates to:

Surely, you can only really assign probabilities when you have something to realistically attach them to?

What 'most reasonable people' might think depends rather on what information they're working from. Given the limited information, I'm not aware that 'most reasonable people' are actually well-informed enough to make much of a judgement either way, certainly not to the extent of judging an explanation as particularly unlikely, unless that explanation itself has real problems.

Even if one supposed eyewitness is mistaken (as eyewitnesses often are, especially when they are already aware of some of the supposed facts), that doesn't actually make things weigh too hugely against an abduction theory, it only removes one possible corroboration, leaving the idea no worse than it would have been if there hadn't been a witness.

I'd suggest that 'most reasonable people' would have the honesty to admit that in the absence of much reliable information, they really don't know what happened, and would rather admit ignorance than jump to conclusions.

I wish!

If that were the case maybe the fund wouldn't have picked the pockets of what I suggest are the more vulnerable i.e. poor people of society who can most ill afford it. As yet you sound almost plausible although I doubt you will be parroting the same line in a months time!!!

[tolman]

Its very simple really, the Jane Tanner "sighting" was put in place to underline the "abduction theory". The very fact that they felt the need to convince a friend to go through the farrago of making this story up surely casts doubt on that theory.

Yes or No?
To conclude the sighting story was made-up at the behest of the parents, you'd have to have already decided that the parents are lying.
Trying to use your conclusion that the sighting was made up as evidence that the parents were lying looks like classic circular reasoning.

Practically speaking, there's no need to expect that someone abducting a child would be seen.
To involve someone at very short notice in giving a fake alibi would seem to be very unusual behaviour outside habitual criminal fraternites (see end of post #308)

[daz madrigal]

No you fail to understand the difference between a clear decision that the family are lying as against thinking so on the balance of probabilities.


What don't you understand about this?

Are you saying that you have no idea whatsoever? (which wouldn't surprise me! ^-^).

[tolman]

( my 308) should be 308 ) (damn emoticons.)


No you fail to understand the difference between a clear decision that the family are lying as against thinking so on the balance of probabilities.

What don't you understand about this?
You weren't seeming to talk about the balance of probabilities as in slightly more likely than not.
You were talking about the balance being weighted very much against the abduction, which comes across as you saying you thought it was unlikely or very unlikely that it was true.

In fact, you seem to be extremely confident that not only is the testimony of one eyewitness unreliable, but that it's unreliable as a result of their perjuring themselves on the behalf of the parents.

That seems like rather more than assessing some careful balance of probabilities, though of course, to do some careful balancing, one would have to actually have access to enough information of reliable provenance.


Are you saying that you have no idea whatsoever? (which wouldn't surprise me! ^-^).
I don't believe I have anywhere near enough information to make even an educated guess at what actually happened, so the best I could do is wonder briefly about possible scenarios, but generally refrain from making public guesses, with or without using woo as a shield against personal responsibility.

Further, I'm not sure how many other people have sufficient information to come to any meaningful conclusions, especially given the evident flood of rumours and half-baked theories from people trying to construct grand conspiracies, or support their leaped-to conclusions.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

No you fail to understand the difference between a clear decision that the family are lying as against thinking so on the balance of probabilities.


What don't you understand about this?

Are you saying that you have no idea whatsoever? (which wouldn't surprise me! ^-^).

To be honest, I haven't really understood what your point is either.

[MischiefMonkey]

People speculate about such things all the time, in the office, in the pub, wherever people meet. Even your Grandma has probably speculated about it.

Of course people speculate. What most don't do is include astrology as 'evidence' in their speculation.



No need to get too pompous and anyway I'm sure the police have plenty of evidence. O0Pompous? While I disagree that my post was 'pompous', I'd rather be pompous than use astrology to condemn a person.

As for the police having plenty of evidence, I see nothing to suggest that they have any of major significance. Throwing astrology into the mix isn't going to change that.

[daz madrigal]

( my 308) should be 308 ) (damn emoticons.)


You weren't seeming to talk about the balance of probabilities as in slightly more likely than not.
You were talking about the balance being weighted very much against the abduction, which comes across as you saying you thought it was unlikely or very unlikely that it was true.

In fact, you seem to be extremely confident that not only is the testimony of one eyewitness unreliable, but that it's unreliable as a result of their perjuring themselves on the behalf of the parents.

That seems like rather more than assessing some careful balance of probabilities, though of course, to do some careful balancing, one would have to actually have access to enough information of reliable provenance.


I don't believe I have anywhere near enough information to make even an educated guess at what actually happened, so the best I could do is wonder briefly about possible scenarios, but generally refrain from making public guesses, with or without using woo as a shield against personal responsibility.

Further, I'm not sure how many other people have sufficient information to come to any meaningful conclusions, especially given the evident flood of rumours and half-baked theories from people trying to construct grand conspiracies, or support their leaped-to conclusions.


An interesting point about weighing the balance.

I suspect that the more the facts that are found the more the weight of the balance. Its not really of importance because any astrology was done when the balance was a lot finer. As always the clincher is the evidence and prior to that being revealed one can never be totally sure and moreover what evidence is leaked may well be tainted in some respect. Fortunately the evidence will be uncovered shortly.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

....Fortunately the evidence will be uncovered shortly.

Sounds familiar ::)

You've joined the ranks of the psychics and soothsayers who have been saying that for over a year now. Keep saying it, because more than likely it will be proved correct at some point.

Reminds me of a poster on the Sky News message board who kept claiming something significant would happen, but always in about 3 weeks time. We never reached the mythical point where something would actually happen funnily enough.

[Matt]

I see so you methodology is simply to present the results of your data mining. The purpose of the astologer and software is simply to confirm that you're not making up the position of the stars.

The flaw in your methodology is that you're data mining. Whatever you found you'd be able to construct some theory or other around it and then search for more data to confirm it. Gien the almost limitless quanitity of data to draw from, it's rather like hitting the side of a barn with an arrow and then painting a bullseye around it.

[daz madrigal]

Sounds familiar ::)

You've joined the ranks of the psychics and soothsayers who have been saying that for over a year now. Keep saying it, because more than likely it will be proved correct at some point.

Reminds me of a poster on the Sky News message board who kept claiming something significant would happen, but always in about 3 weeks time. We never reached the mythical point where something would actually happen funnily enough.

July 14th is the date when the Secrecy of Evidence is lifted.

Please be patient!

[daz madrigal]

I see so you methodology is simply to present the results of your data mining. The purpose of the astologer and software is simply to confirm that you're not making up the position of the stars.

The flaw in your methodology is that you're data mining. Whatever you found you'd be able to construct some theory or other around it and then search for more data to confirm it. Gien the almost limitless quanitity of data to draw from, it's rather like hitting the side of a barn with an arrow and then painting a bullseye around it.

Perhaps you could point us all in the direction of this "limitless quantity".

A few interesting examples of it won't go amiss!!!

[daz madrigal]

To conclude the sighting story was made-up at the behest of the parents, you'd have to have already decided that the parents are lying.
Trying to use your conclusion that the sighting was made up as evidence that the parents were lying looks like classic circular reasoning.


Well the only alternative would be for Jane Tanner to have made up the story herself - which would be odd!

[tolman]

Well the only alternative would be for Jane Tanner to have made up the story herself - which would be odd!
You *entirely* miss the point.
Again.

You concluded that a reported sighting must not only false, but be perjury to cover up for the parents, and then use that conclusion as evidence that the parents had something to cover up.

However, assuming you actually cared a damn about throwing around accusations of criminal conduct, to conclude the eyewitness evidence was a case of perjury, you'd have to not only know it was incorrect, but also eliminate innocent explanations, which given the notorious unreliability of eyewitnesses, wouldn't be an easy task, even if you had real access to what everyone had said.

Of course, when assessing the eyewitness evidence, you'd also have to entirely set aside your prejudgement that the parents were lying, otherwise you'd be indulging in highly circular reasoning, concluding a witness was lying because they agreed with the parents, and then concluding from that that the parents must be lying because they agreed with the witness.

However, from what I've seen here, I'd have to wonder if you were really capable of setting aside your prejudgements?

[Bat E Bird]

I thought that perjury could only be committed in court during a trial.

Until then, it's just a part of a statement that can be withdrawn at any minute and, rumour has it, that it has been withdrawn.

If it doesn't get to court, which could be the point of the attempts at economy with the truth, such as the ever changing timeline, there's no perjury case.

[tolman]

OK.
Before a trial, what DM is alleging is (at least in the UK) conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, not perjury.
I apologise for my woefully misleading use of language, due at least in part to the lack of a simple and widely recognised English verb for knowingly telling lies to the police in order to derail an investigation, instead using a word that must clearly have caused great confusion, and led countless people to wonder if there'd actually been a trial already held that the media just didn't bother to report.


Until then, it's just a part of a statement that can be withdrawn at any minute and, rumour has it, that it has been withdrawn.Personally, I feel no need to construct theories on rumours and then chuck them out for the world to read, as if anyone in the case actually depended on (or even cared about) my opinion.

The thing is, even if a particular armchair detective's jumped-to conclusions actually did turn out to be correct once reliable evidence was available, what difference would it make?
*Before* adequate evidence was available, the jumped-to conclusions couldn't be trusted.
Once evidence was available, the jumped-to conclusions would be unnecessary, since people could reach those conclusions by looking at the actual evidence. I don't think it's the case that the people jumping to conclusions are actually especially bright or insightful. Many other people could do what they do, it's just that most decent people choose not to.

I don't personally see that there's generally much credit to be had in being first to a conclusion, if that's at the expense of making conclusions ahead of the evidence.

Speculation does have some value for people actually involved in a situation, since it can point to lines of enquiry to pursue.
For people with no connection to a situation, which includes almost everyone, it seems to be some distasteful combination of entertainment and a sad need to feel important by feeling false connection to public events, or the smug satisfaction of being early to come to a conclusion that is otherwise quite pointless.

I might look at a coverage of some case and think "I wonder if things really happened the way *that* person said?", but then, recognising that my thoughts aren't going to change anything, I wouldn't bother thinking much further on the event.

It's highly unlikely that the police are going to knock on my door and say:

"Steve, we *really* could do with some help here. Could you and your mates down the pub/on the internet give us a few pointers, since we're not capable of imagining the obvious generic scenarios that anyone else could think of within seconds of hearing about a case."

Especially since I'm not called Steve.

[Bat E Bird]

Personally, I feel no need to construct theories on rumours and then chuck them out for the world to read, as if anyone in the case actually depended on (or even cared about) my opinion.


I just wanted to back up my previous post by giving you the source of the rumour that I mentioned.

It's from a 24Horas translation, which can be found here
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/04/jane-tanners-declarations-to-police.html


It was also mentioned in an article in the Sun. The actual article no longer exists but you can find the content here
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/13apr8/12-04-08-Sun-Transcript.doc

[daz madrigal]

You *entirely* miss the point.
Again.

You concluded that a reported sighting must not only false, but be perjury to cover up for the parents, and then use that conclusion as evidence that the parents had something to cover up.

However, assuming you actually cared a damn about throwing around accusations of criminal conduct, to conclude the eyewitness evidence was a case of perjury, you'd have to not only know it was incorrect, but also eliminate innocent explanations, which given the notorious unreliability of eyewitnesses, wouldn't be an easy task, even if you had real access to what everyone had said.

Of course, when assessing the eyewitness evidence, you'd also have to entirely set aside your prejudgement that the parents were lying, otherwise you'd be indulging in highly circular reasoning, concluding a witness was lying because they agreed with the parents, and then concluding from that that the parents must be lying because they agreed with the witness.

However, from what I've seen here, I'd have to wonder if you were really capable of setting aside your prejudgements?

I don't doubt that any other theory apart from "abduction" is indeed somewhat convoluted when compared to using the Occams Sledgehammer approach of reasoning. Nevertheless when all the bits and pieces are added together we tend to get a fuller picture in complete contrast to the much more simple abduction where any additional brush strokes tend merely to smudge any clear perception rather than shed more light upon it.

I would stongly suggest that the flaws in the story come about due to the tapas groups mistake in gilding the lily by adding "sightings" that have not been able to hold firm when cast in cold reality.

If they had just stuck to the 'mysterious abductor" without finding a need to bring this phantom into realisation by pointing the finger at him/her then they would possibly not be in the situation they find themselves in - as Arguidos/Suspects!!!

[tolman]

Imagine that evidence did come out that clearly pointed towards the conclusion you had already come to.
What advantage would you have over someone who didn't see the point in jumping to conclusions, and had just waited for that evidence to emerge?

