2 & 2 TV video allegedly to be released on 12th October

Candyfloss and chirpy, I can't find it either. It's not on her Criminal Profiler Pat Brown facebook page. Does she have another?

chirpyinsect wrote:

candyfloss wrote:
What's this then?  Any ideas how I can find the post from Pat Brown on Facebook as I don't do facebook  



Anthony Bennett ‏@zampos  · 35m35 minutes ago  
@ProfilerPatB has also exposed scammer #KeithMcCade for lying re #McCann case 'Last Photo', more on p2 of this thread http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10820-the-musical-impresario-and-the-witch-behind-22tv

Here it is CF pasted from CMoMM.




2:58am Jan 2
From Pat Brown on Facebook - 2 Jan 2014

Just read your expose of Keith at your board [CMOMM]. He contacted me trying to get me to recommend him to Sonia Poulton. After a number of emails, I wrote the following and he never replied. He claimed he had a forensic guy from the FBI examine the photo but he refused to name him. He is indeed a scammer. Feel free to share this if you want.

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

Keith, I have absolutely no idea who you are or anything about your company. You and your company have zero presence on the net. I have no idea of your credentials and your scientific ability to analyze the last photo. If you are heavily credentialed you should know that your name and the expertise attached to it are what will propel your analysis of the photo and case to a place that someone will pay attention.

You put me in a bad position, asking me to back something I don't, at this point, find valid without any known expert's analysis (you have not told me who your expert is and you need more than one) or even who you are....just some shadowy black website and claims that you have contacts with British media and Portuguese lawyers. Sorry, this is the same kind of thing we saw with the private investigators for the McCanns.

If you want my assistance, I need you to be open, honest, and forthcoming with names, CVs, and proper reports.

Pat
Pat wrote:

"You put me in a bad position, asking me to back something I don't, at this point, find valid without any known expert's analysis (you have not told me who your expert is and you need more than one) or even who you are....just some shadowy black website and claims that you have contacts with British media and Portuguese lawyers. Sorry, this is the same kind of thing we saw with the private investigators for the McCanns".


Comment: EXACTLY. This man tried to con those seeking truth and justice about Madeleine McCann. He made false claims. Yet some on this forum claim it was wrong to expose this scammer.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................

The exchange must have taken place as pm`s because none of it is actually on Pat`s Facebook page so once again we only have TB`s word for it that Pat actually did exchange emails with this person.
I wouldn`t trust a word of it unless PB verifies it as TB only posted this in reply to 3 people who publicly called him out on his expose of the 2&2 TV people, naming them and giving their details which as DeeCoy rightly said is a stupid thing to do.

But Pat Brown has a professional reputation to consider. Why shouldn't she demand some sort of credentials from this Keith McCabe, before she puts her own reputation on the line? There's nothing unusual in that. It doesn't prove anything, and it's exactly what I would have done in her position. What is dishonest is that way that TB is trying to use this as "proof" that McCabe is running a scam, and it doesn't prove anything of the sort. It may be implied, but it's not proof. It's like if someone comes to me for a reference, and I don't know them well enough, so I refuse. That doesn't necessarily prove that the person is dodgy.

The fact TB is making such a huge effort to have McCabe painted as a scammer, is making me even more interested in listening to what he has to say.

Hmm, that's true too Resistor, although it was only for PB to recommend them to SP. I wonder why they couldn't have done that themselves? There's no need to ask TB and PB for that, unless maybe they really did have something?

While PB may suspect that it is a scam, in my view she has not proven that in any way shape or form.

She has quite rightly asked for their credentials and received no reply. Yes the lack of response implies her suspicions are correct, it proves nothing. It's just an opinion based on not very much at all.

I've followed Pat Brown long enough to know the facebook posts are not in the public domain. What right has TB got to post what look like private messages? Irrespective of the content, no one should be posting information/opinions given privately on public fora.

Resistor wrote
"But Pat Brown has a professional reputation to consider.  Why shouldn't she demand some sort of credentials from this Keith McCabe, before she puts her own reputation on the line?  There's nothing unusual in that.  It doesn't prove anything, and it's exactly what I would have done in her position.  What is dishonest is that way that TB is trying to use this as "proof" that McCabe is running a scam, and it doesn't prove anything of the sort.  It may be implied, but it's not proof.  It's like if someone comes to me for a reference, and I don't know them well enough, so I refuse.  That doesn't necessarily prove that the person is dodgy.

