The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


Citizen Intelligence Community.

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Citizen Intelligence Community.

Post by second-guessed on 17.03.17 3:28

What is being offered on this site ? Thoughts about a pro citizen intelligence community.

I didn’t know where to post this. If there is a better place then I would ask the moderators to remove it to elsewhere.  

While it was ‘The Mystery of the Make-Up Photo - was it taken on the same day as the Last Photo?’ that prompted my thoughts,  it is the ‘bigger picture’, the context that strikes me as both novel and valid. What is being offered on this site, The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann is a set of theories from a concerned public.

I wrote my thesis on the subject of ‘Interpretation of images’.  One of the most important tenets of interpretation of images (photos, paintings, drawings etc., but may also include dreams) is the context and many people on this thread have attempted that.  Where was this picture taken? Where is its chronology is relation to other pictures? What extra accoutrements i.e. make up; beads. What is the family context? A family history should be attempted and that has occurred too, highlighting family connections that are involved in the making of sinister imagery. For instance, ‘Gerry McCann's brother-in-law, Tony Rickwood, removes his depraved images of women drowning from an internet site’). 

Following that, what is the mood of the picture which several people have found to be sinister. (worriedmum; aiyoyo; guest on 20.12.13 ; and others.)  The notion of ‘sinister’ must be held in abeyance for the time being. What makes it seem sinister? 

Open-ended questions are the best and may have an array of possible answers.  To interpret an image the interpreter must be able to hold this array without coming to a premature conclusion. The process here is to generate theories. Brainstorming is one piece of behaviour that is helpful in generating theories.  While some ideas in these threads seem wild and wacky, we should not dismiss them too readily.  (As Veritas does.)

Revisiting.  In due course, anyone attempting to  interpret an image will run out of these initial questions.  This is a good time to revisit the previous questions. This process may include any detractions from the argument, for or against.

I think The Complete Mystery of Madeliene McCann fulfils an excellent place in the wider social network by picking up valid questions and, on the whole, giving intelligent answers; also by adding details about which police and others may have no knowledge. Police intelligence could (maybe does) make use of these theories and insights.

However, one post on this thread,   by canada12 on 20.12.13 18:28 states:

“I don't think the police have made any statements whatsoever concerning whether they believe any photos have been altered.

Until they do, I don't think we can arrive at any conclusions about what the investigation may have uncovered or discovered concerning photoshopping.”


This struck me as very defensive. For a start, it is distancing. It does not start with the picture itself but seeks to distract to a different subject, i.e. ‘police statements’.  However, the context for this remark is a case that is a mystery to the police; it has not been solved.  Therefore, public interest is heightened and theories are generated.  A theory is not a conclusion.  Therefore the statement, “I don't think we can arrive at any conclusions” is exactly true but meaningless. 

What is erroneous is the notion that “Until they do, I don't think we can arrive…”  Again, this is distancing because ‘until they do’ can go on ad infinitum. This in turn causes me to wonder about the motives behind such an utterance.

What is being offered on this site? 
What is being offered is a set of theories. We are like the crowd of people who set out to try to find Madeleine when she was first pronounced lost.  This site is an excellent example of something  that Robert David Steele former Central Intelligence Agency clandestine services case officer, says: 

 “Because the FBI and the media have not covered the subject of pedophilia, what we have is a vigilante mob (in the US)”  Steele is pro ‘citizen intelligence minutemen’ in the media and has been for the last 30 years. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgqKs1UudRc) (start at about 30:00 for the pedogate/social enquiry part)

What we see in the websites that attempt to understand the mystery of Madeleine McCann’s ‘disappearance’ is a pro citizen intelligence community who meet to share anything from expertise to random thoughts.  The military term ‘minutemen’ is well understood in the US but is not understood globally.  I prefer to think of them as ‘foot soldiers’, the people on the ground who desperately want the rule of law to prevail. They are similar to the persons in P de L who got up and went to search for a missing child. Even when they looked in the ‘wrong place’, at least they were looking. Their efforts are to be applauded.

Most importantly, Steele has made the link between the cause of vigilanteism being the lack of progress in battling crime, pedophilia in particular.  Sociologically, where the law breaks down vigilantes enter the vacuum where the law should be and exact their own ‘justice’.  I assume that none of us wants that to happen. Some on these threads have already alluded to this when they say, “there is one rule for them but another if you come from a council estate.”  They are pointing to a breakdown in policing, the law, and what should be ‘blind justice’. This is a very serious condition for any country to be in.

What the likes of canada12 fail to understand is that the writers in this forum are in effect the foot soldiers, the minutemen endorsed by Robert David Steele; minutemen who stave off vigilanteism. This subject is not only about a missing child; it is about how policing, the law, and justice prevail. We need the detailed breakdown of questions; we need the added details that strangers bring to the argument.


