Re: Latest from PeterMac's FREE e-book: CHAPTER 63 SMITH-GERRY-MAN SCRUTINISED

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 15:02

Bluebagthepirate wrote:It doesn't not support it.

After leaving Block 6, they turned right and after left, passing in front of the block occupied by the McCanns. She states that she saw no movement of people.

I didnt say it proved it, I said seeing no people running around outside the McCanns pretending to look for Madeleine supported the after 22:00s. Apparently they were all running around like head-less chickens after they raised the alarm but who knows.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 15:07

Do I have to say it again?

At that time everyone was still in the Tapas Bar as Kate had just gone back there.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 15:18

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Do I have to say it again?

At that time everyone was still in the Tapas Bar as Kate had just gone back there.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

At that time (after 21:58) everyone was still in the Tapas Bar as Kate had just gone back there.

Does that mean the alarm was definitely raised sometime after 22:00?

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 15:26

It could have been before as the tapas gang might have been Iin or out the back of 5a. It could have been 22,00 or 22.01 or 22.02 who knows?

Your witness passed the front of the apartment a minute or two after 9.58 with a witness window of probably 30 seconds.

Seeing nothing during that time is perfectly reasonable,

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 15:31

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Seeing nothing during that time is perfectly reasonable

See, there are some things we can agree on.

But it would only be perfectly reasonable if they had not raised the alarm at that point (after 21:58). There wouldn't be any point in staging an alarm that no-one could hear or see. That wouldn't convince anyone.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 15:37

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
crusader wrote:As I've said before, There would be no need for a bag or a suitcase to remove Madeleine.
All that would be needed was a pushchair, nobody is going to take any notice of someone pushing a sleeping child around Praia da Luz, no matter what time it was, day or night.
That's a very good point that I do agree with. The logic is there. What I would say about a pushchair though, is it's impossible to hold it up to hide your face.
Jeeze.

Why are you so obsessed with Smithman?

Someone has just pointed out how a body could be moved around any time and you rule it out because it's not Smithman.

I thought you were trying to increase your understanding?

I will go further after thinking about your ridiculous response to crusader and subsequent posts.

You are disingenuous and are taking the piss,

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 15:44

Bluebagthepirate wrote:I will go further after thinking about your ridiculous response to crusader and subsequent posts.

You are disingenuous and are taking the piss,

I certainly am not being disingenuous with anyone. I can assure you. I also said to Crusader in the same post that I wished the man who walked passed the Smiths was pushing a child in a pushchair. I genuinely don't believe there would be any confusion today if they had.

During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22.30 when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm

by crusader 16.09.24 15:57

Anyway if we wait until Bernt's next instalment, all will hopefully be revealed to shed light on whether the Smithman sighting was relevant.
I just hope he's not being led in the direction the McCann's want.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 16:00

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Jeeze.

Why are you so obsessed with Smithman?

It's nothing to do with an obsession with Smithman at all. It's all because it's a Smithman thread. If you'd prefer I say no more on the subject, I'll be more than happy to oblige. Just say the word.

by Ladyinred 16.09.24 16:04

crusader wrote:Anyway if we wait until Bernt's next instalment, all will hopefully be revealed to shed light on whether the Smithman sighting was relevant.
I just hope he's not being led in the direction the McCann's want.

Didn't Bernt say in his interview that Smithman was irrelevant? (Hope I'm not misremembering).

by crusader 16.09.24 16:40

No, you are right, he did say Smithman was irrelevant but only because it wasn't Gerry if I'm reading it right.

by AnneCGuedes 16.09.24 16:44

Ladyinred wrote:
crusader wrote:Anyway if we wait until Bernt's next instalment, all will hopefully be revealed to shed light on whether the Smithman sighting was relevant.
I just hope he's not being led in the direction the McCann's want.

Didn't Bernt say in his interview that Smithman was irrelevant? (Hope I'm not misremembering).

The carrier and the child crossed by the S family, if they are G and M respectively, are incompatible with the BS theory. Hence the Smithman sighting has to be irrelevant.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 21:26

Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:I will go further after thinking about your ridiculous response to crusader and subsequent posts.

You are disingenuous and are taking the piss,
I certainly am not being disingenuous with anyone. I can assure you. I also said to Crusader in the same post that I wished the man who walked passed the Smiths was pushing a child in a pushchair. I genuinely don't believe there would be any confusion today if they had.

During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22.30 when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm

Rubbish.

You were taking the piss with the hiding his face with a pushchair.

Are your pals at the other forum having a good laugh at your antics?

Smithman is dead in the water, tell them.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 21:27

Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:Jeeze.

Why are you so obsessed with Smithman?
It's nothing to do with an obsession with Smithman at all. It's all because it's a Smithman thread. If you'd prefer I say no more on the subject, I'll be more than happy to oblige. Just say the word.

