Translate

Wednesday, 17 October 2018

When is a researcher not a researcher?


It had been 26 years, and the bullshit written about the creche registers continued to grow


Evening all.

It's an interesting question, is it not?

So when is a researcher not a researcher?

Well, for starters when they ignore all the evidence which does not fit with their world view

When they challenge people to prove them wrong, people prove them wrong, and they run into the night, bleating that they have been disrespected.

When they suggest the evidence is right because they have worked so hard, rather than understanding that all research stands or falls by how robust the data and the methods are.


Hi de ho is the worst kind of researcher:

She's a terrible researcher who thinks she's great

Let's summarise her ''research'', shall we?

If you are a detective and you want to determine when someone was last seen, what kind of evidence do you look for?

Well, you look for the following:

When were they last seen by someone who could make a positive identification?
When did they last use credit cards, entry-system swipe cards, or any other activity which creates an electronic signature tying them to time and place?
Do they appear on CCTV or any other image-capture technology?
Were they carrying a mobile phone which may have connected with bases, showing their position?

In Madeleine's case, we have eyewitness ID from people who knew her

We have no image capture such as CCTV, but we have indications that she and her family have been captured in the background of pictures taken by holidaymakers. There are also photographs taken during the holiday by members of her own party.

We have a partial record of her movements in the form of the creche registers

All of the above fully support the fact that Madeleine was alive and well until some time on the evening of 3rd May 2007

The only way to prove she was not is to prove beyond doubt that all the above are mistaken, forged, innaccurate, open to other interpretations.

And that is what Hi de ho attempts to do.

Conveniently, all the witnesses who knew her by sight become confused, mixing her up with another child because ''they all look the same''

Here's the thing : they do not all look the same, in particular they do not all look the same to teachers and nursery workers who interact with them all day, who have to take them out and account for them all, who have to sign them in and sign them out again.


No matter how she tried, Lizzie couldn't understand why people laughed at her "They all look the same" theory


Likewise, suddenly the registers become a gold mine of irregularities to whet her little busybody appetite - all deeply suspicious of course

Anyone who has ever kept a signing in book at reception knows that sometimes people write in the wrong column, or can't remember their car reg, and have no clue what the bloody date is - it is rarely a perfectly annotated, 100% accurate document|

But the standard of the analysis is frankly laughable. Take this, for example
One major 'lightbulb' moment that struck me in the above scenario, is that Tuesday lunchtime, Jez, Russell and Gerry all walked together to the creche, but Russell did not sign his child out.
Is it POSSIBLE that Gerry signed and it was Ella that was picked up, therefore establishing that the child Gerry was associated with was Ella (keeping in mind the names were possibly not important to the nannies) and because Russell was with him, Ella would have gone with them easily?
Initially I saw the possibility for only Tuesday but yesterday I realised how the whole week can be explained in a similar way!
For me... this is a huge discovery!

I'm sure it is, dear.
But this is your problem. Everything to you is ''possible''

What you NEVER consider is "Is it likely, reasonable or plausible?"

And this is the absolute nub of the problem. You are very quick to ''find'' another possible interpretation, but you never ever consider how likely or unlikely it is.

You and your idiot friends have a vested interest here - you have a fully-developed scenario that Madeleine died days before she disappeared. The problem is, there is plenty of evidence to say that simply wasn't the case.

So what do you do? You try to make the evidence fit your theory

And it should always be the other way round.

I am not surprised people laugh at you, make fun of your pious nonsense. I well remember how you wrote absolute bollocks about "15 out of 19" markers, literally for years, despite being repeatedly corrected. Once an idea has cracked it's way inside your narrow skull, it's a bastard to shift, isn't it?

So here's the thing.

Why don't the police agree with you? Because they don't agree with you, let's be quite adamant about that.

It's because none of the evidence supports it

There are eyewitnesses
There are creche records
There are fucking photographs, for crying out loud.