You and the cautious person would effectively come to the same conclusion, and since your earlier conclusion would only have been speculative, you wouldn't be reaching a reliable conclusion any faster than they would.

Unless you had actually been involved in the real investigation, your earlier speculative conclusion would seem to have been of no value, since it wouldn't have directed attention at new areas of investigation.

Suspecting the parents in a missing-child case is a blindingly obvious avenue of speculation. It's not like anyone is likely to say:
"Ooh - you must be so clever - I'd never have thought of that!",
unless they're really thick, or being sarcastic.

Most sensible people would consider the possibility within seconds of first hearing of the case, and then, recognising their own irrelevance in the investigation, just get on with doing something less pointless than idle speculation.

[daz madrigal]

This may come as a shock to you but ALL opinions posted upon any subject you care to mention are merely the speculations of the author of them, written only to puff up the ego of the poster despite being totally inconsequential. Fortunately I am aware of that fact whereas you seem to be in the the thrall of some strange delusion on the matter. ;) And all this from a inneffectual poster with a Grade A diploma in pomposity posting on a forum of largely inconsequential, mostly unread witterings of very little, if any, moment.

Your opinions, Tolman, are a mere bagatelle, simply emissions from a bag of wind, smoke-rings wafting from thy pipe gazed upon by no-one but your good self. They are as nothing.

Think about it! ;D

[daz madrigal]

Anyway to get back to where I came in. I accidentally chanced up the rather odd babblings of Psychic Sarah. Total bunkum of the first order - fortunately we are about to become aware of the fact (whether we like it or not/distasteful to the precious tolman palate or sensational media story ). Unfortunately Sarah has rather sensibly long since fled the scene. Lucky for her!!! ::)

Whatever, its hard to ascertain just who is more delusional in all this - Psychic Sarah or Tolman?

[daz madrigal]

Perhaps we should now ask ourselves whether we, the public, are of any importance to anything whatsoever. If we aren't why do the McCanns feel the need to employ a PR. Man last employed by none other than Tony Blair, PM. and World Statesman.

Why should they surround themselves with a Public relations team of first class par when we the people hold opinions of no consequence.?

[tolman]

Daz,
It seems I touched a nerve there.

In any case, when it comes to inconsequentiality, while any person's opinion in this case is highly likely to be inconsequential to the progress of the case, it's not inconsequential to have lots of people going round effectively publicly accusing someone of murder.

When a child goes missing, anyone can wonder what happened, and that very frequently includes wondering about those close to the child.

However, unless/until really solid evidence to the contrary arose in a particular case, I'd really hope that most reasonable people would really be thinking:
"I wonder if relatives are involved? - I do hope they aren't!"
whereas many of the people on the Mirror and subsequent forums seem to be saying:
"I wonder if relatives are involved? - I do hope they are!"

Personally, I'd rather not be the kind of person who'd be disappointed if it turned out that a couple of people hadn't killed their child, but of course, that's just my opinion.

When it comes to your mentioning of astrology, unless it's just a troll's wind-up, I could only see it as an attempt to justify theories you aren't really confident in, unless you are trying to link an astrological prediction with a theory you're already fully confident will come true to try and make people think you're a skilled astrologer.

PS.
If you don't think this forum is worth anything, why are you wasting your time here?

[daz madrigal]

Your view which I quote here as "many people seem to be saying:
"I wonder if relatives are involved? - I do hope they are!" suggests both a bleak view of human nature alongside your own one eyed perception of yourself as a high-minded authority on the matter.

I would say that in this case the tabloid readers are mostly correct in their suspicions. Unlike you I have no intention of snootily looking down my nose at the humble Daily Mirror reader, I say his/her voice is as good as anyones!!! His view is just as valid to that of the Queen's or the Prime Minister - very often it is far superior due to him bearing the brunt!

Ask yourselves who courted the media in the first place?

Then ask yourselves who was coerced into supplying hard earned money into the 'Find Madeleine' campaign'?


In the latter case it was the very self same public who you now attempt to mute of all opinion.

[daz madrigal]

If you don't think this forum is worth anything, why are you wasting your time here?

Or rather if you don't think this subject is worth anything then why are you posting about it?

[tolman]

Your view which I quote here as "many people seem to be saying:
"I wonder if relatives are involved? - I do hope they are!" suggests both a bleak view of human nature alongside your own one eyed perception of yourself as a high-minded authority on the matter.
If I had a bleak view of human nature, I'd presumably be claiming that such people were typical of humanity. Instead, as I said, though it's obvious such people exist, I hope that they are in a very small minority.

I would say that in this case the tabloid readers are mostly correct in their suspicions. Unlike you I have no intention of snootily looking down my nose at the humble Daily Mirror reader, I say his/her voice is as good as anyones!!! His view is just as valid to that of the Queen's or the Prime Minister - very often it is far superior due to him bearing the brunt!
My comments were specifically about a very particular subset of people (many of whom wouldn't be Mirror readers) who had chosen to throw around theories and effectively make public accusations on the Mirror forums, to the extent that the forum moderators were repeatedly taking action to try and limit the irresponsibility of what was being said.

It's evident to anyone who looked at things like the Mirror forums that in this case, there are plenty of people around who would just love to find that their personal theories were shown true by subsequent evidence, whether they be armchair detectives or peddlers of woo, or both.

Maybe you aren't one of those people, and you really hope you are wrong, but if so, you're not doing a great job at getting that across.

Ask yourselves who courted the media in the first place?
So in some future abduction case, at what point should parents refuse to say anything more to the media for fear that some people will consider that justification for chucking around premature accusations of murder?

Then ask yourselves who was coerced into supplying hard earned money into the 'Find Madeleine' campaign'?

In the latter case it was the very self same public who you now attempt to mute of all opinion.
So you're claiming that that the people now accusing the parents of murder had so little independence of thought that they could be easily threatened or intimidated into giving up money against their will by a publicity campaign?
It doesn't seem like you have much respect for them.

[tolman]

If you don't think this forum is worth anything, why are you wasting your time here?

Or rather if you don't think this subject is worth anything then why are you posting about it?
Thing is, as you should already be aware, the subject of this thread is really not the actual case of the missing child, but is more the nature and character of the kind of people who are eager to make public prognostications about the case.
As such, what I'm talking about seems to be dead on topic.

Now, I'm aware that you are keen to make general "You think you're so clever!"-style comments rather than addressing points like the circularity of your reasoning, or why you need to bother with astrology when you're already so confident you're correct.
However, I'm really not sure how many people here might be taken in by such approaches, since they've likely seen such common tactics before.

I'm not claiming to occupy some kind of rarified moral high ground over the masses since I don't think that the masses are making lurid public accusations.
I'd reckon that people in general are limiting their speculations to personal ponderings, or the odd comment to acquaintances.
Effectively. I'd see it more as the majority of people just being normal, maybe wondering about the case (or not) from time to time, but not going out of their way to broadcast their opinions to the whole world, as opposed to some rather smaller number of obsessives occupying a definite moral low-ground of their own devising.

[Mulder]

The police are 'closing' the case, according to the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7482799.stm

It's not altogether surprising - there doesn't appear to be much solid evidence of anything at all, apart from Madeleine disappearing. It should leave the coast clear for all the psychics ...:sad:

[tolman]

It should leave the coast clear for all the psychics...
...though they still have to fight for ground with the conspiracy theorists

[filippo lippi]

The police are 'closing' the case, according to the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7482799.stm

It's not altogether surprising - there doesn't appear to be much solid evidence of anything at all, apart from Madeleine disappearing. It should leave the coast clear for all the psychics ...:sad:

Why should the police continue with the case, after all the psychics and astrologers solved the whole thing within days.

[tolman]

Even better than just solving it once, they seemed to solve it all kinds of ways, making it somewhat more likely that one of them might have been right.

[chillzero]

The police are 'closing' the case, according to the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7482799.stm



Sky says no:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Madeleine-McCann-Case-Has-Not-Been-Dropped-By-Police-Says-Portugals-Attorney-General/Article/200807115018221?lpos=World%2BNews_0&lid=ARTICLE_15018221_Madeleine%2BMcCann%2BCase%2BH as%2BNot%2BBeen%2BDropped%2BBy%2BPolice%252C%2BSay s%2BPortugal%2527s%2BAttorney%2BGeneral

I think there are some differences in terminology, and it's more likely it is just being set to a less active status. They can't close it until they solve it.

[daz madrigal]

...though they still have to fight for ground with the conspiracy theorists

You really shouldn't be so readily spoon fed by the media. There is as yet no official confirmation from the Portuguese Judiciary. Until that moment arrives it would be somewhat foolish to rush to judgement.

Try not to open so wide in future. :smiley:

[tolman]

Daz,
I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that the comments being made were implicitly conditional on the quoted news story being true, and *that* wouldn't need to be spelled out even to you.

Still, it's not like I'm being thoroughly irresponsible, and throwing round veiled accusations of child killing or suchlike.

Anyway, it's nice to see you're carrying right ahead ignoring specific points about the circularity of your reasoning.
Or the curiousness of someone who's really confident that they're right and that the evidence will emerge Real Soon Now bothering to play at astrology.
Or your seeming to position yourself as some defender of the regular tabloid reader despite effectively having such a low opinion of them.

[Mulder]

You really shouldn't be so readily spoon fed by the media. There is as yet no official confirmation from the Portuguese Judiciary.

The Portuguese Judiciary? Why would anyone listen to them? Aren't they just part of the plot?

[daz madrigal]

Well Tolman made a reasonable point in suggesting to wait till the evidence is revealed in its totality. I don't think anyone would argue that point and it follows that if there is a lack of evidence then it is unwise to prosecute (which leaves the things in the limbo of 'case unsolved').

I'm slightly baffled as to why people are rendered totally impotent according to the Tolman view of things. It is at total variance with normality, for example does the fact that OJ Simpson was found an innocent man preclude us from feeling - and then suggesting! - that he may well be nothing of the sort?

Doesn't make sense to me - how about you?

[daz madrigal]

Daz,
I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that the comments being made were implicitly conditional on the quoted news story being true, and *that* wouldn't need to be spelled out even to you.

Still, it's not like I'm being thoroughly irresponsible, and throwing round veiled accusations of child killing or suchlike.



I think you'll find I said nothing of the sort!

[tolman]

I'm slightly baffled as to why people are rendered totally impotent according to the Tolman view of things. It is at total variance with normality, for example does the fact that OJ Simpson was found an innocent man preclude us from feeling - and then suggesting! - that he may well be nothing of the sort?

Effectively, except in very extraordinary circumstances, people are basically impotent in cases they aren't directly involved in. To claim otherwise seems to be denying reality.
Thanks to the widening of Internet access, one of the few effects an average person can have is the seemingly purely negative one of spreading rumours and accusations with little or no clear justification.

As I've already mentioned, but Daz seems to have [quite predictably] ignored, I freely recognise the normality of people wondering occasionally about any given case, and mentioning it from time to time in normal human-sized groups.

It's when people seem desperately eager to jump to a conclusion as if their conclusion mattered, or as if there was some prize for prejudging issues that I'd start to wonder what their motivation was.

In the OJ case, a real difference is that (excluding the people who'd prejudged the whole thing one way or another due to skin colour, etc), most normal people who bothered to follow the case made personal judgements based largely on the evidence that they saw from the well-publicised trial, which did at least present both a defence and prosecution case rather than random rumours filtering along one or other biased route.

Another difference is that with OJ, there was actually a viable criminal case, where it had been decided that there was at least enough evidence to justify a trial.

Even then, if someone not personally involved was still going on about OJ more than a few weeks/days after the trial, I'd wonder what was wrong with them, or what was missing in their life.

[tolman]

I think you'll find I said nothing of the sort!
No, of course you didn't, you probably wouldn't have the balls to say something like that in so many words. So much better just to make your accusations less directly:


[via astrology] I've come to the conclusion that any misdeed was done during evening of May 2nd
Clear implication: 'The parents are responsible for everything and many of their friends are lying.'


I think if you can find a few peculiarites of character embedded in the charts you are off to a good start. The next step is to look up the co-ordinates of Praiz de Luz during that period and note any combinations that point to something unusual having happened.
Clear implication: 'There are peculiarities of character in one or both parents predisposing them to do something nasty (with the choice of what 'nasty' means not being obviously wider than accidentally or otherwise killing the child or making her permanently disappear), and I think that that's what happened.'

Effectively, you did seem to be saying that, as well as your own theory based on your reading of evidence, the stars agreed with you that the parents were entirely responsible for everything unpleasant that befel their child.

If that's not what you meant to imply, albeit in a weaselly way, you royally screwed up in your presentation, and you'd probably better try to explain what you do mean.
That, or just go somewhere where you're at least marginally respected.

