Body Disposal Debunking Part 1 - The Church

http://textusa.blogspot.com/






An anonymous has asked quite a few times, and
very legitimately so, how the Smith sighting proves that "The Stroller"
was carrying a LIVE little girl.

I’ve delayed, for timing reasons
only, the adequate answer the best that I could. And although I will
approach the subject today, anonymous, please don’t expect an answer
today. But, hopefully, you will understand that it’s coming…

In
the Smith Sighting, one thing that I think that is consensual amongst
Black & White Hats alike is that due to the fact that the girl
carried by "The Stroller" looked like, dressed exactly like and was
barefooted like Maddie, that she and Maddie are totally related to one
another.

Most, almost everyone except me and Ironside, go as far
as to say that they are the one and the same: Madeleine Beth McCann.

The
first divergence is that the Black Hats say that she was alive and
being abducted, whilst we, White Hats, go for being carried dead and
that "The Stroller" was getting rid of her body.

This is a White
Hat blog, and we all, Black & White alike, know she was not
abducted. So let’s continue under the assumption that not only is she
dead, as she’s a dead weight.

Now, here the consensus ends
amongst the White Hats. Some say that he was heading for the beach,
others (I think I said this myself) for the Church.

Well, I say,
it was NEITHER the Church, nor the beach. Nor was the girl dead, and due
to that sole factor, she wasn’t Maddie, as I’m certain that Maddie was
already dead at the time.

So let’s debunk these body disposal
theories, created, naively, by intentional misleading.

This will
be a three-fold issue. I shall tackle first the Church, and that will be
today, then the beach and only after that, dear anonymous, the dead or
alive issue.

As said, both Church and beach scenarios, make only
sense if the carried girl was dead. So, although totally convinced
otherwise, but for arguments sake, we’ll assume that she was dead and
that it was required to hide the body, if only for that particular
night.

PdL at the time the Church was built was a small
Portuguese fishing village. Today, it is small Portuguese touristic
village.

The churches in small villages had two main purposes
other than the obvious cult fulfillment reason.

One was to warn
villagers of tragedy, like fires, or in fishing villages like PdL, the
overturning of a fishing boat (in those days fishermen didn’t know how
to swim, so that meant almost certain drowning); the other, to be the
village’s social center of gravity. A place where everyone gathered, for
town meetings, town parties or whatever was deemed required to gather
people for.

The Church has always played a crucial role in the
development of modern societies. And in small catholic towns, the Church
Square, or Portuguese “Largo da Igreja” is a very relevant
social location.

A very public place. That’s why the Priests
were, and still are, so very socially important in small villages. They
play a pivotal role in the places they exercise their activity.

The
local Church is not only the place of worship as is also the place
villagers gather to. Where they go when they want to know the news.

Not
inside, but outside. You know, the place where people are aclaimed and
lynched...

But lets not forget the inside. As we’ve seen in
almost every episode of “Little
House on the Prairie” it’s the perfect place to hold a small town
meeting. Around 20/30 people can be seated quite comfortably listening
to someone in a forum designed for the effect, to listen to a speaker.

PdL,
as a small village it is, smaller it was when they built the Church, is
not known for its abundant local resources.

I’ve never been
inside that particular Church, but I’ve been in many, many other small
churches in the Country, as the Religious Art in Portugal is a treasure
that few know but should be world renown.

So I believe it to be
like so many, just a simple small town church. A very simple building.

No
underground tunnels, not even an underground floor. To have them, it
would mean excavations, and these costs money, a lot of money.

Underground
tunnels and secret chambers are only for the like of Harry Potter, who I
believe, is a supporter of the McCanns.

So, if you believe that
the PdL Church has all mysterious tunnels and secret rooms, do feel
free, the next time you catch a train, to do so by running into a column
in the middle of the railway station. Please just warn me beforehand. I
will love to be there.