Those who seek to destroy reasonable free speech may reap a wider whirlwind.  We can only hope that it is not only libel lawyers who trawl these pages; I hope that those concerned with policing, the law, and justice examine them too because we are an integral part of the social system that prevents vigilanteism in the search for Justice.
avatar
second-guessed

Posts : 21
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Citizen Intelligence Community.

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.03.17 8:08

Thank you for the post.

I guess the notion of a 'citizen intelligence community' could be applied very widely to embrace e.g. all manner of resistance groups (say, the French Resistance) or protest groups (say, the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa), where people have a genuine sense of grievance about state injustices of one kind or another. 

People in modern times collaborate on the internet to discuss various crimes and injustices, but the Madeleine McCann case is unique in many ways. And one of those is the very obvious role of the state in suppressing the truth in this case:

* The swamping of Praia da Luz in the very first few days with government, police and security service personnel
* The setting-up on 8 May 2007 of a top secret 'co-ordinating committee' under Matt Baggott, Leicestershire Chief Constable, to manage government decision-making in the case
* The appointment of Clarence Mitchell as the government man to oversee the McCanns' PR
* The suppression by Leics Police of the two Gaspar statements
* The framing of Robert Murat, and, of course, latterly...
* The bogus, 6-year-long Operation Grange.

The state decided from Day One to suppress the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. And Richard Hall will rty to answer the question 'Why?' in his next documentary.

Dealing with your observations on canada12, you wrote:

QUOTE

However, one post on this thread,   by canada12 on 20.12.13 18:28 states:

“I don't think the police have made any statements whatsoever concerning whether they believe any photos have been altered.

Until they do, I don't think we can arrive at any conclusions about what the investigation may have uncovered or discovered concerning photoshopping.”

This struck me as very defensive. For a start, it is distancing. It does not start with the picture itself but seeks to distract to a different subject, i.e. ‘police statements’.  However, the context for this remark is a case that is a mystery to the police; it has not been solved.  Therefore, public interest is heightened and theories are generated.  A theory is not a conclusion.  Therefore the statement, “I don't think we can arrive at any conclusions” is exactly true but meaningless. 

What is erroneous is the notion that “Until they do, I don't think we can arrive…”  Again, this is distancing because ‘until they do’ can go on ad infinitum. This in turn causes me to wonder about the motives behind such an utterance.

UNQUOTE

Several of us questioned canada12's motives.

And the reason she was expelled from this forum is because, at its heart, the forum has had an investigative role rather than merely being a 'discussion' forum.

She was expelled after persisting with the notion that a vastly enlarged image of Madeleine (on the Last Photo), which revealed a pattern clearly formed by digital artefacts, meant that elaborate attempts had been made to photoshop it.  As the various photoshopping theories about that photo go, it was about the most extreme (alongside Textusa's). She refsed to let go of her wild theory against overwhelming evidence. Yes, that gave us reason to question her agenda.

As a discussion forum, CMOMM must allow different theories to be propounded. However, as an intelligence forum, it must sift the good theories from the bad, preferring those backed by good evidence and arguments - and rejecting the others. 

Finally, on the subject of images, these are one of the richest sources of forensic evidence that we have in the case. 

The three playground images - evidence of happy girl on the first day of her holiday
  
The Last Photo - when was it really taken?

The Make-Up Photo - was it taken in Praia da Luz, and if so, why is she so 'made up'?

The Tennis Balls Photo - why all the contradictions about who took it and when?  

And finally...

...the apparent absence of any photos of Madeleine taken on Monday or afterwards - why?  


.

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14903
Reputation : 2996
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Citizen Intelligence Community.

Post by second-guessed on 17.03.17 11:39

Tony, thank you for your fulsome response.  I shall endeavour to grapple with your ideas:

Re: “I guess the notion of a 'citizen intelligence community' could be applied very widely to embrace e.g. all manner of resistance groups (say, the French Resistance) or protest groups (say, the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa), where people have a genuine sense of grievance about state injustices of one kind or another. 

People in modern times collaborate on the internet to discuss various crimes and injustices, but the Madeleine McCann case is unique in many ways.”

Yes, indeed, and while you are saying that there has been a model for a citizen intelligence community for a very long time, now the fact that the internet exists has given us a wider scope to include information from disparate places and to voice theories with one another across the globe. Some have very specific training and skills; others may be working intuitively yet their utterances are no less valid.  I like that! Still others have been close to events and report on those.  I think it is this extra scope that Steele is referring to and it is being utilised impressively on this forum.

He also mentions vigilantes, the physical taking of justice into our own hands. And the French Resistance was particularly active in physical opposition. As far as I am aware one person has died as a result of her interest in justice for Madeleine.  (Brenda Leyland., RIP.) Hastily, I would add that this aspect of an intelligence community is not endorsed by me (and I don’t think that’s what you were saying.) I mention it only as part of my ‘compare and contrast’ exercise.

Also, Technology is aiding the citizen intelligence community. For instance, ‘Thorn’ is helping ‘the masses’ to investigate and report to the Police on online grooming. 






