Re: 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

by Brian Griffin 30.08.14 17:14

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.

It will get ripped to shreds on Amazon, though, if it is just another shill. Kate's bewks come under a lot of fire in the reviews and comments sections of the listings. Of course, Amazon can, and does, just remove reviews as it sees fit. We'll have to wait and see. I doubt it will be long before you can get your second-hand penny copy if you really want one. In my opinion.

by Brian Griffin 30.08.14 17:21

AndyB wrote:
Okeydokey wrote: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{/quote]
In your mind there may be no doubt but to state it as fact is quite wrong. There are a very large (and growing) number of people that question the validity of the official account for a number of reasons not the least of which are the apparent evaporation of the vast majority of the superstructure of the "plane" that hit the pentagon and the near free fall collapse of building 7, which wasn't hit by anything.

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!

by Brian Griffin 30.08.14 17:32

inspirespirit wrote:
garfy wrote:Tony 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".

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."UNQUOTE

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

yes ......and also completely over shadowing the libel trial...if the judgement goes against them etc etc
What will happen if that does happen? Do we all just give up? What more will anyone be able to do?

Thought that myself over the last few days. If Amaral loses the libel trial (it isn't even libel, is it?), then to me it would mean the end because someone has a much farther reach to pull strings than first thought. Basically, it would mean that no matter what anyone does or says, the McCanns will dictate the outcome of anything to do with them and Madeleine. Time to put the chairs on the tables and turn out the lights. Oh, and never, ever go near Praia da Luz. If they win, I can see them going after that chap who did the videos next. All in my opinion, of course.

by Brian Griffin 30.08.14 18:05

aquila wrote:snipped from whatsupdoc's post

"I believe Kate's bewk was a best-seller, dear oh dear, so I think S&Swan book will no doubt be a best seller also. "

Why do you believe Kate's bewk was a best-seller? I've not seen anything to prove that and importantly I haven't seen anything in the Fund (Limited Company) accounts to prove/detail that all royalties have been paid into the Find Madeleine Fund.

If Kate's bewk, (that would be the bewk with the big sticker on the front comforting everyone who bought it by knowing their purchase was helping in the search for Madeleine) was a triumph then there would surely be something in the financial reports of the Limited Company to show income from the bewk (or am I being silly).

Does anyone have info on the success of Kate's bewk?

could someone post a photo of the sticker on Kate's bewk? PeterMac..help.

Well, you could check the Amazon sales ranking against other books you know to be big sellers like '50 shades' etc. That will give you some idea of how many have been sold. Number of second hand copies available is also a vague indicator, as is number of comments, but in this case you also have to factor in the ongoing war of words between the 'pros' and the 'cons'. You could also write directly to the publisher and ask for sales figures.

by XTC 30.08.14 23:46

Brian Griffin wrote:
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.
It will get ripped to shreds on Amazon, though, if it is just another shill. Kate's bewks come under a lot of fire in the reviews and comments sections of the listings. Of course, Amazon can, and does, just remove reviews as it sees fit. We'll have to wait and see. I doubt it will be long before you can get your second-hand penny copy if you really want one. In my opinion.

It think " force feeding for the unenlightened masses " is about right.

Who do these people who write this dross think they are? The fonts of all wisdom?

My favourite anti - Conspiracy theorist ( David Aaronovich ) thinks that we have a need and almost a desire to believe that the powerful and rich are playing a game of puppetry with the masses as it were. It exonorates us from blame for the way our lives turn out as if they were not shaped by political decisions by politicians.

These people pose as guardians of our thoughts yet actually are part of the alleged conspiracies themselves. If they write an erudite treatise or book they are basically saying: Listen to me because I know ( as in Know!) what actually ( as in really!) what happened on 9/11 or the Kennedy Assination etc etc. The reality is is that they know no more than you or me. Yes they can write wonderful prose and spell correctly
and research but in the end from Madeleine to 9/11 do most ordinary ( unenlightened ) people believe them? In most cases it's a resounding no.

The reason for that is as posters have put on here and on the 9/11 or any other ' Conspiracy' blogs or websites is the staright forward fact that a lot of people don't trust their governments or authorities. Why would that be? Simply because past history when it is revealed is proof that these agencies were ( and still are ) lying through their teeth to the unenlightened masses. They know we know. This is why books and media communiques are written to try and head us off at the pass.

This Madeleine tale is full of that and has been for 7 plus years.

The funny thing is that all the pre-buttals have all been gleaned from discussions on Internet sites.

Thank goodness for the web and all its alleged " Cranks " otherwise all we would have to inform us about ' all we need to know' would be
books like this and Uncle David Aaronovich warning us of the dangers away from the world of the Intellegensia and becoming mis-informed
or mis-educated or worse - cynical.

