Re: One coherent theory apart from abduction

by DCB1 03.01.10 18:02

Autumn wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

Exactly, the heading of this thread is mis-leading - not one scrap of evidence to support the abduction theory, I would believe that the moon is made of cheese and fairies dance nightly at the bottom of my garden before believing the McCanns' version of events. However, I have read much that has convinced me that an abduction could not have happened and it, imo, cannot be considered a logical theory.

Another insightful Team Bennett post.

by DCB1 03.01.10 18:05

The heading of this thread is not misleading at all. It is an opportunity to provide theories for comment and discussion.

The very people who are knocking abduction are the very people who are knocking this thread.

by aiyoyo 03.01.10 18:06

DCB1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

Exactly, the heading of this thread is mis-leading - not one scrap of evidence to support the abduction theory, I would believe that the moon is made of cheese and fairies dance nightly at the bottom of my garden before believing the McCanns' version of events. However, I have read much that has convinced me that an abduction could not have happened and it, imo, cannot be considered a logical theory.

Another insightful Team Bennett post.

Another? Explain yourself!

By the same token, are you another Team Mccann going around with a stick?

by Autumn 03.01.10 18:06

DCB1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

Exactly, the heading of this thread is mis-leading - not one scrap of evidence to support the abduction theory, I would believe that the moon is made of cheese and fairies dance nightly at the bottom of my garden before believing the McCanns' version of events. However, I have read much that has convinced me that an abduction could not have happened and it, imo, cannot be considered a logical theory.

Another insightful Team Bennett post.

I am not a member of any team so quit the childish comments. I formed my opinions long before ever hearing of Tony Bennett, as did many of us who do not believe the McCanns fairystories.

by DCB1 03.01.10 18:08

Autumn wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

Exactly, the heading of this thread is mis-leading - not one scrap of evidence to support the abduction theory, I would believe that the moon is made of cheese and fairies dance nightly at the bottom of my garden before believing the McCanns' version of events. However, I have read much that has convinced me that an abduction could not have happened and it, imo, cannot be considered a logical theory.

Another insightful Team Bennett post.

I am not a member of any team so quit the childish comments. I formed my opinions long before ever hearing of Tony Bennett, as did many of us who do not believe the McCanns fairystories.

Then this is the exact thread for you isn't it?

Your theory for discussion please.

by DCB1 03.01.10 18:11

aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:What about one coherent reason to support abduction instead?

No one has seen any even in the investigators files but plenty of other circumstantial evidence supporting an altenative thesis!

Exactly, the heading of this thread is mis-leading - not one scrap of evidence to support the abduction theory, I would believe that the moon is made of cheese and fairies dance nightly at the bottom of my garden before believing the McCanns' version of events. However, I have read much that has convinced me that an abduction could not have happened and it, imo, cannot be considered a logical theory.

Another insightful Team Bennett post.

Another? Explain yourself!

By the same token, are you another Team Mccann going around with a stick?

Yes - why not - how many times has the leader of Team Bennett referred to anyone who disagrees with him and his team member as Team Mccann. The difference is - I didn't pay £10.

I don't have a big stick. The continuous repetition of the same things on every single thread is well........

by aiyoyo 03.01.10 18:26

DCB1

Accusing people of team something something just proved your inability to hold your own arguments coherently! If your argument fells flat on its face retorting to that antics is disgusting to say the least.

With due respect, you started the accusation and showing you in return exactly what you did is the only way I could demonstrate your antics is not even to your liking when applied to you is it?

And, BTW creating thread after meaningless thread with a stick in hand says it all.

by vaguely 03.01.10 18:28

did we get a coherent parental involvement theory yet?

by Old Nick 03.01.10 18:36

There's one in Dr Amaral's book apparently.

by Guest 03.01.10 18:41

Errr ... No. And don't ask me to put it up, I tried and failed long time ago.
But it seems there's people who still hang on to non-abduction theories, yet they can't tell who, when, why, how, with whose help etc.

