Re: The Priests

by **Hobs** 12.03.17 19:06

To answer your question, first let me explain that Roman Catholicism still teaches that in the Mass, the priest has the power to transform the wafer and the wine into the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ.

Isn't that cannibalism?

by Cmaryholmes 12.03.17 19:13

Hobs wrote:To answer your question, first let me explain that Roman Catholicism still teaches that in the Mass, the priest has the power to transform the wafer and the wine into the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ.

Isn't that cannibalism?

It would be. The bread and wine are obviously meant as symbols that represent the body and blood of Christ.

by Cmaryholmes 12.03.17 19:15

By the way, the Mccanns are not alone in hiding behind a show of devoutness when it suits them. Hasn't Old Cliff been doing this for years? IMO. And Savile was very proud of his religious connections.

by Liz Eagles 12.03.17 19:21

Cmaryholmes wrote:
Hobs wrote:To answer your question, first let me explain that Roman Catholicism still teaches that in the Mass, the priest has the power to transform the wafer and the wine into the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ.

Isn't that cannibalism?
It would be. The bread and wine are obviously meant as symbols that represent the body and blood of Christ.

I'm given to understand the Anglican Church also does communion.

Personally I couldn't give a hoot.

by lj 12.03.17 19:39

Hobs wrote:As a matter of interest, does anyone know if the mccanns maintained their new found faith once they legged it back to the UK?

Do they bother god on a weekly basis at their local church or was their 'faith' a matter of being media saavy and milking it for all the financial worth, screen time and column inches they could?

As an out and proud atheist albeit being raised c of e by my mom (who over the years worked her way through many bits of religion and creating her own) how does the priest know that the person in front of them is allowed (?) to accept the communion, especially if they are not at their regular church?

If i decided to pop along to say a catholic church and at the relevant time wander up and expect wafer and a glug how would the priest know i was not actually entitled to receive it?
What if anything would happen if he offered me it, i took it and then he found out subsequently i was an atheist?

Also, how would a priest know if someone had been excommunicated?
Would they know if said person was a visitor, say in a church abroad?

Are only locals/regulars allowed to be given communion?
If it is anyone who goes up, is it all based on trust (and fear of a severe finger wagging by god?)

In Mexico they ask. If it is someone they don't know they will ask when was the last time you went for confession. Is it's more than a month uh, uh, no communion.
For convenience they have speed confession opportunities: at least 2 or 3 are open and people scoot in there to quickly "get done".
Of course as a foreigner you can lie, why would you though, if you value the communion?

by **Hobs** 12.03.17 19:45

Cmaryholmes wrote:
Hobs wrote:To answer your question, first let me explain that Roman Catholicism still teaches that in the Mass, the priest has the power to transform the wafer and the wine into the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ.

Isn't that cannibalism?
It would be. The bread and wine are obviously meant as symbols that represent the body and blood of Christ.

But it isn't said they they are symbols that represent the body and blood of christ, they become the body and blood of christ which makes it cannibalism which is a big no no.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.03.17 21:26

Hobs wrote:
Cmaryholmes wrote:
Hobs wrote:To answer your question, first let me explain that Roman Catholicism still teaches that in the Mass, the priest has the power to transform the wafer and the wine into the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ.

Isn't that cannibalism?
It would be. The bread and wine are obviously meant as symbols that represent the body and blood of Christ.
But it isn't said they they are symbols that represent the body and blood of Christ, they become the body and blood of Christ which makes it cannibalism which is a big no no.

@ hobs Just to make it clear once again, it is the Roman Catholic Church that insists on this repugnant practice - known by the way as 'transubstantiation'. That is, they claim that their priests change the wafer and the wine into the actual body and blood of Christ. It is akin to magic.

Between 1555 and 1558, the last three years of the reign of staunch Catholic Bloody Queen Mary, around 300 Protestants were burnt at the stake, most of them for the simple reason that they rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, and for no other reason (some were also condemned for having Bibles in their homes; the Roman Catholic Church had banned it).

These were mostly poor folk, men, women, old and young people, all of whom, however, read and understood thir Bibles. No doubt the 300 are now enjoying eternal rest in heaven.