The fact TB is making such a huge effort to have McCabe painted as a scammer, is making me even more interested in listening to what he has to say.
[/quote]

Agree Pat Brown needs to protect her reputation so is within her rights to ask for credentials before hitching her wagon to 2&2 TV. This was done by email and not on her FB page so she has presumably made TB privy to her correspondence and granted him permission to repeat it on CMOMM.
What is dodgy about that is we only have TB`s word for it that PB actually was in contact with KM and he is using it as some sort of proof that he was, once again, within his rights to expose a scam thereby justifying his actions.
A far better riposte would have been to ask Pat herself to post what he purports her to have said. After all he is guilty of altering the odd copy of an email or two as Tigger confirmed, so this latest post holds no weight whatsoever until confirmed by Pat Brown.
Tony is the first to demand that all speculation is evidence based is he not?

Got to agree about OG removing all possible other suspects. If , hopefully when , the Macs end up in court the defence is going to bring in everything it can to create reasonable doubt. The prosecution has got to be able to counter every point.

chilli wrote:While PB may suspect that it is a scam, in my view she has not proven that in any way shape or form.

She has quite rightly asked for their credentials and received no reply. Yes the lack of response implies her suspicions are correct, it proves nothing. It's just an opinion based on not very much at all.

I've followed Pat Brown long enough to know the facebook posts are not in the public domain. What right has TB got to post what look like private messages? Irrespective of the content, no one should be posting information/opinions given privately on public fora.

I agree, neither TB nor PB have proof that 2&2 was a scam rather than a misguided attempt to bring the case to wider exposure. I see nothing sinister in their actions, at least not on the 'evidence' that TB has used - mainly their interest in holistic medicine.

In PB's case, it appears it is the lack of response to correspondence that has drawn her to this conclusion. Is that compelling evidence? Well, she chose not to expose them based on that alone, but issued a reply outlining her evidential requirements pending her assistance. Very reasonably, of course. She did say TB is free to use that response.

PMR wrote:I'm pretty much with you Marky , I think a lot of it is purely and simply down to needing evidence beyond the circumstantial , especially in a case this high visability and complex. I do think that some people read way too much into things IMO of course

Absolutely agree.

They can't bring a case to court, particularly one so high profile as this has been, without being sure of a conviction.

And personally I think it's highly unlikely that a body will be found, otherwise the McCanns would not have been so confident (prior to the OG involvement), so even harder to get sufficient evidence.

I think the reason some people try to make it all so much more complicated is the "Nature abhors a vacuum" (spelling?!) thing - the police are obviously not going to reveal what they have so far, so in the absence of solid information some people feel the need to investigate all sorts of peripheral stuff to fill the information void.

Unfortunately that just feeds into the mind-set of those who want/need to see conspiracies everywhere, instead of a probably relatively simple solution which needs slow and pain-staking police work to conclusively prove.

Dee Coy wrote:

chilli wrote:While PB may suspect that it is a scam, in my view she has not proven that in any way shape or form.

She has quite rightly asked for their credentials and received no reply. Yes the lack of response implies her suspicions are correct, it proves nothing. It's just an opinion based on not very much at all.

I've followed Pat Brown long enough to know the facebook posts are not in the public domain. What right has TB got to post what look like private messages? Irrespective of the content, no one should be posting information/opinions given privately on public fora.

I agree, neither TB nor PB have proof that 2&2 was a scam rather than a misguided attempt to bring the case to wider exposure. I see nothing sinister in their actions, at least not on the 'evidence' that TB has used - mainly their interest in holistic medicine.

In PB's case, it appears it is the lack of response to correspondence that has drawn her to this conclusion. Is that compelling evidence? Well, she chose not to expose them based on that alone, but issued a reply outlining her evidential requirements pending her assistance. Very reasonably, of course. She did say TB is free to use that response.

