Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

by Guest 05.11.13 20:06

Sorry, Tony, I don't agree.
As I've been writing earlier, it may be difficult if not not impossible, to describe a person briefly seen, especially when there's no reason to be interested or alarmed even. E.g. sex, colour, height, maybe age, posture, hair, most visible parts of closing, etc. but that would be impossible to recognise from a photo. However, if you see someone walking, acting, behaving, that may trigger a memory, subconsciously in your mind.
FWiW

by Sockpuppet 05.11.13 20:07

The idea that Smith and his family made up the sighting is very popular indeed.

In the Smithman poll, currently:

'9. The sighting was not genuine - the Smith family made it up'

was voted for by a massive 5% of voters, 13 people out of 241.

Impressive stats, an argument well won.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 20:09

@Sockpuppet wrote:The idea that Smith and his family made up the sighting is very popular indeed.

In the Smithman poll, currently:

'9. The sighting was not genuine - the Smith family made it up'

was voted for by a massive 5% of voters, 13 people out of 241.

Impressive stats, an argument well won.

I agree, mine is a minority view.

Once, Emile Zola was the only person in France who thought Dreyfus was innocent.

by ProfMoriarty 05.11.13 20:10

@galena wrote:

Just a small correction - SY did not dismiss Jane's evidence they endorsed it by saying someone had come forward. I'm not sure how either Jane or the Smith's could be proved liars? No-one can actually prove they didn't see someone carrying something, and in the worst case they can just say it was dark and they are mistaken.

That's not a correction.
Tanner is a liar. She saw no one. What she claims she saw is impossible. Neither Wilkins nor McCann saw her or Bundleman; she claims to have seen both Wilkins and McCann. As for SY, they offer no account as to whether or not their man saw Wilkins or McCann or whether they saw him. SY have side-stepped the Tanner crap because had they not done so, the McCanns would have withdrawn support from this fake 'investigation' and that would have been that.
Smith is a different matter.
SY have proved themselves no more keen to answer - or raise - the difficult questions than any of their predecessors.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 20:20

Châtelaine wrote:Sorry, Tony, I don't agree.
As I've been writing earlier, it may be difficult if not not impossible, to describe a person briefly seen, especially when there's no reason to be interested or alarmed even. E.g. sex, colour, height, maybe age, posture, hair, most visible parts of closing, etc. but that would be impossible to recognise from a photo. However, if you see someone walking, acting, behaving, that may trigger a memory, subconsciously in your mind.
FWIW

In this case, you could argue, Chatelaine, that seeing GMcC coming down the plane carrying a child triggered the memory of his seeing a man with a child.

But, surely, not of seeing Gerry McCann?

by thetruthbeknown 05.11.13 20:24

Dee Coy wrote:I'm still waiting for enlightenment on the Unilever thing. Why is it of significance that Mr Smith worked for them? Sorry, I'm still a novice regarding the finer nuances of this case, is there a link with Unilever elsewhere?

I googled 'Unilever madeleine mccann'. Bizarrely, it chucked out a link to a list of notorious Freemasons, on which there is at least one very interesting name...

unilever has/had a contract with universal mccann (not mccann related to this case) Not sure about your freemason links...but unilever is a massive company, it will have links/connections everywhere....

by Sockpuppet 05.11.13 20:27

@Tony Bennett wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Sorry, Tony, I don't agree.
As I've been writing earlier, it may be difficult if not not impossible, to describe a person briefly seen, especially when there's no reason to be interested or alarmed even. E.g. sex, colour, height, maybe age, posture, hair, most visible parts of closing, etc. but that would be impossible to recognise from a photo. However, if you see someone walking, acting, behaving, that may trigger a memory, subconsciously in your mind.
FWIW
In this case, you could argue, Chatelaine, that seeing GMcC coming down the plane carrying a child triggered the memory of his seeing a man with a child.

But, surely, not of seeing Gerry McCann?

It triggered the memory of the man with the child, and the man he was looking at getting off the plane was Gerry McCann. The man getting off the plane triggered the memory of the guy in PDL. Not a man carrying a child in Blackpool. Not a man carrying a child in Kuala Lumpur. A man carrying a child in Praia da Luz.