@ Old Nick that's why he's getting sued for libel, GA's theory isn't coherent nor corroborated by evidence.

by Guest 03.01.10 18:46

Molly wrote:Errr ... No. And don't ask me to put it up, I tried and failed long time ago.
But it seems there's people who still hang on to non-abduction theories, yet they can't tell who, when, why, how, with whose help etc.

@ Old Nick that's why he's getting sued for libel, GA's theory isn't coherent nor corroborated by evidence.

I thought he was getting sued for his information from the files, which is that Madeleine is more likely to be dead. The McCanns are suing him for saying this, and that it has greatly distressed them, and may hinder the search for Madeleine, even though they have admitted themselves this may be the case, and Clarence Mitchell has also said the same.

by DCB1 03.01.10 18:47

aiyoyo wrote:DCB1

Accusing people of team something something just proved your inability to hold your own arguments coherently! If your argument fells flat on its face retorting to that antics is disgusting to say the least.

With due respect, you started the accusation and showing you in return exactly what you did is the only way I could demonstrate your antics is not even to your liking when applied to you is it?

And, BTW creating thread after meaningless thread with a stick in hand says it all.

It is not obligatory to post on my threads - it is not obligatory to even read my threads.

by Old Nick 03.01.10 18:47

Oh. Well if Dr Amaral can't provide a coherent theory then surely someone else can?

by aiyoyo 03.01.10 19:08

DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:DCB1

Accusing people of team something something just proved your inability to hold your own arguments coherently! If your argument fells flat on its face retorting to that antics is disgusting to say the least.

With due respect, you started the accusation and showing you in return exactly what you did is the only way I could demonstrate your antics is not even to your liking when applied to you is it?

And, BTW creating thread after meaningless thread with a stick in hand says it all.

It is not obligatory to post on my threads - it is not obligatory to even read my threads.

It's true, but I happened to click on it and did see it and that was how it came across!

No offense but are people supposed to avoid any particular poster's thread - how is that going to help healthy debate ? Or am I mistaken and that you meant your thread to be one-sided, and any dissent is going to beget that sort of answer?

by Guest 03.01.10 19:14

candyfloss wrote:
Molly wrote:Errr ... No. And don't ask me to put it up, I tried and failed long time ago.
But it seems there's people who still hang on to non-abduction theories, yet they can't tell who, when, why, how, with whose help etc.

@ Old Nick that's why he's getting sued for libel, GA's theory isn't coherent nor corroborated by evidence.

I thought he was getting sued for his information from the files, which is that Madeleine is more likely to be dead. The McCanns are suing him for saying this, and that it has greatly distressed them, and may hinder the search for Madeleine, even though they have admitted themselves this may be the case, and Clarence Mitchell has also said the same.

Saying that she's more likely dead isn't libelous, though it might harm the search for a living child if everybody get's convinced by him she's dead.
It's what he's said/suggested about Madeleine dying in the apartment and parental involvement into her death or hiding of her body (his non-coherent theory which isn't corroborated by evidence) that's caused the libel suit and the injunction.

by DCB1 03.01.10 19:18

aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:DCB1

Accusing people of team something something just proved your inability to hold your own arguments coherently! If your argument fells flat on its face retorting to that antics is disgusting to say the least.

With due respect, you started the accusation and showing you in return exactly what you did is the only way I could demonstrate your antics is not even to your liking when applied to you is it?

And, BTW creating thread after meaningless thread with a stick in hand says it all.

It is not obligatory to post on my threads - it is not obligatory to even read my threads.

It's true, but I happened to click on it and did see it and that was how it came across!

No offense but are people supposed to avoid any particular poster's thread - how is that going to help healthy debate ? Or am I mistaken and that you meant your thread to be one-sided, and any dissent is going to beget that sort of answer?

This thread is looking for a coherent theory that does not include abduction.

by aiyoyo 03.01.10 19:25

DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:DCB1

Accusing people of team something something just proved your inability to hold your own arguments coherently! If your argument fells flat on its face retorting to that antics is disgusting to say the least.

