Re: Isabelle McFadden questions Richard D Hall's Phantoms film

by Joss on 20.07.15 9:27

@snook wrote:Off/On topic? I read Ms Hutton's latest tome. She really is like a starving dog with a bone when it comes to badmouthing Tony. I think if the UK was torn asunder by an earthquake she could work it into her blog that he was responsible.
She needs to take stock. For someone who makes a point of telling us she cares not a jot about what Tony does, nor is she going to spend any time on him, her incessant attacks are showing her more by the day to be displaying signs of serious problems .

I agree, she is fixated on TB and needs help.

by **Verdi** on 20.07.15 12:21

Isabelle McFadden retweeted

Cristobell Author ‏@RosalindaHu 23h23 hours ago
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE Comments and Updates -

http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/perverting-course-of-justice-where-do.html?showComment=1437309465750#c3998231779710091475 … #McCann @QUEENdePORTUGAL @SoniaPoulton
2 retweets 3 favourites

Say no more?

by **Verdi** on 20.07.15 12:25

@snook wrote:Isabelle was the lady who tweeted ' They are going down !' in respect of TM and purported to have had a conversation with a PJ detective about the case whilst phoning them regarding an unrelated matter. I thought it odd that an officer would risk his career by discussing any case. Some, ( mainly pros) looked at the times of the alleged calls (Isabelle is in California) and she would have been talking to PJ at around midnight Portuguese time? She is also the lady who produced the initial email from WBM verifying the veracity of Steve's find .
Make what you will of the above.

That's what I've been thinking + the USA trademark saga recently brought to light. Can't see what interest this person has in the case of MBM - another on looking for a spot of limelight?

by Joss on 20.07.15 12:40

@Verdi wrote:
@snook wrote:Isabelle was the lady who tweeted ' They are going down !' in respect of TM and purported to have had a conversation with a PJ detective about the case whilst phoning them regarding an unrelated matter. I thought it odd that an officer would risk his career by discussing any case. Some, ( mainly pros) looked at the times of the alleged calls (Isabelle is in California) and she would have been talking to PJ at around midnight Portuguese time? She is also the lady who produced the initial email from WBM verifying the veracity of Steve's find .
Make what you will of the above.
That's what I've been thinking + the USA trademark saga recently brought to light. Can't see what interest this person has in the case of MBM - another on looking for a spot of limelight?

Yeah, i'm not sure what her deal is either? There are enough missing child cases to focus on in the U.S. and forums that discuss them, and it's not as if Madeleine McCann is a recent case. I actually thought Isabelle McFadden was from Portugal, didn't realize she was in the U.S.
And i agree the trademark issue is very odd too, and can't think why there is a link to the U.S.A, when the McCann's are British from the U.K.

by willowthewisp on 20.07.15 14:58

Hi Verdi,
It is only through hindsight and teachings from your parents and good people with knowledge that we can have the ability to understand a person's motifs?
Ref Isabelle Mc Fadden, I do not know her personally and what camp she belongs to in the Madeleine McCann case?
As has been shown recently by various postings WBM and the recent revelations of what Country that they currently reside in and of course the video sent to this forum"Smithman sighting" is this an hidden agenda to cause disharmony amongst CMoMM posters?
The amount of time spent on both contentious pieces has caused a lot of time and disruption.
If it is proven that certain persons had sent text messages to @sweepface(RIP Brenda Leyland) and they were not in support of Brenda's tireless campaign, then that should be taken as read, they disagree with the findings in the PJ reports, but they can have their own opinions but just share them with your own pro' Mcs?
"Be aware of people baring gifts" EG WBM and the condemnation of Tony and his opinion of "Smith family sighting".

by snook on 20.07.15 17:43

I have a relative who has no interest in the case at all but is very interested in ' dark politics ' I mentioned to him about the WBM conundrum, saying what possible reason would a US based company have for muddying the waters in the McCann case. His opinion was based on the ongoing debacle over Obama's birth certificate. As he rightly pointed out, the one released was so full of errors and mistakes that it would be ripped apart as a fake immediately and the fake was so obviout that even someone with basic computer skills could rip it apart let alone an expert. Are we to believe that US security services couldn't produce a perfect document? His point was never underestimate the ability of those with an agenda to obfuscate and cause dissent amongst those who consider themselves truth seekers.
It doesn't mean that those who bring such things to our attention are 'in on it'. They are probably acting in good faith and these ridiculous things are planted for the specific purpose of causing disharmony and to be stumbled on. As far as it being in US, there are no Borders when it comes to such things. It is a case of you scratch my back.... In his opinion the whole McCann case may be an exercise in look here not there.?