For the Protestant and Evangelicals, communion is a simple act of remembrance and devotion.

I will leave Phoebe to defend transubstantiation - if she can.

by Phoebe 12.03.17 23:35

Tony, I believe in "live and let live." Yes Catholic faith teaches transubstantiation which may well seem magical, even to Catholics, as indeed may the idea of actually rising from the dead. Most of the practicing Catholics I know have a relaxed attitude to doctrinal edicts. People, I think, should be free to believe or not believe in anything they wish. I did not intend my posts to spark a debate about the merits of various doctrines but to clear up certain misconceptions people might have re .what influence Catholic teachings may have had on the McCanns actions, particularly on May3rd. and what I believe was behind Fr. Pacheco's upset and the Vatican's distancing itself from the case.

by **Hobs** 13.03.17 1:13

Thanks for all the info.

I always wonder why people need to believe in an invisible being who watches every single person and then decides what happens to them when they die.

Why many mock pagans who believe in god(s) inhabiting volvanoes, the sea, rivers, trees etc who can see and touch their god(s) yet believe in an invisible man who cannot be seen or touched, who on a whim can wipe out millions.

Why people who belive in the same god(s) but worship in a slightly different way can go to war and slaughter each other over the same god(s) and how they are worshipped or go to war with each other because of a squabble over who should have been the next leader after their prophet died.

I wonder what will happen when it is realized that either we got here by accident via panspermia or that we were seeded here by aliens for whatever reason.

I wonder what will happen when life is discovered on other planets and moons from the microbial right through to super advanced who have been alive for millenia (after all this universe is 14 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life in one for or another has been around for about 4 billion years or so as bacteria at first right through to us.
Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic humans in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago, which, given the length of time of the universe is but a blink in time.

Thus i believe that given the size of our galaxy let alone the universe means that life has to be around in all stages, and that is just our universe (if we are expanding, what are we expanding into?)

The mccanns are using people's faith and belief to con the public into thinking they are innocent.
I don't recall the media making much if anything about Maddie being removed from the Vatican website.
Nothing about them regularly going to church.
Heck i dont even hear of the mccanns going jogging as often as they did iin Portugal.

I still wonder if the jogging was to keep an eye on the dump site to make sure nature (fauna or weather) did not disturb the site until she was later moved or if it was to discuss what to do without fear of being bugged or overheard.

They mentioned the hill a lot which made it sensitive, why?

by **Tony Bennett** 13.03.17 11:51

Hobs wrote:I always wonder why people need to believe in an invisible being who watches every single person and then decides what happens to them when they die.

REPLY: Is not the evidence of a Master Creator/Designer apparent in the things we see around us every day? Can anyone answer the question: 'Which came first the chicken or the egg?' without acknowledging the existence of a Creator? Or look at the sequence: caterpillar >> chrysalis >> butterfly >> larva >> caterpillar without acknowledging that such a sequence had to have been designed? Paul put it this way in his letter to the Romans: "...that which may be known of God is maniferst...for God hath shewed it...For the invisible things of Hhim from the creation are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead... (Romans 1 vv 19-20)

...yet believe in an invisible man who cannot be seen or touched, who on a whim can wipe out millions.

REPLY: God destroyed the world, except for the eight people aboard Noah's Ark, not on a whim, because of their greae wickedness (Genesis Chapters 6 & 7)

Why people who believe in the same god(s) but worship in a slightly different way can go to war and slaughter each other over the same god(s) and how they are worshipped or go to war with each other because of a squabble over who should have been the next leader after their prophet died.

REPLY: Look at the record of history, and committed, Bible-believing Christians have never gone to war, except when required to do so by their governments. But, yes, wars and persecution have been promoted by some religious ideas, the Catholic Inquisition and the expansion of Islam being two great historical examples.

I wonder what will happen when it is realised that either we got here by accident via panspermia or that we were seeded here by aliens for whatever reason.

REPLY: Here I would appeal to EVIDENCE. There is NO evidence that we got here by accident, NONE to support panspermia, and NOTHING that supports the existence of aliens. By contrast, the Bible is a record of human history. Not one verifiable fact in it has ever been disproved.