I find it rather odd too that Pat Brown took time out from her family New Year celebrations to write what must be a pm to Tony given that it was written at 2.58am UK time and Washington DC is 5 hours behind making it 10pm there. Dedicated or what?
Also when looking at TB`s original posts regarding what he erroneously called 2x2 TV in spite of the fact he was quoting from his own and their emails, he said this
" I can help you (and other forum members here) to a limited extent with an answer re 2x2 TV (not 2&2 TV).

I was contacted last month by the maker(s) of the 2x2 TV mini-series of short videos."
When another member of the forum corrected him on this he checked his emails again and conceded that it was 2&2TV.
I also noticed he quoted this:

"The only other thing to add is that he told me that Pat Brown had advised him to contact Sonia Poulton, who was making a video. I respectfully drew his attention to Sonia Poulton's recent track record (Stephen D Birch, Shrimpton, Hutton, Clegg, Straw etc.).
dec29"

Yet in his post TB quotes Pat as saying this:

Just read your expose of Keith at your board [CMOMM]. He contacted me trying to get me to recommend him to Sonia Poulton. After a number of emails, I wrote the following and he never replied. He claimed he had a forensic guy from the FBI examine the photo but he refused to name him. He is indeed a scammer. Feel free to share this if you want.

So there`s a bit of an anomaly there.

If I didn't know better, it would look like someone's trying to put someone off releasing anything!

Marky wrote:you've gotta laugh at some of the nonsense that surrounds this case. beats me why people have to make more of it than there really is.

You're not alone there.

Yours truly, vilified and verbally abused as an extensively experienced digital imaging professional for utterly rejecting the idea that the 'Last Photo' is 'photoshopped', exposed the nature of the '2&2' entity back when they went public. Tracing them was elementary and an entirely transparent process, and was in fact so easy that it would be utterly and completely beyond ridiculous to assert that the individuals involved have EVER intended to maintain anonymity for safety or otherwise. Funnily enough, amongst others who were variously skeptical and/or optimistic at the possibility of a 'killer revelation' I emailed PeterMac - neither received nor expected a response - revealing the process by which I had ascertained the identities of 2&2 and the methodology of doing so. I clearly missed my due credit (sarcasm) from TB when he commended a 'member' of the Havern forum for the sterling work of establishing this revelation. Took me all of ten minutes to dig up, and about a half an hour of cross referencing to verify common characteristics across multiple online profiles pertaining to multiple diverse 'occupations' or 'web presences.'

Knowing that PeterMac (who I have no personal experience of, or contact with) and I stand on the same unpopular but academically authoritative ground of the so-called Last Photo being an authentic single, unaltered image (prima fascie), I can only presume that our way of thinking on this subject is relatively similar, and it would appear that this is also something that TB and I also coincidentally seem to share...

First, forensic experts and criminologists set up credible forensic investigation ventures. Music promotors and occultists do not set up credible forensic investigation ventures.

Second, individuals claiming the ability to reveal legally incriminating, court-admissible analyses of evidence in active police investigations and making themselves known to the police and to the media back up their statements with credentials. They have certification, qualification, track record and experience. If they don't, they are in-credible.

Third, regardless of claims, in-credible sources do not gain unguarded access to the 'inside thinking' of news organisations which are themselves supposed to be extremely guarded - on pain of lawsuit - about making unsubstantiated, unprovable claims regard the guilt or complicity of individuals in respect of unsolved murder cases particularly when those potential suspects have a long and successful history of litigious response and there is the whisper of super-unmentionables in the air. Such in-credible sources could embarrass themselves by pouring out their suspicions and accusations over the phone to a newspaper receptionist long before they ever reach a journalist, and would get nothing more than an 'I'll pass your contact details on.' They would not receive a nod and a wink and a commentary on the media organisation's 'behind closed doors' policy on anticipating the same revelation of guilt, nor would a journalist or editor offer even the appearance of endorsement or the granting of credence to such claims. More likely would be a simple 'I'll take a look at what you've got. Email it over.'