And what is really telling about the dumbfuck scenario you and Baldytwat have come up with is that it only works if ALL the evidence is manipulated or dismissed.

Proper researchers don't do that. That's why you are not one.

It's also why you offend anyone who is.

So here's a thought - leave the research to people who have honesty, integrity and the required expertise.

And stick to what you're good at

Also available in Maple 



30 comments:

  1. Well. I have to say that was superb, and absolutely correct in every way. I am sick to the back teeth of Lizzy passing off complete and utter twisted twaddle, and claiming it's research.

    As you know, we run a couple of groups. Groups which are often inundated with people claiming there were no credible sightings of Madeleine after Sunday. Now, Lizzy can claim she never says this, that she only asks if there is proof Madeleine was seen. But, the fact of the matter is, that is not how people read it.

    You can dress a pig's arse in flowery knickers, but underneath the flowers and cotton, it's still a pig's arse.

    "Could they have been mistaken?"

    Well hell Lizzy, why stop with those many witnesses who saw Madeleine. Why not ask if everyone was mistaken,that Madeleine is still asleep in her bed, waiting for a prince to come and awaken her?

    Why not question whether Kate was mistaken and that it was Madeleine on the motorway CCTV. Ater all, it's grainy, and in black and white. Could Kate have been sure?

    Oh, I'm sorry. Am I being ridiculous? Of course I am, which is exactly what you're being, by desperately - and with your usual wishy washy, Good Witch of the North, manic Miss Marple approach to convincing people of a theory, YOU pretend not to believe in...as it's just a request.

    A request we met, when Lizzy challenged people to respond. As sure as shit follows 10 pints and a Vindaloo however, Lizzy the great researcher cried out that she was being attacked, and shut down the thread.

    Wailing like a spoiled brat, Lizzy then starts to write IN CAPITALS how she is disrespected. DISRESPECTED? You're an imbecile Lizzy, you don't deserve any respect for the calamitous, convoluted crap you write.

    Lizzy talks of agenda, yet how many times has she spammed the same bastard question, each and every time someone corrects it on a group, that she moans she's banned from.

    Like Textusa and like Bennett, Lizzy could be shown the facts a thousand times, but because they claim to be a researcher, we're supposed to just accept their fairy tales as the new truth?

    I don't fucking think so. Go repeat this on your group, you addled idiot, go drum up some sympathy.

    I'll sleep at night knowing myself, and those I associate with do our best to stick to facts. You'll have to get your shut eye from a heavy dose of capital letters and the pungent aroma of bullshit from your QWERTYs!

    Here's Tom with the weather...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good god I'm glad people are seeing through this woman who's just a Bennett/Hall/McCann backed up shill. The truth is coming, shilling exposed by people who least expected to be exposed. Fantastic!

      Delete
  2. I'm so glad you posted this. How dare Hideho try to claim she knows better than all these professional people and then allow posts calling people who support the PJ findings pros.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lizzy has always been round the bend. She likes to lay down the law and treat her members like school kids. Pity she can't stick to those rules herself

    ReplyDelete
  4. You are all obviously McCann supporters commenting here. So what about all the conflicting statements from the Tapas 7 just for starters in this case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And welcome to the site, Jack.
      No, I don't think any of us are McCann supporters, are we chaps? Just people who don't tolerate being fed bullshit.

      Now - I don't think we were discussing the Tapas 7, were we? Do you have anything to contribute to the subject we WERE discussing?

      Delete
  5. Jack...feel free to look through this blog and link to any comment supporting the mc canns...
    Good post nt btw.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Admin comment - no problem, post was duplicated, one copy deleted

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's all kicking off again over at the cesspit.
    Deletions,bans and threats of bans.
    It's the place to be and dont forget your popcorn.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Are you suggesting Goncalo Amaral and the PJ were McCann supporters, Jack? You see the theory that's being supported in NT's excellent post, is one they've never wavered from. It's actually those that this blog tackles, who have theories that don't follow with the PJ or Goncalo Amaral.

