Did Madeleine have coloboma?

Garth wrote:Me


About as barmy as an abductor walking across the very road the parents used "every 15 minutes" to check their children. About as barmy as said abductor continuing to walk across the road when two men (including the father - who no doubt said abductor would recognise as the father if he's been staking out the family) are on said road TALKING.

Now that is barmy. Agree?

And you think people on this site will take you seriously?

----------------------------------------------------



It's barmy only if you believe the McCanns were being stalked. If not, then how would this abductor have known?



Not so barmy eh.........



And quite frankly, your scenario and mine hardly compare.............. unless you've completely lost the plot!

Ah ok, so now you're saying they weren't being stalked or watched? Is that what you think? Please confirm your position on this just so we know and so you can't move the goalposts again in the future.

Because if so, and given the supposed regularity of the checking then the idea that some random abductor walking by (just - coincidentally - at the exact time in between the checks) simply walked in to the apartment as a spur of the moment action without watching the routines makes your theory even more barmy.

And given Kate's & Gerry's statements they think they must have been watched, so are you saying you don't agree with Kate & Gerry? Are you saying then you don't beleive Kate & Gerry? Wow, that's some revelation Garth.

Also if they weren't being watched how did this abductor know there were children in that room?

Still you don't mention the barminess of said abductor walking across the same street he can hear and see two men talking in!

You don't want these scenarios to compare becuase it exposes your theory to the ludicrous and barmy notion that it is.

However you can't accuse one theory you disagree with as being barmy then complain "no comparison" when a theory you adamently believe in is exposed as being even more barmy.

Yousee the trouble with Garth is that he keeps changing his mind, in fact one post straight after another. Try and be a bit more consistant Garth, it might help with your arguments.

[i][quote Garth]

It's barmy only if you believe the McCanns were being stalked. If not, then how would this abductor have known?


and then the next post....


[quote Garth]

Do you think that this is the first time this or these people have ever gotten into an apartment? Do you think they just decided on the spur of the moment? lol



So which is it Garth, you make fun of people and say one thing, and then do a complete u turn and and try to belittle another post by saying the opposite. I think it might be you in need of some fresh air.

Marian I don't think that it's posters other than Garth who need to get out more and blow the cobwebs away.


---------------------

Instead of making blanket statements, let's hear from you why my 'thoughts' are completely barmy as you appear to infer.
 
You talk about me not giving answers or explanations................a case of pot calling kettle black me thinks.
 
Over to you for your riveting exlanation.........can't wait!



 

Ah ok, so now you're saying they weren't being stalked or watched? Is that what you think? Please confirm your position on this just so we know and so you can't move the goalposts again in the future.

Because if so, and given the supposed regularity of the checking then the idea that some random abductor walking by (just - coincidentally - at the exact time in between the checks) simply walked in to the apartment as a spur of the moment action without watching the routines makes your theory even more barmy
---------------------------------------------------
 
Now now, lets keep our feet firmly on the ground here.
 
No one knows for sure whether they were observed or not, so don't take my ideas as absolute. On the contrary, I have an open mind (well, when a little common sense is applied) and have just replied to a previous question of yours. 
 
People will still keep a vigil if their intent is to snatch a child whether they know about the checks or not.
 
And we don't know anything about these culprits. They may be long term thieves. They may be paedophiles. They may be both. So lets not put words into my mouth about some random abductor. Thats you me old fruit making that suggestion.
 
 Its quite possible that these were local people who may have attempted break ins and theft on many occassions. The idea that a child was left alone on previous nights after previous attempts at a break in may well have spurred on the idea.
 
Who knows?
 
 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  candyfloss Today at 9:59 am

Yousee the trouble with Garth is that he keeps changing his mind, in fact one post straight after another. Try and be a bit more consistant Garth, it might help with your arguments.

[i][quote Garth]

It's barmy only if you believe the McCanns were being stalked. If not, then how would this abductor have known?


and then the next post....


[quote Garth]

Do you think that this is the first time this or these people have ever gotten into an apartment? Do you think they just decided on the spur of the moment? lol



So which is it Garth, you make fun of people and say one thing, and then do a complete u turn and and try to belittle another post by saying the opposite. I think it might be you in need of some fresh air.
 