Upon receiving the supposed 'evidence', as shared with Tony Bennett, it would take all of ten seconds for the journo or editor in question to call up a newspaper graphic artist or photo editor, verify that there is no inherent evidence within the image in question of photoshopping, verify that the claims made by these so-called experts are sufficiently and inherently DISproved within the image itself, and realise that they've been diverted by yet another in a long line of cranks with fraudulent credential, or worse yet, no credential in digital imagery or forensics, for another round of the 'Last Photo Has Been Faked' story from BeforeItsNews or National Enquirer and at the very least will realise that in more than six years of flogging the same dead horse, the allegation is neither new, nor unexplored, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Fourth, there are some who speak strongly on the subject of this case (as is the case with many unsolved crimes, and/or 'conspiracy theories' and political intrigues) who feel that credible research is done by credible people, and intelligent conclusions are drawn by intelligent people, and that in order to influence the public, the government, the legal system, the police, or indeed anyone else, the case for truth and revelation must be in the hands of unimpeachable minds. A monster raving looney can quite merrily recite chapter and verse of the PJ files, and sound very credible doing so. David Icke can quite merrily recite chapter and verse. Shrimpton can quite merrily recite chapter and verse. Before a prosecution lawyer would ever let those people on the stand as 'expert witnesses', he would want to know that having proved a point for the prosecution, the witness would not drop a bombshell to discredit themselves. Reciting the PJ files is fine... adding at the end 'and I think the child was actually sacrificed in a ritual intended to bring about the return to the earth of a long-lost tribe of unicorn-riding elves' is not. The only set of opinions, in fact, that rational and scientific thinkers want to hear commenting on this case on behalf of the 'skeptics' or 'truthers' is the one which ends broadly the same way Goncalo Amaral's testimony does - with a tragic accident and a collision of unconnected circumstances in a perfect storm of obfuscation, reputation management and protection, jingoism and well-meaning idiocy.

The public will follow you so far, based on rationality. Abuse that privilege, and the public will swing back the other way. They'll resort to trusting in the Gospel according to McCann, rather than cast their lot in with ufologists, moonbats, wild conspiracy theorists, anti-masons, anti-semites, or people who see pedophiles in every closet. Indeed, a major point of derision that has gone against the McCann's is the revelation that much of their early direction (or misdirection) of the investigation was based on wild assertions from mediums and psychics and tree fairies and god knows what else... The case against them must be above reproach. TB is, much as it pains me to say it, right. A musical impresario and a witch are not going to 'break' this case on behalf of rationality. IF the Last Photo were a forged image, for which there is no credible evidence, it would NOT, under ANY circumstances, be dependent on hobbyists, non-experts, casual observers, people with a hunch, Icke-worshippers, humble peasants, magical dwarves, witches or a music impresario to prove. The evidence would be self-testifying, self-evident, self-explanatory, and would not possibly have gone unseen by qualified experts who could make, and press the case in court.

So as not to have a rational, credible, intelligent cause wrongfully tainted and undermined by association with lunacy, there is only one thing that can be done - a public separation and disowning of those sources must take place. The case for 'truth' MUST be based on the rational, the methodological, the scientific, and not be represented by a loose association of well-meaning hobbyists and lunatics who cannot agree on a strict and rigid standard of evidence and argument.

As has been rightly suggested, the only thing holding this case back from the same conclusion the muddled masses have reached is a lack of physical evidence. That lack of evidence is not remedied by heaping on a pile of voodoo-tinged premonitions, sixth senses or amateur hour down the local 'Digital Imagery for Seniors' course at the library... It only gets remedied by the scientific, methodological, exhaustive examination in a rational process.

Several pertinent facts remain which cast a lot of question marks over the purpose and nature of the 2&2 game.

No effort was made to hide Black Buttercup from even the most basic and cursory examination. No effort was made to thoroughly separate Black Buttercup from the other business ventures and entities of its principals. No effort was made to anonymise the ownership and operating address of 'Black Buttercup' in it's giant leap from concert/artist promotion in the entertainment industry to 'internationally recognised' forensic investigation. This leaves only a few possibilities. Either the personalities behind Black Buttercup are Dumb and Dumber; or the whole thing is a very sincere and painfully misguided and fatally arrogant maverick attempt to break the case open which should have been submitted to the authority and counsel of better informed and longer standing/more experienced and credible researchers before any form of 'teasing' or 'revelation' took place'; or the whole thing was a deliberate attempt at misdirection and discreditation of the 'skeptic's' position. There are no other options.