    Things have become cloudier than we first thought. Now if you don't support the findings of the PJ back in 2007/8, you're a McCann supporter? Most odd.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you for shedding light where it is much needed. Half-truthers come in all forms.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anyone who thinks people want to listen to her shit choice of music while they view her 'work' is crackers as far as I'm concerned. And WTAF was the deal with the baby crying one - jaysus H on a bike... cuckoo cuckoo

    BA

    ReplyDelete
  12. A couple of points to address as a result of stuff being bandied about:

    I have seen it said many times over the last couple of days that Hideho should be held up as some sort of saint for devoting years of her life to this.
    Well all I can say is, more fool her.
    How it could possibly take ''years'' of anyone's life is a total mystery, as a quick read of the statements of those who did see Madeleine up to and including the 3rd May 2007 should take no more than half an hour.
    For her to explain away these accounts by saying that they could have been confused, duped, paid off or whatever is frankly nonsensical. These are the contemporaneous accounts of people who KNEW Madeleine and who also knew her playmates. They are paid professional qualified child educators. To suggest that they couldn't tell one child from the other or even that they couldn't tell the difference between one child and two children is frankly nonsense.

    I have also seen it repeated that everyone is entitled to their opinion. That is certainly true. But they are not entitled to diisseminate that opinion with the intention to mislead and/or deceive. As only a complete cretin could read that evidence and not concede that it clearly proves that Madeleine was alive and well on the 3rd May, I can only suggest that she is either a cretin or a fraud and that anyone taken in by it either hasn't looked at the material themselves, has been taken in by a pile of absolute bollocks or doesn't care because they want to be part of the gang.

    Again and again I have seen hideho's sidekick declare that the statements are ''not strong''
    That is total bullshit. They clearly and unequivocally stated that they spent time with Madeleine on the day she disappeared. They are reinforced by entries in the creche registers. If that isn't good enough for you, then I don't know what is. I think if we put their evidence - a confirmed time and date identification from someone who knew the victim - against yours - a theory involving multiple mistaken identities and the involvement of multiple co-conspirators - before a court, we know which way it would go.

    Most sickening of all to me is hideho's bleating refrain that she wants someone to show her proof that Madeleine was alive on the 3rd May. You already have it, you dozy bint. It's the same evidence you have been shitting on from a height for years.

    I have no idea why people do this - she and Bennett are exactly the same. They take evidence which is perfectly clear and attempt to obfuscate to the point of a complete blanket of fog, from which they hope to emerge looking like some super-sleuth. I have news for them; to anyone with half a brain, all they emerge as is a bit of a twat, frankly.

    Don't fawn all over them because they spent ages creating memes and videos - would you fawn all over a builder who farted about making the edges of a wall look nice despite the fact that the bricks are only held together with fresh air?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have glimpsed at twitter and seen the noise about Not Textusa and the site's terrible treatment of poor innocent, "all on the same side", cuddly toy Hididho. With The Dog, as usual, in the queue. We are all being so nasty to these poor researchers.

    Let's get this straight. It has nothing whatever to do with differences of opinion. Zero. It is a moral question that unites most, not all, of the people on this blog, not opinion. And that moral question was explicitly spelled out by the Portuguese Court of Appeal in 2010.

    1) The court found that by attempting to use the public as agents in their own defence, i.e. using the media to manipulate opinion in their favour by going public with a version of themselves and their actions, the McCanns had lost the legal Human Right to privacy. They sacrificed it.

    2) This finding of law meant that they lost all legal protection against probing into them and their lives, together with the right to claim financial compensation for such probing. That was both a judgement, which meant that their attempt to use Human Rights law against Amaral had failed definitively, and a statement of truth about the McCann's future status.

    3) There is, therefore, a moral right to invade the McCanns' privacy as a response to their actions.