These people rely for getting paid and the lifestyle they have become accustomed to ( see Christopher Hitchens and Martin Amis ) on the rich and powerful. It is extremely unlikely that they will bite the hand that feeds them. This ranges from the BBC to Sky News to the press journalists. They don't need to be told what to say. They know what's acceptable.

I don't trust them one inch. Or 25 millimetres if they are European.

by Okeydokey 31.08.14 3:35

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Possibly their best-known book to date is “The Eleventh Day; The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden”. Though well-received, it did not satisfy those many critics who believe there was a much deeper conspiracy behind the events leading to 9/11. That led some to suggest that Summers and Swan have been far too close to the political establishment and therefore unable to bring full objectivity to their books.

I can tell you now, I have followed the 9/11 debate closely for a number of years. I believe there are still many questions unanswered. Summers version of events has been ripped to shreds by people who can see the smoke and mirrors.

I think Summers is an apologist for the establishment.

If you believe that 9-11 was conducted by others than confederates of Osama bin Laden you are off your head and must believe in a carefully co-ordinated conspiracy of several thousand people including those passengers who elected to go to their deaths in the jets.

by Okeydokey 31.08.14 3:37

nglfi wrote:I imagine there'll be a chapter discrediting the dogs and citing all 3 (or a similar number) occasions in the history of dog use when a dog has made a mistake, a chapter discrediting Amaral by talking about the Cipriano case, a chapter talking about how much the McCanns loved Madeleine, and a chapter dedicated to all the various - 'suspects' seen over the years. It's simply not possible for it to have anything factual in it if it is pro McCann.

Oh and of course and entire chapter dedicated to how the PJ concluded there was 'no evidence' to suggest the parents involvement, conveniently leaving out what they also said about death in the apartment and faked abduction. The words 'no evidence' will be repeated ad infinitum in an attempt to wear us all down.

I think your post nails the book completely! That is exactly how it will read!!!

by Okeydokey 31.08.14 3:45

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 - perhaps you are not up on the lingo...

Truther means that the 9-11 events were directed by such agencies as CIA, Mossad etc. - in other words completely absurd and shameful claims that entirely dishonour the 3000 near enough dead.

Truther does NOT mean, in the more limited sense you imply, that various agencies might have had varying degrees of knowledge of the possibility of the attack. It is well documented that there were indeed some prior indications of the plot that were known to various western intelligence agencies - that is accepted by all official accounts as far as I know.

If you want to retain credibility please be careful how you refer to these events.I say that as someone who respects your comments on the McCann case. My fear is you will completely discredit the case for
open investigation of Madeleine's disappearance by such careless comments. No serious commenter believes that the passenger jets we all saw flown into the WTC were anything other than passenger jets.

by Guest 31.08.14 6:46

Okeydokey wrote:Truther means that the 9-11 events were directed by such agencies as CIA, Mossad etc. - in other words completely absurd and shameful claims that entirely dishonour the 3000 near enough dead.

Sorry not having that!

The relatives of the dead also have lots of questions that didn't get answered.

Ever hear of "The Jersey Girls"'?

Also... start at the beginning.. just what was going on in that Florida classroom?

What did Andrew Card whisper in George Bush's ear? Because it sure as wasn't what we were officially told.

Lots of people believe "they knew and let it happen". There is strong evidence to back that view.

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

by whatsupdoc 31.08.14 7:17

My thanks to TB for his OP detailing the previous works of S&S.

It is clear to me that they have slavishly repeated the official line of 9/11 which doesn't bode well for a book on the McCann case. I think there has been enough material out already in the rags and on TV without another book.

How can S&S possibly know the "real" truth about what happened to Madeleine without a full and honest confession from the McCanns and the Tapas 7 which, I'm assuming, they haven't done? It'll be interesting to know where they have pulled the material from.

Anyway, I don't want to hear about how busy Kate has been tending the Fairies at the bottom of her garden. I know it's getting colder and they need new coats knitting for the winter. big grin

I am not alone in saying I didn't believe the McCanns when I first saw them giving the tv interview on 4th May 2007 and we have all had our suspicions proved correct...well, the thinking ones.

So, if there are any real truths or golden nuggets in this book, I'll be very surprised. smilie

by **PeterMac** 31.08.14 7:34

I wonder if the book will include the photos of ALL the suspects, from faceless man right through to Smithman.

Kate's book notoriously did NOT include the e-fits of Smithman, for reasons which only they know.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.08.14 8:38

Okeydokey wrote:
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 - perhaps you are not up on the lingo...

