Garth's Theory
Page 1 of 17 • 1, 2, 3 ... 9 ... 17 
Garth's Theory
Please note this thread IS NOT a discussion on the McCann's guilt nor a thread about their inconsistiencies. This is simply a thread for Garth to put forward how an abduction happened given the info we know and for us to
SO LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT THE RULES OF THE ROAD GARTH. NO MENTIONING HOW LUDICROUS THE IDEA OF GERRY WALKING PDL WITH HIS DEAD DAUGHTER IS.
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE OTHER "THEORY" IT'S ABOUT YOUR THEORY AND HOW IT STANDS UP TO SCRUTINY.
Clear? Good.
Now to start here's some of his theories from that other thread:
Now now, lets keep our feet firmly on the ground here.
No one knows for sure whether they were observed or not, so don't take my ideas as absolute. On the contrary, I have an open mind (well, when a little common sense is applied) and have just replied to a previous question of yours.
People will still keep a vigil if their intent is to snatch a child whether they know about the checks or not.
And we don't know anything about these culprits. They may be long term thieves. They may be paedophiles. They may be both. So lets not put words into my mouth about some random abductor. Thats you me old fruit making that suggestion.
Its quite possible that these were local people who may have attempted break ins and theft on many occassions. The idea that a child was left alone on previous nights after previous attempts at a break in may well have spurred on the idea.
Who knows?
And this one:
Like I have just said, I doubt for one minute it was a spur of the moment snatch. It does NOT mean they were watching the McCanns every move. They may have just known a child was left alone from a previous break in attempt.
My original point was to the post ME, who couldnt understand why the abductor would walk across the top road in view of someone making a check.
Had they not known about all these checks but knew about the girl being left alone, then going across the top road is feesible, as its the quickest way to get her out of sight and away from the complex from which she was snatched.
HALELLUJAH!
My reply to these posts:
First of all do you mean " i doubt for one minute", or do you mean "i don't doubt for one minute."
You said the former but your sentence implies the latter.
Please clarify so we know where you stand.
As i have constantly told you you only want to shoot down onther people's theories in order to divert attention away from you own crackpot ideas which when exposed to scrutiny show you up for the nut job you are.
So we've now got paedos, theives, abductors (any more i've missed out, little green men perhaps) all intent on taking a little girl (not the twins) and not taking any possesions or vaulables (well apart from the next day when they seem to have returned and taken the blue tennis bag and Gerry's Chinos), nor distubring any valuables, searching in drawers, suitcases etc.
Some burglars eh?
So they could have known a child was there from a PREVIOUS break in attempt? You're suggesting now it's possible someone tried to get in previously?
Evidence to support this please. Indeed evidence to support the second "succesful" attempt?
It was a spur of the moment snatch? What in a 5, 10 or 15 minute window? Wow, that's lucky isnt it? Good timing as well if they weren't watching. How would they know there'd be no parents there or due to come if they weren't checking? Big risk to take that isn't it?
So they knew she was alone but didn't know when she would be left alone, or how often her parents checked on her? Not really feasible is it?
They managed to work out the patio was unlocked, get in and out without swithcing lights on or off, without dsturbing anything and leaving no trace anywhere? Not really feasible is it?
How did they get her out and where and what's your evidence to support this nonesene.
Please stop i'm in stitches here. I've never heard such fanciful, impossible and unsupported drivel in all my life.
Sweet baby Jesus.
You really believe this s**t???
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So i'd like other posters on this thread to start raising questions about Garth's theories and let's see if he's got the kahunas to come on here and try and defend them without sounding (any more) ludicrous.
So over to you other forum members (and Garth).......
Me- Posts: 646
Join date: 2011-05-22
Re: Garth's Theory
Garth- Guest
Re: Garth's Theory
Garth wrote:I've got the Kakahunas to meet you in person sunshine, so get all condescending with me!
Oops! Touched a raw nerve have i?
I simply want you to afford us the same courtesy we afford you.
That is give us your theory and allow us to question it in the same manner and tone you question the non abduction theory.
Given you have a propensity to deflect difficult questions by asking me / us different questions i wanted to be clear for everyone's benefit that this thread is simply about your abduction theory only and has nothing to do with the "non-abduction" theory.
Hardly condescending is it? Just establishing the ground rules before we start? It should allow us to focus the disccusions solely on the abduction theory.
Hell it could even convert a few of us if you can back it up.
I don't see why you would have a problem in having your own thread on an "anti" site to allow you to sell the abduction theory. How many anti sites would give you that platform?
So now we've got that out of the way and moving on how do you explain an abductor walking across the very street 2 men are near the top of and talking?
Last edited by Me on Sat Jun 04, 2011 3:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Me- Posts: 646
Join date: 2011-05-22
Re: Garth's Theory
Garth wrote:I've got the Kakahunas to meet you in person sunshine, so get all condescending with me!
That's not an answer Garth.
Are you going to answer or not?

The Shelfstacker- Posts: 122
Join date: 2010-02-03
Re: Garth's Theory
This is a brilliant opportunity for Garth to show his support for the McCanns and their cause.
Obviously, if Garths theory is correct and Madeleine had indeed been abducted by paedophiles or any other, then we all need to be educated.
Here is Garths chance to educate us all and sway us into accepting the McCanns theory that Madeleine was actually abducted, and to assist the search for Madeleine by laying to rest the theory that there was no abduction and that Madeleine had died in the apartment.
Well, the McCanns need you, and Madeleine needs you. Can you do this Garth? Can you do this simple task for Madeleine's sake? Can you convince us with firm evidence that Madeleine was actually abducted? Can you demonstrate how this abduction may have happened?
Over to you Garth, do your best, but before you start, have a read of this http://t.co/BhqrmPi because this is the question that really needs to be answered?
Last edited by sharonl on Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Re: Garth's Theory
____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?

ufercoffy- Posts: 1626
Join date: 2010-01-04
Re: Garth's Theory
Garth wrote:I've got the Kakahunas to meet you in person sunshine, so get all condescending with me!
Always up for a challenge.
I personally think Garth got McCann and McCain mixed up, nothing wrong with supporting CHIPS.
Baronstu- Posts: 93
Join date: 2011-05-19
Challenge Anneka had nothing on this

Marian- Posts: 1071
Join date: 2010-12-19
Location: England
Re: Garth's Theory
Marian wrote:Who or what are the Kakahunas that Garth claims to know?
I think he means Kahunas.
Slang for Ball's:
•balls (male genitals).
Whoa, that takes Big Kahunas to say that in front of her.
Baronstu- Posts: 93
Join date: 2011-05-19
Small round objects

Marian- Posts: 1071
Join date: 2010-12-19
Location: England
Page 1 of 17 • 1, 2, 3 ... 9 ... 17 
Similar topics» Logicman's Hoax Theory
» The most sensible theory so far
» Dave and Arthur's New Theory Revisited
» Elliott Wave Theory