    4) Speaking personally I've tried to follow the court since 2010. I have never discussed the Gaspar statements publicly, nor rumours about Payne's sexuality etc. I extended the McCanns' status to Mitchell, an accomplice in their actions, and to proven interventions by family members.

    5) To pluck out individuals who gave evidence to the justice system in good faith and in confidence, not knowing that their statements would be revealed to the public, as Hidido, Bennett, The Dog and the rest have done is an abomination, an act of wickedness against innocent, yes innocent people that has not the slightest moral or legal sanction.

    6) The lives of numerous people have been blighted by a coward who lives safe from redress in Canada, the convicted-at-the-Old Bailey Bennett, and their many anonymous followers who were active on twitter today. Imagine being one of the PDL nannies, Catriona Baker, for example, putting in their CV for a job in 2018 and not knowing if their future possible employer has read the assaults on them.

    7) There is no sanction of any kind for what those people have done - not legal, not moral, not "for a higher cause", none. They are wicked people who have betrayed fellow human beings for theuir own hobby and grotesque enjoyment. Morally dead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi John, would you mind if I copied your comment over to facebook?

      Delete
    2. Hello. I'd be pleased if you do because I feel very strongly indeed about it, even if others are scared to use the word moral in case they are accused of hypocrisy blah, blah.

      The only thing is that the stronger parts of the post were my personal view and I must stress I'm not claiming that the fierceness of those views is necessarily shared by others here.

      Nevertheless I was drawn here by the consistently moral/ethical stance that I've detected in NT's posts for many years (Oh boo, NT uses strong language must be immoral blah blah) and in the apparently similar approach of recent members that I'm proud to post alongside.

      Cheers.

      Delete
  14. Thank you. I thought it best to ask first.

    Some might not like our choice of words. Personally I'd sooner see a factual post written with colourful language, than lies written in language as dull as dishwater. Horses for courses.

    Now then...

    Here's a challenge for YOU Lizzy. I see your members are being led to believe, this is a pro McCann blog, as with your lies yesterday, you know this isn't the case. I challenge YOU, and your sycophantic crew of hypocrites, to debate any post here, and show it's anything but factual, and based upon the findings of the PJ, or as with a lot of matters you have no understanding of...science. Hell, it took us three days to teach you how Eddie and Keela worked. Top researcher.

    Instead of bleating on about respect, take on the challenge. You've led people up the garden path for too long.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oh dear oh dear! NT you do have a remarkable talent for drawing hysterical bitches out, bit like raising the dead.
    Whilst the Twitter hysterics seemed to fizzle out when the usual attention whores weren't getting their fix, they've scurried off to the safety of their little Facebook group to moan and whinge in the most pathetic meeting of cackling witches I've seen in a long time.

    There you go ladies; some more "abuse" to whine about. Take a look in the mirror, Elaine "no time for made up slurs about people" lol! Cherry " If I don't use swear words, no one will notice when I'm a spiteful, sarcastic bitch" - Erica says today was like waking up in North Korea, so we'll give her the benefit of the doubt; obviously deranged. Margaret, your comment did go through, and it has replies. It was shit by the way.

    Anyhoo, absolute fantastic post once again NT, mirroring the thoughts of anyone with more than 2 brain cells.
    Comments from Ben and JB spot on as always - I think Textusa's been spreading her dontread disease about, so the point sadly won't filter where it needs to. They've only managed to pick out some keywords, bless.