REPLY: That's correct. I did not know that the word 'Truther' meant what you have said below that it means. I refer to my limited scepticism about 9/11 as referred to in blue above. To make my position still clearer, I think that the U.S. security services at the very highest level may have known that this attack (Twin Towers) was going to happen and decided not to prevent it. I am aware of a range of theories but have not researched the case thoroughly. I am aware of possible evidence that demolition experts may have planted detonators in the Twin Towers before the event, but to not know enough to know how strong this evidence is.

Truther means that the 9-11 events were directed by such agencies as CIA, Mossad etc. - in other words completely absurd and shameful claims that entirely dishonour the 3000 near enough dead.

Truther does NOT mean, in the more limited sense you imply, that various agencies might have had varying degrees of knowledge of the possibility of the attack. It is well documented that there were indeed some prior indications of the plot that were known to various western intelligence agencies - that is accepted by all official accounts as far as I know.

REPLY: That is really what I meant.

If you want to retain credibility please be careful how you refer to these events. I say that as someone who respects your comments on the McCann case.

REPLY: I am grateful for that.

My fear is you will completely discredit the case for open investigation of Madeleine's disappearance by such careless comments. No serious commenter believes that the passenger jets we all saw flown into the WTC were anything other than passenger jets.

REPLY: I haven't said that or gone anywhere near saying that.

by AndyB 31.08.14 9:53

Okeydokey wrote:If you believe that 9-11 was conducted by others than confederates of Osama bin Laden you are off your head

Really? How open minded of you. Perhaps you could explain how Osama bin Laden caused building seven to collapse at near free-fall speed when it wasn't hit by a plane and why he felt the need to plant thermite residue in the area?

by Guest 31.08.14 10:19

AndyB wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:If you believe that 9-11 was conducted by others than confederates of Osama bin Laden you are off your head
Really? How open minded of you. Perhaps you could explain how Osama bin Laden caused building seven to collapse at near free-fall speed when it wasn't hit by a plane and why he felt the need to plant thermite residue in the area?

And also how the BBC reported it's collapse 20 minutes before it fell.

Someone knew it was coming down.

Major Guiliani knew the first tower was coming down before it did as well.

"Someone told him".

by whatsupdoc 31.08.14 10:29

AndyB wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:If you believe that 9-11 was conducted by others than confederates of Osama bin Laden you are off your head
Really? How open minded of you. Perhaps you could explain how Osama bin Laden caused building seven to collapse at near free-fall speed when it wasn't hit by a plane and why he felt the need to plant thermite residue in the area?

Okeydokey I have refrained from insulting other posters so I believe you should apologise for suggesting that people who believe 9/11 was a govt job are off their heads.

I can honestly say that all the posters I have come across are very intelligent people with just an odd exception. I respect that people can have different views.

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.

by Guest 31.08.14 10:35

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

by palm tree 31.08.14 10:35

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

by sallypelt 31.08.14 10:45

BlueBag wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:If you believe that 9-11 was conducted by others than confederates of Osama bin Laden you are off your head
Really? How open minded of you. Perhaps you could explain how Osama bin Laden caused building seven to collapse at near free-fall speed when it wasn't hit by a plane and why he felt the need to plant thermite residue in the area?

And also how the BBC reported it's collapse 20 minutes before it fell.

Someone knew it was coming down.

Major Guiliani knew the first tower was coming down before it did as well.

"Someone told him".

They have been discussing 9/11 on political forums ever since September 11th 2001, and there's no sign that the debate is going to end anytime soon, and we are no closer to knowing the truth whether it was an "inside job" or not. But the collapse of Building 7 does appear to a bit of a mystery, and the words "pull it" leaves many of us confused. There are lots of unexplained pieces to this tragedy, including the finding of the passports that had "fallen out of the sky", and the size of the hole made by the plane hitting the Pentagon.

The above are just a few of the unanswered questions, but the list is endless. However, my eyes glaze over when I hear the "truthers" going on and on. When some of them state that no planes hit the Towers, but was a "hologram" I put them in the bin. As for my own beliefs about 9/11; I believe the official story because I cannot get my head around it being an "inside job"

Edited to apologies if this post has taken the thread off-topic. Is there a 9/11 thread on this forum, and if not, could someone start one?

by Guest 31.08.14 10:48

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.

by whatsupdoc 31.08.14 10:51

BlueBag wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:If you believe that 9-11 was conducted by others than confederates of Osama bin Laden you are off your head
Really? How open minded of you. Perhaps you could explain how Osama bin Laden caused building seven to collapse at near free-fall speed when it wasn't hit by a plane and why he felt the need to plant thermite residue in the area?

And also how the BBC reported it's collapse 20 minutes before it fell.

Someone knew it was coming down.

