New Heights of insanity - Express

Tony Bennett wrote:
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".

thetruthbeknown wrote: Our brains fill in missing details...That's what our brain does, it fills in missing 'blanks', we actually take in very little of minute detail...

Tony Bennett wrote:

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".

candyfloss wrote:

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?

Of course they can - but IMO some very ridiculous things are being said on this thread.

I shall continue to believe Mr Smith and his family...As I have said before, we still do not know what Mary Smith said in her statement...I still find it very hard to believe a whole family would lie to the police in such a serious matter.

I am probing and probing every aspect of the Smiths' statements.

Please forgive me.

Tony Bennett wrote:

thetruthbeknown wrote: Our brains fill in missing details...That's what our brain does, it fills in missing 'blanks', we actually take in very little of minute detail...

Wait - you've not explained this.

Have I got this right?

We see something for, say, one or two seconds.

In the dark i.e. not clearly at all.

As you correctly say, "we actually take in very little of minute detail".

++++++++

You say that 'the brain fills in the missing blanks'.

I am not sure if you are a qualified neurologist, but even if you aren't, it doesn't matter.

Just please help me on this.

When (if you are right) our brains 'fill in the missing blanks', does the brain do so...

...with correct information...

...or incorrect information...

...or a jumble of both?

justathought wrote:

Mr Bennett

[SNIPPED] ...as I see it the reason for your interchange with fellow posters is a result of SY hav[ing] not been transparent i.e. have they interviewed the Smiths recently, who is Tannerman etc. - individuals are bound to speculate when not aware of all the facts...

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:We can dream though of one day seeing GOTCHA! over a picture of the McCanns.

notlongnow wrote:OT what happened to cw being shown in Ireland?

thetruthbeknown wrote:

I'm sure there will be better explanations around from those more qualified. I would simply put it as the 'blanks' would usually be filled with 'assumptions' or 'schemas' of how we would 'expect' things to be, or past experience.

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.

Tony Bennett wrote:

justathought wrote:

Mr Bennett

[SNIPPED] ...as I see it the reason for your interchange with fellow posters is a result of SY hav[ing] not been transparent i.e. have they interviewed the Smiths recently, who is Tannerman etc. - individuals are bound to speculate when not aware of all the facts...

DCI Redwood, the BBC and all the mainstream media have told us that the Smiths' sighting is genuine, and that he and his family have produced two radically different e-fits of the same person - even though none of them saw his face (in the dark).

Smith said he was '60% to 80% sure' it was Gerry McCann; now he has changed his mind. 

In addition, the Sunday Times has told us that these e-fits are 5 years old and that the McCanns suppressed them. No statement has yet been put out by the McCanns or anyone on their behalf denying that claim.

If you look at this quite long thread, many are speculating e.g. on who Smithman might be.

My role has been to question all aspects of that claimed 'sighting'.

Tony Bennett wrote:

thetruthbeknown wrote:

I'm sure there will be better explanations around from those more qualified. I would simply put it as the 'blanks' would usually be filled with 'assumptions' or 'schemas' of how we would 'expect' things to be, or past experience.

Thank you very much.

I believe that that is the correct answer and one that a neurologist would also give.

What you are saying is that your brain remembers a few details - and then 'makes up' the rest.

If there ever was a genuine 'sighting' (which I doubt), no doubt Martin Smith's 'brain' made up the stuff about seeing Gerry McCann.

SixMillionQuid wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:Can some enlighten me about this Kellys Bar receipt for 21:55pm?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

There's an entry 21:50 then it jumps to 22:16

Thank you for raising this point.

I have always understood that the story was that the Smiths paid their 'bar billl' at 9.55pm, then walked out of Kelly's Bar on their way back to the Estrela da Luz complex, seeing Smithman at about 10.00pm.

I have always taken it on trust that there existed a receipt for drinks, ordered by the Smiths, at 9.55pm. I assumed that for some reason the Smiths had kept the receipt themselves.

