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, 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!

Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 02.05.11 9:48

Spelling of the title of this thread corrected by Admin

Suspicious Minds

We all have them, and usually we have them because of uncertainty in our own lives. There’s nothing wrong in being suspicious of certain things in life, but continued doubt or suspicion is nothing short of paranoia.

Daniel Freeman, a consultant clinical psychologist, was queuing in the post office recently when he overheard a couple discussing the slight discrepancy between two clocks above the counter. "They're trying to confuse us," said the woman. "Yeah," replied the man, "that's typical of the government."

If the couple had noticed the man behind them in the dark suit scribbling down their subsequent conversation ("Now they're trying to stop us living so long and discovering the truth by making us eat genetically modified food"), they might well have hastened home, their conviction about government conspiracy more deeply entrenched. However, the eavesdropper was, in fact, one of the world's leading experts on paranoia. "Some people," says Freeman, "have become so cynical that they don't believe in anything any more. In them, healthy scepticism has been replaced by a total breakdown in trust, the belief that everybody lies. The post office encounter was a fascinating example of that."

We have here, on this forum, a spreader of suspicion in the form of one Tony Bennett. We only have to look back at the Lubbock case to evidence the forming of a distinct pattern. He demands answers of the McCanns as if they are somehow complicit in some complicated conspiracy to hide the death of their 3 year old daughter. But why would he ask or moreover, continue to question the McCanns when even the Portuguese police failed to find anything to link them to their daughters disappearance. Is it a simple case of a lack paranoia due to depression and anxiety? Because people with depression have higher levels of paranoia because of a sense of vulnerability and low self-esteem. Or is it purely just a lack of emotional intelligence? Google ‘emotional intelligence’ to get a better understanding.

The point I’m making regarding Tony’s continued doubt over the McCanns is the fact that no matter what or how many questions are asked, the underlying issue is that he believes the McCanns are covering the death of their daughter. And to have that suspicion you must have an idea or some logical thoughts of how and why they would carry out such a heinous crime…..or maybe he doesn't? Anyone can produce leaflets to question events surrounding the McCanns in the hope of fulfilling your paranoia but can he put together a logical, rational or plausible thesis as to why and how they carried out such an act and manage to get away with it in front of the eyes of the world? Well, you’d have to believe in ‘the big conspiracy’ to make it all work. Friends, Freemasons and even the Government must have a hand in it somewhere to make it all work. Just like a certain Goncalo Amaral believed and the reason he was 'outed' from the case.

Many people with paranoia may not believe - as one of Freeman's patients does - that the government is trying to kill them, or that security agencies have planted cameras in their eyes, but they may worry irrationally that people are gossiping about them, or intend to mug them.

Goncalo Amaral, a man convicted of perjury. But, and to give him credit (if that’s the right word) he at least tried to explain away a thesis he believed to answer the why's and how's the McCanns might carry out such an act. He believes the reason for the ‘big conspiracy’ is because the McCanns neglected their children and Madeleine came to harm in their absence. He believes that Gerry must have discovered his dead daughter (as a result of falling from the back of the sofa) What injury the child sustained that was so severe which resulted in her death would appear unusual but the belief behind the actual ‘cover up’ is even more intriguing.

It is believed by Goncalo Amaral and his ‘like minded’ supporters that the McCanns needed to cover up the death of their little girl for fear of being charged with child neglect and possibly loosing custody of their other two children. If that’s not hard enough to believe the plot gets worse. It is believed that Gerry, on discovering his dead daughter, was able to have a conversation with a person he met on holiday, shortly after his horrific discovery, return to his apartment, pick her up, walk through the streets of Praia de Luz and hide his daughter in some temporary grave (believed to be a fridge if you believe the ‘transported in the hire car’ idea), go back to his table and carry on dining as if nothing had happened. Not only that, he managed to inform his wife in that short space of time and drum up the biggest ‘cover up’ the world has seen this century.

I know what your thinking………… and you’d be right!

The continued questioning of the McCanns isn’t about the disappearance of Madeleine, it’s about the suspicion or pararnoia embedded in the minds of fools.

And until the ‘doubters’ can put together a credible and coherrant account of the events surrounding that fateful night then any normal, logical thinking person is going to treat Tony Bennetts ‘questioning’ with the contempt it deserves.
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 02.05.11 10:06









Any logical thinking person is going to treat the McCann's ‘abduction by paedophile theory’ with the contempt it deserves.