I’m sure that the Pdl Church it is like
the majority of the small churches in Portugal, a central aisle for the
cult headed with the altar, and one to three other rooms: one,
mandatory, the Vestry, for the priest to prepare himself, the others for
storage and possibly Sunday school.

And certainly no fridges.
Red wine conserves very nicely in room temperature. No conditions
whatsoever to store a body. Even of a four year old.

And no
toilet. You know, to clean up the mess that a dead body always leaves
behind. You don’t know? Ask the McCanns. Or better yet… ask a mother and
son. They’re experts, whilst the couple was a bit sloppy on that issue…

So,
why dispose of a body in the PdL Church?

Certainly, say you, it
would be the only place, where the GNR wouldn’t search that night. Let
me clarify that a Church is not an Embassy. If the Police dogs had
picked up Maddie’s scent to the door of the Church, they would go
inside. As in any other residence, so that is false argumentation.

Well,
you insist, it would be ONLY for THAT night.

It might well have
been, but only if you’re keen in hiding a body by laying it on the grass
of Old Trafford’s center field, knowing that the very next day, by your
own doing, a Manchester United vs Chelsea match took place.

The
church would be the natural place to people to converge once knowing the
news. Sure, they would go to the Ocean Club to look, but come to the
Church Square to discuss the issue.

The church and the
surrounding areas became filled up with people, as the TV showed. Where
were the McCanns supported by all the unselfish people that gave all
they had to help them? Don’t know? Look at the pictures.

And to
take the body out of that Church after that, not even with three
Tanner’s abduction theory. Talk about risky business…

Yes,
maintain you, it’s all very nice, and although illogical to the point of
absurdity, is not ABSOLUTELY absurd. So it doesn’t invalidate the fact
that the body, albeit all that, could have been put there just for that
night.

Agree. So let me debunk this once and for all.

We
all agree that "The Stroller" wouldn’t have walked all that way to
dispose of the body in the Church UNLESS he was sure that upon arrival,
he would find an open door.

No the Priest does not sleep inside.
And no, he wouldn’t have gone there on a hope…

I’m supposing here
that nor did Gerry, nor any of the Tapa, as tourists that they were,
had the Priest’s contact. House or cellphone.

So, I think that
it’s PROVED that if Gerry used the Church to dispose of the body then
him, or somebody from the Tapas, knew someone in PdL who had it the
Priests contact.

You say yes? You’re wrong. I don’t want you to
agree with me. I want you to think with me.

I bend my theories to
fact, never do I bend fact just to make my theories correct.

It
only proves that somebody contacted the Priest, and that this contact
was set off by one of the Tapas. That is all it proves.

We have
two possible scenarios here:

- Some Tapas individual called “The
Helper”, “The Helper” called the Priest and told the him what had
happened, and what was expected from him. The Priest then agreed, “The
Helper” then called the Tapas individual and told him that there was a
green light to use the Church. This means that somebody IN PdL would
have had to help the “Tapas individual”.

- Some Tapas individual
called London, London called the Vatican, the Vatican called Lisbon and
Lisbon woke up one startled Priest. This means that the Priest was who
IN PdL helped the “Tapas individual”

Well, neither scenario
happened. None listed nor any in between. The Priest never got a a call
that night. He probably took knowledge of the facts as the majority of
us did, sometime on May 4th.

Why? Because if you’re willing to
help as described, and have the power to influence the Priest to act as
said, then CERTAINLY you will not risk having a dead body walking for
500 metres, when you can just put it in a car and drive it, unnoticed,
to the Church.

And before you even open your mouth saying that
there was no car, let me say that, in the first scenario “The Helper”
would have provided one, and in the second, the priest would have been
ordered to go and pick the body up.

Simple logic. There
was no body disposal at the Church.

The body would ONLY
have been walked on the street, if the distance to cover would be so
short that putting it in a car, driving it there and taking it out,
would mean the same or the approximate risk of taking it on foot.

That
would mean that the body would be taken to a very, very near location…
Yes, Murats, you can start sweating. I’ll be involving you in all this
mess very, very soon.