Here we have the till receipts from 8pm to midnight.

If indeed there are no receipts between 9.50pm and 10.16pm, then are we to assume that the Smiths paid their bar bill at 9.50pm? I can't read the receipts very easily.

I assume then that (if it is indeed theirs) the 9.50pm receipt would be for around 9 (or more) drinks?

The whole timing of the Smiths' 'sighting' has been fixed around this 9.55pm receipt, so one way or another, these till receipts must prove which one is theirs.

I am not sure if anyone has carried this point on any further.

I have now checked the till receipts mentioned by SixMillionQuid.

There are 20 receipts, total value during the four hours: 148.50 euros

This is a full record of them, from 8.00pm on 3 May 2007 to 12.02am:


8.01  18.25 euros

8.15  3.15 euros

8.20 24.50 euros

8.52 1.50 euros

9.39 13.75 euros

9.46 8.00 euros

9.49 8.00 euros

9.50 5.00 euros

10.16 8.00 euros

10.24 4.00 euros

10.28 3.00 euros

10.29 1.25 euros

10.31 5.75 euros

10.47 1.00 euros

10.53 16.50 euros

11.09 5.75 euros

11.30 5.75 euros

11.49 10.00 euros

11.50 2.75 euros

12.02 2.50 euros

The four in bold are the only four that fit the Smiths' account of moving from the Dolphin restaurant at 'between 9.00pm and 9.30pm to Kelly's Bar' and leaving 'around or shortly before 10.00pm'.

I cannot find any information about which (if any of them) is said to be the Smiths' bill.

All four IMO are small bills for a family of 9. The Smiths do not say what they ordered.

8 euros might buy 3 or 4 drinks.

Did they pay when the drinks were ordered? - probably.

Or when they left? - unlikely.

So, did they order 13.50 euros worth of drinks at 9.39pm - and then leave about quarter of an hour later? We do not know.

That's some research!!

The reason why I asked about the 9:55 receipt is that if some is going to use it proof it will be date/time stamped the time the transaction took place. If hey held onto this receipt then there should be a corresponding record from the cash register. But the PJ obtained the cash registers months later and copied the records from the registers then the 9:55 entry should show up.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

But it doesn't. So I'm wondering what the receipt is that they are referring to.

Tony Bennett wrote:Thank you very much.

I believe that that is the correct answer and one that a neurologist would also give.

What you are saying is that your brain remembers a few details - and then 'makes up' the rest.

If there ever was a genuine 'sighting' (which I doubt), no doubt Martin Smith's 'brain' made up the stuff about seeing Gerry McCann.

Lance De Boils wrote:Sorry that I haven't caught up on this thread and am short of time at the moment. I haven't therefore seen any further discussion on this.

But am jumping in because this could be very important.

I've been looking at these receipts myself.

I don't think it likely that the family paid individually. Although not impossible, I'd plump for them paying together.
If bars in Portugal work the same as most other countries, except the UK, it is normal to pay just before leaving.

The receipts that look most likely to be the Smiths' are (based on the prices) imo:

21:39 (Eu 13.75  Bar) <--- that's the one closest to the given time.

But, had the Smiths' made a mistake?  (Intentionally or otherwise?) Had they gone for a drink or two BEFORE  heading to the restaurant? If so, these are possibilities:

20:26 (Eu 24.50  Bar)         
20:01 (Eu 18.25 Bar)

Or just popped in for cigarettes?
20:15  (Eu 3.15 cigarettes)  

Or were their times an hour too early? If so, these:

22:47 (Eu 11.00  Bar)
22:53 (Eu 16.50  Bar) 


Perhaps, just perhaps, the Smiths' sighting timing is not right. Maybe they were leaned on. Maybe not.
But it does seem to me that their sighting was at least a few minutes out.

Please correct me if this has been discussed in more detail and I've missed it all.

(Admin: any chance of seperating this out to a new/other thread as little nuggets like this get lost in these fast moving threads?   )