If your child was abducted by a paedophile, Garth, would you honestly look like this within a few days of the catastrophic event?

avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 10485
Reputation : 5186
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 02.05.11 10:16

Goodness me Garth, you must have been up all night composing that little piece. big grin

Of course people have suspicious minds. People would not be human if the didn't. It's a good thing to have a suspicous mind, or would you prefer us to just become sheep and believe everything we read and are told. I don't think so. Many cases have been solved decades later because police had their suspicions and would not give up on the cases. People in all walks of life lie, and cover up things, and I am not referring to this case. It happens all time. These days with the internet, people are able to find things out that would never come to light in the mainstream media and news. That is a good thing.

Just a couple of questions. .....

Why would any mother not answer the questions put to her by the police, to try and help the police find their daughter.

Why not participate in a reconstruction to help the police determine exactly what happened that night.

Why hire expensive lawyers so soon after Madeleine vanished



These are just a few questions that niggle people, make them wonder, and yes have some suspicions.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 02.05.11 10:29

Will get back to you later else, and I have this funny suspicion, I will miss out on some good sales today. thumbsup
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 02.05.11 10:32

@Garth wrote:Will get back to you later else, and I have this funny suspicion, I will miss out on some good sales today. thumbsup

Yes, it does take you a while to compose your questions and answers big grin

I should just wave the white flag now titter
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by ufercoffy on 02.05.11 10:35

I think it's only right and proper that people should question the McC's. There is a small child missing presumed dead so of course people should question them until the truth is known.

____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?  Shocked
avatar
ufercoffy

Posts : 1641
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.05.11 11:01

@Garth wrote:

Suspicious Minds

We all have them, and usually we have them because of uncertainty in our own lives. There’s nothing wrong in being suspicious of certain things in life, but continued doubt or suspicion is nothing short of paranoia.

REPLY: It depends on what that doubt or suspicion is founded on. It might be perfectly well founded

Daniel Freeman, a consultant clinical psychologist, was queuing in the post office recently when he overheard a couple discussing the slight discrepancy between two clocks above the counter. "They're trying to confuse us," said the woman. "Yeah," replied the man, "that's typical of the government."

If the couple had noticed the man behind them in the dark suit scribbling down their subsequent conversation ("Now they're trying to stop us living so long and discovering the truth by making us eat genetically modified food"), they might well have hastened home, their conviction about government conspiracy more deeply entrenched. However, the eavesdropper was, in fact, one of the world's leading experts on paranoia. "Some people," says Freeman, "have become so cynical that they don't believe in anything any more. In them, healthy scepticism has been replaced by a total breakdown in trust, the belief that everybody lies. The post office encounter was a fascinating example of that."

We have here, on this forum, a spreader of suspicion in the form of one Tony Bennett. We only have to look back at the Lubbock case to evidence the forming of a distinct pattern.

REPLY: That 'distinct pattern' could - and indeed does - amount to this. In both cases, I have seen evidence that those closely associated with (a) the death of Stuart Lubbock and (b) the disappearance of Madeleine McCann were not telling the truth. In both cases, my mission has been nothing other than a search for the truth.

And in both cases I have thoroughly researched the details.

He demands answers of the McCanns as if they are somehow complicit in some complicated conspiracy to hide the death of their 3 year old daughter. But why would he ask or moreover, continue to question the McCanns when even the Portuguese police failed to find anything to link them to their daughters disappearance.

REPLY: Er, have you, or have you not, read the report of Police Inspector Taveres de Almeida dated 10 September 2007? Because in that lucid and concise report are several clear lines of evidence and cogent arguments suggesting that Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A and that her parents and others covered it up. I do not in any way risk libel action for saying that, because what I have just written is an entirely factual statement about the contents of Taveres de Almeida's report.

Is it a simple case of a lack paranoia due to depression and anxiety?

REPLY: Que? You need to re-check what you've written, it doesn't make sense.

Because people with depression have higher levels of paranoia because of a sense of vulnerability and low self-esteem. Or is it purely just a lack of emotional intelligence? Google ‘emotional intelligence’ to get a better understanding.