With due respect, you started the accusation and showing you in return exactly what you did is the only way I could demonstrate your antics is not even to your liking when applied to you is it?

And, BTW creating thread after meaningless thread with a stick in hand says it all.

It is not obligatory to post on my threads - it is not obligatory to even read my threads.

It's true, but I happened to click on it and did see it and that was how it came across!

No offense but are people supposed to avoid any particular poster's thread - how is that going to help healthy debate ? Or am I mistaken and that you meant your thread to be one-sided, and any dissent is going to beget that sort of answer?

This thread is looking for a coherent theory that does not include abduction.

Again you are deliberately trying to side-track the issue.
You knew v. well I wasnt refering to this thread!

by DCB1 03.01.10 19:31

aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:DCB1

Accusing people of team something something just proved your inability to hold your own arguments coherently! If your argument fells flat on its face retorting to that antics is disgusting to say the least.

With due respect, you started the accusation and showing you in return exactly what you did is the only way I could demonstrate your antics is not even to your liking when applied to you is it?

And, BTW creating thread after meaningless thread with a stick in hand says it all.

It is not obligatory to post on my threads - it is not obligatory to even read my threads.

It's true, but I happened to click on it and did see it and that was how it came across!

No offense but are people supposed to avoid any particular poster's thread - how is that going to help healthy debate ? Or am I mistaken and that you meant your thread to be one-sided, and any dissent is going to beget that sort of answer?

This thread is looking for a coherent theory that does not include abduction.

Again you are deliberately trying to side-track the issue.
You knew v. well I wasnt refering to this thread!

Then a post on the appropriate would be better - don't confuse yourself.

by Guest 03.01.10 20:39

PearlB wrote:As is usual, no one has come up with a plausible theory as to how the McCanns accidentally killed their daughter and what they did afterwards.

BUMP...................ANYONE ?

by Old Nick 03.01.10 23:18

I felt so sure that one would be forth-coming by now. 7 pages of bickering and not a coherent theory to be found amongst it. Most disappointing.

by Guest 03.01.10 23:39

Old Nick wrote:There's one in Dr Amaral's book apparently.

The one he is getting sued for?

by twinkle 03.01.10 23:51

marigold wrote:Twinkle, proof please that it was a 'planned abduction'. I am sure that you are not daft and therefore do know that the chances of a stranger abduction are miniscule. Surely you are not just taking the parents word for it?

Hi marigold, just saw this.
I have no need to provide proof as it is just a suggestion as to what may have happened. I am firmly on the fence, I would rather look at all opinions.
The chances of stranger abduction are miniscule..............so that means they can actually happen.

Going back to the OP, the only other alternative I can offer is she woke and wandered. What happened after that, I just don't know.

by aliberte2 04.01.10 1:50

MaryB wrote:I was watching a Miss Marple on TV earlier. People were puzzled as to the circumstances. Miss Marple said that's because people believe what other people say, I never do. (Sensible woman.)

I was Watching CSI and the First Thing they Did Was Secure The Crime Scene and Then Start Collecting DNA Evidence. And Bring in Dogs. Immediately.

by aliberte2 04.01.10 1:52

Madeleine Fell off the Couch.
She Died.
Gerry McCann Carried her Body to the Beach.
Kate McCann Brought a Refrigerator.
They Put the Body in the Fridge and Brought It to Their Portuguese Friends' House.
They Went Back Weeks Later.
Took the Fridge.
Dumped It in Spain.

ETA: All of the Speculation about Sexual Abuse and Unable to Handle the Stress of Children, the Involvement of the Church, Use of Tunnels in PDL, is Just Folly for People Who Have an Irrational Personal Dislike of the McCann Parents and Anti-Catholic People.

by aiyoyo 04.01.10 1:57

Old Nick wrote:I felt so sure that one would be forth-coming by now. 7 pages of bickering and not a coherent theory to be found amongst it. Most disappointing.

Let's hear your coherent theory then!

Log in for more topics