How to carry a child - (shamelessly nicked from unterdenteppich)

by **PeterMac** 30.11.13 11:21

If the child is alive you carry it like this
How to carry a child - (shamelessly nicked from unterdenteppich) Sleeping

If, sadly it is not, then this is more usual
How to carry a child - (shamelessly nicked from unterdenteppich) Dead

by Hongkong Phooey 30.11.13 11:32

So Chreche man dead child, Smithman live child? A bit of a red herring if you ask me i.e. no Chrecheman and look like live child Smithman (if true)

by suzyjohnson 30.11.13 11:59

But what if the man was running?

by Guest 30.11.13 12:13

Or what if you wanted to make it look like the dead child you were carrying was alive?

by **PeterMac** 30.11.13 12:42

Dee Coy wrote:Or what if you wanted to make it look like the dead child you were carrying was alive?

Or you wanted to make the story you were telling fit the story you thought you had been given by someone else . . .

by Hongkong Phooey 30.11.13 12:57

PeterMac wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:Or what if you wanted to make it look like the dead child you were carrying was alive?
Or you wanted to make the story you were telling fit the story you thought you had been given by someone else . . .

Tannerman may have been based on the way Jane herself carried............ whoops! I mean the way the abductor carried her (JT radio interview)

by **Tony Bennett** 30.11.13 12:59

Martin Smith's daughter Aiofe Smith has done some valuable research on this topic:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/droghedaindependent/news/young-louth-scientists-put-projects-on-show-at-rds-27129916.html

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/droghedaindependent/news/experimenting-with-success-27130264.html

Aoife Smith, Ruth McGuinness and Lisa Barry, in a project entitled 'Is There A Science Behind Baby-Holding?' explain their reasons for choosing this topic: 'We want to find out why some people hold babies and young children on the left side of their bodies and others hold the child on the right.'

Greenhills students Aoife Smith, Ruth McGuinness and Lisa Barry took second place in the Junior Group Social and Behavioural Sciences Section for their project, 'Is There a Science Behind Baby-holding?'

Aoife Smith, who was part of the winning team behind the baby holding project, said the group came up with the idea after reading an article entitled ' The Art and Science of Baby Holding'.

During the course of their investigations, which were carried out of a five month period, the girls interviewed and tested 672 people.

They carried out four experiments which investigated brain dominance, arm strength, whether people are left or right handed and whether the way people fold their arms determines which side they hold a baby on.

'It was very interesting and we found that most people's strongest arm was their left and the majority held babies in their left arm,' explained Aoife.

' We also discovered that when women fold their arms the arm that was on top was the one the used to hold the baby but with men the arm on the bottom was the one that they used.'

by deafoldbat 30.11.13 14:01

Well I never, Tony - good research work! thumbsup

by Guest 30.11.13 14:03

Interesting, Tony. Aoife undertook that research over a year after her father's memory was apparently triggered by the way GM carried the twin from the plane. I wonder if the research was to satisfy herself that there could be unique indicators that may differentiate one carrier from another? Her summary of the results refers to generic findings. Wonder if she discovered additional nuances?

Or not?

by Guest 30.11.13 14:14

PeterMac wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:Or what if you wanted to make it look like the dead child you were carrying was alive?
Or you wanted to make the story you were telling fit the story you thought you had been given by someone else . . .

Sorry, Peter, could you elaborate a bit for the dense of thinking like me? Who in your scenario is doing the 'telling of the story'? The MCs, Tanner, or the Smiths? And who had offered the story that was being fitted?

Are you of the same train of thought as Tony re the Smiths? Are the Smiths a massive red herring that could further cloud the detection of the whereabouts of Madeleine that night?

by SixMillionQuid 30.11.13 15:27

Dee Coy wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:Or what if you wanted to make it look like the dead child you were carrying was alive?
Or you wanted to make the story you were telling fit the story you thought you had been given by someone else . . .
Sorry, Peter, could you elaborate a bit for the dense of thinking like me? Who in your scenario is doing the 'telling of the story'? The MCs, Tanner, or the Smiths? And who had offered the story that was being fitted?

Are you of the same train of thought as Tony re the Smiths? Are the Smiths a massive red herring that could further cloud the detection of the whereabouts of Madeleine that night?

I've always sensed that in the early days that they anticipated her being found but not alive. They probably thought the pyjamas would be found with the tea stain on it.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.11.13 15:33

Dee Coy wrote:Interesting, Tony. Aoife undertook that research over a year after her father's memory was apparently triggered by the way GM carried the twin from the plane. I wonder if the research was to satisfy herself that there could be unique indicators that may differentiate one carrier from another? Her summary of the results refers to generic findings. Wonder if she discovered additional nuances?

Or not?

In fact, this research was done by another member of the forum and was passed to me for comment.

The person who passed this to me observed:

"Maybe the subject was playing on her mind".

I think that was a perceptive and accurate observation

by Genbug 30.11.13 15:45

I always carried my babies on my left. Apparently it's a natural instinct so that they can feel your heartbeat.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.11.13 15:54

Genbug wrote:I always carried my babies on my left. Apparently it's a natural instinct so that they can feel your heartbeat.

I've done it myself many times.

I am right-handed.

As I susepct you are.

And most other people.

It is easier for a right-handed person to carry an infant on their left shoulder.

As most of us are right-handed, there was absolutely nothing about the way Smithman was supposed to be carrying his child that could make anyone think: 'That must be Gerry McCann'.

Especially as the Smiths say they didn't see his face, and it was dark and the street lighting was poor - and they only saw him for a second or two.

If there ever was a 'Smithman'

by TheTruthWillOut 30.11.13 17:03

Weirdly I have always held kids on my right side even though I'm mostly right handed. I believe it is called cross dominance.