The point I’m making regarding Tony’s continued doubt over the McCanns is the fact that no matter what or how many questions are asked, the underlying issue is that he believes the McCanns are covering the death of their daughter. And to have that suspicion you must have an idea or some logical thoughts of how and why they would carry out such a heinous crime…or maybe he doesn't?

REPLY: As Goncalo Amaral and his colleagues suggested, Madeleine McCann could have died 'by accident'. This could have been due to something that happened whilst her parents were out wining and dining with friends, putting their enjoyment above the welfare of their children. If she died in that apartment, there could have been other reasons. By and large I have not speculated about how she might have died. If she died, it is entirley logical to think that the parents might have had many reasons for not wishing their child to be subject to a post-morterm by a Portuguese pathologist.

Anyone can produce leaflets to question events surrounding the McCanns in the hope of fulfilling your paranoia...

REPLY: ...informing the public about truths withheld by the British media

...but can he put together a logical, rational or plausible thesis as to why and how they carried out such an act and manage to get away with it in front of the eyes of the world? Well, you’d have to believe in ‘the big conspiracy’ to make it all work. Friends, Freemasons and even the Government must have a hand in it somewhere to make it all work. Just like a certain Goncalo Amaral believed and the reason he was 'outed' from the case.

REPLY: In weighing up the evidence, you have to examine the alerts of two of the world's top springer spaniel sniffer dogs, the McCanns' initial convoluted reactions to their alerts - visiting corpses with Cuddle Cat, rotting meat, dirty nappies etc. - then put together all the contradictions and changes of story in the accounts of the McCanns and their friends (which are ever so briefly summarised in MMRG's '50 FACTS' leaflet) - and then a picture emerges which means that it is inevitable that independent-thinking people will be bound to ask questions.

It is also highly instructive to observe the conduct of the McCanns' supporters. Instead of carefully rebutting the claims made by e.g. Goncalo Amaral in 'The Truth About A Lie' and in publications like '60 Reasons' and '50 FACTS', they resort to legal action by some the world's most expensive libel lawyers and circulating vile allegations and smears against those who publish the questions - in this case resorting to allegations of clinical mental illness i.e. depressiona and paranoia.

Many people with paranoia may not believe - as one of Freeman's patients does - that the government is trying to kill them, or that security agencies have planted cameras in their eyes, but they may worry irrationally that people are gossiping about them, or intend to mug them.

Goncalo Amaral, a man convicted of perjury. But, and to give him credit (if that’s the right word) he at least tried to explain away a thesis he believed to answer the why's and how's the McCanns might carry out such an act. He believes the reason for the ‘big conspiracy’ is because the McCanns neglected their children and Madeleine came to harm in their absence. He believes that Gerry must have discovered his dead daughter (as a result of falling from the back of the sofa) What injury the child sustained that was so severe which resulted in her death would appear unusual but the belief behind the actual ‘cover up’ is even more intriguing.

It is believed by Goncalo Amaral and his ‘like minded’ supporters that the McCanns needed to cover up the death of their little girl for fear of being charged with child neglect and possibly loosing custody of their other two children. If that’s not hard enough to believe the plot gets worse. It is believed that Gerry, on discovering his dead daughter, was able to have a conversation with a person he met on holiday, shortly after his horrific discovery, return to his apartment, pick her up, walk through the streets of Praia de Luz and hide his daughter in some temporary grave (believed to be a fridge if you believe the ‘transported in the hire car’ idea), go back to his table and carry on dining as if nothing had happened. Not only that, he managed to inform his wife in that short space of time and drum up the biggest ‘cover up’ the world has seen this century.

REPLY: That is not an accurate account of events to which I subscribe, just to put that on the written record. I think that Martin Smith saw a man carrying a child at around 9.50pm that evening. I do not believe that that child was Madeleine McCann.

I know what your thinking…and you’d be right!

The continued questioning of the McCanns isn’t about the disappearance of Madeleine, it’s about the suspicion or pararnoia embedded in the minds of fools.

And until the ‘doubters’ can put together a credible and coherrant account of the events surrounding that fateful night then any normal, logical thinking person is going to treat Tony Bennetts ‘questioning’ with the contempt it deserves.