I wonder what will happen when life is discovered on other planets and moons from the microbial right through to super advanced who have been alive for millennia (after all this universe is 14 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life in one for or another has been around for about 4 billion years or so as bacteria at first right through to us.

REPLY: Nothing in the above sentence is true. All dating methods with the exception of radiocarbon dating are wholly unreliable - 'junk science'. There IS overwhelming evidence of a recent creation of the universe a few thousand years ago.

Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic humans in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago, which, given the length of time of the universe is but a blink in time.

REPLY: No. Humans are uniquely designed in over 300 respects different from any of the apes/moneys/chimpanzees etc.  We could not have evolved. Evolution implies gradual transition over hundreds, in fact thousands of millions of years. Show me evidence, from any of the trillion fossils so far found in the earth, of just ONE example of one species transforming itself into another, and I will cease to be a Christian and believe in and promote evolution. Is it not far more likely that these trillions of fossils - of plants and creatures all INSTANTLY buried - are evidence of the Biblical worldwide flood?

by **Hobs** 13.03.17 12:15

I wonder what will happen when life is discovered on other planets and moons from the microbial right through to super advanced who have been alive for millennia (after all this universe is 14 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life in one for or another has been around for about 4 billion years or so as bacteria at first right through to us.

REPLY: Nothing in the above sentence is true. All dating methods with the exception of radiocarbon dating are wholly unreliable - 'junk science'. There IS overwhelming evidence of a recent creation of the universe a few thousand years ago.

Seriously?

For fricks sake.

overwhelming evidence the universe is only a few thousand years old?

There is evidence of a flood and also mention of a flood in pretty much every religion going.

What verififiable facts in the bible?

Explain carbon dating that shows the Earth to be over 4 billion years old (rocks being found that date to that period, surviving despite erosion, continental drift, subduction etc.

How many thousand years old is the universe then?

How do you explain starlight which travels at the speed of light showing the universe to be approx 14.5 billion years old?

Evolution

Archaeopteryx one of the first early birds

I await with interest your overwhelming evidence the proof that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago

by mootle 13.03.17 12:26

I am a very lapsed Catholic but have to point out the following on transubstantiation. It isn’t cannibalism – just doctrinal nonsense (if you read the bible it is clearly meant symbolically)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The religious argument is all very interesting (refreshing to hear someone defending Christianity for once, even if I don’t agree with the reasoning) but I worry it may be seen from outside and used as a tool to mock the forum and its research

by sandancer 13.03.17 14:36

I have to agree with Mootle above.

I am not a religious person I consider myself spiritual.

I have the greatest of respect for both Tony and Hobs and all their research and hard work for Madeleine.

I have no problems with anyone's beliefs but some sadly do.

May I make the suggestion that if Tony and Hobs wish to continue the discussion it be moved perhaps to the Members Lounge ?...

============

A Mod writes:

Agreed - and Hobs' questions have been transferred over to the Members' lounge on this thread:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

- Mod

by **Tony Bennett** 13.03.17 17:07

Hobs wrote:I wonder what will happen when life is discovered on other planets and moons from the microbial right through to super advanced who have been alive for millennia (after all this universe is 14 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life in one for or another has been around for about 4 billion years or so as bacteria at first right through to us.

REPLY: Nothing in the above sentence is true. All dating methods with the exception of radiocarbon dating are wholly unreliable - 'junk science'. There IS overwhelming evidence of a recent creation of the universe a few thousand years ago.

Seriously?

For fricks sake.

overwhelming evidence the universe is only a few thousand years old?

There is evidence of a flood and also mention of a flood in pretty much every religion going.

What verififiable facts in the bible?

Explain carbon dating that shows the Earth to be over 4 billion years old (rocks being found that date to that period, surviving despite erosion, continental drift, subduction etc.

How many thousand years old is the universe then?

How do you explain starlight which travels at the speed of light showing the universe to be approx 14.5 billion years old?

Evolution

Archaeopteryx one of the first early birds

I await with interest your overwhelming evidence the proof that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago

I am going to take the advice of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and answer these questions in the Members' Lounge. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I will start a new thread there and answer your queries there.