Then, ask you, quite adequately, why was
Father Pacheco's name so involved in this?

Let me give you my
opinion,




John Geraghty, a
local ex-pat, pictured above, got the Church keys from the Priest. I
don’t know under what circumstances, but I do believe that the clergyman
had very little to say in the "negotiations".

Do you know a
better place where the involved could hold meetings, unsuspectingly
(even though watched going inside), under the disguise of moral support
to the tormented parents? I don’t. It’s perfect.

Father Pacheco
must have been prohibited to enter his own Church, so very early on,
found out that they wanted to use it but certainly not for praying. And
he wasn’t pleased.

He probably reported it to his higher
religious echelon, and, probably too, was told, very convincingly, to
keep his opinions to himself.

But that would explain the coldness
by which the Pope received the couple in Rome…

If anyone has
been vilified in all this, Father Pacheco is certainly one.

Next,
debunking body disposal at the beach.



Textusa

Thanks Gran. Interesting stuff.

Debinking though?

Sorry Minsky, have corrected the title.

It was Tanner and O'Brian's daughter that was being carried i suspect.

Anyone know where i can get a hold of the phone records please, specifically KM, GM and DP's...links most welcome. Thanking you in advance

pamalams site has some of them posted, but I warn you, they are hard to work on. uNLESS YOU JUST NEED CONFIRMATION OF A SPECIFIC DATE OR TIME.

Thanks Laffin

I'm interested in the early morning calls that KM made to her mate on the 1st May specifically.

With Praia de Luz being a coastal town there is one possible area for the disposal of a body and that is in the sand along the shoreline as close to the low-water mark as possible. This has several advantages if you have the fortune to bury the body without being discovered in the act.
Digging in sand you could decide against the risk of obtaining a shovel and instead use your bare hands. In wet sand it would be hard at first but a grave on a beach wouldn't have to be deep and for a child it wouldn't have to be large. Once you'd broken the firm surface you could scoop out the sand quite easily. Once buried shallow the body could soon be covered, and within a short while the incoming tide would wash over the grave and leave no trace of it at all when the receding tide next exposed the area. It would just be flat beach again. Being near the low-tide mark the grave would be covered for most of the tide, making it difficult to search for it in the event somebody decided to search the foreshore, and the grave would only be exposed briefly just before the tide turned and covered it again. The tide limits the time in which you could search, and the area might only be exposed for one hour every twelve and a half hours or so; on average the area would be exposed once in daylight and once at night, depending upon the times of the tide. Also, it would be difficult to effectively mark any areas you had previously searched and the chances of missing an area the size of a small grave is quite high - it would be just four or five square feet.
The most difficult part regarding the work involved would be to carry the body to where you were going to bury it. Wet sand would be better than dry sand because it would be better for containing odours, and dry sand above the high-water mark can be walked on and a buried body discovered.
It would be interesting to know at what times the high and low tides were at Praia de Luz at the time, and how far the tide goes out before turning. Depending upon the time-frame, a man carrying a child in a holdall might only get as far as half a mile in either direction. It is a possibility the PJ may have considered, and because of their considerations the body may have been later moved. And while a search by the police would be difficult, at least whoever buried a body in such a place would at least know it is there, and likely be aware of its bearings through landmarks.
Disposing of a body at sea could never guarantee it wouldn't wash ashore, even if weighted, nor that a mariner wouldn't retrieve some of the remains at some time in the future.

Lagos, Portugal

Low tide 21:53 3/5/7
High tide 06:37 4/5/7
Low tide 22:02 4/5/7

http://tides.mobilegeographics.com/locations/3249.html?y=2007&m=5&d=3

PeterMac wrote:Lagos, Portugal

Low tide 21:53 3/5/7
High tide 06:37 4/5/7
Low tide 22:02 4/5/7

http://tides.mobilegeographics.com/locations/3249.html?y=2007&m=5&d=3

21.53? Oh Dear!