Regarding,  “the very obvious role of the state in suppressing the truth in this case” :-



  • * The swamping of Praia da Luz in the very first few days with government, police and security service personnel
  • * The setting-up on 8 May 2007 of a top secret 'co-ordinating committee' under Matt Baggott, Leicestershire Chief Constable, to manage government decision-making in the case
  • * The appointment of Clarence Mitchell as the government man to oversee the McCanns' PR
  • * The suppression by Leics Police of the two Gaspar statements
  • * The framing of Robert Murat, and, of course, latterly...
  • The bogus, 6-year-long Operation Grange.


I would include another one.  The putting of the focus on Goncalo Amaral.  This dynamic happened in the OJ Simpson case as well and was very effective in deflecting the focus of the investigation.

Usually, the investigating officers will stay in the background, quietly getting on with the job. As the Policeman in the OJ Simpson case, Fuhrman puts it, “I’m not the kind of person who wants to do this…” go public, “…I’d rather be behind the scenes”.  Then the case changed; it became driven by the suspect and his celebrity rather than by the police. Hysteria on the part of the suspect in the media and the subsequent disarray became a driving force.  Now, instead of the suspect being the focus of the investigation, the policeman became the focus.  He was nearly brought to ruin. (Sound familiar?)

And so, usually we might expect a suspect to stay quiet during an investigation. In the OJ case it not happen. He brazenly played the gallery.

A parallel in the McCann case is drawn.  Where parents have, and there is no argument here, abandoned their children and put them in harms way, and where one of those children ‘disappears’, you might expect such a parent to immediately show some remorse or at least some humility.  Instead, as you have shown in your list, media are called on and that media drives the ensuing hysteria and disarray.  The focus is switched from the suspects to the investigating officer.  He is nearly brought to ruin. Here the comparison of similarities ends.  What follows are contrasting points.

In the McCann case the officer and his family are targeted by the suspects.

More than that, the suspects are supported by the weight of the British establishment (who were so denigrated through the Savile revelations). Now, the publicising by image consultants, a PR firm, and libel lawyers joining the fray, drive the hysteria culminating in the libelling of Dr Amaral and the Portuguese police. The case is no longer about finding a ‘missing child’ but about a media circus and the bringing of a man who was simply doing his job, to ruin.  

Furthermore, a suspect is now in the position to demand that this man who was unfortunate enough to care about finding the suspect’s missing child, to separate from his wife. (How does that work in Catholicism?) Is this the first time in history that a suspect has been brazen enough to make such a demand?  

As you say, “The state decided from Day One to suppress the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. And Richard Hall will rty to answer the question 'Why?' in his next documentary.”

I look forward to that documentary.




Regarding canada12,  I mentioned her a) because she was on that particular thread, and b) she stood out as someone who was not ‘collaborating’ and  c) she was ‘distancing’, a concept that is well understood by members of this forum who have understood Peter Hyatt speaking on statement analysis.  As you say, “Several of us questioned canada12's motives” and gave “reason to question her agenda.”

Then you mention a key point, “…because, at its heart, the forum has had an investigative role rather than merely being a 'discussion' forum.”  I think Robert David Steele former Central Intelligence Agency clandestine services case officer would agree with you there that the investigative role marks it out as an intelligence  community forum.  






I agree that “As a discussion forum, CMOMM must allow different theories to be propounded. However, as an intelligence forum, it must sift the good theories from the bad, preferring those backed by good evidence and arguments - and rejecting the others” and I think this point makes the forum a safe place for those who have serious concerns that they want to air among similarly-minded people.





Finally, on the subject of images, these are one of the richest sources of forensic evidence that we have in the case. 

The three playground images - evidence of happy girl on the first day of her holiday
  
The Last Photo - when was it really taken?

The Make-Up Photo - was it taken in Praia da Luz, and if so, why is she so 'made up'?

The Tennis Balls Photo - why all the contradictions about who took it and when?  

And finally...

...the apparent absence of any photos of Madeleine taken on Monday or afterwards - why?”

Totally agree that those are the questions. As you know, it is the imagery that has taken my attention.  The Make Up picture gives me the shivvers.  Sometimes, we know something because we have a gut reaction. In my opinion, this, and some other pictures, show a sexualised four-year old.  Whoever published them surely must have been too hardened to its effect to consider what effect it would have on viewers.  That, combined with the statement by Dr Katherine Zacharias Gaspar to the Leicestershire Police puts this dreadful story into one of questioning paedophiliac motives. Gut feelings don’t make evidence but combined with the Gaspar evidence we are led in a certain direction.

I was appalled by the black and white photos that were so contrasty that no detail could be discerned. In this day and age?  Really? Is this called ‘destruction of evidence’?


I reiterate Steele’s comment, about the link (sociologically) between the cause of vigilanteism being the lack of progress in battling crime, pedophilia in particular. When the lack of progress is because “the state decided from Day One to suppress the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann” we are in trouble.
avatar
second-guessed

Posts : 21
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2017-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum