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

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 11:43

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.

I just wish the family who produced the e-fits for the McCanns, had walked passed a man pushing a child in a pushchair. It would have been oh so much less confusing IMO.

by Cammerigal 16.09.24 12:11

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.

I just wish the family who produced the e-fits for the McCanns, had walked passed a man pushing a child in a pushchair. It would have been oh so much less confusing IMO.

Smithman sighting is very confusing, by design. See the dark fingerprints of the ''fat controller"
@PeterMac has clearly demonstrated by timing analysis in Chapter 63 it doesn't stack up, like the time date stamps on the 'last photo', which also don't stack up.
The only question now is why one still pursues this distractive, elusive rabbit down a proverbial rabbit hole?

by Buzz Shine 16.09.24 12:27

Cammerigal 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.

I just wish the family who produced the e-fits for the McCanns, had walked passed a man pushing a child in a pushchair. It would have been oh so much less confusing IMO.
Smithman sighting is very confusing, by design. See the dark fingerprints of the ''fat controller"
@PeterMac has clearly demonstrated by timing analysis in Chapter 63 it doesn't stack up, like the time date stamps on the 'last photo', which also don't stack up.
The only question now is why one still pursues this distractive, elusive rabbit down a proverbial rabbit hole?

The reason people still pursue Smithman, is because he still hasn't been identified. There are only two times that are definitive at best. The witness who said she was sure of the exact time of 21:58 because she checked the time on the telephone in the lounge before leaving and the 22:41 they called the police. There are no exact times for anything else, everything else is wild guesswork. I'm only interested in learning the truth, who is right and wrong doesn't matter to me.

by Nina 16.09.24 12:36

Buzz Shine wrote:Why so much emphasis on the bag and not a suitcase? They could wheel a suitcase around PDL with one hand and no-one would bat an eye-lid. It's probably because there was a bag and not a suitcase in the wardrobe.

Maybe something like this? A bag but with inbuilt wheels. There are many to choose from online.

https://www.argos.co.uk/product/8356419?istCompanyId=a74d8886-5df9-4baa-b776-166b3bf9111c&istFeedId=30f62ea9-9626-4cac-97c8-9ff3921f8558&istItemId=ixilqiaax&istBid=t&&cmpid=GS001&_$ja=tsid:59157%7Cacid:629-618-1342%7Ccid:20368875273%7Cagid:%7Ctid:%7Ccrid:%7Cnw:x%7Crnd:7569154561000520905%7Cdvc:c%7Cadp:%7Cmt:%7Cloc:1006841&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=20368875273&utm_term=8356419&utm_content=shopping&utm_custom1=&utm_custom2=629-618-1342&GPDP=true&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwrp-3BhDgARIsAEWJ6SwW9yjweYtKIcLlSkC2tSnCuW-zLLgjgOWuleYEWZL2_qt0XsDRGdQaAvwTEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

by pinkgladioli 16.09.24 12:48

Thats the kind of bag I was thinking of too!
There is a video of GM leaving the villa they rented with what looks like a dark coloured bag in the hire car,
You’ll find the video clip by typing in the search box on YouTube
@alvesdosreis2007
Click on the round profile pic the click on videos scroll and you’ll find it
along with other quite interesting video clips

by pinkgladioli 16.09.24 12:54

Look for the video clip called
RTP Telejornal: PJ flies to UK at 1.26/1.27 in the clip what looks like a bag appears in the back of the hire car

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 14:48

Buzz Shine wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:They don't suggest that at all.

I've already said why. How is your understanding going?
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone. The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared

I still can't understand how anyone can be certain he is one who is wrong.

He's not wrong.

You haven't read his statement correctly. He was elsewhere before 22.20 and noticed this when he came on the scene.

Nor can I understand why Gerry would be the first to run to the Tapas Bar he had just left. He knew for a fact Madeleine wasn't in there at that time.

You have very limited powers of imagination.

Who said he was first? This was the time the witness observed Gerry entering the Tapas Bar for any number of reasons.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 14:50

Buzz Shine wrote:

There is only one witness who is exact about time and her evidence doesn't support the befores.

It doesn't not support it.

For reasons already stated which you chose to ignore.

You don't seen willing to help you understanding of this.

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 14:53

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?

by Bluebagthepirate 16.09.24 14:55

Buzz Shine wrote:

The reason people still pursue Smithman, is because he still hasn't been identified. There are only two times that are definitive at best. The witness who said she was sure of the exact time of 21:58 because she checked the time on the telephone in the lounge before leaving and the 22:41 they called the police. There are no exact times for anything else, everything else is wild guesswork. I'm only interested in learning the truth, who is right and wrong doesn't matter to me.

Do you have fingers in your ears?

It doesn't appear to me you are interested in learning the truth.

It's Smithman and only Smithman for you and any amount of mental gymnastics is ok by you to carry on the argument.

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 .

Latest topics