-----------------
 
Like I have just said, I doubt for one minute it was a spur of the moment snatch. It does NOT mean they were watching the McCanns every move. They may have just known a child was left alone from a previous break in attempt.
 
My original point was to the post ME, who couldnt understand why the abductor would walk across the top road in view of someone making a check.
 
Had they not known about all these checks but knew about the girl being left alone, then going across the top road is feesible, as its the quickest way to get her out of sight and away from the complex from which she was snatched.
 
HALELLUJAH!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  Garth Yesterday at 7:16 pm[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
 
From a visual perspective................ what's the bleedin difference?  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

=============================================================

Well, the differnece is the new directive says Madeleine doesn't have coloboma........so, precisely, what is the difference? Could it be the threat of the intervention of SY?   [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  
 

Garth wrote:Ah ok, so now you're saying they weren't being stalked or watched? Is that what you think? Please confirm your position on this just so we know and so you can't move the goalposts again in the future.

Because if so, and given the supposed regularity of the checking then the idea that some random abductor walking by (just - coincidentally - at the exact time in between the checks) simply walked in to the apartment as a spur of the moment action without watching the routines makes your theory even more barmy
---------------------------------------------------

Now now, lets keep our feet firmly on the ground here.

No one knows for sure whether they were observed or not, so don't take my ideas as absolute. On the contrary, I have an open mind (well, when a little common sense is applied) and have just replied to a previous question of yours.

People will still keep a vigil if their intent is to snatch a child whether they know about the checks or not.

And we don't know anything about these culprits. They may be long term thieves. They may be paedophiles. They may be both. So lets not put words into my mouth about some random abductor. Thats you me old fruit making that suggestion.

Its quite possible that these were local people who may have attempted break ins and theft on many occassions. The idea that a child was left alone on previous nights after previous attempts at a break in may well have spurred on the idea.

Who knows?

Oh lordy.

First rule when in a hole, stop digging.

My feet are firmly attached to terra firma, the question is are yours?

You have no open mind, so dont try that defence!

If you did have an open mind you would be prepared to consider the merits and drawbacks of any and all reasons for her disappearance, not just the differing hypotheses of only 1 reason, namely abduction. That is not having an open mind.

Of course nobody knows if they were watched or not but the fact is under either scenario the logic underpinning the theories is barmy.

If they were watched then the idea the abductor would go across the street the parents checked is barmy.

If they weren't watched the idea that the abductor could get in and out in between checks unseen guessing there were kids in there is even more barmy.

You've now moved onto burglars etc. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Is that how desperate you are to stretch your theory rather than actually admitting that just maybe your central theory of abduction may have more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Either scenario still doesnt explain why an abductor would cross a road where two people are talking, does it?

Garth either scenario when you look at it is barmy, but you're too stubborn to admit the possibility that you might just be wrong.

Also given you believe the child was "abducted" it's hardly putting words in your mouth when i call that person an "abductor" is it?

Garth, a tip for you. Quit, whilst you're losing.

Hang on a minute
 
Its YOU who has a closed mind and won't accept the points I've raised.
 
So you cannot accept my ideas.
 
Lets look at your 'alternative reason' and see how that stacks up........should be fun!
 
 

Me, you make me laugh. Talk about worming your way out.
 
The McCanns LIED about the shutters being jemmied has now to be read in the third context as described by our lovely dictionary as MISTAKEN.
 
 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 
 
No inference whatsoever..........

Garth. Stop it. Just stop it. You're being silly.

Me wrote:

Either scenario still doesnt explain why an abductor would cross a road where two people are talking, does it?

Not when he could have stopped on the corner of the road, pretended to be doing something with the child, did a quick 20/20 and if necessary, if he saw someone coming his was or as in this case saw anyone standing there talking, he could have turned around and went a different way. To be honest, he should have also used his ears to know someone was just around that corner.

Come on SAS Garth, do you think only the trained person would know about this sort of basic recon?

Not when he could have stopped on the corner of the road, pretended to be doing something with the child, did a quick 20/20 and if necessary, if he saw someone coming his was or as in this case saw anyone standing there talking, he could have turned around and went a different way. To be honest, he should have also used his ears to know someone was just around that corner.