It's called associative memory.

by Guest 05.11.13 20:27

No, Tony, I really mean that posture, position, behaviour, attitude, bearing, walking and maybe ultimately face, anything and everything like that might trigger an ... ah ... as in a "total" picture, if you know what I mean ...
I do know what I mean yes

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 20:28

@ProfMoriarty wrote:
Tanner is a liar. She saw no one. What she claims she saw is impossible.

But DCI Redwood and the BBC have said that crecheman was the man seen by Jane Tanner.

And the entire British mainstream media and press agree.

Identical bloke, identical clothes, identical child wearing identical clothes.

Just a bit strange that he was not walking the shortest route from the creche to anywhere...

...but then maybe he thought that his barefoot child clad only in pyjamas would benefit from an extra few minutes in the cold night air.

++++++++

crecheman is of course yet another anonymous bloke to add to 'British businessman/banker in Barcelona bars' and 'Germany-to-Telford mystery man'.

by RIPM 05.11.13 20:29

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@thetruthbeknown wrote: As many have pointed out, we recognise people by all different means of identification...we can often see someone we know from behind and recognise that its them...
In response, let me reiterate something I said back up the thread.

I agreed with another poster earlier that it is very possible to recognise the gait and mannerisms of someone one is familiar with.

BUT NOT:

* someone you only saw for a second or two

* in the dark.

To claim that one can recognise a person one has seen for only one or two seconds by the way he is carrying a two-year-old child over his left shoulder - which is the natural position for most right-handed people - at the very minimum raises a query as to the credibility of his statement.

Some would argue that it's palpable nonsense.

I suggest you maybe trying to put logic and rationality into this case but there is none.

SY have said JT saw a man for one to two seconds in the dark and gave an amazing accurate description of both him and the child he carried down to the small pattern on the pyjamas. The most accurate eye witness in the history of crime.
So if SY are now looking at 'accurate' e-fits given by people who never saw the mans face and say its true, the majority of the great British public will accept it. SY have said JT is totally truthful that is now a matter of record whether people like it or not.

Redwood is there to clear up with a big bucket of whitewash, not to solve anything.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 20:30

Châtelaine wrote:No, Tony, I really mean that posture, position, behaviour, attitude, bearing, walking and maybe ultimately face, anything and everything like that might trigger an ... ah ... as in a "total" picture, if you know what I mean ...
I do know what I mean

I wonder if anyone else does?

Remember...

...dark...

...only one or two seconds...

...didn't see face...

by Beanie 05.11.13 20:30

I am still wondering why Mrs Smith did not want to make a statement. As a mother if I knew anything that might possibly help with a missing child I would not hesitate to help, no matter how little I could remember.

by Sockpuppet 05.11.13 20:31

@Tony Bennett wrote:But DCI Redwood and the BBC have said that crecheman was the man seen by Jane Tanner.

And the entire British mainstream media and press agree.

Identical bloke, identical clothes, identical child wearing identical clothes.

Just a bit strange that he was not walking the shortest route from the creche to anywhere...

...but then maybe he thought that his barefoot child clad only in pyjamas would benefit from an extra few minutes in the cold night air.

++++++++

crecheman is of course yet another anonymous bloke to add to 'British businessman/banker in Barcelona bars' and 'Germany-to-Telford mystery man'.

Redwood said they were almost certain on Crimewatch.

by Sockpuppet 05.11.13 20:33

@Tony Bennett wrote:I wonder if anyone else does?

Remember...

...dark...

...only one or two seconds...

...didn't see face...

Yes, someone else does, there is me for starters. I wholeheartedly agree with Châtelaine.

Oh, you can add in the 107 people who voted in the Smithman poll for 'Gerry McCann.'

by Guest 05.11.13 20:36

@Tony Bennett wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:No, Tony, I really mean that posture, position, behaviour, attitude, bearing, walking and maybe ultimately face, anything and everything like that might trigger an ... ah ... as in a "total" picture, if you know what I mean ...
I do know what I mean
I wonder if anyone else does?

Remember...

...dark...

...only one or two seconds...

...didn't see face...