REPLY: It must be remembered that the McCanns' own spokesman and reputation manager, Clarence Mitchell, said on the record on 6 January this year that the notion that Madeleine was abducted was 'only an assumption...a working hypothesis'. That being so, it is open to anyone to come up with an alternative assumption and working hypothesis, or to challenge the McCanns' assumption and hypothesis.

One final thing, since you have brought the death of Stuart Lubbock into this as an example of 'paranoia'. I investigated this matter at the specific request of Terry Lubbock, a man who lives in the same town as me. The News of the World paid The Lubbock Trust £20,000 for a serialisation, over 4 pages in two editions, of the core of my book on the case: 'Not Awight: Getting Away With Murder'. The book proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that Michael Barrymore, his then lover, drag queen Jonathan Kenney and other Barrymore 'friends' had comprehensively lied to police and to the Inquest about the events leading up to Stuart's death. Moreover, I was able to show that contrary to the 'cover story' i.e. a faked 'drowning'] put forward by Barrymore and his friends, Stuart Lubbock had NOT even been in the swimming pool that night.

The News of the World did not pay £20,000 and risk libel action due to the ramblings of a depressed paranoiac.

They paid it for meticulous research which would stand up to scrutiny and could not be challenged by Barrymore's libel lawyers (and it wasn't). Only months after the News of the World serialised my book, Barrymore was arrested in June 2007 on suspicion of murder - and his attempted comeback, via an appearance on Celebrity Big Brother, was effectively over. Job done.
avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14725
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

I Say... the Boy's nothing but a fool... You hear...a fool

Post by The Rooster on 02.05.11 12:47

Some people are analytical in their approach to life and there are others' who are non-analytical in their approach. Ancestors of the latter may well have been membership candidates for the flat earth society. So, Tony don't waste your time answering the online ramblings of non analytical individuals, ignore and channel your efforts toward those people who do read and analyse the data available, in a scientific way. If they can't be bothered to read the facts forget them. They're fools... and a fool's always right in his own mind. I say...alway right.

____________________
F J Leghorn
"DOO-Dah! DOO-Dah-Day!"
avatar
The Rooster

Posts : 419
Reputation : 88
Join date : 2011-04-12
Age : 71
Location : Virginia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Anna on 02.05.11 12:57

G'day Mr Leghorn

Whilst I agree with the essence of your post I have always found Tony willing to answer his critics and I have learned much from his replies to those who doubt him. I thank Tony for taking the time to answer his critics to put the record straight. Without his answers the misconceptions about him on the internet would remain just that.

Today I have learned something about Michael Barrymore and Stuart Lubbock.
avatar
Anna

Posts : 23
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-03-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

'Dunanalysing'? Not yet

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.05.11 13:03

@The Rooster wrote:...Tony don't waste your time answering the online ramblings of non analytical individuals, ignore and channel your efforts toward those people who do read and analyse the data available, in a scientific way.
Your comments noted, but don't worry too much, my 24-page article exposing the utter con behind the false claim that David Edgar and Arthur Cowley are the heads of a thriving private detective agency called 'Alpha Investigations Group' is about to be uploaded to The Madeleine Foundation website.

Next after that, some up-to-date news about the activities of Brian Kennedy, the man who appointed Metodo 3, Kevin Halligen and Dave Edgar.
avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14725
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Guest on 02.05.11 19:57

Well well, this is a comprehensive reply Tony. Only the post was about suspicious minds to a level that borders paranoia.

Lets look at this reply

REPLY: Er, have you, or have you not, read the report of Police Inspector Taveres de Almeida dated 10 September 2007? Because in that lucid and concise report are several clear lines of evidence and cogent arguments suggesting that Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A and that her parents and others covered it up. I do not in any way risk libel action for saying that, because what I have just written is an entirely factual statement about the contents of Taveres de Almeida's report.

His report is nothing more than his tunnel visioned interpretation of any and everything the McCanns have said or done which have been elevated by dubious dog findings.

“The moment there is suspicion about a person's motives, everything he does becomes tainted”.
Mohandas Gandhi

You’d do well to take notice of the above quote.