Come on SAS Garth, do you think only the trained person would know about this sort of basic recon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Its incredible isn't it, YOU trying to apply some logic when you believe old Gerry would carry his dead daughter through the streets of PDL. LOL
 
Tell me, what do you do for a living Stella?
 
 
 
 

Stella its not me who's been part of the SAS luvvy.
 
 

Garth wrote:Not when he could have stopped on the corner of the road, pretended to be doing something with the child, did a quick 20/20 and if necessary, if he saw someone coming his was or as in this case saw anyone standing there talking, he could have turned around and went a different way. To be honest, he should have also used his ears to know someone was just around that corner.

Come on SAS Garth, do you think only the trained person would know about this sort of basic recon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its incredible isn't it, YOU trying to apply some logic when you believe old Gerry would carry his dead daughter through the streets of PDL. LOL

Tell me, what do you do for a living Stella?

For the record, I have always maintained that the child seen by the Smith's was another child used as a decoy and not Madeleine.

As for my "living", I am disabled. But in my days, I used to work in accounts and office administration, which has really come in handy, sifting all through the booking sheets and guest lists. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Now. As this thread was about Madeleine's eye defect, let's try and get it back on course.

Garth wrote:
Its incredible isn't it, YOU trying to apply some logic when you believe old Gerry would carry his dead daughter through the streets of PDL. LOL

Tell me, what do you do for a living Stella?

Garth .... what is it precisely about the idea of Gerry carrying a dead Madeleine that you find impossible to believe?

You think parents can't bear to touch their dead child? You think a dead child looks any different to a sleeping child? You think it would be too risky? ... what exactly makes you so positive that someone wouldn't do that?

Because it seems to me that people in general are capable of all sorts of behaviours that even those who actually know them wouldn't suspect them of (let alone complete strangers).

I have a close friend who worked with Dennis Nilson for many years ... did she suspect that he was killing people and burning them in his back garden/flushing them down the drains? No of course she didn't - and if anyone had suggested such a thing she would have been as adamant as you are about Gerry McCann's possible behaviour.

Garth wrote:Not when he could have stopped on the corner of the road, pretended to be doing something with the child, did a quick 20/20 and if necessary, if he saw someone coming his was or as in this case saw anyone standing there talking, he could have turned around and went a different way. To be honest, he should have also used his ears to know someone was just around that corner.

Come on SAS Garth, do you think only the trained person would know about this sort of basic recon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its incredible isn't it, YOU trying to apply some logic when you believe old Gerry would carry his dead daughter through the streets of PDL. LOL

No you look at the evidence you have and draw your conlcusions based on that, not on how your logic works.

You have a credible independent sighting that 60-80% identifies Gerry, wearing clothes that Gerry had at the time.

Or using your logic we have to believe paedo burglers who were / weren't watching the apartment or children. For which there is not one shred of evidence.

Yet you cling to this, despite their being no evidence over and above an independent 3rd party sighting. And you claim you are applying logic. LOL

have you heard this quote before:

when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

Garth wrote:Not when he could have stopped on the corner of the road, pretended to be doing something with the child, did a quick 20/20 and if necessary, if he saw someone coming his was or as in this case saw anyone standing there talking, he could have turned around and went a different way. To be honest, he should have also used his ears to know someone was just around that corner.

Come on SAS Garth, do you think only the trained person would know about this sort of basic recon?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its incredible isn't it, YOU trying to apply some logic when you believe old Gerry would carry his dead daughter through the streets of PDL. LOL

Tell me, what do you do for a living Stella?

Garth

You've moved the posts again. You were asked:

Either scenario still doesnt explain why an abductor would cross a road where two people are talking, does it?

You moved onto Gerry walking the streets with his dead daughter.

You didn't answer that question. Please do so.

Garth wrote:Hang on a minute

Its YOU who has a closed mind and won't accept the points I've raised.

So you cannot accept my ideas.

Lets look at your 'alternative reason' and see how that stacks up........should be fun!

No not at all closed. You'll remember when i entered this forum, i asked you to make me believe in your theory, didn't i? You do remember that don't you?

You spectacularly failed to put any kind of credible evidence backed theory forward which carried any kind of weight to most normal people.