***
Ye Gods, Tony! I am NOT talking about the face, but about the total picture. I've never met you and would probably not recognise you from the photos I've seen. BUT If you would have ever walked in front of my gate carrying a child and I would have realised later that at that moment a child had gone missing, I would [or might] if seeing you againcarrying a child recognised you from the way you walked, your posture, position, behaviour, attitude, bearing and maybe ultimately your face. And, like Mr. Smith, I would have been in shock and only able to say 60-80% sure.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 20:38

@Sockpuppet wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Sorry, Tony, I don't agree.
As I've been writing earlier, it may be difficult if not not impossible, to describe a person briefly seen, especially when there's no reason to be interested or alarmed even. E.g. sex, colour, height, maybe age, posture, hair, most visible parts of closing, etc. but that would be impossible to recognise from a photo. However, if you see someone walking, acting, behaving, that may trigger a memory, subconsciously in your mind.
FWIW
In this case, you could argue, Chatelaine, that seeing GMcC coming down the plane carrying a child triggered the memory of his seeing a man with a child.

But, surely, not of seeing Gerry McCann?
It triggered the memory of the man with the child, and the man he was looking at getting off the plane was Gerry McCann. The man getting off the plane triggered the memory of the guy in PDL. Not a man carrying a child in Blackpool. Not a man carrying a child in Kuala Lumpur. A man carrying a child in Praia da Luz.

It's called associative memory.

Gosh!

'Associative memory'.

Does that trump everything?

Any jury would be bound to be impressed with that.

"Members of the jury, some of you may think it somewhat improbable that Martin Smith could have been 60% to 80% certain that, back on 3 May - 4 months and 6 days earlier - the man he saw coming off the plane on 9 September, Dr Gerald McCann, was the very man he saw in May.

You may be thinking: but it was dark.

You may be thinking: he only saw him for one or two seconds.

You may be thinking: he didn't even see his face.

Put all of that to one side.

You have heard the expert evidence in this court of Professor Sockpuppet.

He told you it was 'Associative Memory'.

I rest my case".

by whmon 05.11.13 20:40

Châtelaine wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:No, Tony, I really mean that posture, position, behaviour, attitude, bearing, walking and maybe ultimately face, anything and everything like that might trigger an ... ah ... as in a "total" picture, if you know what I mean ...
I do know what I mean
I wonder if anyone else does?

Remember...

...dark...

...only one or two seconds...

...didn't see face...
***
Ye Gods, Tony! I am NOT talking about the face, but about the total picture. I've never met you and would probably not recognise you from the photos I've seen. BUT If you would have ever walked in front of my gate carrying a child and I would have realised later that at that moment a child had gone missing, I would [or might] if seeing you againcarrying a child recognised you from the way you walked, your posture, position, behaviour, attitude, bearing and maybe ultimately your face. And, like Mr. Smith, I would have been in shock and only able to say 60-80% sure.

And an awful lot of research has been done that proves this very point. Just google 'gait recognition'

by Sockpuppet 05.11.13 20:40

@Tony Bennett wrote:Gosh!

'Associative memory'.

Does that trump everything?

Any jury would be bound to be impressed with that.

"Members of the jury, some of you may think it somewhat improbable that Martin Smith could have been 60% to 80% certain that, back on 3 May - 4 months and 6 days earlier - the man he saw coming off the plane on 9 September, Dr Gerald McCann, was the very man he saw in May.

You may be thinking: but it was dark.

You may be thinking: he only saw him for one or two seconds.

You may be thinking: he didn't even see his face.

Put all of that to one side.

You have heard the expert evidence in this court of Professor Sockpuppet.

He told you it was 'Associative Memory'.

I rest my case".

Very condescending. If I continually posted in that manner I would surely run the risk of getting banned.

by thetruthbeknown 05.11.13 20:43

Unfortunately humans are not good witnesses..we've seen it recreated in many studies, one was on tv a few years back..show them a crime and get them to recall, and ID the perpetrator..the results are poor. Our brains fill in missing details. I dont know if anyone else has seen that fun post that goes around social media, it shows a paragraph of jumbled letters, however 2 or 3 of the letters are in the rights place so you can actually 'make sense' of the paragraph..Thats what our brain does, it fills in missing 'blanks' we actually take in very little of minute detail unless it is something very significant or unusual at the time of the sighting....