Now, would you like to discuss how and why the McCanns miraculously carried out this amazing achievement…or anyone for that matter, would anyone has a bit of the old common?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Gracias on 02.05.11 20:06

So, Garth, you disagree with all the Portuguese police and expect people to believe you? lol 
avatar
Gracias
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 02.05.11 20:28

Believe me about what?
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 02.05.11 20:31

Incidentally, when you say 'all' the Portuguese Police, do you mean Gonc and his mate?    
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Gracias on 02.05.11 20:35

All you're doing is showing yourself up to be a moron. You do nothing to champion the McCann's cause. Nothing whatsoever. In fact you make the McCanns look desperate by trying to discredit anyone who disbelieves them. The more you do that the more suspicious you make the McCanns look. As with any McCann supporter if all else fails you resort to abuse and childishness. Thank goodness there are people like Tony Bennett who will not stop until the truth is known, despite irritants like you.
avatar
Gracias
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by William on 02.05.11 20:39

There are very many people both Portuguese and British who suspect the McCann's are guilty of concealing their daughter's cadaver. They can't all be wrong, Garth.
avatar
William
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by William on 02.05.11 20:41

And no amount of  will persuade us to believe you over the police.
avatar
William
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Tigers Eye on 02.05.11 21:00

for "tunnel visioned interpretation" others could perhaps read " conclusions of the Portuguese AND British police officers who investigated the case". Moreover, it now emerges that it was the British police, no less, who first pointed the PJ towards the death of the little girl and that the parents' story should not necessarily be believed.

More to the point: Why come on this Forum? Who exactly are you trying to convince or persuade, assuming that you are not here entirely to cause trouble or to be a troll? How about trying the Official Find Madeleine page on Facebook? or JATYK or ther other slightly nutty "McCann believer" forums out there - they're probably more your thing, I think.

____________________

avatar
Tigers Eye

Posts : 22
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.05.11 21:02

@Garth wrote:Tony Bennett: REPLY: Er, have you, or have you not, read the report of Police Inspector Taveres de Almeida dated 10 September 2007?

Garth: His report is nothing more than his tunnel visioned interpretation of any and everything the McCanns have said or done which have been elevated by dubious dog findings.

REPLY BY TB: If the dogs' findings were so 'dubious', why did the McCanns immediately scramble for such outrageously ludicrous explanations...six corpses in a fortnight...carrying Cuddle Cat around whilst I was filling in death certificates...dirty nappies...rotting meat..? Only after that failed did they then try to diss the dogs, immediately latching on to the Eugene Zapata case, claiming a judge had said these cadaver dogs were useless.

Now let's see if you can answer two brief questions:

1. Why did the McCanns come up with all those ludicrous explanations for Eddie's alerts?

2. Were the dogs in the Eugene Zapata case right or wrong?

“The moment there is suspicion about a person's motives, everything he does becomes tainted”.
Mohandas Gandhi

GARTH: You’d do well to take notice of the above quote.

REPLY BY TB: Hugely fascinating! The quote itself is bland, even meaningless; I suspect most people would say it was untrue anyway.

But look who you've chosen to quote from! - an extreme racist who loathed black people more deeply than even the most racist BNP member, and a bisexual who liked to sleep naked with the teenage girls of his relatives - the real Mohandas Gandhi was a rank hypocrite all round. Gandhi was a fake, like a lot of things concerning Madeleine's disappearance. But it's really very interesting indeed that you quote from this fake of a man, whom Col. G.B. Singh brilliantly exposed, see below:

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

A few years ago a book “ Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity” was written by Col G.B. Singh of US Army. I had requested the local library to buy one copy of it. They bought one and I checked a few months after, only three people had taken it out for reading. So I believe not many people would have read it worldwide.

The following article is a review of the book by Late Dr. Baldev Singh

Source: http://www.sikhsundesh.net/gandhi.htm

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity
By G. B. Singh

Reviewed by Baldev Singh

"Truth comes out breaking the walls of a fortress" is a Punjabi saying. For the lovers of truth G. B. Singh has exploded the Gandhi myth – apostle of peace, emancipator of untouchables and liberator of India by peaceful means from the British yoke – by publishing his labor of love, Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. G. B. Singh studied Gandhi for over twenty years collecting Gandhi’s speeches, writings and other documents, which the promoters of Gandhi left out intentionally to create a twentieth century messiah by fusing Jesus Christ and Vishnu.