The topic is 'The Priests'. I think Phoebe took us slightly off-topic by some screeds on Roman Catholic doctrine and I and Hobs have strayed right off-topic. My apologies to all.

NINE PRIESTS OF INTEREST IN THE McCANN CASE

I was actually going to do a piece on the priests in the McCann case, and might do an article in the near future.

These nine are of special interest:

Father Paul Seddon - married the McCanns

Father Jose Pacheco - did a runner when things got hot and vowed: 'I will take my secrets about the McCanns to my grave

Father David Heal - according to an unreliable article by First Magazine in May 2007, the McCanns spent three hours with Father Heal in the early hours of Friday 4 May

Rev Haynes Hubbard - mysteriously helicoptered into Praia da Luz from Canada less than a week after Madeleine was reported missing his wife Susan became Kate's best friend and Kate has had frequent short breaks with them in Portugal

Father Keith Tomlinson

Father Peter Daubner

Rev Paul Luckman, Editor of Portugal News - interesting one, edits the strongly pro-McCann Portugal News, and employs local man Brendan de Beer to write most of the pro-Mann stuff; Brendan de Beer owns a private school in the area I think

Archbishop Cormac Murphy O’Connor - Met with Clarence Mitchell days after Madeleine McCann was reported missing an set up for the McCanns to be briefly presented to the Pope

Pope Benedict XVI - met the McCanns briefly on 30 May 2007 and had a big page about them on his website, but wisely removed the page days before the McCanns were declared suspects, no doubt having received intelligence via the highly effective Vatican intelligence department that they were about to be pulled in for questioning

NOTE: pamalam has a great piece of research on all the priests involved in the case, at this link:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

.

by Guest 13.03.17 17:32

Whilst I don't want to enter into a religious debate, I do think it's important to note how the McCanns used Catholicism in a predominantly Catholic country and also brought people from other denominations into their sphere of influence, including Father Jose Pacheco (Catholic), Hays Hubbard (Anglican) and Paddy Patterson (Salvation Army).

In an interview with the Catholic newspaper The Tablet, Gerry Mccann suggests he has had an epiphany - a profound religious awakening:

I had this mental image of being in a tunnel and instead of the light at the end of the tunnel being extremely narrow and a distant spot, the light opened up and the tunnel got wider and wider and went in many directions... I can't say it was a vision because I am not clear what a vision is but I had a mental image and it certainly helped me decide...

Sadly, this extraordinary, visionary moment did not last and according to Kate (in her book), once back in Blighty Gerry's faith didn't last very long... it was back to science and spending endless hours on his next project - finding evidence to discredit cadaver dogs! This tells me all I need to know about Gerry's epiphany! As for the priests and particularly Father Pacheco, I feel their faith was exploited and this is something he has certainly hinted at himself.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.03.17 17:42

What's_up_doc? wrote:Whilst I don't want to enter into a religious debate, I do think it's important to note how the McCanns used Catholicism in a predominantly Catholic country and also brought people from other denominations into their sphere of influence, including Father Jose Pacheco (Catholic), Hays Hubbard (Anglican) and Paddy Patterson (Salvation Army).

Not to mention that Bible found by the PJ in the McCanns' villa - with the well-thumbed pages of 2 Samuel Chapters 11 & 12.

Which were about an infant that died.

by Gingercat 14.03.17 12:53

Granted the Vatican does have an intelligence service, just as every other State does. But there would perhaps be a simpler complementary reason why the Vatican knows (or at least strongly suspects) what has happened, and it is this :

The seal of the confessional applies throughout the hierarchy of the Catholic church, and contrary to appearances that hierarchy is actually a very flat structure : Parishioner -> Parish Priest ->Bishop -> Pope.

Fr Pacheco was clearly a troubled man. As a priest, he himself would attend the sacrament of Confession regularly, so if he did know or suspect anything difficult about the McCann situation, he would have access to his own Bishop under the seal of the confessional, as the Bishop would then have access to the Pope.