[Bat E Bird]

daz madrigal, I would be interested to read more of what you think happened, if you don't mind posting the details. If you've already posted somewhere else, a link will do.

Thanks

:smiley:

[daz madrigal]

Just popped in to state that homicide is always a possibilty and that is should never be entirely ruled out. Also to add that I would be quite clear in pointing the finger at the McCanns despite tolmans rather scientific caution on the matter.

[tolman]

Deciding that one doesn't have enough information to make a meaningful judgement, or speculations solid enough to talk about when they approach being accusations isn't ruling *anything* out.

If anything, admitting a current lack of sufficient information seems to be the position least likely to lead to the ruling out any particular possibilities once information is available.

[chillzero]

Also to add that I would be quite clear in pointing the finger at the McCanns

Please be clear on this - based on what evidence?

[daz madrigal]

Deciding that one doesn't have enough information to make a meaningful judgement, or speculations solid enough to talk about when they approach being accusations isn't ruling *anything* out.

If anything, admitting a current lack of sufficient information seems to be the position least likely to lead to the ruling out any particular possibilities once information is available.

Agreed, then why are you so snooty about the idea of people holding opinions. People hold opinions about OJ and they did so before and after the trial. Even though he is innocent of all charges a large percentage of the public still assume he is guilty.

Its called freedom of expression!

[daz madrigal]

Please be clear on this - based on what evidence?

On balance of probability!!!

[daz madrigal]

If I had a bleak view of human nature, I'd presumably be claiming that such people were typical of humanity. Instead, as I said, though it's obvious such people exist, I hope that they are in a very small minority.

My comments were specifically about a very particular subset of people (many of whom wouldn't be Mirror readers) who had chosen to throw around theories and effectively make public accusations on the Mirror forums, to the extent that the forum moderators were repeatedly taking action to try and limit the irresponsibility of what was being said.

It's evident to anyone who looked at things like the Mirror forums that in this case, there are plenty of people around who would just love to find that their personal theories were shown true by subsequent evidence, whether they be armchair detectives or peddlers of woo, or both.

Maybe you aren't one of those people, and you really hope you are wrong, but if so, you're not doing a great job at getting that across.

So in some future abduction case, at what point should parents refuse to say anything more to the media for fear that some people will consider that justification for chucking around premature accusations of murder?

So you're claiming that that the people now accusing the parents of murder had so little independence of thought that they could be easily threatened or intimidated into giving up money against their will by a publicity campaign?
It doesn't seem like you have much respect for them.

The precise opposite is the case!

I have a great deal of sympathy for them because, in my opinion (not a humble one!), they were unfairly duped of their monies. Their pockets were well and truly picked!

Why you suggest they were somehow threatened or intimidated is something of a mystery!

[brettdbass]

On balance of probability!!!
I hope beyond hope that you never sit on a jury >:-)

[daz madrigal]

I think there is a quite clear distinction to be made between the public - who nearly always hold some opinion, whether privately or for other bar-room drunks or habitees of the local bingo hall - and a few stray nitwits busily gathering conspiracy theories on obscure internet sites.

In my experience the majority of posters on these sites (notably 3arguidos) are perfectly sensible members who have taken the trouble to look very closely at the case. In fact its not unusual to find lawyers, doctors, teachers, magistrates commenting therein and, if I may be so bold, the posters there are every bit as calm headed and sensible as the posters here - if not moreso!!!

[daz madrigal]

I hope beyond hope that you never sit on a jury >:-)

As with many of the best candidates I've had to refuse several times due to work commitments but actually you're not comparing like with like. A myriad of guilty men walk scott free from Court due to a lack of evidence and the case is then dropped or then cold but it doesn't necessarily follow that the accused are innocent does it?

I can think of a few at the drop of a hat...OJ, JonBennet Ramsey parents, Sion Jenkins. They are all walking free but with the finger of guilt - rightly or wrongly - pointed at them by the majority of the public.

[tolman]

Agreed, then why are you so snooty about the idea of people holding opinions. People hold opinions about OJ and they did so before and after the trial. Even though he is innocent of all charges a large percentage of the public still assume he is guilty.
As I've repeatedly pointed out, but you have repeatedly chosen to ignore, it's not the *holding* of opinions I have a problem with, it's the effective broadcasting of accusations of guilt (however weaselly phrased) when based on little evidence of known quality.

In the OJ Simpson case, legally speaking, he was found not guilty (as in, a jury decided there wasn't sufficient evidence for conviction beyond reasonable doubt).
As I pointed out, people have all kinds of opinions on the OJ case, some based largely on prejudice and assumptions, some based largely on what people saw of the evidence at trial, which should supposedly have been both the best evidence and argument that prosecution and defence could muster.

However, whatever someone's opinion was based on, if they were going on and on about their conclusions before they'd heard the evidence, or *still* going on about the case well after it had finished, I think most people most people would wonder why they didn't have anything better to do.

You seem extraordinarily keen to portray me as 'snooty', which doesn't seem to be anything more than a pathetic attempt to avoid actually addressing points I've raised, or questions I've asked.
You are the one who seems to consider tabloid readers as sheep who were
parted from their money against their better judgement by the Madeleine campaign.
I'd rather think and hope that the bulk of them are better people than you seem to be, and even though they may have all kinds of opinions, most keep their opinions to themselves and their real-life acquaintances.

From what you've written, it seems that you are very happy to look down on the common people merely for attending bingo halls or pubs.


Its called freedom of expression!
I think you'll find that most people (and the law of the land) recognise that freedom of expression also carries some kind of responsibility not to go throwing around accusations based on shaky reasoning and partial evidence.

People on the various forums may claim to be doctors, judges, etc, but given the number of sad fantasists out on the internet, I'd be rather wary of believing them.
In any case, why should their claimed occupation make a damn bit of difference, except to a snob, or to some loser who needs to feel 'important' people agree with them?
Whether someone claims to be the Lord Chief Justice or a bonded labourer, or doesn't claim anything at all, it doesn't make any difference to whether what they say makes sense.

I have next to no idea what anyone here does for a living. Since it really isn't relevant to the vast bulk of discussions, people don't seem to go around making a big thing about it.

[tolman]

As with many of the best candidates I've had to refuse several times due to work commitments
Is that just trolling, or are you honestly that arrogant in real life?


A myriad of guilty men walk scott free from Court due to a lack of evidence and the case is then dropped or then cold but it doesn't necessarily follow that the accused are innocent does it?
I suspect that most people here are actually bright enough to realise that
"Found Not Guilty" doesn't mean the same thing as "100% guaranteed to be innocent".


I can think of a few at the drop of a hat... [...]. They are all walking free but with the finger of guilt - rightly or wrongly - pointed at them by the majority of the public.

At least in the UK case you mentioned, while people may well have formed an opinion due to the initial accusation of guilt or the [subsequently overturned] conviction, I'd imagine that in the overwhelming majority of people, the opinion is one they pay virtually no attention to from one year to the next.
Unless they are actually involved in the case, or suffering from some odd obsessive condition that keeps them unnaturally interested in gruesome crimes for some perverted reason or another, I'd imagine that hardly anyone keeps going on about the case.
If the opinion of an average person on an issue is effectively dormant, it doesn't much matter to anyone else what it is.

I wonder, are you actually saying the person in the UK case you mentioned was a guilty person walking free, or was that just an unintended implication of your sloppy use of language (notwithstanding your weaselly use of 'rightly or wrongly')

Anyway, I'm sure that next time you get called for jury service, if you just explained to them that you're an arrogant tosser who loves jumping to conclusions before you've heard enough evidence, and that you think astrology is a useful adjunct to crime investigation, they'd give you a permanent free pass on mental health grounds.

[daz madrigal]

I'm completely mystified as to what strange rarefied world you are inhabiting, Tolman. As to whether people are interested, whilst they may not be all that eager for up to the minute news (most are bored stiff with the McCanns!) they ALL in my experience have an opinion on the matter.

Er..apart from snooty tolman perchance?

[chillzero]

On balance of probability!!!

So, no evidence at all then.
hmm. Says more about you than the McCanns

[daz madrigal]

Is that just trolling, or are you honestly that arrogant in real life?


I suspect that most people here are actually bright enough to realise that
"Found Not Guilty" doesn't mean the same thing as "100% guaranteed to be innocent".



At least in the UK case you mentioned, while people may well have formed an opinion due to the initial accusation of guilt or the [subsequently overturned] conviction, I'd imagine that in the overwhelming majority of people, the opinion is one they pay virtually no attention to from one year to the next.
Unless they are actually involved in the case, or suffering from some odd obsessive condition that keeps them unnaturally interested in gruesome crimes for some perverted reason or another, I'd imagine that hardly anyone keeps going on about the case.
If the opinion of an average person on an issue is effectively dormant, it doesn't much matter to anyone else what it is.

I wonder, are you actually saying the person in the UK case you mentioned was a guilty person walking free, or was that just an unintended implication of your sloppy use of language (notwithstanding your weaselly use of 'rightly or wrongly')

Anyway, I'm sure that next time you get called for jury service, if you just explained to them that you're an arrogant tosser who loves jumping to conclusions before you've heard enough evidence, and that you think astrology is a useful adjunct to crime investigation, they'd give you a permanent free pass on mental health grounds.


oooh get you!

Didn't take long for you to lose the plot eh?

[daz madrigal]

So, no evidence at all then.
hmm. Says more about you than the McCanns


Perhaps you could now inform us all of your evidence for an abduction.

Shouldn't take long methinks!

8)

[Admin]

As to whether people are interested, whilst they may not be all that eager for up to the minute news (most are bored stiff with the McCanns!) they ALL in my experience have an opinion on the matter.

We're all too aware that people hold 'opinions' on the McCann case.

We're also well aware that when it comes to resolving claims that opinions account for precisely nothing.

Unless you've formed a conclusion based on evidence then making accusations of guilt based purely on opinion is not justifiable and is indeed libellous.

It doesn't really matter what your opinion is. As there's no evidence available to form a conclusion on this matter no-one's opinion counts for anything.

If you think like many and that you can determine guilt because Gerry 'looks a bit shifty' (and similar) then you're sadly mistaken. And if you think astrological insights have any bearing on the matter then you're equally wrong.


Er..apart from snooty tolman perchance?

Do us a favour and have a read through this: http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=443

Then stop making them. O0

[daz madrigal]

If opinion counts for nothing then why on earth are you all posting on this forum?

;D

[tolman]

I'm completely mystified as to what strange rarefied world you are inhabiting, Tolman. As to whether people are interested, whilst they may not be all that eager for up to the minute news (most are bored stiff with the McCanns!) they ALL in my experience have an opinion on the matter.

Er..apart from snooty tolman perchance?
I've never *once* suggested that people shouldn't have opinions.

All I've suggested is that people should act responsibly, and that most sane people who actually have a life don't obsess over old criminal cases.

I've repeatedly tried to correct your misrepresentation of my position, but evidently to no effect.

I thought for a while that you might actually be trying to read what people write, but it's now clear beyond any reasonable doubt that you simply ignore things that don't agree with what you've already decided is the case.

And you think that someone like you should be propounding their views on the guilt or innocence of anyone?
You'd be almost funny if you weren't so pathetic.

And, believe me, all the snooty/rarified name-calling stuff just isn't working.
Even if it is a tactic very common to third-rate minds when they find someone disagreeing with them
("Anyone who a genius like me can't convince must be snooty by definition! It can't be that there's anything wrong in my argument!")
it generally only impresses other third-rate minds.

[daz madrigal]

I would have thought describing other people as having third-rate minds was enough evidence of snootiness, no doubt this description fits everyone apart from yourself and is particularly pointed at people who disagree with you.

What exactly would you describe as 'obsessing'? To me it just describes someone with an over fondness for some subject, it might as well be crime fiction or even real crime case? Why is a post about David Icke (a subject in which very few normal people have any interest) deemed far more worthy than a front page mystery attracting world interest.

You tell me!!!

[chillzero]

Perhaps you could now inform us all of your evidence for an abduction.

Shouldn't take long methinks!

8)

Where did I ever make any claims about abduction?

[daz madrigal]

Where did I ever make any claims about abduction?


How did she disappear then?

[tolman]

I would have thought describing other people as having third-rate minds was enough evidence of snootiness
We've already got some idea what you consider 'evidence'.
However, assuming you really mean what you've said in this thread, I think I have more than enough evidence to come to the conclusion I came to.