Carry on.

You're making a fool of yourself.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 21:32

Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:Jeeze.

Why are you so obsessed with Smithman?
It's nothing to do with an obsession with Smithman at all. It's all because it's a Smithman thread. If you'd prefer I say no more on the subject, I'll be more than happy to oblige. Just say the word.
Carry on.

You're making a fool of yourself.

I just don't get it with the hostility. I'm thick skinned, it's not a problem and I don't even need to try to understand it. I'm still open minded to Smithman not being Gerry, I just want to see the proof and I know it's not there.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 21:46

You are absolutely not open minded.

Your pushchair comment was a pathetic joke.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 21:49

You know?

And you're open minded?

Please, enough with your games.

by Silentscope 16.09.24 21:56

Sometimes I miss Verdi... spit coffee

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 22:01

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Your pushchair comment was a pathetic joke.

My pushchair comment in it's entirety wasn't meant to be a pathetic joke. I apologise if it came across that way. I genuinely do believe holding the child in his arms up to his face may have made a difference. That doesn't mean it was Gerry, but I do believe there's a reasonable chance if the man wasn't holding the child to his face, the Smiths would have had a much better chance of confirming if it wasn't Gerry, or if was. It's all about the knowing for sure with me. I'm not bothered what the sure is and what the sure isn't. The more we all know for sure the better.

by silly 16.09.24 22:04

Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:Jeeze.

Why are you so obsessed with Smithman?
It's nothing to do with an obsession with Smithman at all. It's all because it's a Smithman thread. If you'd prefer I say no more on the subject, I'll be more than happy to oblige. Just say the word.
Carry on.

You're making a fool of yourself.
I just don't get it with the hostility. I'm thick skinned, it's not a problem and I don't even need to try to understand it. I'm still open minded to Smithman not being Gerry, I just want to see the proof and I know it's not there.

There has been a concerted effort since 2013 on this forum to shout down and personally attack anyone who believes the Smith family .

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 22:12

Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:Your pushchair comment was a pathetic joke.
My pushchair comment in it's entirety wasn't meant to be a pathetic joke. I apologise if it came across that way. I genuinely do believe holding the child in his arms up to his face may have made a difference. That doesn't mean it was Gerry, but I do believe there's a reasonable chance if the man wasn't holding the child to his face, the Smiths would have had a much better chance of confirming if it wasn't Gerry, or if was. It's all about the knowing for sure with me. I'm not bothered what the sure is and what the sure isn't. The more we all know for sure the better.

Rubbish.

You were saying how you couldn't see how someone could move the body.

crusader told you an easy way in very simple terms.

You couldn't accept that and came up with a reason - being that you can't hold a pushchair up to your face.

A stupid comment - you can't see anything other than smithman or you are taking the piss.

Your battleship has been well and truly sunk by the demolition the other day.

Tell your mates.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 22:12

silly wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:
Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:Jeeze.

Why are you so obsessed with Smithman?
It's nothing to do with an obsession with Smithman at all. It's all because it's a Smithman thread. If you'd prefer I say no more on the subject, I'll be more than happy to oblige. Just say the word.
Carry on.

You're making a fool of yourself.
I just don't get it with the hostility. I'm thick skinned, it's not a problem and I don't even need to try to understand it. I'm still open minded to Smithman not being Gerry, I just want to see the proof and I know it's not there.
There has been a concerted effort since 2013 on this forum to shout down and personally attack anyone who believes the Smith family .

For very sound reasons.

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 22:21

Bluebagthepirate wrote:A stupid comment - you can't see anything other than smithman or you are taking the piss.

Because I see a strong case for Smithman being Gerry, doesn't mean I'd rather no-one ever seen the evidence to prove it isn't him. I just want to know for sure. If it isn't Gerry, no-one has proved it, no more than I have prove he is. I do have a better understanding of Smithman for myself now though. I now understand the evidence to prove it one way or the other just isn't there.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 22:29

Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:A stupid comment - you can't see anything other than smithman or you are taking the piss.
Because I see a strong case for Smithman being Gerry, doesn't mean I'd rather no-one ever seen the evidence to prove it isn't him. I just want to know for sure.

You said you knew.

100%

If it isn't Gerry, no-one has proved it,

No one has proved it wasn't Boris Johnson.
So what?

I do have a better understanding of Smithman for myself now though. I now understand the evidence to prove it one way or the other just isn't there.

Do you understand that the smith family forgot it was Gerry by January 2008?

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 22:34

Bluebagthepirate wrote:Do you understand that the smith family forgot it was Gerry by January 2008?

It's almost as if you want the Smiths to forget because you don't want Gerry to be Smithman, even if he is. I find it very difficult to believe anyone who was in PDL on May 3, 2007 could ever forget identifying Gerry McCann to police by January 2008.

Latest topics