Re: Calpol Night ORIGINAL!

by **Bluebagthepirate** 21.08.24 12:50

Crusader has an interesting point. Outside the bar it looks pretty bright but I think might be because the "gain" has been turned up to get a better visual of what is under cover at the bar.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The time on the picture says 17:31.

The camera is facing south west (I found the bar on Google Maps).

The sun is in the south west at this time of day.

There is a low ramp/wall to the southwest and you can see it in the picture. It has a darker face but is not casting a shadow of any note.

There are people walking past in the background (see the moving GIF) and again I don't see any strong shadows.

As pinkgladioli said, it probably wasn't that cold for British people and hence the beachwear.

by **PeterMac** 22.08.24 7:32

As I have tried patiently to explain, the weather front began to clear during the late afternoon and by the evening it was far out to the west.

As these two photos which appear in Chapter 28A clearly demonstrate.
Same boy taking the photo, same girl, same day
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Girl with hunched shoulders, jeans, long sleeved jumper over red long sleeved shirt, jacket and scarf,
clearly VERY cold and hoping for the boyfriend to take the photo so they could go back across
the causeway and find a cafe for a cappuccino and a piece of chocolate cake
NO Shadows, so NO sun
The bit of clear sky is over the sea, as we would expect
I explain this in excruciatingly boring detail in the chapter

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sunset was at 20:22 and the sun has another 2 degrees to go (4 sun diameters) giving us about 8 - 10 minutes
Therefore the time is between 8:10pm and 8:15pm

But note that the cloud banks are still very much there, just breaking up a bit as they lose altitude over the sea.
There is very probably still some residual cloud over the land behind them.

by **PeterMac** 22.08.24 11:47

MANY Years ago I did a graphic to show what the weather deniers are claiming.

I have just found it again.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **crusader** 22.08.24 12:02

I'm not contradicting any of your research PeterMac, I'm just saying at some point on the early evening 3rd May 07, the weather was sunny in Praia da Luz.
The date was changed on the pool photo, so we cannot believe it was taken the day the McCann's said it was.
I'm sorry to have annoyed you, but that's what I think, it's my opinion and I am not trying to change the minds of anyone.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 22.08.24 12:43

crusader wrote:I'm not contradicting any of your research PeterMac, I'm just saying at some point on the early evening 3rd May 07, the weather was sunny in Praia da Luz.

I don't think it was, see my previous post. It looks bright outside because they boosted the darks to be able to see under cover. There are no notable shadows outside.

by **crusader** 22.08.24 13:07

I can see what you are saying.
Look at photo number 6, you can clearly see the shadow under the highchair and the sun on the tables and floor at the side of J Tanner.
Photo number 9 shows 3 tables beyond the tapas lot's tables, bathed in sunshine there is even sunshine on J Tanner's shoulder.
Photo 14 shows the sun clearly moving up the cafe floor, look to the far right entrance.
Photo 8 clearly shows J Tanner with sunlight and shadow on her.
I know what I see, in my opinion, the sun was out between 5-31 and 6-36 on 7th May 2007.
I am not about to change my opinion, neither am I a weather denier.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 22.08.24 13:20

I think you are still not accounting for the "gain" from the camera to boost details in darker areas. The police might even have done it themselves.

I don't see sunshine on Jane's shoulder, just a light that has probably been boosted.

by **crusader** 22.08.24 13:23

No problem, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, it's my opinion and I don't care what anyone else thinks.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 22.08.24 13:33

crusader wrote:No problem, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, it's my opinion and I don't care what anyone else thinks.

There are shadows for sure, you can see the shadow of the overhang in the moving GIF image. I just think the contrast setting is on high to get a better image.

It's all irrelevant anyway as Peter said because of the timing of the weather earlier.

by **crusader** 22.08.24 13:42

Bluebag wrote..

It's all irrelevant anyway as Peter said because of the timing of the weather earlier.

Exactly! I never once questioned Peter's research.

by **PeterMac** 23.08.24 6:26

Exactly! I never once questioned Peter's research.

WRONG !
You should ALWAYS question and challenge and look for mistakes, better evidence, wrong interpretation of evidence,
other ways of looking at the problem

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Sadly what we are seeing now after the release of Bernt Stellander's book with his revised time line is some
whom we had thought of as open minded battening down their own hatches, refusing to consider his interpretation
of the evidence, and sticking to their own pet theories of Smithman, or 29/4/7, or whatever it might be.

