Re: Let us try some LOGIC

by jeanmonroe 26.11.13 13:26

PeterMac wrote:
Woburn_exile wrote:Why this continual re-examination of the timings?
Because it exposes the falsity and impossibility of the official TM stance.
No amount of Libel lawyers or extradition lawyers, or official spokes-things can alter that.
They have made statements and have continued to stick by them.
And by those very statements they are condemned

And, Yes, I agree that KM is the one to crack.

"they have made statements and have TO continue to stick with them"

Anyone changing statements NOW would be, to qoute GM, an absolute 'disaster'.

And by those very statements, they are condemned.

by **PeterMac** 26.11.13 14:13

"they have made statements and have TO continue to stick with them"
Anyone changing statements NOW would be, to quote GM, an absolute 'disaster'.
And by those very statements, they are condemned.

Quite so.
The revelation that SY was stating categorically that Tannerman was not even a suspect Abductor must have hit them very hard.
It had been the central point of their entire theory. People have been sentenced to imprisonment for suggesting that it was not so.
And Tannerman remains on their website, still soliciting funds.
So deep in the TM strategy is Tannerman that they cannot now discard him unconditionally and admit that the past 7 years have been in vain.
How many other things could they change before everyone realised that they had been lying and cheating from the start, and started to say so.

by **PeterMac** 27.11.13 12:16

IF dogs were notoriously unreliable
THEN police forces across the world, Customs and excise, search and rescue, Avalanche patrols . . . would not use them
Police forces DO use them
THEREFORE they are not notoriously unreliable

IF an individual dog made significant numbers of 'mistakes'
THEN it would not be used for this purpose
This dog was used
THEREFORE it does not make significant numbers of mistakes

IF a dog alerts if and only if it detects human cadaverine
THEN there is a trace of human cadaverine
It did
THEREFORE there was

IF the Last Photo was taken at lunch time on 3rd May
THEN the weather must have been 'sunglasses and sweaty brow' hot at that time
It was not
THEREFORE it was not

Or as we would rather put it
P -> Q
¬ Q
∴ ¬ P

by DonNewbery 27.11.13 13:17

PeterMac wrote:IF dogs were notoriously unreliable
THEN police forces across the world, Customs and excise, search and rescue, Avalanche patrols . . . would not use them
Police forces DO use them
THEREFORE they are not notoriously unreliable

IF an individual dog made significant numbers of 'mistakes'
THEN it would not be used for this purpose
This dog was used
THEREFORE it does not make significant numbers of mistakes

IF a dog alerts if and only if it detects human cadaverine
THEN there is a trace of human cadaverine
It did
THEREFORE there was

IF the Last Photo was taken at lunch time on 3rd May
THEN the weather must have been 'sunglasses and sweaty brow' hot at that time
It was not
THEREFORE it was not

Or as we would rather put it
P -> Q
¬ Q
∴ ¬ P

I thought these two particular dogs are known NEVER to have got it wrong, and in over 200 cases have led police to obtain forensic evidence that has then successfully secured convictions?

by **PeterMac** 27.11.13 13:26

DonNewbery wrote:I thought these two particular dogs are known NEVER to have got it wrong, and in over 200 cases have led police to obtain forensic evidence that has then successfully secured convictions?

Exactly. Those are the facts. This is the logic behind the argument.

by gbwales 27.11.13 14:20

There's probably a relatively simple bit of maths regarding the statistical probabilities surrounding the two dogs on their separate inspections alerting to the exact same 11 spots and none of the other (not sure how many in total?) locations/articles they were presented with.

by Guest 27.11.13 14:27

AFAIK Keela only reacted to 2 of the places: behind the sofa and in the car. Also AFAIK, she was not used in the villa nor on the clothes. For me, though, her alert behind the sofa, independent from Eddie, who went in first, is enough reason to believe that a body lay there and left cadaverine and blood. And there's only one person missing.

