Re: 50 facts about the Maddie case that the British media are not telling you

by Baffled 27.11.18 15:51

Tony Bennet, a few more points:
1.) "Baffled is NOT neutral"
Yes I am, you're not. And it has become apparent that no one here is.
If you were neutral, you would not have a starting point that Maddie was dead, you would open to all possibilities, without accusations.
2.) "If he does not agree with Amaral's book, why does he bother to come here?"
Because the forum is entitled The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann, not 'The works of Goncalo Amaral'
3.) "The MMRG leaflet has been uploaded to YouTube, accompanied by a large series of photographs to illustrate each point, LINKS here:

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

121,661 views to date

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

106,258 views to date"

This is precisely the reason why members should not be objecting to publishing the sources of their facts. By not publishing your sources so that they can be verified, you're admitting to having influenced
121,661 people on one video and
106,258 views to date, on another while refusing to substantiate yourselves.
That is no neutral, that is spreading hatred.
I have every reason to ask you to substantiate yourselves.
It's not hostility, it's a quest for truth.
Claiming something to be a fact while refusing to substantiate it, is in fact hostility.
4.) The fully sourced rebuttals may in themselves be false, I do not know. But what I do know is they provide sources, the MMRG don't.
Who is to be believed? What am I to believe? Those who are not afraid to open themselves to scrutiny or those who are?

by **Jill Havern** 27.11.18 16:03

Go. Away.

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

by Doug D 27.11.18 16:36

Baffled:

‘I find information all over the internet, some of which is fully sourced and some of it which isn't. ‘

I’m sorry Baffled, but you clearly don’t.

Having looked at the ‘50’, you then progress to STM. Absolutely fine, but then do a bit of investigation yourself and don’t expect it to be handed to you on a plate. You’re not going to just accept it anyway, so why even ask?

‘50’ is fine as far as it goes, not perfect, and if re-written today, no doubt amendments and corrections would be made.

STM was set up as one of the many branches of the pro-McCann propaganda machine.

You can find answers and discussions to pretty much everything you say you want, both ‘pro & anti’ with a bit of ‘googleing’ and searching and if, once you’ve done that you have a specific question to ask, you may get a more positive response.

However, once you’ve been through the T9 statements and done your investigative homework, if you still want to go with STM’s, good luck to you. Clarence may even have some paid ‘twitter’ work for you.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.11.18 18:44

Replying to Baffled

As Verdi will know, I have stated from the start that I do not believe Maddie is dead, and have questioned why this forum comes from the starting point that she is.

REPLY: Were Martin Grime’s dogs barking up the wrong tree?

Was the smell of cadavers scent caused by dirty nappies or rotting meat?

Did part-time Dr Kate McCann certify six corpses in a fortrnight before she went on holiday?

Did she carry Cuddle Cat around while certifying deaths?

Thank you for your references which I will check out in good time, why was it so hard to do that?

REPLY: Maybe because I have a few other things to do with my time?

The credibility of this forum is fast dwindling

REPLY: Not according to the 400-plus who have joined it in the last 2½ months, carrying the forum’s membership over 9,000.

You're admitting to having influenced 121,661 people on one video and 106,258 views on another while refusing to substantiate yourselves. That is…spreading hatred. Claiming something to be a fact while refusing to substantiate it, is in fact hostility.

REPLY: Have you contacted all the dictionary editors to advise them of your novel interpretations of the words ‘hatred’ and ‘hostility’?

I have been fully transparent from the start and will always be so. Who is to be believed? What am I to believe? Those who are not afraid to open themselves to scrutiny or those who are?

REPLY: By posting in my own name I have subjected myself to intense scrutiny over the past 10 years. Open yourself to scrutiny and disclose exactly who you are, like I have done

by Phoebe 27.11.18 19:08

@ Baffled. You say you don't believe that Madeleine is dead, ergo you must believe that she was abducted or given away by her parents.
If you believe either scenario is true, why join any group which explores the mystery of her disappearance. If you think she was abducted then there IS no mystery - you have found your answer, so - why bother with TCMOMM.

by Verdi 27.11.18 20:56

Baffled wrote:Verdi, I found your response sinister because it was accusative, when it would have been just as easy to refer me to some accurate data, and when people start throwing accusations I tend to feel they are trying to cover up something.

You could have saved yourself a whole lot of trouble and all that fabricated waffle if you'd just asked me.

Suffice to say, the thing is without seeming to blow my own bugle, I can sniff out a trouble maker from the word go - usually the first post is enough. I'm seldom if ever wrong, although I say so myself.

I'm sure one of your faithful associates will pass this message onto you winkwink

!

by **sharonl** 27.11.18 21:18

Verdi wrote:
Baffled wrote:Verdi, I found your response sinister because it was accusative, when it would have been just as easy to refer me to some accurate data, and when people start throwing accusations I tend to feel they are trying to cover up something.
You could have saved yourself a whole lot of trouble and all that fabricated waffle if you'd just asked me.

Suffice to say, the thing is without seeming to blow my own bugle, I can sniff out a trouble maker from the word go - usually the first post is enough. I'm seldom if ever wrong, although I say so myself.

I'm sure one of your faithful associates will pass this message onto you !