Some are already beginning to using the word "BELIEVE' which is a serious Red Flag

Stellander has introduced two things
1. A new way of looking at the evidence we all have
2. NEW evidence – which seems to support his new way of looking at the existing evidence.
3 Scientific testing of his hypothesis

A historical equivalent might be Priestley and the discovery of Oxygen
Before the discovery burning was thought to be the loss of Phlogiston – the hypothetical element of Fire, present in all substances.
With the discovery of Oxygen he proposed that it is was ADDED to the substance during combustion
Everyone who has done first year Chemistry at school has done the experiment, burning a tiny bit of Magnesium
and then weighing the light fluffy ash to discover it weighs MORE than the original

Stellander has looked at the existing evidence, realised it did not fully account for all the observed facts
Proposed a new interpretation, predicted the result if he were correct, – "prediction' being the BASIS of Science –
and then put it to scientific test. and got the predicted result

Just a thought

by **Bluebagthepirate** 23.08.24 6:54

Correct, crusader did the right thing, we bounced it around and maybe are a bit wiser.

Never be afraid to have your views challenged or to challenge others.

Hurty feelings are not science.

by **PeterMac** 23.08.24 8:07

But if more or new evidence emerges we MUST consider it and be prepared to revise our theory if we cannot refute it.

by Paddingtom 23.08.24 9:22

PeterMac wrote:

Sadly what we are seeing now after the release of Bernt Stellander's book with his revised time line is some
whom we had thought of as open minded battening down their own hatches, refusing to consider his interpretation
of the evidence, and sticking to their own pet theories of Smithman, or 29/4/7, or whatever it might be.

I have huge respect for Bernt and admire what he is doing. He has convinced me she was not buried at sea as I previously thought because he has produced compelling evidence.i. I have seriously considered his timeline and tried to weigh it up against the other evidence and, for me , it does not stand up to scrutiny.

I respect that you changed your mind Peter after reading his book, but Im afraid, for me, the evidence just is not there.

I urge anyone who is considering buying Bernts book or digital copy, to do so. The more people we have analysing it and coming to their own decisions, the better. It is right that we should all consider all the available evidence, but also respect each others conclusions.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 23.08.24 9:56

Paddingtom wrote:I have seriously considered his timeline and tried to weigh it up against the other evidence and, for me , it does not stand up to scrutiny.

Any examples?

by Paddingtom 23.08.24 10:14

Bluebagthepirate wrote:

Any examples?

No evidence of her existing after 28th april. Change in routine after 28th april, .....personally, I think the best resource for this is RDH video on the subject. works for me.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 23.08.24 10:19

Paddingtom wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:

Any examples?
No evidence of her existing after 28th april.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There is evidence by the way.
Mrs Fenn heard her crying on Tuesday night.
I don't think they faked the creche for the whole week but I see how it could have happened on Thursday.

Change in routine after 28th april,

What routine? They'd only been there a day.

by Paddingtom 23.08.24 10:25

I personally do not find the crying incident believable.....This elderly lady was also trying to grab the legs of a burglar as he climbed out of the window of her first floor flat....allegedly.

by **crusader** 23.08.24 10:50

I believe Mrs Fenn without a doubt.
In my opinion, Madeleine was in creche on the afternoon of 3rd May 07.
Madeleine and Ella were the only 2 girls in the creche that afternoon, there were also 2 boy's, Alexander Mann and William Totman.
Ella was taken out by her father at 4-30 leaving Madeleine as the only girl there as the record shows.
So how could it have been faked?

by **Bluebagthepirate** 23.08.24 11:41

I dont believe signing in and out was monitored when actually signed, the nannies were busy after the first child arrived. I can't prove that but... and the nanny seems to be confused over the number of children on the boat trip as Bernt points out many many times.

by **Bluebagthepirate** 23.08.24 11:42

Paddingtom wrote:I personally do not find the crying incident believable.....This elderly lady was also trying to grab the legs of a burglar as he climbed out of the window of her first floor flat....allegedly.

Kate said it was, she shifted it to a day later.

Latest topics