The difficult task facing ANTHONY SUMMERS & ROBBYN SWAN as they publish 'Looking for Madeleine', billed as 'the most definitive account possible' of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I agree with you whatsupdoc about the "off your head" remark.

Please could I ask that the 9/11 debate continues here.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3435-9-11-conspiracy-theories-how-they-ve-evolved

Sallypelt: yes, there is another topic.

whatsupdoc wrote:The videos shown on tv were done hours after the explosions and done badly. Wings disappeared , ventral tanks were seen and the striking of the towers was a shambles with poor video key positioning caused by the news helicopter drifting in position...also the planes showed no indication of slowing down or an impact having taken place, just disappearing and dissolving. After 25 years in the business, I know a fake when I see one.
Here's another gem for all of those who believe what they see on tv...look at the pictures of the lunar buggies...bouncing around throwing up dust. Unfortunately, the Moon has no air so the dust should have travelled in an arc without stopping a few feet behind the buggy...definitely no Rooster Tail.  The videos were shot while training on Earth. I think I read somewhere that NASA had to agree to this but I have noticed on YouTube that some videos of the buggies have been edited to remove any trace of the dust after it reaches the highest point. Again, badly edited.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I agree with you whatsupdoc about the "off your head" remark.

Please could I ask that the 9/11 debate continues here.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3435-9-11-conspiracy-theories-how-they-ve-evolved

Sallypelt: yes, there is another topic.

++++++++++++

And finally my notes about what we have a right to expect from 'Looking for Madeleine': 

Looking at the publisher’s description of the book, these SIX claims for it stand out: 

·         1. it’s the first independent, objective account of the case

·         2. they have examined the released Portuguese files,

·         3. they have conducted in-depth interviews

·         4. they have conducted original research

·         5. they demonstrate that speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter's fate is unfounded, and

·         6. their book is ‘the most definitive account possible’.

If numbers (1) and (6) are to be proved true, it follows that they must have considered, and decisively rejected, the basis on which there has indeed been speculation that the McCanns played a role in Madeleine’s disappearance.  (snipped)

Monty Heck wrote:

++++++++++++

And finally my notes about what we have a right to expect from 'Looking for Madeleine': 

Looking at the publisher’s description of the book, these SIX claims for it stand out: 

·         1. it’s the first independent, objective account of the case

·         2. they have examined the released Portuguese files,

·         3. they have conducted in-depth interviews

·         4. they have conducted original research

·         5. they demonstrate that speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter's fate is unfounded, and

·         6. their book is ‘the most definitive account possible’.

If numbers (1) and (6) are to be proved true, it follows that they must have considered, and decisively rejected, the basis on which there has indeed been speculation that the McCanns played a role in Madeleine’s disappearance.  (snipped)

It does indeed follow and, given the authors' pedigree it is to be expected that details of of their acclaimed meticulous research and explanation of their analysis will be provided to underpin these claims.  If, as some have suggested the authors are establishment apologists, information included on this point will be something of a "revelation moment" regarding why the UK establishment (for want of a better description) appear to have unanimously concluded that the parents have no case to answer.  We know that is the case and have pondered endlessly on why that should be, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.  We have never yet been told the reasons why the McCs are of no interest to the UK authorities and it may be possible the conclusions of this book may mirror and give insight into establishment thinking on this subject.

Whatsupdoc raises the salient question as to why this particular book has been authored by writers whose reputation is founded on investigating US political conspiracies of national/international magnitude, and the reasons for their interest in what is, fundamentally, a domestic crime committed in a foreign jurisdiction.  Curious indeed and this book may well be a worthwhile read, whether or not we agree with any or all of the authors' conclusions which, despite the hype, at best can only be speculative at this point in time.

XTC wrote:

All I'm asking is who do you think the audience is whom the book is aimed at? If it's to finally convince an audience that the Tapas gang had nothing to do with Madeleine's 'missingness' then the convincing is for a reason. What is the reason?

BlueBag wrote:If it's the case that the purpose of the book is to tell us the McCanns had nothing to do with Madeleine's disapperance, you have to say.. why?

With the SY farce, these are all big guns being brought out.

What the hell is this about?

PeterMac wrote:Those same people would fight you to the death if you suggested that Professional wrestling was not a ludicrous con !

BlueBag wrote:
America (PNAC) got it's "new Pearl Habor" and the world changed overnight.

palm tree wrote:How the nose came out the opposite side still intact, steal beams an all that, impossible for passenger jets to fly that speed without breaking up? Anyway, I wonder if this new book will include OG burglar, killer, abductor, pristine cleaner, handyman (fix shutters after), who empties bins with the right target on his back and then becomes a grave digger invisible to all? Is this the way this case will be wrapped up Andy?
IMO

Tony Bennett wrote:

BlueBag wrote:If it's the case that the purpose of the book is to tell us the McCanns had nothing to do with Madeleine's disapperance, you have to say.. why?