Yes baffled - Verdi can sniff out a trouble maker every bit as good as Eddie and Keela can sniff out cadaver and blood. And, just for the record, all 3 has never given a false alert big grin

by Verdi 27.11.18 23:23

Just for the record, the Baffled one was referring to a site titled 'madeleinemythsexposed' - not 'Stop the Myths' as has been presumed.

The two are entirely separate although I can't vouch for the identity of that behind the former.

by tiki 02.11.19 13:05

Re: 39 a very odd statement by GM on Scottish television. I cannot understand how they got away with it when their words give them away so much. Also had not seen before that all 3 children supposedly shared a toothbrush. I grew up in a poor household in the 60s but I don't remember ever sharing a toothbrush. The McCanns were far from poor so why would they be doing this. Not only did they not bother to take pushchairs or hire a baby sitter but they failed to.take basic items like toothbrushes for their kids. As somebody else pointed out why did GM have to travel to UK to get something with Ms DNA on it. Surely there was something closer to hand.

by Verdi 02.11.19 14:54

For the record..

39. On 24 August 2007, Gerry McCann, in a Scottish TV interview, said: “In fact, one of the slight positives in all of this is that there is so much rumour about what did and didn't happen, it's actually very difficult, if you're reading the newspapers, watching TV, to know what is true and what's not”.
...................

I'm delighted you've highlighted that particular quote tiki. If nothing else, it might quell the so frequently used mis-quote .... 'confusion is good', although I agree the latter does personify the underlying meaning of the former winkwink

.

An interesting thread that deserves to be rekindled thumbsup

. No shortage of material to get stuck into.

Without worthless distraction this time round - I hope!

by sandancer 02.11.19 16:10

tiki wrote:Re: 39 a very odd statement by GM on Scottish television. I cannot understand how they got away with it when their words give them away so much. Also had not seen before that all 3 children supposedly shared a toothbrush. I grew up in a poor household in the 60s but I don't remember ever sharing a toothbrush. The McCanns were far from poor so why would they be doing this. Not only did they not bother to take pushchairs or hire a baby sitter but they failed to.take basic items like toothbrushes for their kids. As somebody else pointed out why did GM have to travel to UK to get something with Ms DNA on it. Surely there was something closer to hand.

The sharing a toothbrush story is a myth . The PJ wanted a control sample of Madeleines DNA , if all the toothbrushes were together in a glass there is a risk of cross contamination or one child using another's by mistake , same with hairbrushes .
The return of Gerry to Rothley for a sample of her DNA isn't clear about how it was obtained or how the pillowcase was returned to Portugal . Madeleines clothes were washed by the Laundry services along with adult clothing on Saturday 5th May without the PJs knowledge . Her shoes , who knows ! Then we have the story of Kate putting Amelie in her sisters pyjamas and Amelie apparently saying " Maddies jammies , where's Maddie ? " But - they didn't call her Maddie did they !?!?
The McCanns do or say nothing without reason .

by Verdi 02.11.19 21:01

You are quite right sandancer, the toofbrush and hairbrush stories are but myths.

Like so many other myths still being repeated to this very day - no matter how many times they are taken to task.

by RoannaJane 08.05.23 10:47

Hi,

The point about one of the group being ill every night except the Thursday is very interesting. I think I read it was Matthew Oldfield on the Sunday. Does anyone know offhand which people were absent on the Monday, Tues and Weds?

Thanks
RJ

by Verdi 08.05.23 13:01

RoannaJane wrote:Hi,

The point about one of the group being ill every night except the Thursday is very interesting. I think I read it was Matthew Oldfield on the Sunday. Does anyone know offhand which people were absent on the Monday, Tues and Weds?

Thanks
RJ

Hello RoannaJane and welcome

to the forum.

35. The McCanns ignored police advice not to publicise Madeleine’s distinctive mark in her right eye, a ‘coloboma’. They said that if she was with an abductor, it could place her life in danger. On 15 July 2009, Gerry McCann said: “We thought it was possible that publicising her coloboma could harm Madeleine. Her abductor might do something to her eye. But in marketing terms it was a good ploy”.

I'm not sure how Point 35 relates to your question, perhaps all will be revealed when your question is answered.

At this stage I advise that you read through the witness statements taken from the McCanns and their holiday group of friends, that should tell you all you need to know - and a whole lot more winkwink

.

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

Enjoy!

by RoannaJane 08.05.23 13:33

Verdi wrote:
RoannaJane wrote:Hi,

The point about one of the group being ill every night except the Thursday is very interesting. I think I read it was Matthew Oldfield on the Sunday. Does anyone know offhand which people were absent on the Monday, Tues and Weds?

Thanks
RJ

Hello RoannaJane and to the forum.

I'm not sure how Point 35 relates to your question, perhaps all will be revealed when your question is answered.

At this stage I advise that you read through the witness statements taken from the McCanns and their holiday group of friends, that should tell you all you need to know - and a whole lot more .

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

Enjoy!

Apologies, I was looking at point 35 in a different list on a lower post. Sorry for my misleading note there.

Thank you so much for the link. I will sit and have a read through now with a cup of coffee. I'm interested to know if it was 4 different people ill or if there was duplication. I'm sure it will all be in the witness statements.