So based on the evidence before us and given the investigation is at this stage incomplete, (due to the Tapas 9 refusing to answer questions let's not forget) i agree at this stage with the two police inspectors (not just your anti-christ Amaral) and the interim report author (Tavaral i think he's called) who believe the child had an accidental death and her body was disposed of by her parents.

Whereas you believe good old Kate & Gerry.

LOL

Me wrote:

Garth wrote:Hang on a minute

Its YOU who has a closed mind and won't accept the points I've raised.

So you cannot accept my ideas.

Lets look at your 'alternative reason' and see how that stacks up........should be fun!

No not at all closed. You'll remember when i entered this forum, i asked you to make me believe in your theory, didn't i? You do remember that don't you?

You spectacularly failed to put any kind of credible evidence backed theory forward which carried any kind of weight to most normal people.

So based on the evidence before us and given the investigation is at this stage incomplete, (due to the Tapas 9 refusing to answer questions let's not forget) i agree at this stage with the two police inspectors (not just your anti-christ Amaral) and the interim report author (Tavaral i think he's called) who believe the child had an accidental death and her body was disposed of by her parents.

Whereas you believe good old Kate & Gerry.
LOL

It makes it difficult to believe them though doesn't it, so many changing stories and excuses ...................

1. Used keys to enter apartment - then they didn't

2. First doors were locked - then they weren't

3. Windows jemmied, shutters forced - then they weren't

4. Cuddlecat placed on high shelf - then it wasn't it was on the bed

5. Madeleine was in bed - then she was lying on top

6. Not aware of being watched, it felt safe - then they were

7. Children weren't drugged - then they were.



Just a few that come to mind - please feel free to add more.

candyfloss wrote:
It makes it difficult to believe them though doesn't it, so many changing stories and excuses ...................

1. Used keys to enter apartment - then they didn't

2. First doors were locked - then they weren't

3. Windows jemmied, shutters forced - then they weren't

4. Cuddlecat placed on high shelf - then it wasn't it was on the bed

5. Madeleine was in bed - then she was lying on top

6. Not aware of being watched, it felt safe - then they were

7. Children weren't drugged - then they were.



Just a few that come to mind - please feel free to add more.

Madeleine had a coloboma - and now she doesn't

LittleMissMolly wrote:

candyfloss wrote:
It makes it difficult to believe them though doesn't it, so many changing stories and excuses ...................

1. Used keys to enter apartment - then they didn't

2. First doors were locked - then they weren't

3. Windows jemmied, shutters forced - then they weren't

4. Cuddlecat placed on high shelf - then it wasn't it was on the bed

5. Madeleine was in bed - then she was lying on top

6. Not aware of being watched, it felt safe - then they were

7. Children weren't drugged - then they were.



Just a few that come to mind - please feel free to add more.

Madeleine had a coloboma - and now she doesn't

Have now started a thread on the changing stories, so as to keep this one on topic.

candyfloss wrote:

Me wrote:

Garth wrote:Hang on a minute

Its YOU who has a closed mind and won't accept the points I've raised.

So you cannot accept my ideas.

Lets look at your 'alternative reason' and see how that stacks up........should be fun!

No not at all closed. You'll remember when i entered this forum, i asked you to make me believe in your theory, didn't i? You do remember that don't you?

You spectacularly failed to put any kind of credible evidence backed theory forward which carried any kind of weight to most normal people.

So based on the evidence before us and given the investigation is at this stage incomplete, (due to the Tapas 9 refusing to answer questions let's not forget) i agree at this stage with the two police inspectors (not just your anti-christ Amaral) and the interim report author (Tavaral i think he's called) who believe the child had an accidental death and her body was disposed of by her parents.

Whereas you believe good old Kate & Gerry.
LOL

It makes it difficult to believe them though doesn't it, so many changing stories and excuses ...................

1. Used keys to enter apartment - then they didn't

2. First doors were locked - then they weren't

3. Windows jemmied, shutters forced - then they weren't

4. Cuddlecat placed on high shelf - then it wasn't it was on the bed

5. Madeleine was in bed - then she was lying on top

6. Not aware of being watched, it felt safe - then they were

7. Children weren't drugged - then they were.



Just a few that come to mind - please feel free to add more.

They were just "mistaken" weren't they Garth?