I'm not using circular logic.
I'm not trying to justify guesswork with woo.
I'm not avoiding points and questions.
I'm not one minute pretending someone else is snooty, then the next minute looking down my nose at people in pubs and bingo halls while praising other people for claiming to be doctors and teachers and claiming to be too important to be on a jury even though I'd be the ideal type.
I'm not choosing to ignore what people repeatedly say if it doesn't fit my prejudices.
I'm not chucking around vague accusations without having the balls to come out and clearly say what I really think.

etc.


... no doubt this description fits everyone apart from yourself and is particularly pointed at people who disagree with you.
No doubt you'd like to think that, and will continue to think it, but unfortunately, back in the real world, you'd be very wrong.
Some of the most interesting people are people I don't agree with, especially if they can put a good case.


What exactly would you describe as 'obsessing'? To me it just describes someone with an over fondness for some subject, it might as well be crime fiction or even real crime case?
I'd have thought it should be fairly obvious from the context I was using it in.


Why is a post about David Icke (a subject in which very few normal people have any interest) deemed far more worthy than a front page mystery attracting world interest.

You tell me!!!
Though I'm not personally much interested in Icke, for people interested in "Why some people believe weird things", all kinds of peculiar people may be of interest, as may discussions revolving around their activities.

When it comes to Icke and the number of posts here compared to on the McCann issue, I'd guess that the majority of people here don't see too much point speculating about what might have happened in an ongoing criminal case where there's a distinct paucity of reliable information, since it would rapidly get to the point of "No-one knows what happened, so why bother speculating?".
The only real reason the McCann case is of any continuing interest here is due to the freaks and frauds it seems to attract, like many media stories do, each offering their particular judgement based on woo and guesswork, and frequently demonstrating classic poor logic, analysis of which can be quite instructive.

With people, as with machines, much can be learned about how things work by seeing how they don't work.

For good or ill, the odd performing monkey does come along every now and again to provide some insight into how thought malfunctions.

Have a banana.

[tolman]

How did she disappear then?
Precisely what part of the concept "Insufficient evidence to make a meaningful conclusion" is causing you the most difficulty?

[chillzero]

How did she disappear then?

I don't know.

I am not going to condemn anyone for her disappearance without evidence. Unlike you.

[daz madrigal]

Precisely what part of the concept "Insufficient evidence to make a meaningful conclusion" is causing you the most difficulty?

Care to define meaningful for us all?

You're trying to whitewash the issue with the usual cod intellectual waffle. It simply is not at all necessary to continually obfuscate the facts here. As I said, 'insufficient evidence' is a judgement made in Court, it really does not follow that we then become so brainwashed and unthinking as to believe he must be innocent (although in your case I'll make an exception!!).

[daz madrigal]

I don't know.

I am not going to condemn anyone for her disappearance without evidence. Unlike you.

Well you are entitled to your opinion ofcourse but I must say that if there is no evidence to back up the case for abduction then we are left with some pretty stark alternatives.

[daz madrigal]

/Have a banana./

No idea what that contributes to the debate but I hope you at least find it amusing.

[MischiefMonkey]

Well you are entitled to your opinion ofcourse but I must say that if there is no evidence to back up the case for abduction then we are left with some pretty stark alternatives.

Well you are entitled to your opinion ofcourse but I must say that if there is no evidence to back up the case for parental involvement then we are left with some pretty stark alternatives

[tolman]

You're trying to whitewash the issue with the usual cod intellectual waffle.
I think you've been reading one of your own posts by mistake.

It simply is not at all necessary to continually obfuscate the facts here.
Please point out which facts I've been trying to obfuscate.

As I said, 'insufficient evidence' is a judgement made in Court, it really does not follow that we then become so brainwashed and unthinking as to believe he must be innocent (although in your case I'll make an exception!!).
You don't seem to understand the concept of reserving judgement.

It's idiocy of the first order to conclude that because someone doesn't rush to accuse a person of guilt that they must believe that person is innocent.
That's the with-us-or-against-us logic of playground bullies and adult morons the world over. As a debating tactic, it's pathetic, and even more pathetic if the person believes it even after everyone has pointed out that it's a false dichotomy.


Well you are entitled to your opinion ofcourse but I must say that if there is no evidence to back up the case for abduction then we are left with some pretty stark alternatives.
You aren't 'left with the alternatives', since there seems to be no more available evidence for the alternatives, outside the febrile imaginations of certain strange people.

You can't rule out an explanation you don't want to be true simply because it hasn't been proved true to your satisfaction.

If someone actually had good evidence that what they claim is true, they wouldn't need to go beyond the bounds of logic to dismiss an alternative, and then try and claim what they think must be correct because of a lack of alternatives.

That looks like one or two more logical fallacies to add to the growing evidence for your third-rate mind.

[Mulder]

I think Madeleine was abducted by aliens and is, even now, taking tea with Lord Lucan.

[chillzero]

Well you are entitled to your opinion ofcourse but I must say that if there is no evidence to back up the case for abduction then we are left with some pretty stark alternatives.

Here's the point that keeps sailing over your head.

Opinions are fair enough, but accusations and claims should never be made without evidence. To do so is the staple of vigilantism and mob 'justice'.

In my opinion the McCanns attract suspicion. However I am not going to claim they did anything unless evidence shows they did.

[daz madrigal]

It depends whether you view a post on the internet as an opinion or an accusation, it seems to me that both are interchangeable and are merely in the eye of the perceiver. Also it depends on the nature of the point made, its one thing to suggest an accident and quite another to suggest murder.

I'd be somewhat chary of pointing to murderous aims.

[chillzero]

It depends whether you view a post on the internet as an opinion or an accusation,

The venue does not change the meaning of the words. An accusation is an accusation.. an opinion is something entirely different.


it seems to me that both are interchangeable and are merely in the eye of the perceiver.

Now I understand why you think it's ok to throw around unsubstantiated accusations. You should look up the laws on libel and slander, if you wish to continue that belief.


Also it depends on the nature of the point made, its one thing to suggest an accident and quite another to suggest murder.

I'd be somewhat chary of pointing to murderous aims.
Your posts stand in opposition to this comment.

[Mulder]

It depends whether you view a post on the internet as an opinion or an accusation, ...

As far as I am aware, the law regards putting something up, available for the public to view, on the internet, as publication. You certainly can't use a photo that isn't yours on the web without permission, for instance, without violating copyright. I don't think there's any distinction about whether it's a forum or not. If you wouldn't feel comfortable publishing it in a newspaper, then you shouldn't publish it on the internet.

Maybe somebody on here with legal training could clarify.

[brettdbass]

Well, daz madrigal is clearly contributing nothing here, merely creating an annoyance.
According to my watch that means it's time to brighten the place up with some pretty, rarely-used smilies.


:trumpet:


:alarm:

:tornado:

:chinese:

:metaldetector:



There, isn't that much nicer.

[daz madrigal]

As far as I am aware, the law regards putting something up, available for the public to view, on the internet, as publication. You certainly can't use a photo that isn't yours on the web without permission, for instance, without violating copyright. I don't think there's any distinction about whether it's a forum or not. If you wouldn't feel comfortable publishing it in a newspaper, then you shouldn't publish it on the internet.

Maybe somebody on here with legal training could clarify.

As the evidence is about to be revealed I am perfectly happy to wait and see. Patience has its own reward!

I'll leave you fence sitters to moan and groan in private - lets hope you get used to the splinters! O0

[daz madrigal]

Well, daz madrigal is clearly contributing nothing here, merely creating an annoyance.
According to my watch that means it's time to brighten the place up with some pretty, rarely-used smilies.


:trumpet:


:alarm:

:tornado:

:chinese:

:metaldetector:



There, isn't that much nicer.

Leicester eh?

No doubt the locals are blindly swallowing the credo like nodding donkeys.

Lets see if it lasts longer than the lifting of secrecy - I don't think so!!! ;)

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

As the evidence is about to be revealed I am perfectly happy to wait and see. Patience has its own reward!

I'll leave you fence sitters to moan and groan in private - lets hope you get used to the splinters! O0

Goodbye then (hopefully? ??? )

I shouldn't have said that, should I? It will only make you stay and bore us with another 10 pages of rubbish.

[MischiefMonkey]

As the evidence is about to be revealed I am perfectly happy to wait and see. Patience has its own reward!

I'll leave you fence sitters to moan and groan in private - lets hope you get used to the splinters! O0

I'm perfectly happy to wait and see. Unlike you, I don't need to reach baseless conclusions in the meantime.

If you really believe the truth will be revealed on the 14th July, why all the aggravation? A simple, polite, clear out line of your beliefs and why you believe them, then sit back until the 14th would seem a more sensible approach. Come the 14th, you are either right, so come back and crow if you need the 'glory', or just slink away if you are embarrassed if you are wrong.

Or you could hang around and debate your beliefs - astrology isn't it? - with an open mind to alternate explanation for your 'evidence'.

Unless, of course, you just enjoy trying to be an irritant.

[bindeweede]

Unless, of course, you just enjoy trying to be an irritant.

MM, I think you might just be right there. But 10 days isn't too long to wait.

Daz's post 331..........


July 14th is the date when the Secrecy of Evidence is lifted.

Please be patient!

[Julia]

Oooh, shades of Psychic Sarah...

[Mongrel]

Oooh, shades of Psychic Sarah...

Better spelling though :smiley:

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Oooh, shades of Psychic Sarah...

Just what I was thinking.

[daz madrigal]

the news is already published - needless to say I was right!!!

05 Julho, 2008
Report of PJ Discards Kidnap Theory


CM reveals content of the document


The main argument against the kidnapper entry through the apartment's window was given by the parents.
Window to small to pass the child through it
Group Witness Contradicted

Main Topics
English Lab withdrew the final results
Dogs scented blood in the house and in the car
Kate and Maddie Clothes had cadaver odour
McCanns Neighbour heard Child crying for more than one hour



Translating 6 pages - will post as soon as possible



The animals detected cadaver odor in the apartment, the stuffed animal and Kate’s clothes

DOGS DECISIVE FOR PJ

British animals [both] agreed on the scent of “indications” in various places and objects


The alerting of the British dogs specially trained to detect cadaver odor and human blood was decisive in making Kate and Gerry arguidos.

Faced with the coincidence of the alerting of both animals, which signaled the same locations and objects related to the McCanns, the authorities were obliged to admit a possible involvement of Kate and Gerry in the disappearance of their daughter and to make them arguidos in order to confront them with evidence which could result in their incrimination – for, as [merely] witnesses, they could not opt to remain silent.

According to what CM has discovered, in the final investigation report produced by the PJ the investigators explained that the animals only gave their detection signals in places and objects related to the McCanns: in the apartment where Madeleine disappeared (in the parent’s bedroom, the living room and next to a side window), in the back patio, the family’s car (rented 24 days after the girl disappeared), two pieces of Kate’s clothes and Maddie’s stuffed animal – the one Kate never released in the days following the disappearance.

In the McCann’s friend’s apartments, in the Luz village and in all the vehicles used by Robert Murat, the first to be made arguido, nothing was found by the dogs.

Given these indications, reinforced by other detailed tests done in Portugal and England, the PJ interrogated Kate and Gerry and made them arguidos.

The animals, Springer Spaniels, are heavily used in the UK in the search for missing people or homicide victims, with positive results.


KATE JUSTIFIES DEATH ODOR
Kate McCann didn’t negate the fact that her two pieces of clothes and the stuffed animal had been signaled by the English dogs trained to find cadaver odor and justified it by her profession. Madeleine’s mother alleged that as a doctor at the Leicester health center, she was present at six deaths directly before she came to Portugal on holiday, giving the same excuse for Madeleine’s stuffed animal, that was with her in the months after her daughter disappeared.

VESTIGES OF A CRIME
Two specially trained dogs, used as criminal investigation assistants, detected cadaver odor in the McCann’s bedroom, the living room, Kate’s clothes, the girl’s stuffed animal and the car key, as well as spots of blood in the boot of the car and the apartment living room.

Link for floorplan of where the dogs found scentsbig scanned image




Source: Correio da Manhã

[Bat E Bird]

The above translation by Joana Morais aka Xklamation and Debk

http://www.joana-morais.blogspot.com/

[Admin]

the news is already published - needless to say I was right!!!

The parents have been found guilty then have they?

There are only two competing scenarios here: an abduction or parental involvement. If you back one theory over another and it turns out to be the correct one it doesn't mean you were "right all along". It's no more significant than guessing heads or tails and getting it right.

If there were two trails of evidence that you had used and compared and contrasted them to form a justifiable conclusion which then turned out to be correct, you could argue that you had been right all along; but to try and do what you're doing is making a false cause fallacy - even if your conclusion does end up being the correct one, it is for the wrong reasons.