by **Verdi** on 20.07.15 19:07

@snook wrote:I have a relative who has no interest in the case at all but is very interested in ' dark politics ' I mentioned to him about the WBM conundrum, saying what possible reason would a US based company have for muddying the waters in the McCann case. His opinion was based on the ongoing debacle over Obama's birth certificate. As he rightly pointed out, the one released was so full of errors and mistakes that it would be ripped apart as a fake immediately and the fake was so obviout that even someone with basic computer skills could rip it apart let alone an expert. Are we to believe that US security services couldn't produce a perfect document? His point was never underestimate the ability of those with an agenda to obfuscate and cause dissent amongst those who consider themselves truth seekers.
It doesn't mean that those who bring such things to our attention are 'in on it'. They are probably acting in good faith and these ridiculous things are planted for the specific purpose of causing disharmony and to be stumbled on. As far as it being in US, there are no Borders when it comes to such things. It is a case of you scratch my back.... In his opinion the whole McCann case may be an exercise in look here not there.?

by **Verdi** on 20.07.15 19:11

H-E-L-P ! ! !

I logged on to have another look at the Isabella McFadden video as I've read from afar that she makes very good points with ref to Richard D Hall's videos and the Smith sighting. When I press play it tells me to sign in to watch the video !?!

by Tony Bennett on 20.07.15 21:21

@willowthewisp wrote:As has been shown recently by various postings WBM and the recent revelations of what Country that they currently reside in and of course the video sent to this forum"Smithman sighting" is this an hidden agenda to cause disharmony amongst CMoMM posters?

Possibly.

Recent tweets from McFadden to her mates - and what mates!:

Isabelle McFadden ‏@ QUEENdePORTUGAL Jul 19 Seal Beach, CA
@RosalindaHu @SoniaPoulton this Tony Bennett person is a fool. Apparently is bothered by me wearing Tank tops in 90F weather #PIG #mccann

Isabelle McFadden ‏@ QUEENdePORTUGAL Jul 19 Seal Beach, CA
@RosalindaHu @TeddyShepherd @SoniaPoulton Does he work for Kate & Gerry McCann?

For the record, I was far more concerned about her serious proposal to show a video of herself (and others) naked on a video whilst writing on a board the 48 questions that Dr Kate McCann refused to answer. And her other antics as the pretend McCann-supporter kiki_barnes.

McFadden, Hutton, Poulton and TeddyShepherd is a very interesting little group of mates.

I'm not at all surprised that McFadden wanted us to see an 11-minute video of her attacking Richard Hall

by Tony Bennett on 20.07.15 23:11

@ Nuala

I have spent a great deal of time answering dozens of points of yours on the 'SMITHMAN 5' thread.

Could now please explain you statement:

"Phantoms is full of errors"

by providing specific evidence of what you say those alleged 'errors' are - thanks.

Otherwise you ought to withdraw your allegation

by Nuala on 20.07.15 23:36

@ Tony Bennett

I'm not sure why you've suddenly taken this up on this thread because:

a) My posts were deleted. I therefore cannot respond because you're quoting from a post of mine that has been removed by a mod. Indeed I don't understand how it's acceptable that you're quoting from my deleted post if the original post has been deemed to be breaking forum rules.

b) I'm also unable to understand why you've said that you can't continue debating on the Smithman 5 thread for "practical reasons" but you want to debate on this thread.

by Angelique on 20.07.15 23:47

@Verdi wrote:H-E-L-P ! ! !

I logged on to have another look at the Isabella McFadden video as I've read from afar that she makes very good points with ref to Richard D Hall's videos and the Smith sighting. When I press play it tells me to sign in to watch the video !?!

Yes, same here.