With the SY farce, these are all big guns being brought out.

What the hell is this about?

'The Wider Agenda'?

Brian Griffin wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

BlueBag wrote:If it's the case that the purpose of the book is to tell us the McCanns had nothing to do with Madeleine's disapperance, you have to say.. why?

With the SY farce, these are all big guns being brought out.

What the hell is this about?

'The Wider Agenda'?

Which will ill just fade us into the background as 
crazy conspiracy theorists. 

Brian Griffin wrote:
Just type '911 conspiracy' into Youtube and you'll get lots of very plausible explanations of what really happened surrounding, and on, that fateful day. I haven't watched these vids for a long time now, but if I remember correctly, one of my favourite ones showed un-doctored footage that the planes that crashed into the towers are green and had no windows (i.e. military jets), I think it was also stated that a missile hit the Pentagon, and as for the collapse of the towers, you can see the controlled explosions and hear them explained by demolition experts. They wouldn't have collapsed otherwise. Well worth a look!

Tony Bennett wrote:
If we look back at recent statements by Soctland Yard, whether on the record or in 'off the record' briefings, it's clear (to me at any rate) that the Met and the government are preparing to close Grange by saying: "Madeleine was abducted. We tried so hard but failed to nail the abductor, partly because of the lack of co-operation from the Portuguese".

margaret wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:
Just type '911 conspiracy' into Youtube and you'll get lots of very plausible explanations of what really happened surrounding, and on, that fateful day. I haven't watched these vids for a long time now, but if I remember correctly, one of my favourite ones showed un-doctored footage that the planes that crashed into the towers are green and had no windows (i.e. military jets), I think it was also stated that a missile hit the Pentagon, and as for the collapse of the towers, you can see the controlled explosions and hear them explained by demolition experts. They wouldn't have collapsed otherwise. Well worth a look!

I'm sorry l know there's another thread but l find this comment ridiculous. There were thousands of onlookers that day that saw at least the second plane hit the tower, are you trying to tell us they are ALL lying that they saw a green plane really?

All that footage, some of it on mobiles was ALL doctored?

There's lots of odd things that happened that day but you can't lie to thousands who saw it with their own eyes.

snook wrote:

Margaret, 
No one disputes the building were hit & fell ( how can be debated forever). There are many 'truthers' who are agents of disinformation who deliberately  publish rubbish in order to discredit any credible arguments with the 'oh look, nutters'. What you need to look at is who was behind it. It doesn't take a genius to work out that it would have been impossible that security services with billions of dollars funding had no idea  what was coming & that a man in a cave, with a laptop foxed them all. All those 'bombers' have been shown to have had training and/or dealings with the CIA, it's an open secret. Bin Laden was receiving medical treatment, courtesy of US  as late as June of that year. Get my drift ? if you are at all interested in real verifiable facts, check out Dr Webster Tarpley's  work & ask yourself the basic question, if 17 of the 'bombers' were Saudi nationals, why was Iraq targeted and not them ? Again & again, credulity is  pushed to the limit. Not one bit of plane left at any crash site but they find a passport ? Sound familiar ? Like the pristine passports found when the Malaysian flight was downed. Don't look at the mechanics, look behind it. Bush was terrified, he was also threatened. Check out 'Angel is Next' There is a sinister shadow gov't operating in US as here. Same applies to 7/7. Every time there is a major attack, be it a bombing/shooting security services are always coincidently  running drills and the surveillance cameras fail. You couldn't make it up ! In that year numerous times jets had been sent up into New York air space to check out suspicious activity yet not one on 9/11. Want to know why ? They were all on the other side of the country, doing drills. Another coincidence ? I think not.

Sorry this is off thread but it gets my goat when people dismiss evidence without doing the research, like many do regarding the Mccanns'

PeterMac wrote:I can't wait for the book to be delivered.
I have obviously been wrong to worry about whether the curtains were wide open or tight shut, and am desperate to know which it was.
I have obviously been wrong to worry about whether Gerry went in through the front door or the patio door, and am desperate to know which it was.
I have obviously been wrong to worry about whether the twins were sedated, or were not sedated, or "Must have been sedated"  and am desperate to know which it was.
I have obviously been wrong to worry about whether you could see Madeleine's bed, or you could not see Madeleine's bed, and am desperate to know which it was.
I have obviously been wrong to worry about whether Payne visited for 30 minutes or 30 seconds, or not at all, and am desperate to know which it was.