Perhaps you should try seeing this as an exercise in critical thinking. Put aside your emotional involvement and biases and then look at the tangible evidence or solid facts that are available and then try to draw a conclusion based on what such evidence indicates. If you do that I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusion that we have - i.e. that there's not enough evidence to make a decision either way.

If you're jumping to conclusions based on gut instinct, 'intuitive psychology', or astrology, then you'll only end up forming unjustifiable (and quite possibly false) conclusions.

Seriously, be honest with yourself and put your own personal biases to one side and concentrate upon the facts and the evidence then try putting a case forward which is backed up with that evidence.

And if you still think you've solved the case, ask yourself why no charges have been brought.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

the news is already published - needless to say I was right!!!


Right about what?

Please try and be a bit more coherent, because I still don't have the foggiest what you have been trying to say.

Despite your criticisms of Psychic Sarah in a previous post, I'm starting to wonder if you are one and the same. Or maybe just all psychics/astrologers who follow the Madeleine McCann case constantly, make predictions that 'something' will happen in about a week's time. Given that there is generally something in the news every one or two weeks about this case, that's hardly earth shattering levels of prediction.

Feel free to quote my post with a sarky comment added to the bottom questioning my ability to understand what you are saying. That's your usual riposte.

[Matt]

the news is already published - needless to say I was right!!!

Blimey, is it July 14th already. Dammit! I've missed presient Bush's birthday


05 Julho, 2008
Report of PJ Discards Kidnap Theory



Oh no, not July the 14th then. So which part did you say you were right about?

[daz madrigal]

Well much as I quite agree that efforts to maintain 'total secrecy' to be maintained are preferable, in high profile cases involving hundreds of police it is almost impossible to keep the lid on it.

Do I beleive it?

Well put it this way, I beleive in the Portuguese media far more than I do the English tabloids, which may expalin why I usually find myself arguing against members filled with such xenophobia I strongly suspect that many belong to odd splinter, nationalistic groups such as the BNP.

Sardine munchers anyone?

[daz madrigal]

Right about what?

Please try and be a bit more coherent, because I still don't have the foggiest what you have been trying to say.

Despite your criticisms of Psychic Sarah in a previous post, I'm starting to wonder if you are one and the same. Or maybe just all psychics/astrologers who follow the Madeleine McCann case constantly, make predictions that 'something' will happen in about a week's time. Given that there is generally something in the news every one or two weeks about this case, that's hardly earth shattering levels of prediction.

Feel free to quote my post with a sarky comment added to the bottom questioning my ability to understand what you are saying. That's your usual riposte.

Ah..I can see how you'd all be so delusional as to grasp at the ever present 'conspiracy theory' as a final line of defence.

Having completely trashed the woman as a charlatan of the first order I suppose it does put me in the frame for such a hasty accusation! It seems strange that the self-same people who are pointing an accusatory finger at me are also the ones so cautious as to not to dare so much as a squeak on a high profile case in which lots of facts are known.

Oh well, hypocrisy and ignorance seem to quite happily walk hand in hand over here!

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

....
Well put it this way, I beleive in the Portuguese media far more than I do the English tabloids, which may expalin why I usually find myself arguing against members filled with such xenophobia I strongly suspect that many belong to odd splinter, nationalistic groups such as the BNP.

Sardine munchers anyone?

Members of what? Are you accusing people here of xenophobia or racism? Or somewhere else?


Ah..I can see how you'd all be so delusional as to grasp at the ever present 'conspiracy theory' as a final line of defence.


Please explain what criteria you use to call people on this forum delusional.



Having completely trashed the woman as a charlatan of the first order I suppose it does put me in the frame for such a hasty accusation! It seems strange that the self-same people who are pointing an accusatory finger at me are also the ones so cautious as to not to dare so much as a squeak on a high profile case in which lots of facts are known.

Again, which people. People here, or elsewhere?


Oh well, hypocrisy and ignorance seem to quite happily walk hand in hand over here!

Examples please.

Don't you maybe think people aren't getting your point - because you aren't making it very well.

Are you familiar with this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[daz madrigal]

No, I think people aren't getting the point simply because they don't want to!

Having said that there is not much cause for disagreement on my part, I'd only suggest that Tolman is somewhat overly conservative in his caution, other than that I merely came here due to Psychic Sarahs odd ramblings and to humbly point out that to gather psychics and astrologers into the same pigeon hole is a symptom of lazy thinking on the part of the skeptics.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

No, I think people aren't getting the point simply because they don't want to!

No one has a clue what your point is. It's very confused. Why don't you come out and say what it is that you are so desperately trying to avoid saying?


...... I merely came here due to Psychic Sarahs odd ramblings and to humbly point out that to gather psychics and astrologers into the same pigeon hole is a symptom of lazy thinking on the part of the skeptics.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Lazy thinking, woohoo!

Give us something to talk about then, something concrete oh wonderful astrologer. :wnw:

[tolman]

No, I think people aren't getting the point simply because they don't want to!
So if people explicitly ask you to explain what you think happened more clearly, and you don't, it's their fault?


Having said that there is not much cause for disagreement on my part, I'd only suggest that Tolman is somewhat overly conservative in his caution...
As far as I can see, there's only a downside to being cautious when there's an upside to being incautious.

While there are undoubtedly situations in life where a hasty decision is preferable to a decision postponed, to me, this just isn't one of those situations.


, other than that I merely came here due to Psychic Sarahs odd ramblings and to humbly point out that to gather psychics and astrologers into the same pigeon hole is a symptom of lazy thinking on the part of the skeptics.

If I'm not mistaken, 'Psychic' Sarah was no stranger to astrology, and claimed to use it as a tool, alongside her other gifts for predicting things that didn't happen.

Maybe some other people might be better at it than her.
However, I doubt that a person using it to predict something they already confidently believed was the case would be likely to much increase anyone's confidence in the technique even if their prediction did pan out.


It depends whether you view a post on the internet as an opinion or an accusation, it seems to me that both are interchangeable and are merely in the eye of the perceiver. Also it depends on the nature of the point made, its one thing to suggest an accident and quite another to suggest murder.
And it's another thing to suggest both, and then fail to clarify what you're suggesting, even when people ask you?


I'd be somewhat chary of pointing to murderous aims.
But also chary of ruling them out.
Aren't your astrological machinations sufficient to differentiate between the character traits of 'likely to be resonsible for accidental death' from 'likely to murder'?

For a second, when I scanned post #392, I was intrigued by the possibility that Daz was ever so 'umbly getting closer to making a more specific public guess, leaning towards accident over murder.
Then on re-reading, it seemed equally readable as an exercise in leaving options open.

I wish I knew how it was supposed to have been read.

[Julia]

Psychic Sarah not only used astrology in her McCann predictions, she wrote an astrology column in an Irish tabloid newspaper.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Psychic Sarah not only used astrology in her McCann predictions, she wrote an astrology column in an Irish tabloid newspaper.

And there were allegations she copied and pasted from previous columns when she couldn't be bothered ???

[Croydon Bob]

And there were allegations she copied and pasted from previous columns when she couldn't be bothered ???

Well, that makes perfect sense to me. You'd only need to write a couple of weeks worth and then re-use them swapping the info for each sign around. No believer would ever notice. Surely newspaper astrologers aren't stupid enough to believe what they write?

[Mulder]

I probably have this wrong but didn't the 'dog' investigation take place long after the disappearance, after all and sundry had tramped through the apartment?

[Admin]

I merely came here due to Psychic Sarahs odd ramblings and to humbly point out that to gather psychics and astrologers into the same pigeon hole is a symptom of lazy thinking on the part of the skeptics.

There's actually very little, if any, difference between a psychic reading and an astrological reading believe it or not. The modus operandi may well be different but the actual results rely on exactly the same techniques and psychological biases (in both the reader and the sitter) for them to 'work' in both cases.

If you can see the flaw is what PsychicSarah was doing all good and well; but you're making exactly the same mistake yourself by using astrology to confirm your biased beliefs.

If you can see how deluded PsychicSarah was in thinking she had some special insight into this matter because of some non-existent ability then all you have to do is to replace one non-existent system of acquiring knowledge for the other (psychic ability for astrology) and the parallels between the two belief systems (for that is all they are) will become clear. O0

In short: you're using a different belief system to PsychicSarah, but you're doing exactly the same thing that she was doing (!)

[daz madrigal]

Well astrology rarely needs a 'sitter' in most cases so already we're at complete variance but I understand what you mean. I should do as a long time veteran of discussions with Prof. Steve Donnelly and others at Skeptic magazine. Basically what you're talking about is the use - and abuse! - of 'cold reading'.

To be honest its hard to think of a more different way of reaching conclusions. She is literally grabbing them from thin air via mystical means of phantasms of one sort or another whilst I get neck ache whilst perusing various ephemerides and charts. But er...obviously you know better!

[Admin]

To be honest its hard to think of a more different way of reaching conclusions. She is literally grabbing them from thin air via mystical means of phantasms of one sort or another whilst I get neck ache whilst perusing various ephemerides and charts. But er...obviously you know better!

What about a psychic who gets neck ache by reading tea leaves?

Does reading from a chart (or even tea leaves) make the information you come up with any more legitimate?

The key point here is: where does the information come from?

Psychics use their intuition and interpret their instincts to come up with things from thin air and astrologers read charts and interpret them to come up with things from thin air.

It doesn't really matter whether you're interpreting charts, tea leaves or your own instincts; it's still all interpretation - and it has no validity.

[Mulder]

The key point in most divinatory systems is the presence of a 'fairly random number generator' somewhere. In the case of astrology, one random number is the birth date of a person, for instance. In tea leaves it's the patterns left in the bottom of the cup. This allows 'misses' to be easily explained by lack of precision, rather than a fault in the system.

The 'fairly random number' is vital because, otherwise, the system would become too easy to falsify which would mean that a critical mass of believers would stop believing.

[daz madrigal]

Well you should never blame a lack of precision really although admittedly its a failing of modern astrology in that it tends to obfuscate a few blunt truths. Traditionally for example one of the twelve section of the chart describes death, wills and sickness but the tendency nowadays is to pretend such dismal events are signs if a negative mind to be glossed over and replaced with an entirely different meaning of 'rejuvenation' and new beginnings. I suppose death is a new beginning of sorts although its doubtful whether those on their last legs think likewise.

Umm.. 'critical mass' eh? Well sometimes I wish they actually were critical in even the smallest degree but they appear to believe in all sorts of new age nonsense with alacrity and as sunsign columns are merely a very recent invention devised by greed media tycoons its a sad reflection on our 'day to day' shallowness that such tawdry examples should be so misguidly held up by sceptics as examples of astrology.

[tolman]

Do these ephemerides and charts enable astrologers to distinguish between 'likely to cause accidental death' and 'likely to murder', or are they only just fine-grained enough to give odds for 'likely to be somehow responsible for a death'?

I'd have thought that if a technique was mechanically objective, someone would have come up with a computer program that should be able to do as good a job as a human.
To the extent a technique is subjective, it's vulnerable to bias, especially if the practitioner seems to have basically made up their mind what happened.

Beyond some threshold of subjectivity, a technique may be so open to bias that it's effectively fully open. In that case, it wouldn't matter if another technique (psychic reading) was 'worse'.

Of course, with astrology, the basic claim of cosmic influences on people based on some arbitrary instant during someone's development is pure pseudoscience.
There's no plausible physical mechanism for planets, or for stars other than the sun to affect human development. Any conceivable 'signal' would be countless orders of magnitude smaller than the obvious sources of 'noise'.
Even if there was some potential mechanism for influence, there'd still be no plausible mechanism that would make one instant in a human's life overwhelmingly more important than the preceding months or succeding years.

Especially given that there is no way that any proposed mechanisms of influence could work, the logical conclusion is that astrology should be shown to work before anyone takes it seriously.
If it had been shown to work, I'd have thought we'd have heard about it from pretty much every astrologer out there.

[tolman]

...sunsign columns are merely a very recent invention devised by greed media tycoons its a sad reflection on our 'day to day' shallowness that such tawdry examples should be so misguidly held up by sceptics as examples of astrology.

Just as with psychics, if astrology actually had some real, serious people who were also capable of consistently making better predictions than a similarly informed layperson, the obvious question would be "Why aren't you genuine astrologers doing anything about all the fake ones, apart from maybe the odd moan?"

If there were a load of fake civil engineers or aircraft pilots or surgeons out there, the real ones would be doing something to get the fakes stopped. Not merely forming some little club of people who also claim to be genuine, but campaigning for negative action to be taken against the shysters.
However, of course, in those situations, it would be fairly easy for the real ones to demonstrate their skills, so they wouldn't have anything obvious to fear from drawing the spotlight onto the bad ones.