I doubt if the McCanns confessed to Fr Pacheco - I believe he himself stated that they did not, and given the language differences it would have been virtually impossible anyway. But the existing hierarchical structure and sacramental (in this confessional) procedures of the Church could easily make it possible that information and/or doubts made their way to the Vatican in a very short space of time - under the seal of the confessional.

Bear in mind that the "Confession" is not only about confessing sins, it also provides spiritual guidance to enable those who participate to "make themselves right" with God, their neighbour and the world. That is why the sacrament is now called "Reconciliation" rather than "Confession. Fr Pacheco appears to have been very troubled and "out of kilter".

Mr Amaral would of course understand all of this, as a citizen of a very Catholic country.

Apologies to those of you who don't ascribe to or particularly like the Catholic faith - but this is my insight for what it's worth.

by Guest 14.03.17 14:26

Gingercat wrote:Granted the Vatican does have an intelligence service, just as every other State does. But there would perhaps be a simpler complementary reason why the Vatican knows (or at least strongly suspects) what has happened, and it is this :

The seal of the confessional applies throughout the hierarchy of the Catholic church, and contrary to appearances that hierarchy is actually a very flat structure : Parishioner -> Parish Priest ->Bishop -> Pope.

Fr Pacheco was clearly a troubled man. As a priest, he himself would attend the sacrament of Confession regularly, so if he did know or suspect anything difficult about the McCann situation, he would have access to his own Bishop under the seal of the confessional, as the Bishop would then have access to the Pope.

I doubt if the McCanns confessed to Fr Pacheco - I believe he himself stated that they did not, and given the language differences it would have been virtually impossible anyway. But the existing hierarchical structure and sacramental (in this confessional) procedures of the Church could easily make it possible that information and/or doubts made their way to the Vatican in a very short space of time - under the seal of the confessional.

Bear in mind that the "Confession" is not only about confessing sins, it also provides spiritual guidance to enable those who participate to "make themselves right" with God, their neighbour and the world. That is why the sacrament is now called "Reconciliation" rather than "Confession. Fr Pacheco appears to have been very troubled and "out of kilter".

Mr Amaral would of course understand all of this, as a citizen of a very Catholic country.

Apologies to those of you who don't ascribe to or particularly like the Catholic faith - but this is my insight for what it's worth.

I agree Gingercat - I do not think a confession is likely and any priest worth his salt would only accept a confession if you were truly penitent and that would mean doing the right thing (I fact checked that with a priest)! I tend to think there were tensions because the Anglicans shared the church and the Reverend Hubbard and his wife were very cozy with the Mccanns - it was Mrs Hubbard who arranged for the McCanns to have keys to the church. I don't think you should feel the need to apologize to those who do not like Catholicism and I think the Catholic Church and many kind hearted Portuguese Catholics became victims of exploitation in this tragic case, in my opinion.

by Phoebe 14.03.17 17:39

A priest cannot reveal to anyone else, even another priest or bishop what has been confessed to him by a penitent. Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law - "It is a crime for the confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason".(No.2490) "A priest therefore cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice or to avert a public calamity". The seal is individual to each confession. I doubt they confessed to Fr.Pacheco at all.

by Julie R 15.12.17 14:46

Hope it's ok to comment on an old thread..
This thread has interested me because of the suggestions that perhaps the McCanns called for a priest to bless Madeleine’s death (being it a common thing to do for Catholics). I concur that it is common practice for Catholics to call upon a priest as soon a possible after a death, but this is because it is paramount that the time between the death and funeral is as short as possible. This time is sacred and involves waking the body in the presence of a priest. However, the cadaver scent found in the hire car would suggest that a body was still present months after the death.

I therefore personally don’t think that this was the reason the Mccanns required a priest. Further, it was an Anglican priest whom the McCs called upon in the very early hours of the 4^th.This priest did not mention that the McCs were in any way religious, only that they attended weddings/christenings and he played a lot of golf with Gerry. What he did mention is that Gerry stated that he was worried the police were focussing too much on them (he and Kate)… now that I can fully believe.
IMO I think that it was crucial that the McCs presented themselves as respectful godly people: they prayed on their knees in public (only in public I’d bet!); strategically left a bible open; and demanded priests. FP also found it necessary to tell how they “prayed and prayed and prayed”. What I find odd is that Gerry specifically asked if there was a church near by (500 metres away Gez – did you go for walks to the beach and jogs with your eyes shut?). All perfectly normal behaviour for narcasists who value their image more than the loss of their child.