Major Guiliani knew the first tower was coming down before it did as well.

"Someone told him".

Larry Silverstein, who made $7B on the day said in the morning that WTC7 should be "Pulled" to save any further loss of human life. The firemen knew it was coming down and I saw Mayor G walking briskly away from WTC7, a secure building with FBI, CIA, Enron files etc ...files which needed to be destroyed. Late in the afternoon, a 47 story building had been rigged for a controlled demolition...who leg is he pulling?? A job like that would have taken weeks.
I did see the BBC newscaster get worried and sure enough a Fade to Black and an apology saying they had a technical problem with the link which showed WTC7 still standing.

The good thing about the book by S&S is that professional people who know about 9/11 will certainly wonder why they are writing about the McCanns and I think it will cast serious doubts about the contents of the book.

by sallypelt 31.08.14 10:52

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.

TY NTWTD, I may take a little trip there spin

by Guest 31.08.14 10:53

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.

Whilst I think there are a lot of unanswered questions about 9/11, I will not agree with this stuff.

I have debated long and hard on other forums about the "September Clues" nonsense. Otherwise known as "no planers". Some people don't understand physics, photography or video digital compression, others have more sinister motives.

As for the "Apollo Hoax" nonsense, people don't understand science. I've given up trying to show people who don't want to know.

The "Apollo Hoax" is the number one media "go to" for pointing fingers at conspiracy cranks. But that is what it was designed for.

As far as 9/11 goes, I think there is enough questions about foreknowledge to be getting on with.

by whatsupdoc 31.08.14 10:55

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.

Sure thing, boss.

It has gone into too much depth showing the dubious track record of S&S.

Have a nice day everyone...I have to go now.

by Monty Heck 31.08.14 13:01

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

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.

by **PeterMac** 31.08.14 13:11

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

by XTC 31.08.14 14:43

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.

That's a reasonable position to take until the book comes out. I take the same view.

As usual though you have to ask a question of all the learned scholars as to why they are bringing a book out now on this particular subject and not on say the Missing Malaysian airliner?

Similar questions apply to the Re-investigation of Hillsborough etc etc. Why this subject- why now?

In the case of Madeleine the interest is still there but much more subdued as 7 years has passed. If it appears in the US interest is
even less than in Britain. My theory being if that is the case it is being published now for a different reason.

If it's for reasons of being a bestseller the bestseller sell by date is well past I think.

Is this an attempt at a once and for all no holds barred version of what ACTUALLY happened that night and so on.

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?

9/11 relative to this case is a million times more complex and many theories abound but my opinion still applies that even the alleged ' experts'
know no more than us. In the case of Mr Amaral and his team they appear to know better than them and they ( the PJ ) were deeply involved.

We've been reading the longest book ever written about Madeleine via the media and the parents themselves and we've still not got to the final chapter and Epilogue.

One more is not going to make any difference in my humble opinion.

We shall see.

If it for reasons of being a bestseller the bestseller sell by date is well past I think.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.08.14 15:09

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?

Yes, the 'audience' is primarily the minds of the great British public (GBP), and Clarence Mitchell, the 'Master Media Manipulator', is the production manager.

He arranges the cast, along with his Murdoch friends like Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson & Matthew Freud.

'madeleine' by Dr Kate McCann was aimed at the GBP.

So were the serialisations of it.

And all the newspaper headlines.

Plus the photos of the McCanns side-by-side with the parents of Millie Dowler and Christopher Jenkins (Joanne Yeates case - Bristol).

Then David Cameron capitulating to Rebekah Brooks in setting up Grange.

After that DCI Redwood with his age-progressed sketch of Madeleine aged 10.

Next, the hype about a joint investigation with the Portuguese Police.

A big one: The CrimeWatch McCann Show with its 6.7 million viewres, deceived into thinking that two e-fits - clearly of different men - were in fact one bloke seen in the murky darkness of Praia da Luz by the Smiths.

With a tremendous fanfare - the Alouette Mark III Portuguese helicopters.

More recently, the digs on waste ground, the tents, the police officers, the shovels, the picks, the augurs, the bones, the cameras - and more cameras.

And now - with just 11 days to go now - the most brilliant investigative journalists in the world will write 'the most definitive account possible' and prove that the McCanns had nothing whatsoever to do with Madeleine's disppearance.

All IMO an expensive show for the target audience - the GBP...

...which will place any continuing dissent into the realms of heresy

by Guest 31.08.14 16:12

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?

by **Tony Bennett** 31.08.14 17:04

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'?

by whatsupdoc 31.08.14 17:28

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

Saturday afternoons on black & white tv with Kent Walton commentating and the great Mick McManus rip.... circa 1960....what fantastic entertainment that was!

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