With woo-merchants, even the ones who claim (and maybe even partly believe) they are genuine, they seem generally reluctant to do anything even about blatant frauds, at least in their own field.
A skeptic might wonder if, deep down, the real believers would be scared that, were any action taken against the fakes, it's be hard for anyone to be convinced they shouldn't be included.

If a whole field seems to be lacking evidence of efficacy, someone claiming they're not the worst in that field isn't doing much to put a case.
If there are evident bogus practitioners in a field, that just makes it more necessary for people who claim to be genuine to show their abilities.

Where are the examples of real astrology working, which can be used to counter the damage caused by evil media tycoons?

[Mojo]

As with many of the best candidates I've had to refuse several times due to work commitments ...


The "best candidates", presumably, being those whose names are often chosen in random selections.

[daz madrigal]

Even with the latest technologies of dna testing and forensics it is hard to pin down whether a mortality occurred due to violent accident or murderous intent. Astrology firmly indicates violent accident.

Whats interesting is that the dna discovered was a deemed to be a complete match at first until the Portuguese arrived and then the FSS backtracked to suggest they were not sure. Maybe you guys could suggest a scientific explanation for this sudden change of heart.

Any discussion on astrology seems to me to be something of a waste of time really.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

..... Astrology firmly indicates violent accident.

Jeez, the things astrology can do I never knew about.


Any discussion on astrology seems to me to be something of a waste of time really.

Bingo O0

[Admin]

Astrology firmly indicates violent accident.

How does it indicate this exactly?

Could you explain to us how it is that astrology indicates this, who worked out these principles, and how they worked these principles out?

i.e. for your claim to be factual it should be able to stand up to scrutiny. You should be able to give us the reasons why this conclusion is indicated and how you reached this conclusion based on the principles behind astrology.

If you can't, you're guessing.

[tolman]

Even with the latest technologies of dna testing and forensics it is hard to pin down whether a mortality occurred due to violent accident or murderous intent. Astrology firmly indicates violent accident.
So someone can have an innate 'character trait', not only to be responsible for a violent accident, but to have that likelihood vary on a day-to-day basis, and in a predictable pattern?
'Violent accident' still seems to leave quite a range of options open, only really excluding premeditated cold-blooded killing, which never seemed hugely likely as a possibility.

Whats interesting is that the dna discovered was a deemed to be a complete match at first until the Portuguese arrived and then the FSS backtracked to suggest they were not sure. Maybe you guys could suggest a scientific explanation for this sudden change of heart.
What's the precise timeline for who said what and when (official statements, not just rumours).

[MischiefMonkey]

Even with the latest technologies of dna testing and forensics it is hard to pin down whether a mortality occurred due to violent accident or murderous intent. Astrology firmly indicates violent accident.

DNA is nothing more than a means to identify a biological sample.

'Forensics' are only one aspect of any investigation and criminal case. They present facts. The blood splatter was thus, the bullet entered from behind etc (gross oversimplication I know)

They have to be taken in context with other evidence, especially when considering 'intent'.

In this case, there is no 'other evidence' of any good quality. Some eye witness testimony....er....that's about it.


Whats interesting is that the dna discovered was a deemed to be a complete match at first until the Portuguese arrived and then the FSS backtracked to suggest they were not sure. Maybe you guys could suggest a scientific explanation for this sudden change of heart.

'Deemed' by the press and their 'magic' unnamed 'sources'. I don't recall FSS ever publicly announcing that they had a 'complete match'.


Any discussion on astrology seems to me to be something of a waste of time really.

So why bring it up? You seem to just be using it as more intangible 'evidence' to back up your bias.

[daz madrigal]

TEA LEAVES & ASTROLOGY

I would suggest that the birth of a child was somewhat more relevant than a cup of tea to most normal people.


ASTROLOGY

Yes I have predicted events on many things and some on the 3 arguido forum and with great success.

I accept wholeheartedly that these will meet with the expected derision of member (as they did more forcefully on aforementioned forum!

PSYCHIC SARAH

As the sole reason for me posting here it would be rather nice if she were to attend to meet with the due oppribrium - seem that you have beaten me to it!!!

Must admit I haven't read her entire ouvre, just a few wild babblings were quite enough - no point in wating precious time eh?

[daz madrigal]

// So someone can have an innate 'character trait', not only to be responsible for a violent accident //

Google 'event chart' or 'mundane astrology', Tolman, it may shed more light than your slender knowledge allows.

[daz madrigal]

// Just as with psychics, if astrology actually had some real, serious people who were also capable of consistently making better predictions than a similarly informed layperson, the obvious question would be "Why aren't you genuine astrologers doing anything about all the fake ones, apart from maybe the odd moan?" //


Actually I have followed your entreaty to exaction and asked for a comparison to those who have cast doubt by suggesting that 'anyone could do it'/'it worked because of such and such'. Sadly no takers.

Would you like to step up boldly in their stead?

[tolman]

// So someone can have an innate 'character trait', not only to be responsible for a violent accident //

Google 'event chart' or 'mundane astrology', Tolman, it may shed more light than your slender knowledge allows.

I asked a perfectly clear question about how precise the categories in *your* kind of astrology were.
As expected, you're avoiding answering the question, presumably because you don't have an answer that you think won't look silly.

[Mulder]

I would suggest that the birth of a child was somewhat more relevant than a cup of tea to most normal people.

Personally, I prefer a cup of tea but I've never claimed to be normal.

The point about divination is that it doesn't really matter what item you choose to produce your 'fairly random number'. Tea leaves, birth date, spotting omens, numerology etc. The important point is to introduce that element of the random, otherwise it will be too predictable and too easy for clients to spot when it goes wrong. If you can choose something that sounds dramatic, I guess it is more likely the client will accept it. Anything ancient is always good as well. If so many people used it down the centuries, there has to be something in it, yes? Really, though, it's all just window dressing for the 'fairly random number' at the heart of all such systems. Personally, I think dice would work just fine. Or maybe ancient dice.

The birth of a child is important but so is the time when it first walks, has its first tooth, says its first word. What's so special about the birth date in astrology?

[Mulder]

PS: Using a 'fairly random number' generator is like throwing a die. You have a 1 in 6 chance of correctly predicting what number will fall face up. A 'fairly random generator' is used to pick from a limited number of possible pre-defined possible 'fates' or 'traits'. Thus, by pure chance, some of these fates or traits must be correct when you have several such 'scales' (fixed group of traits to choose from), particularly if they are rather vaguely defined. This is similar to increasing the chances of getting at least one 6 if you throw a dozen dice at once.

So with any divinatory system involving several 'scales' of fates or traits, statistically some will always be correct by chance. Many clients will be impressed by even a few things being right, especially if they want to believe.

And, of course, statistically, sometimes many fates and traits will come true in one prediction making it very impressive. It would only be truly impressive, however, if it such a level of accuracy could be maintained time after time.

By adjusting your 'fairly random number' selection mechanism and the vagueness of the trait and fate scales, it should be possible to design an impressive looking divinatory system from scratch. Anyone fancy it?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

// So someone can have an innate 'character trait', not only to be responsible for a violent accident //

Google 'event chart' or 'mundane astrology', Tolman, it may shed more light than your slender knowledge allows.

Why should he?

We get people here like you all the time, making vague claims with no evidence to back them up. In your case we don't even know what claims you are trying to make. You're that bad, really.

At least the usual trolls post a link to a YouTube video or something similar. You can't even do that. You just tell us to google a couple of non-specific phrases.

[tolman]

// Just as with psychics, if astrology actually had some real, serious people who were also capable of consistently making better predictions than a similarly informed layperson, the obvious question would be "Why aren't you genuine astrologers doing anything about all the fake ones, apart from maybe the odd moan?" //

Actually I have followed your entreaty to exaction and asked for a comparison to those who have cast doubt by suggesting that 'anyone could do it'/'it worked because of such and such'. Sadly no takers.

Would you like to step up boldly in their stead?
You're missing my point, which was comparing those very, very different things, astrological claims and psychic claims, and noticing that compared to real-world activities, people in both those fields who claim to be genuine seem generally puzzlingly tolerant of all the evident frauds and self-deluded people who merely claim to be skilled.

With astrology, as with woo in general, it's fairly evident that many people who think they can, many of whom actually seem to be honest, don't seem to be much good, and have a very selective memory when it comes to success and failure.
That alone makes anyone's else's claims of past success likely to be looked at as dubious without good evidence, but I guess that's the price that genuinely talented people (if they exist) pay for being in a business where there's no obvious quality control.

I don't claim to be good at or interested in making vague predictions or guesses, nor to have any great interest in trying to fit such predictions and guesses to reality, not least because no-one I respect would be particularly impressed even if I succeeded.

However, were the claims of astrologers really genuine, the 'real' astrologers should be able to provide evidence again and again that would convince almost anyone of their otherwise inexplicable skills, by being obviously rather better than a mere mortal could have been.
Instead, despite centuries of practice, that evidence would seem to be notable by its stubborn and continual absence. That, or astrologers are somehow strangely wary of showing the evidence, despite not being wary of claiming to be skilled and genuine.

Contrast that with the real world.
If people want to know if civil engineering, or piloting or surgery work, all they have to do is look at buildings and bridges not usually collapsing inexplicably, aeroplanes generally landing intact in the right place, and patients tending to survive with the proper bits replaced, repaired or removed.

[Bat E Bird]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24004868-5003423,00.html

Spirit sense gives single mum a gift to trade on

"Before I take my leave of Julianna, I ask her if she has any insight about what happened to missing British girl Madeleine McCann.
"I've been asked that question before. But I've never answered it," she says. This time she does.
"I honestly believe that she was dead within three hours. She never left that area at all. Do I think it was an intruder? No," Suranyi says quietly."

[tolman]

"I've been asked that question before. But I've never answered it," she says. This time she does.
"I honestly believe that she was dead within three hours. She never left that area at all. Do I think it was an intruder? No," Suranyi says quietly."
Such a pity the person interviewing her wasn't actually a proper journalist, or was at least interested in more than just writing a puff-piece.

If they had been, they might have asked:

"Within three hours of what*?"

If no-one else was involved, and the 'psychic' is therefore alleging the whole abduction was made up, what 'event' is the three hours supposed to be measured from?

[Bat E Bird]

I agree with you Tolman. Within three hours of what? We could all have a guess but we shouldn't have to.

It seems Carol Everett is still at it as well. ::)

http://www.caroleverett.com/maddy-mccann.htm

Maddie Investigation. Latest from Carol

More to follow in this section... Next few days.
I do feel that Maddie is still alive.


She is being dressed so to not be recognised and is seen in company of the people she is with.
1. Glasses with tint of pink/purple in them to hide the distinctive eye marking.
2. Much darker shorter hair, not a proper dye, (re regrowth)
3. Learning a new language.



Her new drawing's a masterpiece. :smiley: I would have posted it but I didn't want to breach the copyright. ::)

[Bat E Bird]

It's a busy time for the psychics. I've stumbled upon yet another story - this one was posted on 3A:

http://www.lasegunda.com/ediciononline/economia/detalle/index.asp?idnoticia=418794

Psychic from Chimbarongo describes how Madeleine McCann may have diedhttp://www.lasegunda.com/imagenes/pixel.gifMiércoles 2 de Julio de 2008http://www.lasegunda.com/imagenes/pixel.gifFuente :El Mercurio OnlineIsabel Cristina Ávila has, for the first time, revealed her intuitions about the disappearance of the little girl. “She pretended she was asleep”, she stated.SANTIAGO.- Following an announcement made by Portuguese police saying that they will close the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann due to a lack of evidence, psychic consultant Isabel Cristina Ávila, who has successfully helped police search for people in Chile, finally revealed her visions concerning the circumstances that led to the English girl’s disappearance.

The woman (who created a sketch last year indicating the location of the little girl’s body and sent it to Portuguese authorities), stated to Emol that, according to her visions, Madeleine pretended she was asleep on the tragic night of May 3rd, 2007 as her family vacationed at a resort in Portugal.

“Her parents left the room, she pretended to be asleep, they come to check on her again and once again, she pretends to be asleep. Then the little girl gets up and leaves to go walk, she walks and gets lost in the darkness of the night”, describes Isabel Cristina.

The psychic says that, as she was walking, she came upon “a flow of water and there she has an accident” and clarifies, “the parents have nothing to do with the accident”.

Isabel Crisitina maintains that the body of Madeleine McCann is still located at the site, surrounded by water and mud, near the resort.

[Cuddles]

is seen in company of the people she is with.

As opposed to being seen with people she's not with? I never cease to be amazed at how insightful psychics aren't.???