As individuals, the principals already operate under perplexingly unimaginative alternative identities, and then go on to cross link back and forth between their various internet representations of themselves, their businesses and their interests. It appears that on any given day you can do business with each of them by no less than three different (only slightly different) alter egoes, which raises serious concerns about how seriously they take their professionalism and credential in the businesses they choose to practice. Frankly, if I were an internationally renowned artist, looking to do work in Germany, I'd be deeply professionally concerned that my promoter was behaving as erratically and bizarrely as the individual in question here. I'd also be deeply concerned that his business dealings were not based on practical skills as much as the practical magick proliferated by his darling wife. To be fair to rational and intelligent people, these are an utterly in-credible couple. I'd fully understand sane, rational people having as much difficulty accepting them as equals as I would a business whose owner made the faith-filled claim of consulting the Virgin Mary on every decision, or discoursing with Krishna before deciding which investment to place his client's money in. I can fully imagine, that as nice as those people may be, certain lifestyle choices, personal beliefs, or choices of life partner might be seen as a reflection on their personal credibility, their sound judgement, their state of mind, their dependability and so on.

To stake not just one business, but two (including your claimed livelihood) on such a hot potato, emotive topic as this, and to go out on a limb like the so-called 'Last Photo', when a free-of-charge glance of over five years of interactions on internet forums and an examination of the policia judicia files and the testimony of the former lead investigator all demonstrate that no criminological, forensic or digital imagery experts are prepared to back you in your claims would appear to be catastrophically bad judgement, combined with a stupendously audacious sense of indestructibility and a terminal case of self-confidence verging on arrogance. In short, delusional. Do you think that person will ever be able to escape the stigma of being that wacky music promoter who thought he could bring down the McCann's by playing games with videos in which he followed up the exposure of valid inconsistensies with a 'major' revelation which was such an infantile 'fail' that the audience could only fall about laughing? I mean, the guy can't even use a map and a satellite image to verify the location on the pool edge where the 'Last Photo' has been framed, and thus completely misses the fact that the fall of the shadows and the so-called 'reflection of the sun' are entirely consistent within the image. There's something fundamentally flawed about an argument that states that you can use the evidence of everything in the picture to prove that everything in the picture is false based on the evidence of everything in the picture. It's a cyclical argument, with no external frame of reference, and therefore IF it had credibility it would simply render the image useless as an example of anything, since no one would be able to prove what the image did or didn't show which could be presumed to be true.

He also failed to note, it seems, that the only examination of the 'Last Photo' which would be admissible in court would be the one conducted on the actual authentic original handed to the police, verified and stored by their forensics department or digital media and backed up umpteen times, rather than downloaded, passed around, resized, resampled, potentially tampered renderings, redistributions and duplications.

It may not be pretty, it may not seem nice, but that's the sum total of why TB and/or PM and/or PB have publicly kicked off about this and 'named names.'

Marky wrote:no, i'm probably the only one that thinks it just straight down to a lack of evidence that would secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nope Marky, I'm with you on that as well. All that both police forces need, is watertight evidence of exactly who did what and when, I think they know as well as we do that "It was the McCanns what done it" but they need the evidence to prove it imo

@cynicAl. The whole 2&2 thing had died off and remained largely forgotten until yesterday. Why not just continue to ignore? Why bother to resurrect only to desecrate? TB brought this up again firstly on 29 Dec on the Sonia Poulton thread, in a response to DougD.

This is a storm that has been unleashed now. Why not when TB first got the info back in November?

Just another unnecessary distraction, imo. To detract from what, I wonder?

dogs don't lie wrote:If I didn't know better, it would look like someone's trying to put someone off releasing anything!

If you mean 'TB' and 'PM', then I couldn't disagree with you more. They're both methodical, scientific and rational. They take the view that quality is better than quantity. A lot of people who feel strongly about this case are actually afraid to be heard in public for their views, not because of what the McCann's would or could do to them, but because they don't want to be associated with an outrageous volume of utter piffle, wild speculation, scandalous theory and preposterous argument.

Some people, like some forum operators in the 'conspiracy theory' realm, think there's virtue in letting everyone wildly speculate to their heart's content and lumping all of that into one happy mess of 'truthseeking.' They call it a 'conversation', even though the vast majority of it is people talking to themselves or their imaginary friends.