by **PeterMac** 28.11.13 13:17

Imported from the l-azzeri thread

Madeleine was wearing Short Sleeved pyjamas. Gerry and Kate both say so and demonstrate by showing the pyjamas (oops, Another pair of identical pyjamas . . .)
MbM = Ss
Smithman child was wearing Long Sleeved pyjamas - according to the statements.
Ch(Sm) = SL
Ss ≠ SL
therefore
Ch(Sm) ≠ MbM

by Woburn_exile 03.12.13 0:42

Apply logic:
KM discovers Madeleine is not there in her bed.
JT somehow remembers that she saw a chid being carried away from the apartment BUT because she doesn't want to distress poor KM she only tells GM who tells it to the portugese police the following day.
Forget the jemmied shutters :wtf2: :wtf2: :wtf2: :wtf2: :wtf2: :wtf2: :wtf2: .

by Seek truth 03.12.13 5:05

Why can't someone present all this to Scotland Yard, throw it onto their desk, say case solved for you read it! now stop wasting time and money and help those who really need the help. You shouldn't take more than 2 years. Makes you wonder how many more are getting away with crime.

This is really, getting very boring now.
coffee

by Woburn_exile 03.12.13 7:16

Seek truth wrote:Why can't someone present all this to Scotland Yard, throw it onto their desk, say case solved for you read it! now stop wasting time and money and help those who really need the help. You shouldn't take more than 2 years. Makes you wonder how many more are getting away with crime.

This is really, getting very boring now.

Exactly. 3 to questions answered only 1 can be the truth,.
spin

by Angelique 04.12.13 12:00

I have brought this from the Cristobell thread on The People's Voice thread with thanks from Doug D:

“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects”
~DCI Andy Redwood"

If we accept logic will show us what is going on then we can't dismiss the above quote from DCI Redwood.

It won't matter what we provide as evidence or information - let's face it there is so much wrong with what has been discovered regarding statements from T9, contradictions continuing regarding who did what and when plus "the dogs, Sandra". Its obvious it doesn't matter what they say, they can say whatever they like because no action will be taken and they will continue to "make it up as they go along". I think half of what TM say is near the Truth - but the vital bits are left out. Like who did what and who was there at the time. Whatever is discovered, what we provide, what other forums discuss - remember what they said to Ironside - she said it doesn't matter. I think what we say or provide as evidence - it will not proceed - its like a black hole - its as if there is nothing there.

I think reason the McCanns look really bad sometimes is the Libel Trial - and the lack of funds if the Trial goes against them. I don't know what financial support they have or who they can ask or whether their "caretakers" will help them.

There is only thing that I can think of when this happens to any investigation, just as GA was nearing some sensitive area that could reveal what happened to Madeleine, he was taken off the case and anyone who followed was/is shut down. Possibly either by threat or agreement.

But this only says one thing to me - Royal.

Though I am not going to give up and I hope that I am wrong.

by Veritas 04.12.13 13:35

Angelique wrote:I have brought this from the Cristobell thread on The People's Voice thread with thanks from Doug D:

“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects”
~DCI Andy Redwood"

If we accept logic will show us what is going on then we can't dismiss the above quote from DCI Redwood.

It won't matter what we provide as evidence or information - let's face it there is so much wrong with what has been discovered regarding statements from T9, contradictions continuing regarding who did what and when plus "the dogs, Sandra". Its obvious it doesn't matter what they say, they can say whatever they like because no action will be taken and they will continue to "make it up as they go along". I think half of what TM say is near the Truth - but the vital bits are left out. Like who did what and who was there at the time. Whatever is discovered, what we provide, what other forums discuss - remember what they said to Ironside - she said it doesn't matter. I think what we say or provide as evidence - it will not proceed - its like a black hole - its as if there is nothing there.

I think reason the McCanns look really bad sometimes is the Libel Trial - and the lack of funds if the Trial goes against them. I don't know what financial support they have or who they can ask or whether their "caretakers" will help them.