I think it may be Google you have to sign into in order to watch YouTube with an app. I have been told my app on my iPad is obsolete so if I want to watch YouTube I have go to the channel I want by typing YouTube on Google and the name I am looking for.

However, I may be completely wrong and it may be another reason.

Perhaps someone else will advise us?

by Tony Bennett on 20.07.15 23:55

@Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

My posts were deleted. I therefore cannot respond

Of course you can, the subject matter of the thread is McFadden's 11-minute video critical of Hall's latest Maddie film

...you want to debate on this thread.

No, I just want a list, because you said 'Phantoms' was 'full of errors'. I am putting you to proof of your allegation, that's all

by **Verdi** on 21.07.15 0:06

@Angelique wrote:
@Verdi wrote:H-E-L-P ! ! !

I logged on to have another look at the Isabella McFadden video as I've read from afar that she makes very good points with ref to Richard D Hall's videos and the Smith sighting. When I press play it tells me to sign in to watch the video !?!

Yes, same here.

I think it may be Google you have to sign into in order to watch YouTube with an app. I have been told my app on my iPad is obsolete so if I want to watch YouTube I have go to the channel I want by typing YouTube on Google and the name I am looking for.

However, I may be completely wrong and it may be another reason.

Perhaps someone else will advise us?

It worked OK for me when Jill first posted the video so I'm confused. I've tried to find it on YouTube without success.

by plebgate on 21.07.15 1:58

@Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

I'm not sure why you've suddenly taken this up on this thread because:

a) My posts were deleted. I therefore cannot respond because you're quoting from a post of mine that has been removed by a mod. Indeed I don't understand how it's acceptable that you're quoting from my deleted post if the original post has been deemed to be breaking forum rules.

b) I'm also unable to understand why you've said that you can't continue debating on the Smithman 5 thread for "practical reasons" but you want to debate on this thread.

Looks like Tony (yet again) has proved a point.

So many new(ish) members, so many posts having to be deleted. So, so tiresome.

by Nuala on 21.07.15 18:27

@ Tony Bennett

I cannot discuss the subject you're referring to, or give you a list, because I've been told by a mod that any such list should be sent to Richard D Hall directly and not discussed on here.

Since you are asking me to provide a list, I'm assuming you have the authority to override the instructions of the mod in question.

If you could confirm that's the case, you do indeed have the authority to override the instructions of the mod in question, then I will be happy to continue the discussion on this subject.

I notice you declined to address my second point:

b) I'm also unable to understand why you've said that you can't continue debating on the Smithman 5 thread for "practical reasons" but you want to debate on this thread

I can only assume that the "practical reasons" have been swiftly sorted, so I will reply to your post on the Smithman 5 thread shortly and we can continue that debate there.

by Tony Bennett on 21.07.15 18:54

@Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

I cannot discuss the subject you're referring to, or give you a list, because I've been told by a mod that any such list should be sent to Richard D Hall directly and not discussed on here.

Since you are asking me to provide a list, I'm assuming you have the authority to override the instructions of the mod in question.

If you could confirm that's the case, you do indeed have the authority to override the instructions of the mod in question, then I will be happy to continue the discussion on this subject.

Don't bother

never mind

by Nuala on 21.07.15 19:44

Post deleted

by plebgate on 22.07.15 16:10

@Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

I cannot discuss the subject you're referring to, or give you a list, because I've been told by a mod that any such list should be sent to Richard D Hall directly and not discussed on here.

Since you are asking me to provide a list, I'm assuming you have the authority to override the instructions of the mod in question.

If you could confirm that's the case, you do indeed have the authority to override the instructions of the mod in question, then I will be happy to continue the discussion on this subject.

I notice you declined to address my second point:

b) I'm also unable to understand why you've said that you can't continue debating on the Smithman 5 thread for "practical reasons" but you want to debate on this thread

I can only assume that the "practical reasons" have been swiftly sorted, so I will reply to your post on the Smithman 5 thread shortly and we can continue that debate there.

I for one would have appreciated it if you had added this in your previous post and evidence of these so-called errors should have been placed in the OP IMO.

Isabelle McFadden questions Richard D Hall's Phantoms film