Wasn't that around the time when GM & DP did their purtported search on the beach?

PeterMac wrote:Lagos, Portugal

Low tide 21:53 3/5/7
High tide 06:37 4/5/7
Low tide 22:02 4/5/7

http://tides.mobilegeographics.com/locations/3249.html?y=2007&m=5&d=3

And, come to think of it: don't the covertly taken pictures of the two gentlemen "NOT-LOOKING-FOR-CRABS" show a high tide at the moment of their presence at the shore?

So what were they looking for, out there, with their backs to the sea, using their NON-EXISTING-MOBILE-PHONES?

Portia wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Lagos, Portugal

Low tide 21:53 3/5/7
High tide 06:37 4/5/7
Low tide 22:02 4/5/7

http://tides.mobilegeographics.com/locations/3249.html?y=2007&m=5&d=3

And, come to think of it: don't the covertly taken pictures of the two gentlemen "NOT-LOOKING-FOR-CRABS" show a high tide at the moment of their presence at the shore?

So what were they looking for, out there, with their backs to the sea, using their NON-EXISTING-MOBILE-PHONES?

re the tide times, there was a thread about some numbers, sorry my head is a shed at the moment, doesn't the 21.53 feature in that thread?

"I don’t usually bet on Euromillions, my friend, but if I ever did, there would be at least four numbers where I would place my little crosses, to hit the winning key. And I bet that at least I would get those four right. As a matter of fact, I would even call it the Luz key.

Those would be the 5, the 2, the 3 and the 1!"

21.53 ?????
The exact time of low tide on May 3?

Châtelaine wrote:"I don’t usually bet on Euromillions, my friend, but if I ever did, there would be at least four numbers where I would place my little crosses, to hit the winning key. And I bet that at least I would get those four right. As a matter of fact, I would even call it the Luz key.

Those would be the 5, the 2, the 3 and the 1!"

21.53 ?????
The exact time of low tide on May 3?

Chatelaine a bunch of them.

Châtelaine wrote:"I don’t usually bet on Euromillions, my friend, but if I ever did, there would be at least four numbers where I would place my little crosses, to hit the winning key. And I bet that at least I would get those four right. As a matter of fact, I would even call it the Luz key.

Those would be the 5, the 2, the 3 and the 1!"

21.53 ?????
The exact time of low tide on May 3?

Defently interresting, but since he gives the number in the order : 5231 I think the order means something. The time is : 2153, same number but a different order.. If the Order 5231 did not mean anything special, why would he not just say 1235?

I could ofcourse make my own meaning of them - 5 for the fifht month may, jump over one number and comes to 3 wich is the day the alarm was raised then I jump back over a number and gets to 2 and then jump over a number and get to 1, and then 5 and then 3 wich would give me May 3 time 2153 :)
Funny with numbers and thats why it is hard to crack, its so easy to find something fitting what you already thinking, if you understand what I mean :)

Could a mod or adm move this to the other thread also? Where this number is beeing discussed already? ty :)

This is a fascinating thread and very convincing. But can anyone tell me in what way the Pope received the McCanns coldly? I would love to be shown that he was not taken in by that pair of charlatans so any clues would be welcomed. It would also be interesting to hear a lot more about the mother and son who cleaned up, and I am sure Textusa will have more to say in due course.

Ashwarya wrote:This is a fascinating thread and very convincing. But can anyone tell me in what way the Pope received the McCanns coldly? I would love to be shown that he was not taken in by that pair of charlatans so any clues would be welcomed. It would also be interesting to hear a lot more about the mother and son who cleaned up, and I am sure Textusa will have more to say in due course.

It was prettied up enormously. To start with, they were amongst a large group of people being received by the Pope. The media cooperated by showing clips which looked as if the Pope was only concerned with them. In fact they had to wait their turn. When it came, Clarence Mitchell brushed people out of the way.
As the Pope isn't going to deny anything publicly, they could say what they wanted, how kind he was etc. etc. Making it look like a state visit!
I don't think it lasted more than half a minute.