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 20:45

Châtelaine wrote:
Ye Gods, Tony! I am NOT talking about the face...

But I am.

Martin Smith didn't see his face.

Yet we are told by one of the world's finest police forces and by one of the world's top broadcasting services, that Smith drew up an e-fit of the man.

Or maybe even two.

Wait!

I have failed to see 'the total picture'.

I think you mean that you are wiser and more knowledgeable than me about these things.

Or maybe, just maybe, it is 'Associative Memory', as Professor Sockpuppet has just told us.

Or perhjaps we could refine this interesting concept still further:

'Total Picture Associative Memory".

by Guest 05.11.13 20:47

@thetruthbeknown wrote:Unfortunately humans are not good witnesses..we've seen it recreated in many studies, one was on tv a few years back..show them a crime and get them to recall, and ID the perpetrator..the results are poor. Our brains fill in missing details. I dont know if anyone else has seen that fun post that goes around social media, it shows a paragraph of jumbled letters, however 2 or 3 of the letters are in the rights place so you can actually 'make sense' of the paragraph..Thats what our brain does, it fills in missing 'blanks' we actually take in very little of minute detail unless it is something very significant or unusual at the time of the sighting....

***
I now that test. It only works if the first and last letter of the word are in the right place. And, yes, I can read it then in 5 languages. I do fail, however, to see how this associates to "memory". No offense meant :-)

by Guest 05.11.13 20:48

@thetruthbeknown wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:I'm still waiting for enlightenment on the Unilever thing. Why is it of significance that Mr Smith worked for them? Sorry, I'm still a novice regarding the finer nuances of this case, is there a link with Unilever elsewhere?

I googled 'Unilever madeleine mccann'. Bizarrely, it chucked out a link to a list of notorious Freemasons, on which there is at least one very interesting name...
unilever has/had a contract with universal mccann (not mccann related to this case) Not sure about your freemason links...but unilever is a massive company, it will have links/connections everywhere....

Thank you. So why does Tony think it's so interesting and relevant that Mr Smith has that connection?

Tony?

by Sockpuppet 05.11.13 20:49

@Tony Bennett wrote:as Professor Sockpuppet has just told us.

More rudeness. If only I had the luxury of speaking in this manner ... I still wouldn't :)

by whmon 05.11.13 20:50

@Tony Bennett wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Ye Gods, Tony! I am NOT talking about the face...
But I am.

Martin Smith didn't see his face.

Yet we are told by one of the world's finest police forces and by one of the world's top broadcasting services, that Smith drew up an e-fit of the man.

Or maybe even two.

Wait!

I have failed to see 'the total picture'.

I think you mean that you are wiser and more knowledgeable than me about these things.

Or maybe, just maybe, it is 'Associative Memory', as Professor Sockpuppet has just told us.

Or perhjaps we could refine this interesting concept still further:

'Total Picture Associative Memory".

Or...'Gait recognition'!

by Guest 05.11.13 20:50

@Sockpuppet wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Gosh!

'Associative memory'.

Does that trump everything?

Any jury would be bound to be impressed with that.

"Members of the jury, some of you may think it somewhat improbable that Martin Smith could have been 60% to 80% certain that, back on 3 May - 4 months and 6 days earlier - the man he saw coming off the plane on 9 September, Dr Gerald McCann, was the very man he saw in May.

You may be thinking: but it was dark.

You may be thinking: he only saw him for one or two seconds.

You may be thinking: he didn't even see his face.

Put all of that to one side.

You have heard the expert evidence in this court of Professor Sockpuppet.

He told you it was 'Associative Memory'.

I rest my case".
Very condescending. If I continually posted in that manner I would surely run the risk of getting banned.

Tony, I am at a loss to know what the problem is. Can't people disagree with you without you being sarcastic in your replies?

We are going round and round in circles, and you coming up with the same answer, and no real hard evidence so unless you can come up with something else, then I shall continue to believe Mr Smith and his family, as do many others here. People are entitled to their opinion and to voice that opinion. Most here appreciate the work you do, but that doesn't mean they have to agree with everything you say. As I have said before, we still do not know what Mary Smith said in her statement do we? I still find it very hard to believe a whole family would lie to the police in such a serious matter.