Don't worry about that Garth me old mucker, i'll come onto that one when i have more time. I haven't forgotten about it love.

candyfloss wrote:

LittleMissMolly wrote:

candyfloss wrote:
It makes it difficult to believe them though doesn't it, so many changing stories and excuses ...................

1. Used keys to enter apartment - then they didn't

2. First doors were locked - then they weren't

3. Windows jemmied, shutters forced - then they weren't

4. Cuddlecat placed on high shelf - then it wasn't it was on the bed

5. Madeleine was in bed - then she was lying on top

6. Not aware of being watched, it felt safe - then they were

7. Children weren't drugged - then they were.



Just a few that come to mind - please feel free to add more.

Madeleine had a coloboma - and now she doesn't

Have now started a thread on the changing stories, so as to keep this one on topic.

Thank you candyfloss, because as usual garth has derailed another subject.

He does not know a coloboma froma fleck and gives doctored photos as proof.

The fact is that both parents carried on a campaign were the coloboma was the distinguishing factor. They even placed a request for help in the Lancet. Now why would parents of a missing girl introduce a distinguishing factor that the child NOT has. The only possibilities are

1 They know she can't be found.
2 They don't want her to be found.


Missing a diagnosis is bad for a doctor, but making up one, especially for financial gain, is worse.

And now they are also lying about the importance of this distinguishing factor.

Why do they lie?

it's clear that Garth and Gerry both share the above opinion. I think that Garth would be more at home on the Justice for the McCanns website (which aims to protect them from the likes of we nasty people who don't believe them) but he is providing a useful service here in enabling more and more information to come out which explains exactly why we don't believe the Gruesome Twosome.

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

Garth wrote:
-----------------

Like I have just said, I doubt for one minute it was a spur of the moment snatch. It does NOT mean they were watching the McCanns every move. They may have just known a child was left alone from a previous break in attempt.

My original point was to the post ME, who couldnt understand why the abductor would walk across the top road in view of someone making a check.

Had they not known about all these checks but knew about the girl being left alone, then going across the top road is feesible, as its the quickest way to get her out of sight and away from the complex from which she was snatched.

HALELLUJAH!

First of all do you mean " i doubt for one minute", or do you mean "i don't doubt for one minute."

You said the former but your sentence implies the latter.

Please clarify so we know where you stand.

As i have constantly told you you only want to shoot down onther people's theories in order to divert attention away from you own crackpot ideas which when exposed to scrutiny show you up for the nut job you are.

So we've now got paedos, theives, abductors (any more i've missed out, little green men perhaps) all intent on taking a little girl (not the twins) and not taking any possesions or vaulables (well apart from the next day when they seem to have returned and taken the blue tennis bag and Gerry's Chinos), nor distubring any valuables, searching in drawers, suitcases etc.

Some burglars eh?

So they could have known a child was there from a PREVIOUS break in attempt? You're suggesting now it's possible someone tried to get in previously?

Evidence to support this please. Indeed evidence to support the second "succesful" attempt?

It was a spur of the moment snatch? What in a 5, 10 or 15 minute window? Wow, that's lucky isnt it? Good timing as well if they weren't watching. How would they know there'd be no parents there or due to come if they weren't checking? Big risk to take that isn't it?

So they knew she was alone but didn't know when she would be left alone, or how often her parents checked on her? Not really feasible is it?

They managed to work out the patio was unlocked, get in and out without swithcing lights on or off, without dsturbing anything and leaving no trace anywhere? Not really feasible is it?

How did they get her out and where and what's your evidence to support this nonesene.

Please stop i'm in stitches here. I've never heard such fanciful, impossible and unsupported drivel in all my life.

Sweet baby Jesus.

You really believe this s**t???

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

There is no proof of any abductor apart frommccann hearsay and having read lots of stuff err on the side of staging after a death, nothing to suggest otherwise, plenty to suggest it was

In Daily Mail newspaper August 6th 2007 Madeleine's photograph was published

under the heading Murat in clear.

Madeleine has NO DEFECT IN HER EYE!

I have blown this photograph up on the PC and on zoom camera levels

Madeleine's eye is clear as a bell but you can notice the difference in

eye colour between her two eyes.

Her right eye is clear as cut glass in this photograph or at least the copy I have.

Hadn't seen this before, just seen it posted on MM

[youtube]object width="640" height="390">