The Vatican wiped any reference to Maddie off their website very soon after that visit, the priest in PdL might have told the boss why he was so unhappy about the McCanns.

Textusa: the blog has a box where you can look at all the other posts and there's also a box with recommended reading such as 'The grey area'.

Châtelaine wrote:"I don’t usually bet on Euromillions, my friend, but if I ever did, there would be at least four numbers where I would place my little crosses, to hit the winning key. And I bet that at least I would get those four right. As a matter of fact, I would even call it the Luz key.

Those would be the 5, the 2, the 3 and the 1!"

21.53 ?????
The exact time of low tide on May 3?

:flower:

Moa wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:"I don’t usually bet on Euromillions, my friend, but if I ever did, there would be at least four numbers where I would place my little crosses, to hit the winning key. And I bet that at least I would get those four right. As a matter of fact, I would even call it the Luz key.

Those would be the 5, the 2, the 3 and the 1!"

21.53 ?????
The exact time of low tide on May 3?

Defently interresting, but since he gives the number in the order : 5231 I think the order means something. The time is : 2153, same number but a different order.. If the Order 5231 did not mean anything special, why would he not just say 1235?

I could ofcourse make my own meaning of them - 5 for the fifht month may, jump over one number and comes to 3 wich is the day the alarm was raised then I jump back over a number and gets to 2 and then jump over a number and get to 1, and then 5 and then 3 wich would give me May 3 time 2153 :)
Funny with numbers and thats why it is hard to crack, its so easy to find something fitting what you already thinking, if you understand what I mean :)

Could a mod or adm move this to the other thread also? Where this number is beeing discussed already? ty :)

:flower:

Nina wrote:

Portia wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Lagos, Portugal

Low tide 21:53 3/5/7
High tide 06:37 4/5/7
Low tide 22:02 4/5/7

http://tides.mobilegeographics.com/locations/3249.html?y=2007&m=5&d=3

And, come to think of it: don't the covertly taken pictures of the two gentlemen "NOT-LOOKING-FOR-CRABS" show a high tide at the moment of their presence at the shore?

So what were they looking for, out there, with their backs to the sea, using their NON-EXISTING-MOBILE-PHONES?

re the tide times, there was a thread about some numbers, sorry my head is a shed at the moment, doesn't the 21.53 feature in that thread?

Nina dear, for you too, for first coming up with the idea of the numbers in another thread!

tigger wrote:

Ashwarya wrote:This is a fascinating thread and very convincing. But can anyone tell me in what way the Pope received the McCanns coldly?

It was prettied up enormously...they had to wait their turn. When it came, Clarence Mitchell brushed people out of the way. As the Pope isn't going to deny anything publicly, they could say what they wanted, how kind he was etc. etc. Making it look like a state visit! I don't think it lasted more than half a minute. The Vatican wiped any reference to Maddie off their website very soon after that visit...

tigger, as I recall, the McCann page stayed on the Pope's website until around 48 hours before the McCanns were pulled in for questioning on 6 & 7 September 2007. The probability is that a staunch Catholic within the PJ investigative team leaked to the Vatican, via his priest or bishop or whatever, the fact that the McCanns' arrest was being plannned

Portia wrote:

Nina wrote:

Portia wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Lagos, Portugal

Low tide 21:53 3/5/7
High tide 06:37 4/5/7
Low tide 22:02 4/5/7

http://tides.mobilegeographics.com/locations/3249.html?y=2007&m=5&d=3

And, come to think of it: don't the covertly taken pictures of the two gentlemen "NOT-LOOKING-FOR-CRABS" show a high tide at the moment of their presence at the shore?

So what were they looking for, out there, with their backs to the sea, using their NON-EXISTING-MOBILE-PHONES?

re the tide times, there was a thread about some numbers, sorry my head is a shed at the moment, doesn't the 21.53 feature in that thread?

Nina dear, for you too, for first coming up with the idea of the numbers in another thread!