Others take it all a little more seriously. They regard it as a fight for the truth, and lawyers and ex-policemen will have a tendency to follow the strict rigours of what they know is the same process the 'authorities' would expect. They'll be reluctant to waste their time on anything less, as much as a 'Sherlock Holmes' would say 'come now, Watson, let's solve this case on a roll of the dice and a quick consultation with Madame Haye Presto, the local clairvoyant.' They'll be equally slow to allow the merchants of chance and superstition the opportunity to ride the coat-tails of rational, methodological scientific process. The former will sully the reputation of the latter, and make the latter a laughing stock. Instead, genuine truth-seekers believe that charlatans, fraudsters and hucksters in ALL their forms must be exposed and expunged no matter which conclusion they ally themselves to, because the credibility of demonstrable truth and a rational process is ultimately all that matters, not a Happy Clappy Land of Good Intentions and Conceptual Utilitarianism. The end will neither justify nor mitigate insanity or stupidity, and will never validate either.

You don't need to look hard to find a conspiracy theory lurking in every heart, behind every action, around every corner. That's your prerogative. But it isn't exactly a reasonable or rational standard to go on.

You insinuate, it seems, that TB and PM's strategy is somehow to the benefit of the pro's, to cover 'truth' up... yet there is no one who has staked more or spoken louder to repeatedly, openly and publicly affirm the same case put forward by Goncalo Amaral. It doesn't seem reasonable to insinuate that TB and PM's critique and treatment of 2&2 could POSSIBLY serve a motive of suppressing truth, which in turn could ONLY serve a motive of promoting a lie on behalf of the perpetrators of that lie.

There are all kinds of reasons to dislike TB on a personal level, but I think the suggestion that his sincerity and integrity are open to question when it comes to prosecuting the truth in this case is unsupportable.

chirpyinsect wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

chilli wrote:While PB may suspect that it is a scam, in my view she has not proven that in any way shape or form.

She has quite rightly asked for their credentials and received no reply. Yes the lack of response implies her suspicions are correct, it proves nothing. It's just an opinion based on not very much at all.

I've followed Pat Brown long enough to know the facebook posts are not in the public domain. What right has TB got to post what look like private messages? Irrespective of the content, no one should be posting information/opinions given privately on public fora.

I agree, neither TB nor PB have proof that 2&2 was a scam rather than a misguided attempt to bring the case to wider exposure. I see nothing sinister in their actions, at least not on the 'evidence' that TB has used - mainly their interest in holistic medicine.

In PB's case, it appears it is the lack of response to correspondence that has drawn her to this conclusion. Is that compelling evidence? Well, she chose not to expose them based on that alone, but issued a reply outlining her evidential requirements pending her assistance. Very reasonably, of course. She did say TB is free to use that response.

I find it rather odd too that Pat Brown took time out from her family New Year celebrations to write what must be a pm to Tony given that it was written at 2.58am UK time and Washington DC is 5 hours behind making it 10pm there. Dedicated or what?
Also when looking at TB`s original posts regarding what he erroneously called 2x2 TV in spite of the fact he was quoting from his own and their emails, he said this
" I can help you (and other forum members here) to a limited extent with an answer re 2x2 TV (not 2&2 TV).

I was contacted last month by the maker(s) of the 2x2 TV mini-series of short videos."
When another member of the forum corrected him on this he checked his emails again and conceded that it was 2&2TV.
I also noticed he quoted this:

"The only other thing to add is that he told me that Pat Brown had advised him to contact Sonia Poulton, who was making a video. I respectfully drew his attention to Sonia Poulton's recent track record (Stephen D Birch, Shrimpton, Hutton, Clegg, Straw etc.).
dec29"

Yet in his post TB quotes Pat as saying this:

Just read your expose of Keith at your board [CMOMM]. He contacted me trying to get me to recommend him to Sonia Poulton. After a number of emails, I wrote the following and he never replied. He claimed he had a forensic guy from the FBI examine the photo but he refused to name him. He is indeed a scammer. Feel free to share this if you want.

So there`s a bit of an anomaly there.

Chirpy,

I'd be careful suggesting that the committment of one individual to responding to issues directly relating to their own experience or involvement in the speculations about this case during 'holiday season' is in any way a reflection on them, when the UK based forums, like this one, have equally not shown evidence of suspended activity during the holiday season.