[Mulder]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7541810.stm


"British forensic scientist John Lowe said the sample contained 15 out of 19 components of Madeleine's DNA which were not "unique to her".

Mr Mitchell told the BBC: "I can confirm in his interview the police put to Gerry as a matter of fact that DNA - Madeleine's DNA - had been found in the vehicle.
"You can see from the official report that wasn't the case. It was inconclusive at best."

As I recall, at the time it was widely reported that DNA evidence showed that Madelaine had been in the hire car after her disappearance. It seems that whenever the police mention 'DNA evidence' these days, the general public assumes it is conclusive. Of course, like other scientific techniques, DNA testing is a matter of interpretation.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I fear there are a lot of people who have already convinced themselves that the parents are guilty of something, and have been using this kind of circumstantial/propaganda evidence to back up their case. Are they going to revisit their position in the light of these revelations? I doubt it. The vitriolic attacks on various internet sites and forums will continue.

[Julia]

psychic consultant Isabel Cristina Ávila, who has successfully helped police search for people in Chile

OMG, not another one. Do the Chilean police know about her claims?

I think one of the most disturbing things to come out of the McCann case is this obsession with plastering a missing child's face all over the media and on every surface flat enough to hold a poster. There's a good reason why abduction/murder cases involving children have generally been treated in a much more low-key way, especially if the child has a distinguishing feature such as the flaw in Madeleine's eye - too much exposure could result in the kidnapper panicking and killing the child rather than returning it.

[Bat E Bird]

http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=320531

Vidente en España asegura que Madeleine fue lanzada al mar por sus padresEmilce Oliva contradice a la psíquica de Chimbarongo y afirma que los McCann sedaron a la niña. Relata que "la madre trata de hacerla reaccionar, la sacude, la golpea, ahí es donde le salta sangre".
Viernes 5 de Septiembre de 2008
17:50
El Mercurio Online
SANTIAGO.- "Yo veo que esa noche un hombre está llevando en brazos a la nena, lo que menos me iba a imaginar es que era el padre", dice Emilce Oliva, vidente que afirma haber colaborado con la agencia de detectives Método 3, contratada por los McCann para encontrar a Madeleine, de la que después se apartó debido a que "ponían las manos en el fuego por los padres" de la niña.
Explica que, gracias a su habilidad, puede ver a través de los ojos de la niña y en su entorno y afirma que la noche de su desaparición sólo percibe la presencia de los padres y de otro individuo, que sería un amigo de la pareja. Su visión, que concuerda con varias de las hipótesis, es que la menor fue sedada por los McCann.
La vidente argentina, residente en España, relata a Emol que el 3 de mayo de 2007 Madeleine no durmió en su habitación, sino que en la de los padres. Dice que lamentablemente no puede captar todos los detalles, por lo que no ve cuando el matrimonio la seda, pero presume que esto ocurrió por la forma en que actuaron.
"Lo presumo por la reacción de la mamá, porque la noche que desapareció Madeleine la madre todo el tiempo estaba controlando la respiración de los hermanitos para ver si respiraban, a los tres los sedaban para poder salir a comer", dice.
Describe que "lo que pasó esa noche fue un accidente, la nena fue sedada de más". "Por lo que yo veo que la madre trata de hacer reaccionar a la nena, la mueve, la sacude, la golpea, ahí es donde le salta sangre de la nariz y salpica las paredes, la madre la pone en el sillón, que es donde encontraron sangre", señala.
Explica que cuando la acuestan en el sillón, la menor "ya está medio muerta". "Ahí la cargan en el coche y la nena muere por el camino porque la iban a llevar a urgencia, los padres sabían de que la podían salvar. Y como se muere, vuelven con el cuerpo de la nena y simulan el rapto", sostiene la vidente.
Escondieron el cuerpo en una iglesia
Emilce afirma que los padres escondieron el cuerpo, al parecer, en una iglesia del sector. "Yo los veo a ellos de que van para el lado de la iglesia, para mí ellos esconden el cuerpo, y después bajan un poco más para el lado del mar, la pusieron en una bolsa dentro de esas valijas de plástico duro y la tiraron al mar", indica.
Detalla que cuando se deshacen del cadáver sólo está presente el padre y un amigo. "La madre sabe lo que pasa, pero ahí veo al padre". Describe el lugar como "un barranco bastante alto, debajo está el mar y se puede llegar ahí en coche". Dice ver al padre "desconsolado". "Pero son así ellos, decidieron hacer eso".
A pesar de la aparenta frialdad con la que habrían actuado los padres, la vidente enfatiza en que la muerte fue accidental. "Hay que pensar que ellos estando en un país extranjero, que tienen una buena posición, y que van a quedar detenidos por haberlos sedado, no les quedó otra que fingir un rapto", indica.
Tras sus visiones, Emilce dice que fue a Portugal a verificar las imágenes que percibía y elaboró un mapa con el recorrido que hace el padre con la niña en brazos. Dice que percibe a un testigo, "veo que hay una persona que ve al padre cargando a la nena".
En su opinión, "hay gente del entorno que sospecha y alguno de los amigos va a romper el silencio". Dice que lo importante ahora es encuentrar el cuerpo. "No es tan difícil, la corriente la puede arrastrar, tiene que salir, alguien de casualidad la va a encontrar".
Consultados vía telefónica por Emol, en la agencia Método 3 no confirmaron si Emilce Oliva efectivamente había colaborado con ellos en la investigación del caso Madeleine McCann, señalando escuetamente que se trata de "información confidencial".


Google translation:

Seer in Spain ensures that Madeleine was launched at sea by their padres
Emilce Oliva contradicts the mental state of Chimbarongo and affirms that McCann headquarters to the girl. He that "the mother tries to make it react, shaking, hitting, that's where you jump blood."
Friday September 5, 2008
17:50

El Mercurio Online

Santiago .- "I see that that night a man was carrying the baby in her arms, which unless I would imagine is that the father was," said Emilce Oliva, seer who claims to have worked with the agency detectives Method 3, contracted by McCann to find Madeleine, which then departed due to "put their hands in the fire by parents" of the girl.

He explained that, thanks to their ability, can be seen through the eyes of the girl child and in their environment and affirms that the night of his disappearance only perceive the presence of parents and another individual, it would be a friend of the couple. His vision, which accords with a number of assumptions, which is the lowest hosted by McCann.

The seer argentina, resident in Spain, Emol relates to the May 3, 2007 Madeleine not slept in her room, but in that of their parents. He said that unfortunately can not capture every detail, so you do not see where the marriage silk, but assumed that this happened for the way he acted.

"I presume by the reaction of the mother, because that night Madeleine disappeared around the time the mother was controlling the breath of siblings to see if breathed, the three headquarters for the power go out and eat," he says.

He describes that "what happened that night was an accident, the girl had hosted more." "As far as I am the mother tries to react to the baby, moving, shaking, hitting, that's where you jump from the nose and blood splashes walls, the mother puts her in the chair, that is where they found blood, "he says.

He explained that when the bed in the armchair, the less "is already half dead." "That the load in the car and the girl dies on the road because iban to carry emergency, parents knew that could save. And as it dies, is back with the body of the girl and simulate abduction," says the seer.

Hide the body in a church
Emilce says that parents hid the body, apparently in a church in the sector. "I see them going to them for next to the church, for me they hide the body, and then drop a bit more to the side of the sea, put it in a bag inside the plastic bags and threw hard the sea, "he says.

It spells out that when you dispose of the corpse is present only the father and a friend. "The mother knows what's going on, but I see why the father." It describes the place as "a ravine quite high, is beneath the sea and you can get there by car." He says seeing the father "bereaved". "But they are so they decided to do that."

Despite the apparent coldness with which parents would have acted, the seer emphasizes that the death was accidental. "We must consider that they are in a foreign country, who have a good position, and that they will be arrested for having sedated, not to pretend otherwise was an abduction," he says.

After their visions, Emilce said that he went to Portugal to verify that the images received and prepared a map showing the route that makes the father with the girl in her arms. He said he perceives a witness, "I see that there is a person who sees the father carrying the baby."

In his view, "there are people suspected of environment and one of the friends is going to break the silence." He said that the important thing now is to Find the body. "It is not so difficult, the current can drag, has to leave, someone will find the chance."

Consulted by telephone Emol, the agency did not confirm whether Method 3 Emilce Oliva had actually collaborated with them in investigating the case Madeleine McCann, noting briefly that it is "confidential information".

[brianp]

This is probably just the same rehashed rubbish which appeared on the Telegraph website yesterday under the heading "Gerry McCann buried Madeleine's body on the beach Portuguese detective says". It has now been pulled from the site.

[Bat E Bird]

I've just read the Telegraph report on another forum. It was pulled pretty quickly but it reported Goncalo Amaral's opinion of what happened.

A cyber friend, Scandi, posted it at 7.45pm yesterday and, at 10.11pm, she posted that it had been pulled.

[lazerustheduck]

I haven't read all this thread (sorry only got to page 19) sorry if this has been posted before but I think my ideas are different.
Instead of discouraging psychics from coming forward I think they should be encouraged but only with specific rules.
If the psychic comes forward and gives information that's too vague to be of any use they should get an on the spot fine for wasting police time. If they give specific information it should be logged if the information is logged and acted upon the results should be published and any information that is deemed to be false the psychic is given a heavier fine. If a case is solved all logged information with full details of the giver should be published so they can be praised or lambasted on the actual information they gave, not what they can claim later that they gave.
With all such things on public record there would no longer be all these false claims and psychics would know they had something to actually lose by making these stupid claims.

[Mojo]

Instead of discouraging psychics from coming forward I think they should be encouraged but only with specific rules.
If the psychic comes forward and gives information that's too vague to be of any use they should get an on the spot fine for wasting police time. If they give specific information it should be logged if the information is logged and acted upon the results should be published and any information that is deemed to be false the psychic is given a heavier fine.

And, of course, if they are able to provide specific information which is accurate, they should become a suspect.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/31/ukcrime.madeleinemccann


Each clairvoyant's claim was being taken seriously in case they were from the person or people who snatched Madeleine from her parent's holiday apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on May 3, Chief Inspector Sousa said.

"That is one of the reasons that we cannot discard anything," he said. "We must check them all in case it might be from the kidnapper.

[lazerustheduck]

And, of course, if they are able to provide specific information which is accurate, they should become a suspect.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/31/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Well from seeing the response of a couple of suposed psychics and their cronies on here getting banged up for a few days would do no harm. But being sectioned might be a better idea.

[Bat E Bird]

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5539/picture24wl6.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5207/expressprt2oh9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

::)::)::)


Thanks to my good friend Bouncy who scanned the article and gave permission for me to post it here.

Please remove if it breaches copyright or anything. :smiley:

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5539/picture24wl6.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5207/expressprt2oh9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

::)::)::)


Thanks to my good friend Bouncy who scanned the article and gave permission for me to post it here.

Please remove if it breaches copyright or anything. :smiley:

Pathetic, trying to claim they are 'FBI psychics' is absurd. I guess the papers can't continue to make groundless accusations against the McCanns any longer without risk of being sued, so they need to resort to this claptrap again.

[tolman]

I wonder if there'll be an equally large newspaper article if/when the information is checked out and found to be useless?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

And why do psychic investigators always have that same miserable look on their faces in photos.

[lazerustheduck]

And why do psychic investigators always have that same miserable look on their faces in photos.Because they save their happy faces for when they pour all the money they scammed of people on their beds and roll naked in it.:totty:

[Bat E Bird]

In case any of you didn't bother to Google for the "ghost hunters"

http://www.trutv.com/shows/haunting_evidence/mystery_meet.html

Riveting stuff. :cheesy:

Even her apple pie sounds rubbish. ;D

[Bat E Bird]

There's another one here. I was recently told about her and it's alleged that she gives interviews saying she saw stuff 'in a vision' but the opinion in the blogging world is that she actually read the stuff on other people's blogs.

Google translation I'm afraid

http://www.cronicaviva.com.pe/content/view/57750/233/



"All lie"
Tuesday, 23/09/2008
Emilce Oliva is a psychic who has been able to "see" with this "gift" that marked important events surrounding the disappearance of the small Madeleine. She tells us some significant details of this event so dramatic that has shocked the whole world. Article here.
Madeleine Beth McCann (born on May 12 2003 in Leicester, England) is a British girl, the daughter of Kate McCann more, medical family in Melton Mowbray, and Gerry, a cardiologist at the Glenfield Hospital in Leicester. Madeleine, who has two twin brothers, Sean and Amelie, two years old, lived with his family in Rothley, England.
Disappeared from the Algarve in Portugal, the night of May 3, 2007, where he was supposed to spend a holiday "family". More than 20 thousand pages, photos, analysis and surveys collected during 16 months have not been able to clarify what happened.