I am confident that at last ALL these minor issues and little problems and tiny contradictions will be sorted out, once and for all time.
And that after the author's extensive interviews with all the people concerned they will be able to give first hand accounts of all the evidence St. Katherine said she had, but was not allowed to give.
and that at last we shall know about which side of the road JT and GM and everyone else actually was.

Can't wait.

Tony Bennett wrote:

snook wrote:

Margaret, 
No one disputes the building were hit & fell ( how can be debated forever). There are many 'truthers' who are agents of disinformation who deliberately  publish rubbish in order to discredit any credible arguments with the 'oh look, nutters'. What you need to look at is who was behind it. It doesn't take a genius to work out that it would have been impossible that security services with billions of dollars funding had no idea  what was coming & that a man in a cave, with a laptop foxed them all. All those 'bombers' have been shown to have had training and/or dealings with the CIA, it's an open secret. Bin Laden was receiving medical treatment, courtesy of US  as late as June of that year. Get my drift ? if you are at all interested in real verifiable facts, check out Dr Webster Tarpley's  work & ask yourself the basic question, if 17 of the 'bombers' were Saudi nationals, why was Iraq targeted and not them ? Again & again, credulity is  pushed to the limit. Not one bit of plane left at any crash site but they find a passport ? Sound familiar ? Like the pristine passports found when the Malaysian flight was downed. Don't look at the mechanics, look behind it. Bush was terrified, he was also threatened. Check out 'Angel is Next' There is a sinister shadow gov't operating in US as here. Same applies to 7/7. Every time there is a major attack, be it a bombing/shooting security services are always coincidently  running drills and the surveillance cameras fail. You couldn't make it up ! In that year numerous times jets had been sent up into New York air space to check out suspicious activity yet not one on 9/11. Want to know why ? They were all on the other side of the country, doing drills. Another coincidence ? I think not.

Sorry this is off thread but it gets my goat when people dismiss evidence without doing the research, like many do regarding the Mccanns'

snook, yes, this is badly off thread, could I ask you please to c & p this post to the thread referred to by NFWTD, as follows:

QUOTE NFWTD:

Please could I ask that the 9/11 debate continues here.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3435-9-11-conspiracy-theories-how-they-ve-evolved 


As it happens, the questions you pose and the facts you refer to above are the very ones that have troubled me over the years, but my OP was designed merely to highlight the authors' previous apparently impressive track record - and to query whether the authors were likely to produce an objective book about Madeleine McCann.

At the very least, the thread has established that not a few people seriously query whether Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan wrote an objective, complete account of 9/11.

Thus we may well raise eyebrows at their claim to be producing 'the most definitive account yet' of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Now can we please move on and have all discussions about 9/11 itself on the proper thread, many thanks

Tony Bennett wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:My comments:

3. Bad move to even mention the absurd 9-11 "Truther" account in relation to the unexplained disappearance of MMcC or indeed the assassination of JFK.  There is absolutely no doubt what happened on 9-11: a bunch of Jihadists affiliated to Osama bin Laden commandeered a number of passenger jets and flew them into a number of prestige targets.  Few historical events and their causation are so well documented as 9-11.

I don't know what these 'absurd 'Truther' accounts' are, though I have certainly seen some extreme conspiracy nonsense written about that appalling day in world history.

However, I cannot be sure that this event was as claimed - a sudden, out-of-the-blue event, about which the elite U.S. security services knew nothing beforehand.

So as not to drag this off-topic, I'll not say more - except to repeat my point that there is a body of opinion which suggests that Summers and Swan's overall verdict on 9/11 may not be completely correct, by a long chalk.

I also find 11 September 2014, exactly 13 years to the day after the original 9/11 event, an odd choice of publication date for 'Looking for Madeleine'

Tony Bennett wrote:

Angelique wrote:I agree with "BlueBag".

I think it is possible after reading Tony's in-depth post about Summers & Swan, "The Eleventh Day" - I think they have "taken the shilling". 

It serves the purpose by arriving at what is possibly the end of the Review/Investigation by SY and can I think be considered another "force feeding" for the unenlightened masses.

If we look back at recent statements by Soctland Yard, whether on the record or in 'off the record' briefings, it's clear (to me at any rate) that the Met and the government are preparing to close Grange by saying: "Madeleine was abducted. We tried so hard but failed to nail the abductor, partly because of the lack of co-operation from the Portuguese".

I predict this will happen at least three months before the General Election - so, by February 2015.

I expect a propaganda blitz about the book in the next few days, maybe with a serialisation in a newspaper, maybe with TV interviews.

The compliant media will no doubt have been briefed about the 'international reputation' of the authors for their 'meticulous research' etc. etc.