Maybe the subject is a little addictive. Maybe involvement gets a little obsessive. Maybe the feeling that somehow we're contributing to something major and that what we do and say carries weight and significance promotes a kind of delusion where we self-importantly justify our own committment to follow and engage?

Your contention over 2x2 or 2&2 is needlessly pedantic. There's 'nothing to see here'. If PM/TB were 'pulling a fast one', they'd not be tripping over casual errors, they'd have a carefully prepared script which had been checked and double checked for errors.

You're correct. TB and PM have no 'proof' that 2&2 is a scam. They have an overwhelming body of evidence that it is, at best, fatally misguided, misinformed, ill-advised, and a dangerous diversion which had massive potential to derail the 'truth' movement. Similarly, their 'assertion' that 2&2 is a scam would be best and most easily countered by the presentation of proof and credential on behalf of 2&2 that their efforts were NOT a scam, or were not worthy of dismissal. It is the ABSENCE of that proof, of such a demonstration, which would lead any reasonable, rational observer to draw similar conclusions or hold similar doubts to TB and PM.

Had 2&2 credibly established their authority, credential, or assertion, this would be a very different debate.

With respect to your last claim of a 'bit of an anomaly there', where exactly are you seeing an anomaly? You're referring to two separate statements, from two separate people, relating what they were each told by 2&2. TB noted that he had been told PB had advised 2&2 to contact SP. PB noted that 2&2 asked her to put them in contact with SP, and she declined based on their lack of credential and credibility. All that tells me is that 2&2 asked for more from PB than she was prepared to give, and told TB a whopper in order to fraudulently use PB as an attempt to 'name drop' in order to gain his trust an attain some credibility that they inherently lacked. That's not an 'anomaly' unless you're claiming that TB and PB are both lying about 2&2 and have attempted to contrive a mutual, singular shared narrative about their interactions with 2&2. The only thing it does, for me, is paint a picture of the dishonesty or delusional nature of the 2&2 entity, its principals, and its claims and aims.

In both TB and PB's interactions, several pictures emerge. First, 2&2 don't establish their credibility or credentials for anyone. Second, 2&2 claim to have authoritative experts verify their claims, but won't establish the credibility, credential or identity of the experts. Third, after multiple communications, when challenged to put their money where their mouth is, and back up their claims and establish their expertise and authority, 2&2 vanish. Fourth, 2&2 tell porkie pies and name-drop from established veterans of the McCann Truth movement in order to appear to be more than they are.

Can you explain to me how those four recurring characteristics of the stated interactions give you even a glimmer of confidence that 2&2 can be trusted and TB and PB must be liars?

Dee Coy wrote:@cynicAl. The whole 2&2 thing had died off and remained largely forgotten until yesterday. Why not just continue to ignore? Why bother to resurrect only to desecrate? TB brought this up again firstly on 29 Dec on the Sonia Poulton thread, in a response to DougD.

This is a storm that has been unleashed now. Why not when TB first got the info back in November?

Just another unnecessary distraction, imo. To detract from what, I wonder?

So, who raised the hope that 2&2 would provide groundbreaking revelation in the New Year? If 2&2 speculation had died a death, and they'd disappeared into obscurity, where did folks get the crazy idea that they were going to commit to a resumption of their internet video 'revelations', and who started putting stock in it?

I'll be honest, having ascertained the identity and questionable reliability of 2&2 way back in the first week, and reported it to people within the community, I also thought that the 2&2 thing had come to pass. But if I saw people suddenly resurrecting a vain hope in a terminally flawed 'messiah', I think I'd have also taken to the forums to reveal that the 'messiah' was just a very naughty boy. They're hucksters, not worth the investment of false hope, and potentially damaging to the whole credibility of a 'truth' movement in this country, which in turn casts aspersions on every single one of us, including Brenda Leyland. There are people who've put a lot on the line to speak up for honest, sincere, intelligent, rational skeptics in this case, and they don't deserve to have their voices drowned out or their names sullied by crackpots and occultists who would - if left unchecked and given the attention they crave - bring us all into disrepute.