    Oh and last but not least, drum roll...we have the accusation that Ben is NT. Such critical thinkers aren't they 😃

    ReplyDelete
  16. Quite new to the mystery I must admit, so I've been reading/watching quite a lot of stuff recently and catching up. So I'm sure you will take my comments with a pinch of newby salt.
    So for my tuppence worth, I don't understand this blog to be anything other than a platform to spout one upmanship and get a few peeps to concur in somewhat snotty manner.
    I don't understand the necessity to have a blog dedicated to discredit, unless there's an agenda we cannot see from here. Why can't views stand up to their own scrutiny. Why can't this be a blog of its own merit, rather than a play-on-words??
    You and your follower’s language and structure is excellent, but damn pretentious. So maybe that's what I dislike the most? There's a disconnect, and that maybe deliberate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evening,
      Well, you're not obliged to read it. Feel free to skip along and read something else - I can do you a nice line in lunatics who think the McCanns were swingers deprived of a dining table, or I can point you in the direction of a complete dick who thinks Madeleine went bye-byes 5 days before she actually did. I don't cast about looking for fame and notariety, thanks. People usually find their own way here; the ones with intelligence and integrity usually stay, so it's up to you.

      Delete
    2. Not Textusa, please keep up the work exposing this devious fraud. She's a conman delight, and is great at suckering people in. She needs outing for her collusion with the McCanns. She's not a researcher, she's a well disguised shill, nothing more.

      Delete
    3. Hi, I am going to let your comment stand for now, although I see no evidence of her colluding with the McCanns.

      I tell you what, if anyone can prove to a 'reasonable' standard that she is not colluding with the McCanns, then I'll take the comment down.
      ;)

      Delete
    4. Not sure where 'anonymous' came from but as the original poster I feel obliged to reply that I also believe she is not colluding with the McCanns.

      The bizarre thing is, no-one really knows who is colluding with the McCanns, if anyone is at all at the minute?? Maybe a few bots and dumb journalists...who knows?

      For a final note, I will keep reading the blog NT. As I will many others, it doesn't mean I agree with the approach or the content, merely an open mind and a challenge to my thoughts.

      Delete
    5. Please do, you’re very welcome. Incidentally, as you see I allow anonymous posting, and always have. If you are going to comment regularly you may want to consider using some sort of identifier - give yourself an initial, or a number perhaps - just so we can pick the conversation up again. No pressure, but people find it easier.

      Delete
  17. Just to clear this matter up:

    I am not a member of the Justice for Madeleine facebook group, or any other facebook group for that matter. This is because I don't 'do' facebook, just as you won't find me on Twitter.

    The Justice group very kindly set up a page for extracts of my blogs and so people could comment on them. I am very grateful to them for doing so.

    Contrary to the nonsense circulated in certain quarters, I do not have admin status on the Justice group. The NT page is administered by the existing admin team, who do a fantastic job.

    So if you have a problem, take it up with me, here.

    Likewise, I am none of the following:

    Ben
    Michael Walker/Bale/Michael Wright
    JBL
    any other twitter user that Brucie Swingstein has got a bee in her bonnet about this week.

    Okay? Good.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Tried to post this earlier, but lost my signal as soon as I was ready to send.

    I've just left a comment over at textusa's blog. Also clearing this matter up. He might not publish it, so here it is:

    "NT hasn't been exposed at all. I've enjoyed watching you get things wrong for some time. That is a Facebook page, solely for NT's blogs on books. Myself and another admin from Justice run it. For it then to post to the group, I made the page admin. Simple. I created Justice, and the admin team that are listed by name, are the only ones who have access to the settings. All of whom have equal rights, and equal say.

    Sorry to burst your little conspirabubble. It's been a pleasure to watch you make an idiot of yourself once again though. Get one of your admin to try it, you'll see I'm right, Bruce!"

    Just to add to that, I'd be more than happy, as NT knows to have them as admin, as would the rest of the team.

    Whether that happens or not, it'll be a matter for the admin team at Justice, and nothing to do with a set of gossips who are not welcome on the group anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Textusa still hasn't published it, although they have approved comments since. Of course, it's his prerogative not to approve my comments, and mine not to care less. However, by not letting his readers know, it's just more evidence of how he's a devious fraud.

    ReplyDelete

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.

Messages not for publication can also be left, or you can email nottextusa@gmail.com