The oppressors – the proponents of colonialism, slavery, racism and casteism - have imposed their own version of history on the victims through manipulation, deception and hypocrisy. For example there is holocaust museum in the capital of United States in the memory of six million Jews who fell victim to the atrocities of Nazis in World War II. It is commendable and such museums should be built in every capital in the world to remind people of the heinous crimes of the Nazis. But why not a museum about the genocide of native Americans or a museum about slavery in the capital of United States? It takes moral courage to look into the face of truth! In order to avoid the obligation to intervene in Rwanda, the Western powers led by President Clinton put pressure on the United Nations Security Council not to characterize the mass murder of Tootsies as genocide.

The making of Gandhi myth stared in South Africa by white Christian clergy. Rev. Joseph J. Doke, a Baptist Minster was the first to write the biography of M. K. Gandhi. Soon many other European and American clergymen and writers rushed in to make their input. John H. Holmes, a Unitarian pastor from New York praised Gandhi in his writings and sermons with titles like: Gandhi: The Modern Christ, Mahatma Gandhi: The Greatest Man since Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ji: Reincarnation of Christ and Gandhi before Pilate. Romain Rolland, French Nobel Laureate in literature looked at Gandhi not only as a Hindu saint, but also another Christ. He wrote Gandhi’s new biography in French.

The English translation of this book opens with: He is the One Luminous, Creator of All, Mahatma. Impressed with lavish propaganda about Gandhi in the West, the Hindu propaganda machine came into action and it churned out a plethora of literature to elevate Gandhi to the status of twentieth century Hindu god – "The seventh reincarnation of Vishnu, Lord Rama," proclaimed Krishnalal Shridharni. Portraits of Gandhi depicted him as Hindu avatar and Christian saint. The Indian government under Prime Minister Indra Gandhi financed one-third the cost of the production of the movie "Gandhi" for the portrayal of Gandhi as "an absolute pacifist."

The Christian clergy had an ulterior motive in building the Gandhi myth. They thought that by elevating Gadhi to a 20th century messiah and then converting him would open the flood gate for evangelizing Hindu masses. Little did they realize that Gandhi hoodwinked them with his insincere statements about Christianity? He was a die-hard Hindu, a true believer and defender of the caste order – the essence of Hinduism?

Gandhi apologists indulged in gross deception by claiming that Gandhi’s Satyagrah in South Africa was in the defense of the rights of native people. Nothing could be further from truth than this bald lie. How could Gandhi, a diehard supporter of the caste system think of the welfare of African blacks he regarded lower than the Untouchables of India - slightly above the animal level? His Satyagrah was for the better treatment of Indians, who, according to Gandhi were treated the same way as savage Kaffirs (native people) were. In his stay of twenty years in South Africa, he had no social contacts with the Kaffirs, as he did not see any common ground with them in the daily affairs of life.

He was horrified when he was lodged with "natives" in the same jail ward. He did not like wearing the same clothes with label "N" born by the natives, nor he liked their food and sharing lavatory with them. It was the jail experience, which brought out his racism in the open. " Kaffir and Chinese prisoners are wild, murderous and given to immoral ways. Kaffirs are as a general rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animal."

He proclaimed that the British Empire was for the welfare of the whole world and he accepted the superiority and predominance of white race. But he reminded the white people that upper caste Indians share with the Europeans a common heritage – the blood of the noble Aryan race.

According to him it is Aryan blood, which is responsible for the advancement of human civilization. He suggested to Rev, Doke to civilize the Kaffirs by converting them to Christianity and by infusing Aryan blood into their race. He told the white colonists that the preservation of racial purity (Apartheid) was as important to the Indians as to Europeans.

He urged the colonial authorities to raise a volunteer militia of Indians to fight for the Empire. He told the Natal authorities that it would be a "criminal folly" if they did not enlist Indians for the war. He was rebuffed with sarcastic and derogatory comments about the fighting ability of people like Gandhi. However, his persistence persuaded the authorities to form a volunteer ambulance corps of Indians under the command of Sergeant-Major Gandhi during the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion. He urged the Indian community to show their loyalty to the British Empire by raising funds for the War.

He reminded them that they were in South Africa due to the courtesy of the Empire. It is not for us to judge whether the Kaffir revolt is justified or not. We are co-colonists with whites of this land whereas the black savages are as yet unfit to participate in the political affairs of the colony.
He was a mean spirited parochial Hindu. Sergeant- Major Gandhi selected only Gujrati Hindus as his assistants, three Sergeants and one Corporal in spite of the fact the ambulance corps (20-24 men) was made up mostly of non-Gujratis with substantial number of Muslims.

