The McCanns, law enforcement, and the mainstream media.

[BREWSTERS]

This should be an eye-opener for anyone who believes that the police and mainstream media are basically truthfull...why can one man with very limited resources find so much out about a case when supposedly the police and msm can't do with many £millions?

http://richplanet.net/

 

[domainseller200]

*BREAKING NEWS*

The Pope is catholic

 

[BREWSTERS]

I'm a person that is open to suggestions, but this burns my eyes.
I don't even know what I am looking at - other than bullshit.

Sources of "information" to back up an argument need to at least come across as factual, and be possible to cross reference and correlate independently through multiple sources.

This... this is just another conspiracy website.
Just look at the entirety of the content hosted on this website?

You make yourself look like an absolute nutcase posting things like this, losing any amount of credibility of any discussion you enter into, especially when using such resources to backup your "arguments".

I get that the mainstream media is not 100% truthful, but this website; This is no different. It's just openly bullshit.

Given the timeframe from my post to yours, you evidently didn't watch the expert opinion from a highly regarded Statement Analyst before spewing out your own opinion on the content and anyone who takes the time to review it. Well done you! Have you considered a role with the judiciary because you'd be fantastic...you'd have court waiting times down to zero by the end of the day.

Watch 'Embedded Confession' on that site. This isn't a witchhunt against the McCanns - their case is used by Richard Hall as an example of how the msm lie and deceive us on a massive scale.

 

[domainseller200]

You didn't even link directly to the video directly - I had to look for it myself on that god awful site.

It reminded me of the million dollar home page

I have my own views of the McCann's but the bottom line is, nobody will ever know what happened that night apart from them.

This post has no more credibility than saying the Bible proves that God and Jesus exist.

 

[BREWSTERS]

So 30 minutes time difference between my post and yours - of a 43 minute video from a 3 part video series wasn't enough time decide for myself that this is a questionable source as a factual information?

You didn't even link directly to the video directly - I had to look for it myself on that god awful site.

So you question the Statement Analysist's credentials? On what grounds? The first 15 minutes is an intro and the guy giving his credentials - so 15 minutes* of content out of 2 hours is enough for you to decide?

Hmm, did it take you long to search given that the topic mentioned was the McCanns, and right there on the homepage is a big picture of them?

*actually the intro is just over 30 minutes, so you hadn't seen any of the relevant content?

 

[BREWSTERS]

It reminded me of the million dollar home page

I have my own views of the McCann's but the bottom line is, nobody will ever know what happened that night apart from them.

This post has no more credibility than saying the Bible proves that God and Jesus exist.

I think that the truth will come out, or at least enough of it to prove that we've been told a pack of lies from beginning to end.

The part that is still a mystery, is how the McCanns had unprecedented access to top politicians, and have been protected by UK police and the msm have done zero journalistic work into the case and instead have been major players in the cover up.

If you watch the content I doubt you'll have the same opinion re the bible etc.

 

[AlistairM]

So what is supposed to of happened to her then, and why is it all a cover up? Not suggesting it isn't as I know a couple people have told me it's a cover up before but haven't really looked into it, although I have seen one of this guys videos before but don't think I reached the end, so would be interested to know what the bottom line is basically.

 

[BREWSTERS]

So what is supposed to of happened to her then, and why is it all a cover up? Not suggesting it isn't as I know a couple people have told me it's a cover up before but haven't really looked into it, although I have seen one of this guys videos before but don't think I reached the end, so would be interested to know what the bottom line is basically.

The gist of it is, that she died - possibly a day or two before we're told the 'abduction' happened. Possiblities are that she had been medicated to help her sleep while the parents were out for the evening, and either died because of the medication or had an accident.

A post mortem would have shown up any medication...the parents, one a doctor and the other an anaesthetist would be struck off; have their other kids taken away, and possibly gone to prison. Their friends who were also in the medical arena may also have been medicating their kids and would be subject to the same. So a story was concocted. There's also a question over paedophilia (Gerry and one of their doctor friends on holiday with them), which if involving Madeleine could've been apparent during an autopsy.

The Statement Analyst say's he's certain the parents were lying; that Madeleine died and wasn't abducted; that the parents hid her body, and of several other points.

The point of investigating this is mostly to expose the msm - how they are complicit in hiding the truth instead of exposing it, and how rampant and blatant they are in this.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Same paper, same day - Texas and New York versions.

 

[Blossom]

View attachment 1384

Same paper, same day - Texas and New York versions.

But is that responsible for creating differences or a response to already existing differences?

 

[BREWSTERS]

But is that responsible for creating differences or a response to already existing differences?

I'd say it's responsible for creating differences. Peoples feelings and opinions are partially formed from the (dis)information they get from the media.

What it shows is, you can't believe what msm tells us, so we should be questioning why they are lying, and who benefits.

 

[bonusmedia]

I do understand fear and mistrust of the media - and I accept it's often justified. Some sources are more credible than others, some biases are consistent and can be accounted for.

What I don't get is how that drives you to believe some of the most bizarre and outlandish stuff from sources that are not just potentially unreliable - they are at best fantasists and at worst deliberately pressing emotive buttons for money.