I don't know TB, PM or PB... but if that's what happened - and it appears that it is - then I too would break silence and say 'these people are not worthy of the attention they demand - here's the truth behind the mystique they've created for themselves.'

Put it this way... I've heard people speculate, back at the beginning, that 2&2 were Martin Grime, Mark Harrison, and any number of other credible professionals with an interest in exposing truth to all. I've heard that they're associated with SY, with any number of bloggers and so on. That mystery created the mystique, a legend before the due time. The truth is very different, and a complete anti-climax. And so the mystique needs to be put to death now, before any more get caught up in it, and then caught in the inevitable aftermath of the disappointment and ridicule.

Anyway,

Not looking for a fight, just a bit of perspective.

CynicAl

I wont clutter up the forum by quoting your post but just to clarify I am certainly not trying to give the impression that 2&2TV are to be trusted. I don't know one way or the other. Neither am I casting doubts on Pat`s honesty and integrity. If you have read my other posts you will see that I have agreed that she was right to demand more in the way of credentials before giving them credence.
What I am alluding to is that Tony has once again quoted that what he says is a message from Pat Brown and I think it can only be believed if Pat herself confirms this. Tony has history of altering or redacting parts of emails which don't support his theories.
As for the anomaly I mentioned; it just looks odd to me and not really worth a long explanation.

Looks to me like more of the same nonsense that pops up around any investigation into the truth.  Take 9/11 for example.  There are many questions that need answering about that attack, and these are being asked by qualified, professional people that don't make claims that aren't supportable by evidence - Pilots for 9/11 truth, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth, the list goes on.  And then there are the idiots that swamp Youtube with clips proclaiming 'Proof there were no planes on 9/11!!!!!!' and other such nonsense.  In my opinion these people tarnish the reputation of every other person that undertakes research in a professional, methodical manner.  These nonsense claims more often than not revolve around a belief that static images or video have been manipulated.  As I've said before, some people like to read through mountains of evidence to find inconsistencies, whereas others just like to look at the pictures.

I repeat, 2&2 had all but disappeared into obscurity, it would appear because they didn't get the support of the prominent researchers they sought to back-up their theory (and rightly, if they were reticent in divulging their sources to their chosen 'experts' (which I can also understand)).

Whatever, there were no more films. 'T day', 12 October, came and went... nothing. People were forgetting them. By Christmas there was naught left but the odd plaintive question on the odd message board. If they were scammers they had been ineffectual. Good, let sleeping dogs lie, you may think.

The groundbreaking news was promised on 12 October, CynicAl, not for the New Year. Yonks ago, the end of the matter. So why resurrect it all now if they are mere charlatans, scammers and general timewasters. What is to be gained by publicly naming, shaming and denigrating them now? What will that achieve other that another enormous distraction, which is what we are seeing? What's the motive for doing this now?

Dee Coy wrote:I repeat, 2&2 had all but disappeared into obscurity, it would appear because they didn't get the support of the prominent researchers they sought to back-up their theory (and rightly, if they were reticent in divulging their sources to their chosen 'experts' (which I can also understand)).

Whatever, there were no more films. 'T day', 12 October, came and went... nothing. People were forgetting them. By Christmas there was naught left but the odd plaintive question on the odd message board. If they were scammers they had been ineffectual. Good, let sleeping dogs lie, you may think.

The groundbreaking news was promised on 12 October, CynicAl, not for the New Year. Yonks ago, the end of the matter. So why resurrect it all now if they are mere charlatans,  scammers and general timewasters. What is to be gained by publicly naming, shaming and denigrating them now? What will that achieve other that another enormous distraction, which is what we are seeing? What's the motive for doing this now?

Would it be unfair and/or too simple/coincidental that TB has brought this up to steer discussion away from Smithgate etc?

I did wonder if it could be Sonia? There's a lot of long blue undermining of her character recently.

Dee Coy wrote:I did wonder if it could be Sonia?  There's a lot of long blue undermining of her character recently.

I just see it that after the wrong Smith debacle, he is on the defensive. "look over here, not over there", to coin a phrase.

It seems to me he saves up info/"research" for later use. I remember, for example, that when Cristobell had that anonymous comment on her blog, he said he'd known about it for weeks/months. It comes across to me like he's playing a game and I don't like it.

whole lotta long posts going on. getting heavy.