There is only thing that I can think of when this happens to any investigation, just as GA was nearing some sensitive area that could reveal what happened to Madeleine, he was taken off the case and anyone who followed was/is shut down. Possibly either by threat or agreement.

But this only says one thing to me - Royal.

Though I am not going to give up and I hope that I am wrong.

I think you can stop worrying about royals or reptilians being behind this. I guarantee that this will be all pretty ordinary when it comes out. You don't need to be a royal to facilitate the combination of cover up and coincidence that hands over this case. You can achieve it with a very basic conspiracy - that of being a not-so-free-mason. Or any other fraternal group for that matter. Or the cashing in of an old favour. Or, for that matter, the 'cover up' may have only been for a season - the season has passed, the pawns been moved, the bishops and rooks played, and now we're going to finish the game... There are so many more likely possibilities to exhaust before you land at a royal conclusion.

by Guest 04.12.13 14:42

Veritas wrote:

I think you can stop worrying about royals or reptilians being behind this. I guarantee that this will be all pretty ordinary when it comes out. You don't need to be a royal to facilitate the combination of cover up and coincidence that hands over this case. You can achieve it with a very basic conspiracy - that of being a not-so-free-mason. Or any other fraternal group for that matter. Or the cashing in of an old favour. Or, for that matter, the 'cover up' may have only been for a season - the season has passed, the pawns been moved, the bishops and rooks played, and now we're going to finish the game... There are so many more likely possibilities to exhaust before you land at a royal conclusion.

Ah, exactly the kind of thing they would say! big grin

But seriously, I can't imagine a "simple" conclusion that would even begin to satisfactorily explain the many bizarre elements of this case. Philip Edmonds presence there being a good example.

by Bishop Brennan 05.12.13 15:25

To go back to the Logic element of the thread. How about this:

A. Existing Case Files + SY + PJ => lots of running around + the exact same conclusion as before

B. Existing Case Files + SY + PJ + Political Directive to Close Case => whitewash

C. Existing Case Files + SY + PJ + New Evidence (or informer) => trial

Libel trials, the files, CW, websites and FB still leave us with line A.

Until and unless there is solid new evidence or a confession from someone who knows, then line A or B can be the only outcomes. And so far there is really no indication at all of any new evidence or confession.

by Who?What?Where? 09.12.13 0:04

gbwales wrote:There's probably a relatively simple bit of maths regarding the statistical probabilities surrounding the two dogs on their separate inspections alerting to the exact same 11 spots and none of the other (not sure how many in total?) locations/articles they were presented with.

That, for me, is a fascinating post.

On one thread on here, I suggested looking at the KGC (Kahnawake Gaming Commission) and the Ultimate Bet / Absolute Poker scandal and the lack of any prosecution's, due to lack of jurisdiction. The aforementioned, despite the regulatory body actually naming one particular person, (it is very unlikely, that there was only one person involved), as being the culprit.

No libel actions, from that named person, and not a single prosecution, as far as I am aware, despite the parent company admitting that at least $20 million, was stolen from it's customers and , apparently, refunding them, ( although that part is debatable), due to the T&C's.. Maybe the usa have super,super,super injunctions?

by ultimaThule 09.12.13 0:33

The First Amendment, 1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As it is in Portugal, freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution of the USA and superinjunctions, together with super super ones, don't thrive in such condtiions.

If there appears to be a deathly silence on a particular subject, it may be that the Feds have got the media on board until such time as a Grand Jury is supoenaed.

by Who?What?Where? 09.12.13 0:50

ultimaThule wrote:The First Amendment, 1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As it is in Portugal, freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution of the USA and superinjunctions, together with super super ones, don't thrive in such condtiions.

If there appears to be a deathly silence on a particular subject, it may be that the Feds have got the media on board until such time as a Grand Jury is supoenaed.

That is also interesting , about the First Amendment.

These days it would probably be required, that there were a couple of volumes of random letters, with everyone involved in it, getting paid by the amount of word's that they typed, to explain something, that was very simple in the first place.