The Russian Revolution of 1914 spurted national movements against colonial rule. The British brought Gandhi back to India to sabotage Indian national movement against British rule. The congress Party dominated by Gandhi was set up under the patronage of the British authorities. The "apostle of peace" urged the Indian people to support the British by enlisting in the army during World War I. In his letter he wrote to the Viceroy in1930, he said, " One of his reason for launching the Civil Disobedient Movement is to contain the violence of revolutionaries."

On the advice of white promoters of Gandhi, black clergy and civil rights leaders traveled to India to seek Gandhi’s advice about solving the problem of segregation and civil rights of blacks. How little did they know that Gandhi regarded the black people slightly above the animal level? Moreover, they were ignorant of the fact that caste system was originally imposed, as racial discrimination (Varna Ashrama Dharma) similar to the Apartheid system, on the black natives of India by their Caucasian conquerors. But later on due to emergence of new racial groups due to miscegenation between the two groups, Varna Ashrama Dharma evolved into caste system tied to hereditary occupations.

Untouchabilty is as integral a part of Hindu faith as anti- Semitism of the Nazis. It is noteworthy that not a single black leader met Dr. B. R. Ambedkar – M. A. and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University, M.Sc. and D.Sc. degrees from London University and Bar-at-Law from Grey’s Inn, London - who was the undisputed leader of the Untouchables at that time. Gandhi propaganda machine manipulated the visit of black leaders, as it did not want them to find truth about Gandhi’s views on the caste system.

"I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? He, Shudra (lowest caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility."

In 1921, Gandhi delivered violent speeches inciting racial hatred against the British. During bloody demonstrations and riots against the visit of Prince of Wales, William Francis Doherty, an American citizen working in Bombay was murdered. Gandhi personally got involved in the cover up of this gruesome murder through bribery and intimidation, as he was concerned that the details of this murder would tarnish Gandhi’s image in the West.

It is a cruel joke and one of the biggest fabrications of the twentieth century that Gandhi won Indian freedom without spilling a drop of blood. The truth is that it was the devastating effect of World War II that forced the British government to dismantle its Colonial Empire.

Moreover, it was Gandhi and his Hindu dominated Congress party that engineered the partition of the country on communal lines, as the Muslim dominant states stood in the way of high caste Hindus to set up their Ram Raj (mythical Hindu kingdom) based on caste ideology. Additionally, the Partition of India in 1947 is one of the major upheavals of the twentieth century. In the State of Punjab alone, 11-12 million people lost their homes and hearths where their ancestors had lived for centuries. May be as many as one million people perished in the communal frenzy and thousands of young women were kidnapped while Gandhi was reciting the murderous sermons from his favorite scripture – Bhagvad Gita. He kept insisting up to the last moment that the country would be partitioned only over his dead body!

The ascetic in loincloth used to sleep in buff with naked young girls to perform experiments to test his celibacy. Dr. Sushila Nayar told Ved Mehta that she used to sleep with Gandhi as she regarded him as a Hindu god. The man, who had taken vow of poverty, demanded and got even in jail the same comforts enjoyed by British high officials in India.

The "apostle of peace," who counseled a Jewish delegation" to oppose the evil of Nazism by "soul force" - by committing mass suicide, was all praise for annexing Kashmir by armed aggression.
He told his Sikh followers that rusty sword is useless in the age of Atom Bomb. The development of nuclear weapons by India - a country that ranks among the poorest in the world and is near the bottom of human development index chart of the United Nations – exposes the real face of the "absolute pacifist" and the nation that calls him "father." After all didn’t lord Krishna tell Arjana during the battle of Mahabharata "Victory is truth."

Although, the Indian people have started peeking at the man behind the mask of divinity, there is no let up in the perpetuation of Gandhi myth in the West, especially the United States.

G. B. Singh rightfully deserves the accolades for bringing out the truth about Gandhi from Gandhi’s own mouth.

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

GARTH: Now, would you like to discuss how and why the McCanns miraculously carried out this amazing achievement…or anyone for that matter, would anyone has a bit of the old common?