As you say, you should be questioning why they say what they say. I would suggest most fringe sites are in it for the money, some also for the attention.

There are people in 3rd world countries who build sites full of extreme far right guff that they don't believe for a second because they know there is a huge audience looking to be outraged, and they are profitable. It's like the celebrity gossip market. Scandal, sensation sells.

Our 'mainstream' media - broadsheets, BBC etc - do generally stick to basic journalistic principles, such as checking that what you say is factually accurate - and caring whether it is or not

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

I do understand fear and mistrust of the media - and I accept it's often justified. Some sources are more credible than others, some biases are consistent and can be accounted for.

What I don't get is how that drives you to believe some of the most bizarre and outlandish stuff from sources that are not just potentially unreliable - they are at best fantasists and at worst deliberately pressing emotive buttons for money.

This article goes a long way towards explaining the "slippery slope" that leads people to believe all sorts of rubbish.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...got-sam-harris-milo-yiannopoulos-islamophobia

I'm pretty sure there are many, many more "hardcore" conspiracy theorists out there than there were 20 years ago? Why? Because the Web's the perfect echo chamber. In the "olden days" if you held outlandish beliefs, you were pretty much on your own. You could easily be literally the only person with such views in your town!

But now, you can meet up in seconds with thousands of like-minded people from all over the world on forums and social media. That network effect strengthens the feeling that you must be "on to something" - after all, how could so many people be wrong? Everyone reinforces the same nonsense in a flurry of group-think, and suddenly you've "radicalised" conspiracy theory believers.

A complete fallacy, of course. Just because you get all the oddballs together in a single virtual room it doesn't do anything to make their views any less nutty...

One example of this: there are "plenty" of people out there who still believe the Earth is flat. Yes, in 2016! You'd think we were still in the middle ages, but no...
https://mic.com/articles/150833/flat-earth-theories-truthers-youtube#.ITccQDsxW

With 7 billion people on the planet, it only takes 1 in 100,000 to believe in something nonsensical and that's still 70,000 people, enough to fill a large football stadium and certainly much more than enough to create a self-perpetuating, self-sustaining online community of people patting each other on the back for sharing the same view.

Yet if you take a step back and look at the situation pragmatically, you'd have to admit that a 1/100,000 viewpoint is so far to the extreme edges of the "mainstream/fringe" curve as to be practically invisible in the distance.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Our 'mainstream' media - broadsheets, BBC etc - do generally stick to basic journalistic principles, such as checking that what you say is factually accurate - and caring whether it is or not

The very point is, that they don't - they lie, lie, lie.

Carrying on with the McCann case as an example, they have done zero investigative journalism. Instead just filling front page after front page with inaccuracies and lies. It has been left to multiple people in the alternative media to investigate and pull apart their story.

And it's the same with any big story.

BTW, did you watch the information on the McCanns? What is your opinion on the results? Same question to Edwin.

 

[MurrayMurray is verified member.]

I'm agnostic about a lot of news stuff

I will say sometimes the unofficial story (conspiracy theory) seems more likely than official accounts

I watched a documentary from the BBC about Putin a couple of days ago where they accused him of staging chechen terrorist attacks to cement his power

I remember learning Hitler staged the Reichstag fire

But a Western government would never do that..? hasn't the Gulf of Tonkin incident been confirmed as staged

There's speculation the US allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour to sway public opinion and allow them to enter the war, that doesn't sound crazy to me, not any more crazy than them being incompetent enough to let the Japanese sneak all away across the ocean undetected anyway

Blair lied about WMD's as an excuse to invade Iraq, what's the real reason for it?

I don't think it's wrong to question everything, but it's probably wrong to say anything is fact either way

 

[EdwinEdwin is verified member.]

BTW, did you watch the information on the McCanns? What is your opinion on the results? Same question to Edwin.

I spent 20 seconds reading the titles of the left-hand navigation links. That told me everything I ever need to know about that site. Shame I can't get those 20 seconds back, but that's life...

 

[bonusmedia]

The very point is, that they don't - they lie, lie, lie.

Carrying on with the McCann case as an example, they have done zero investigative journalism. Instead just filling front page after front page with inaccuracies and lies. It has been left to multiple people in the alternative media to investigate and pull apart their story.

And it's the same with any big story.

BTW, did you watch the information on the McCanns? What is your opinion on the results? Same question to Edwin.

Given that you believe that the 'MSM' lies constantly, why is it that you blindly accept whatever the 'Alternative Media' comes out with?

Why not let the McCann thing go - what good is it doing anyone for you to obsess over it?

 

[SoundSound is verified member.]

I have watched the first two episodes and the Statement Analysist's makes some very accurate facts from the transcripts of the interview given by the McCanns

 

[BREWSTERS]

I spent 20 seconds reading the titles of the left-hand navigation links. That told me everything I ever need to know about that site. Shame I can't get those 20 seconds back, but that's life...

Perfect!

I could've spent 20 minutes writing about how some people are so sure of their own intellect and perception that they believe their opinion is more important and more valid than any amount of in depth analysis from top professionals in their field....but you've saved me that time. I couldn't have said it as succinctly as you did.

 

[bonusmedia]

Why have you started this argument again?
Enough