The crucial question for me is why the involvement of so many priests? Why the church keys? Being (IMO) unreligious people I doubt it was for praying. Was it all part of their newfound religious image, or something more sinister (concealment of a body perhaps)? Speaks of power and corruption to me.

by **Tony Bennett** 15.12.17 16:28

Julie R wrote:Hope it's ok to comment on an old thread..
This thread has interested me because of the suggestions that perhaps the McCanns called for a priest to bless Madeleine’s death (being it a common thing to do for Catholics). I concur that it is common practice for Catholics to call upon a priest as soon a possible after a death, but this is because it is paramount that the time between the death and funeral is as short as possible. This time is sacred and involves waking the body in the presence of a priest. However, the cadaver scent found in the hire car would suggest that a body was still present months after the death.

I therefore personally don’t think that this was the reason the Mccanns required a priest. Further, it was an Anglican priest whom the McCs called upon in the very early hours of the 4^th.This priest did not mention that the McCs were in any way religious, only that they attended weddings/christenings and he played a lot of golf with Gerry. What he did mention is that Gerry stated that he was worried the police were focussing too much on them (he and Kate)… now that I can fully believe.
IMO I think that it was crucial that the McCs presented themselves as respectful godly people: they prayed on their knees in public (only in public I’d bet!); strategically left a bible open; and demanded priests. FP also found it necessary to tell how they “prayed and prayed and prayed”. What I find odd is that Gerry specifically asked if there was a church near by (500 metres away Gez – did you go for walks to the beach and jogs with your eyes shut?). All perfectly normal behaviour for narcasists who value their image more than the loss of their child.

The crucial question for me is why the involvement of so many priests? Why the church keys? Being (IMO) unreligious people I doubt it was for praying. Was it all part of their newfound religious image, or something more sinister (concealment of a body perhaps)? Speaks of power and corruption to me.

You'll have a rare old time investigating all the priests in this case.

If memory serves, these are the four main ones to look out for:

FATHER HEAL - Anglican priest on the spot, said to have spoken to the McCanns for 2-3 hours in th early morning of Friday 4 May and prayed together - see especially Vicky Boyd's untruthful article about Wednesday 2 May in First Magazine (somewhere on the forum)

FATHER JOSE PACHECO - Roman Catholic priest on the spot, arranged with church member John Geraghty to give the McCanns a key to the church so they could pray at any time of the day or night that they wanted to. Later did a bunk from Praia da Luz for about 2-3 weeks saying he would take the McCanns' secrets to the grave. Later denied that he had held anything like a formal 'confession' with the McCanns

FATHER HAYNES HUBBARD - Mysteriously flew in to Praia da Luz from Caanda to take over as Anglican Vicar in Praia da Luz on Sunday 6 May 2007, three days after Madeleine was reported missing. He and his wife Susan became firm friends and Kate ued to leave her kids behind for a few days at a time to stay with her 'best friend' Susan and be as close as possible to Madeleine. Father Hubbard got very jumpy, almost paranoid, at one time, sending out panicky emails to people asking 'What are people saying about me?' and threatening to sue people for libel. Known by some on the forum as 'Old Father Hubbard'

FATHER SEDDON - Roman Catholic priest who 'married' Kate & Gerry. They 'phoned him for comfort on the night of 3/4 May 2007.

The media described Kate and Gerry in the early days as 'devout Catholics'. Subsequent events have proved otherwise.

by **HiDeHo** 15.12.17 16:48

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 15.12.17 18:23

Out of all the characters in this devious, sorry tale of woe, I find Haynes Hubbard to be right up near the top of my list of the untrustworthy. It is well known that certain agencies infiltrate every level of society and sometimes when called upon they are not up to the job. Personally, I have never seen such an obvious charlatan. I may be wrong, and it is just my opinion of course, but that is what my gut instinct tells me.