REPLY BY TB: If you re-read my reply, I have answered you. There have been many instances in recorded history, a lot of them quite recent, where young children have died because of their parents' deliberate or accidental act, negligence or neglect, and have then gone on to hide their bodies and make up the most elaborate stories to hide what really happened. Many of them were found out, sooner or later.

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14725
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Posturer

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.05.11 21:10

@Tigers Eye wrote:For "tunnel visioned interpretation" others could perhaps read "conclusions of the Portuguese AND British police officers who investigated the case". Moreover, it now emerges that it was the British police, no less, who first pointed the PJ towards the death of the little girl and that the parents' story should not necessarily be believed.

More to the point: Why come on this Forum? Who exactly are you trying to convince or persuade, assuming that you are not here entirely to cause trouble or to be a troll? How about trying the Official Find Madeleine page on Facebook? or JATYK or ther other slightly nutty "McCann believer" forums out there - they're probably more your thing, I think.
Garth is trying to be clever. I'm happy to see his posturing being so well exposed on this thread.
avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14725
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by ufercoffy on 02.05.11 21:22

I don't view Garth as being clever. He's clearly a McCann supporter and is merely highlighting the McCann's desperation. Carry on Garth because it's people like you who actually persuade people to look further at the case - a handful of pro's cannot be right as opposed to the British and Portuguese police.

Someone here said that the McCann's are going to need as much support from the Portuguese people as they can garner when they are languishing in a Portuguese prison.

Tick tock

____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?  Shocked
avatar
ufercoffy

Posts : 1641
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

I say... you have a point there!

Post by The Rooster on 03.05.11 11:40

I here what you say Anna regarding my post of yesterday and I agree, you make a good point. Thankyou. Also Mr Bennett I thank you for your comments, well said.

Regards
The Big Daft Rooster.

____________________
F J Leghorn
"DOO-Dah! DOO-Dah-Day!"
avatar
The Rooster

Posts : 419
Reputation : 88
Join date : 2011-04-12
Age : 71
Location : Virginia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 03.05.11 19:04

Anna Yesterday at 12:57 pmG'day Mr Leghorn

Whilst I agree with the essence of your post I have always found Tony willing to answer his critics and I have learned much from his replies to those who doubt him. I thank Tony for taking the time to answer his critics to put the record straight. Without his answers the misconceptions about him on the internet would remain just that.

Today I have learned something about Michael Barrymore and Stuart Lubbock




Rooster wrote

I here what you say Anna regarding my post of yesterday and I agree, you make a good point. Thankyou. Also Mr Bennett I thank you for your comments, well said.

Regards
The Big Daft Rooster.


Do you honestly believe that this is a real poster lol? Come on chap, anyone can see that is a contrived attempt to boost Tony's credibility.............epic fail!


REPLY BY TB: If the dogs' findings were so 'dubious', why did the McCanns immediately scramble for such outrageously ludicrous explanations...six corpses in a fortnight...carrying Cuddle Cat around whilst I was filling in death certificates...dirty nappies...rotting meat..? Only after that failed did they then try to diss the dogs, immediately latching on to the Eugene Zapata case, claiming a judge had said these cadaver dogs were useless.

 
What is ludicrous is the way you interpret things. And that's your problem with this whole case.
 
So lets have a look at one aspect........the Smith sighting.
 
Amaral is of the belief that the person the Smiths spotted carrying a child was no other than GM himself (although this wasn't apparent to them initially)
 
However. you have a different opinion.
 
What I want to know is, why have you a different opinion, ie why do you believe it wasn't GM? Is it because even you think its too rediculous to contemplate.........which is what it appears to be. Or is it some other reason which only you can explain!
 
I look forward to your answer.
 
Garth



 
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 03.05.11 19:17

I see you're only line Tony, a quick couple of lines will do so we can move forward.  
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Suspicious Minds - a thought with Daniel Freeman

Post by Garth on 03.05.11 19:33

Apologies people if the above doesn't make sense......should have read 'on line'.
 
Anyway, isn't this a fantastic forum where people have the opportunity to challenge the thoughts regarding a conspiracy to cover up the supposed death of Madeleine McCann and where people can make up their own minds as to whether the aforementioned or an abduction appears more credible?!!
 
Just need a reply from Tony to get this interesting debate off the ground!
 
 
avatar
Garth
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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