Thank you Portia for noticing.

Portia wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Lagos, Portugal

Low tide 21:53 3/5/7
High tide 06:37 4/5/7
Low tide 22:02 4/5/7

http://tides.mobilegeographics.com/locations/3249.html?y=2007&m=5&d=3

And, come to think of it: don't the covertly taken pictures of the two gentlemen "NOT-LOOKING-FOR-CRABS" show a high tide at the moment of their presence at the shore?

So what were they looking for, out there, with their backs to the sea, using their NON-EXISTING-MOBILE-PHONES?

I don't think I've seen these pictures. Can someone link to them? When were they taken?

There is a closed thread here by TB regarding the photo on the beach.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2270-madeleine-mccann-the-role-of-michael-wright?highlight=Micheal+Wright

Which has a link to a picture which is still available (in colour).

I think there is another thread which I can't find where it was mentioned as they were in negative form. could be photo's and memories, not sure.

There are also a series of these pictures here:

Scroll down to 9th May 2007.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/GERRY_MCCANN.htm

And here:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/BEACH.htm

Châtelaine wrote:"I don’t usually bet on Euromillions, my friend, but if I ever did, there would be at least four numbers where I would place my little crosses, to hit the winning key. And I bet that at least I would get those four right. As a matter of fact, I would even call it the Luz key.

Those would be the 5, the 2, the 3 and the 1!"

21.53 ?????
The exact time of low tide on May 3?

I am reading about 33rd Degree Freemason's at the min and came across something interesting re those numbers, albeit in a different order http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/33rd_Initiation.htm

One of the Conductors then handed the "candidate" a human skull, upside down, with wine in it. "May this wine I now drink become a deadly poison to me, as the Hemlock juice drunk by Socrates, should I ever knowingly or willfully violate the same" (the oath).

He then drank the wine. A skeleton (one of the brothers dressed like one - he looked very convincing) then stepped out of the shadows and threw his arms around the "candidate." Then he (and we) continued the sealing of the obligation by saying, "And may these cold arms forever encircle me should I ever knowingly or willfully violate the same."

The Sovereign Grand Commander closed the meeting of the Supreme Council "with the Mystic Number," striking with his sword five, three, one and then two times. After the closing prayer, we all said "amen, amen, amen," and it was over.

Isnt it possible to ask the guy who wrote those numbers to ask what he was on about ?

I mean, those numbers could be anything. Maybe the chapters of the book read in that line of numbers ore something. Could also just be nothing...his own lucky numbers. He left absolutely no clue what he is on about. Could also be a cryptic message to his wife...ore anything else

aniandr wrote:Isnt it possible to ask the guy who wrote those numbers to ask what he was on about ?

I mean, those numbers could be anything. Maybe the chapters of the book read in that line of numbers ore something. Could also just be nothing...his own lucky numbers. He left absolutely no clue what he is on about. Could also be a cryptic message to his wife...ore anything else

Ask Finn, I think he's got the best solution so far.

tigger wrote:

aniandr wrote:Isnt it possible to ask the guy who wrote those numbers to ask what he was on about ?

I mean, those numbers could be anything. Maybe the chapters of the book read in that line of numbers ore something. Could also just be nothing...his own lucky numbers. He left absolutely no clue what he is on about. Could also be a cryptic message to his wife...ore anything else

Ask Finn, I think he's got the best solution so far.

Tigger, you are too kind, and thanks for the reminder, It's on my list for further research.

Here is the link to the thread:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4996-a-estrala-de-madeleine-thoughts-and-observations

Hi finn and tnx. Do you think the numbers 5231 is just random numbers? What i mean is that if the way they are put 5231 is random then why not 1235

aniandr wrote:Hi finn and tnx. Do you think the numbers 5231 is just random numbers? What i mean is that if the way they are put 5231 is random then why not 1235

Hi aniandr, I don't believe they're random numbers, I believe Paulo Pereira Cristovão was referring to something very specific.