Tampoco more than 700 people questioned by the police, shed light on what happened to the little Madeleine McCann. Was kidnapped by a pedophile network?
¿He died accidentally and her body was hidden? ¿He left the house on its own?
I was working on the case Maddei as a psychic, but I turned away when he began to circle close.
Have been reported sightings of a large number of small Maddie in various parts of the world, concentrated mainly in countries of the European continent.
Maddie McCann was last seen by someone who was not of his family, at 1700 on that day.
That is what happened until 2200 when Kate, her mother, gave the alarm of his disappearance? It is a mystery. An enigma that begins with the contradictions that exist, according to the police, in the testimonies of their parents.
They ensure that went out to dinner with some friends over 1930. They left their three children asleep. (On Maddei three years caring for her two minor siblings Sean and Amelie a year and a half) lying in their cots, and Maddie in bed. (Your bed then to see the photo, and would be almost without break) Kate that he had left the girl covered. Gerry, the father, contends that the girl was sleeping on blankets, grabbing his favorite toy. (One of the many contradictions)

Entonces that night were left with Russel O'Brien and Jane Tanner, Mattew Olfield and Rachel Manpilly, and David Payne, his wife Fiona and the mother of this one. All left their children (in total, eight less than four years) sleeping in their apartments.
When the detective agency contact me!
For an e-mail, I sent a page of Madeleine. I said: "I can assist in locating Maddei because I can" see "in some cases, what the other person sees. I give several tests!
1 Gerry say that the last trip, to see the children, went to the bathroom not? They did not respond to me because it was under secret investigation.
2nd There is a woman who is lying and they describe that woman.
3rd A Maddei took her through the door and not through the window. They took note and I am not saying either yes or no.
4 The hijacker Maddei down in the sea and is crossed with a man (Martin Smith)
5th One morning they command an e-mail asking why Maddie cries the night before? And they told me where did you get your that? Then I find out that Maddie was crying the previous two nights, for the statement from the neighboring department of the above, who said that they focused their attention McCann as her baby cried for 90 minutes.
6th "I see" that the evidence was found in a parking lot.
7th There will be a fire and then torched the car of Malinka.
8th "I see" two men on the beach with the body of the baby (I CAN NOT SEE YOUR FACE BUT WHO ARE SUSPECTED)
9th "I see" the hand of a woman, shaking his face, that hand has three rings and then see them in the hands of someone ..
10th "I" that the baby had a ring with the letter F, that someone took out that night, why not?
11th feel the sensation of being inside a dark box can be a trunk.
12 A Maddei find a man.
13th I told the detectives that Robert Murrat was not with the baby ever.
All this I said it in March and 5 months after opening the secret proceedings.
After having said all that, I made contact to travel to Portugal
A psychic, seer, psychic and so on. gets carried away by their perceptions, dreams, visions or appearances.
Madeleine thank God I was only appeared twice. In the first, showed me all the way he did his alleged kidnapper, the detective described him this tour and I confirmed that yes, that was the way to the church and the sea (when I traveled to Portugal checked my pictures)
The second time you show me, show me a place, but one place in particular is a bit away from the department, is in Portugal.
I have always worked in many cases anonymously, is a code that is due to have contact with whom you but here I was out of hand. I may be wrong because this is not an exact science
It may also be wrong Gonzalo Amaral and Martin Smith.
It will be the man that I see, is that the kidnapper is very much like Gerry.
I'm sure my powers and I will continue looking for Maddie
PLEASE STAY A MADELIN YOUR THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS IN
He writes: Emilce Edith Oliva from Barcelona. Viva collaborator Chronicle



She also has her own blog

http://emilceedith.blogspot.com/ (http://emilceedith.blogspot.com/)


BTW Mulder, sorry about the scanned article I previously posted. It was done before it appeared online and some stories are only available in the printed edition. :smiley:

[Bat E Bird]

I thought some of you would find this interesting

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/



October 28, 2008
Maddie and esotericism: means or ends?

Opinion article by Paulo Sargento*

Before anything else, I must confess that I hesitated quite a bit about publishing this post. Firstly, because many other bloggers have already done so, with the acuity that the theme so deserves, and then also because I wasn’t sure that I should defend ‘dames’ who allow for their name to be used in vain by the press, without a single remark, which surely allows for space for any interpretations that one may want to make.

What am I talking about? The news, a front-page exclusive, that the ‘Sunday Express’ published on the 19th of October: “FBI mediums present new suspect in Maddie case”. The news is reported, as anyone can verify, over two pages, where a new “photofit” of a new suspect appears, as well as the photographs of two supposed FBI medium-detectives and one clairvoyant. In a subtle manner, a small inset box next to the aforementioned photo announces an apology to the Tapas Seven, particularly to Drs Russell O’Brien and Jane Tanner, due to news that they could also become arguidos in the process, even advancing that the first allegedly had helped to conceal some relevant facts. In this public apology, the newspaper adds that it has also agreed upon the payment of substantial compensations which, it asserts, the victims will donate to the ‘FindMaddie’ fund. A coincidence? I don’t think so.

The aforementioned FBI medium-detectives have elaborated a new “photofit” of a man who is suspected of having abducted, murdered and buried Maddie, supposedly through the reports from a psychic. The paranormal investigators spent a week in Portugal, where they collected data that supposedly allowed for them to reach such conclusions and to present them during a programme on American television. They also mention that they have informed the Police and Kate and Gerry’s private investigators, who prefer to wait for the show’s images in order to evaluate the evidence.

Now for the first question. If we search the website of the well-known investigation agency, the FBI, we don’t find any one of the names that are cited by the ‘Sunday Express’ or even any mention of the use of said paranormal investigation methods. So we may ask: is the FBI aware of this and other news articles that use its reputation as an argument of authority to sustain unofficial theories (we may also recall the alleged forensic painter of the “photofits”, although those were based on reports from real persons and not some paranormal entities)? And does it give permission? Or do these detectives abuse the FBI sigla? Or was it just a bit of “press freedom”? My understanding is that these questions should be clarified in order to avoid any remaining doubts about persons and methods.

The second question that I raise concerns the paranormal investigation itself.

I should state, before anything else, that I don’t hold anything against any type of knowledge, no matter how esoteric or exoteric. I possess no type of knowledge about the methods of paranormals. What I do know about is some lines of scientific investigation into so-called paranormal phenomena and into the actors of this phenomena, namely in the areas of neurosciences and cultural anthropology. But there is something that shocks me in a significant part of the approaches that are made by so-called psychics, mediums, or other pseudo-professional adjectives: the immoral sense of opportunity to manage expectations and coincidences ‘a post hoc’. After holding a reasonable set of information concerning a certain phenomenon, many people are skilled in creating illusions in others with their pseudo premonitory sense. On the other hand, it’s strange to notice how most of these paranormals can only experience their visions and perform their work in cases that can obtain some sort of retribution, one way or another (and if it’s only for notoriety). Under this perspective, why hasn’t this team of paranormal detectives discovered something concerning the thousands of cases of unknown missing children? And finally, why don’t they ever explain the methods that they use in order to demonstrate the evidence that only they can see, thus claiming to be seers?

The third question, which could easily be called laughable if it weren’t for the seriousness of the situation, concerns the fact that a vision from some medium can generate a “photofit”. I know that Jane Tanner’s report has been evaluated as lacking credibility, but still…

The fact is that if we compare the so-called “photofit” that was built with the aid of perfectly unbelievable methods, with some of Dr Gerald McCann’s photographs, we encounter notable similarities. A superficial comparative analysis of the facial proportions and asymmetries (particularly observed in the right ocular cavity) of the “photofit”, following anthropometrical principles, suggests a level of coincidence in said measurements that is much higher for the face of Gerry McCann than for the face of the President of the Egyptian Republic. I should remind you that a similar conclusion could be reached concerning the “photofit” that was published by Clarence Mitchell, when said so-called forensic production was compared with the photograph of Mr Joaquim Agostinho or with the face of Kate McCann. This data means simply that said productions are naturally inconsistent and add nothing to the Maddie case except for confusion.

Nevertheless, as if the para(ab)normality that is referred to in the ‘Sunday Express’ of the 19th of October wasn’t enough, on the very next day (20th of October) ‘The Sun’ publishes a quarter page with a premonition from Kate McCann concerning the fateful holidays of May 2007. The Payne couple comes forward this time, to ensure that this premonition actually is a premonition and not a ‘a post hoc’ coincidence management. They both assert that Kate had a bad feeling about the vacation and that she even considered the possibility of not going. But apart from this, unnecessary and demonstrative references are made to the consequent bad emotional state of Kate and Gerry and again the idea that said premonition was transmitted to the Portuguese police is affirmed. Let’s hope that this is described in the process. If it’s not, then we have yet another serious mistake to blame on our PJ. Patience! Not everyone can function in the way that we fantasize the FBI functions.

I understand that the newspapers want to sell paper. I understand that the newspapers take advantage of folkloric news in order to hit one on the nail and one of the hoof, because they obtain great relational marketing (in this case by presenting public apologies in order to advertise their financial contribution to the ‘FindMaddie’ fund). The fact that some characters want to sell television shows of disputable aesthetic taste, does not particularly disturb me, either. The fact that the FBI doesn’t take public action to deny their relationship with medium-detectives worries me a bit more. But while we’re at it, the use of an esoteric argument in news that involve the family of a little girl that an edition of (British) ‘Metro’ has assumed to be dead, within a compensation payment that has already been mentioned in this text, shows a lack of sense that defies qualification.

I confess that ‘Halloween’ is one of those popular celebrations that have never managed to seduce me. But presuming that there are persons that enjoy this type of party, it could be suggested that they should play with something else.

source: Câmara de Comuns, 27.10.2008

* Paulo Sargento is a renowned forensic psychologist, university professor and author; he was part of the team that produced a 3D simulation of the evening when Madeleine disappeared

by astro

[newatheist]

There was a time, after all, when radio waves were thought impossible, and before that time, that the motor car would combust if it went faster than 12 mph. You see my trend. There is no excuse for blind ignorance and closed minds. I'm sorry to have found it on your site and especially in connection with this terrible tragedy.


lol, the examples you mentioned are advances of science and technology. its kind of ironic that science was/is the destroyer of such illogial nonsense.

i bet you pick up the free newspapers and hurry to the astrology section to tell you how to live.:cheesy:

[lazerustheduck]

lol, the examples you mentioned are advances of science and technology. its kind of ironic that science was/is the destroyer of such illogial nonsense.

i bet you pick up the free newspapers and hurry to the astrology section to tell you how to live.:cheesy:They miss out the fact there was a time when people believed in psychics. The education of years works in both directions
things get proved and disproved over time radio waves were proved because they exist, a psychic powers have been disproved over and over again because they don't.

[Admin]

Thread split to here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3169

The (not) Gordon Smith nonsense is nothing to do with this thread. O0

[Bat E Bird]

Here's another one at it.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=178185563&blogID=463042825

It's someone called Derek Watts. I can't find anything on here about him and I haven't time to Google right now.

:smiley:

[tolman]

Apparently the abductors have a 2005 Sierra, which would probably be news to Ford, who stopped making them in 1993.

Possibly this 'psychic' should get out more.

His website (or that of a namesake) is at:
http://www.theoracleofdestiny.com/

[Bat E Bird]

Thanks Tolman

Have you seen this bit?

http://www.theoracleofdestiny.com/#/policesupport/4524172441

;D

[Bat E Bird]

This is from that Haunting Evidence show

http://aboutghosts.com/2009/01/madeleine-mccann-haunting-evidence-part-25/

[Bat E Bird]

Psychic Martina Kaczmarek has also answers to spectacular cases, the whole world. At about the case, Madeleine (Maddy) McCann from Great Britain, the girl (3), on 3 May 2007 during a holiday in the Algarve disappeared. Kaczmarek: "Maddy is dead She is here with us, her soul has approached us on that issue." As they died and where the corpse lies - the clairvoyant had already notified the authorities. If the follow, the case is solved soon.Original article:

http://www.tz-online.de/de/aktuelles/bayern/artikel_59021.html

Full Google translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tz-online.de%2Fde%2Faktuelles%2Fbayern%2Fartikel_5902 1.html

[Dubious Dick]

Still fascinated to hear any evidence whatsoever that any psychic or medium has ever been responsible for solving a crime or missing persons case.

Seems at least this latest one is likely to be right that Madeleine McCann is dead, but then anyone could make that prediction based on the known odds. Understand that the likelihood of being alive is down to something like 5% after first couple of days.