Compared to other family members (all right handed) I do a lot of things 'wrong'. Open a bottle of milk with my left hand, put my wallet in my left rear pocket and have the fork in my right hand and knife in left!

It is very interesting that this teenage girl has done a school study on this though.

by Guest 30.11.13 17:19

I agree that the subject must've been preying on her mind. So therefore, surely the sighting was genuine? You wouldn't research extensively a subject if the event it was related to was made up, would you?

by Guest 30.11.13 17:26

Yes, I think that the research could be based on a real event.

I do accept though that there are problems with the reliability of the Smith sighting.

by Guest 30.11.13 17:49

For what it's worth: I am right-handed and always carry children [and dogs] on my right arm against my right shoulder, keeping them with my left arm from making unexpected movements and falling backwards.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.11.13 18:01

Dee Coy wrote:I agree that the subject must've been preying on her mind. So therefore, surely the sighting was genuine? You wouldn't research extensively a subject if the event it was related to was made up, would you?

IMO it would be much more likely to prey on her mind if she'd lied about it.

Conscience

by Veritas 30.11.13 18:40

If you lied you would naturallyleave your word as the final authority. No lawyers or police were threatening dawn raids for a sighting that was creative. The inform ation was always spontaneously volunteered. Far more likely would be the question in mind of just how distinctive the walk, carry or posture of GMC was... Could anything help make the identification more than 80% sure? Especially if someone has been round badgering your dad with the argument that everyone carries babies in the same way, minimising the distinctiveness. We research to vindicate or affirm ourselves. We don't waste time researching projects just to make a redundant lie... What? What did the lie gain? Did anyone go back to the police to add the research to the statements? Under pressure, far easier to say 'i' m just not sure' than keep trying to lie when you don't need to.

Trying to see grand conspiracy in everything is just as erroneous, wicked and detractive as ignoring or covering up the genuine evidence of conspiracy.

I've yet to see anyone credible explain why the Smith sighting is impossible and why a conspiracy is remotely plausible.

by Guest 30.11.13 19:15

Veritas wrote: If you lied you would naturallyleave your word as the final authority. No lawyers or police were threatening dawn raids for a sighting that was creative. The inform ation was always spontaneously volunteered. Far more likely would be the question in mind of just how distinctive the walk, carry or posture of GMC was... Could anything help make the identification more than 80% sure? Especially if someone has been round badgering your dad with the argument that everyone carries babies in the same way, minimising the distinctiveness. We research to vindicate or affirm ourselves. We don't waste time researching projects just to make a redundant lie... What? What did the lie gain? Did anyone go back to the police to add the research to the statements? Under pressure, far easier to say 'i' m just not sure' than keep trying to lie when you don't need to.

Trying to see grand conspiracy in everything is just as erroneous, wicked and detractive as ignoring or covering up the genuine evidence of conspiracy.

I've yet to see anyone credible explain why the Smith sighting is impossible and why a conspiracy is remotely plausible.

Pardon? What are you trying to say?

by MRNOODLES 30.11.13 21:59

The reason why you carry babies in this position is simple. Babies have built in altimeters in their heads, and when their heads get too low down. They bawl their guts out.

by Veritas 30.11.13 23:34

Gollum wrote:
Veritas wrote: If you lied you would naturallyleave your word as the final authority. No lawyers or police were threatening dawn raids for a sighting that was creative. The inform ation was always spontaneously volunteered. Far more likely would be the question in mind of just how distinctive the walk, carry or posture of GMC was... Could anything help make the identification more than 80% sure? Especially if someone has been round badgering your dad with the argument that everyone carries babies in the same way, minimising the distinctiveness. We research to vindicate or affirm ourselves. We don't waste time researching projects just to make a redundant lie... What? What did the lie gain? Did anyone go back to the police to add the research to the statements? Under pressure, far easier to say 'i' m just not sure' than keep trying to lie when you don't need to.

Trying to see grand conspiracy in everything is just as erroneous, wicked and detractive as ignoring or covering up the genuine evidence of conspiracy.

I've yet to see anyone credible explain why the Smith sighting is impossible and why a conspiracy is remotely plausible.
Pardon? What are you trying to say?

I'm saying that this thread has gone down the garden path of weaving a new dimension to a very frustrating but almost certainly much less complex real world case in which certain fantasists with over-active imaginations force perfectly reasonable and plausible testimonies into the realm of impossibility and then paint the multiple witnesses all sorts of shades of complicit, organised and conspiratorial. Right now we're discussing how a teenaged girl used a collaborative school project to reinforce a collossal lie as part of arguably the biggest case in the UK in the last decade. We're about three steps away from involving Sean and Amelie as co-conspirators on that fateful night and declaring that any inquisitiveness they might manifest about what happened to their sister is actually the Freudian voice of their own guilt leaking out like a backed up sewer.

I fully understand the immense frustration of seeing the cold hard facts point in the right direction but lack the missing dot connections to close the case. Patience is the answer to that. Time reveals all kinds of things. Firing off in random impulsive directions to fill in non-existent blanks or even shoot down evidence that might support our existing conclusions because you've started to see co-conspirators round every corner is not helpful. Its what gets people sued, its what gets the campaigns for truth and justice laughed at and marginalised, its what gets all of us tarred with the same brush of sheer instability.

I said before that I came here because somehow I associated this forum with the support for and faith in the rational and methodical approach and findings of GA's PJ team. At times I feel like I've fallen down a rabbit hole and found myself inside a movie: 'Being David Icke' or 'Shrimpton's List.'

by Guest 01.12.13 0:20

Veritas wrote:
Gollum wrote:
Veritas wrote: If you lied you would naturallyleave your word as the final authority. No lawyers or police were threatening dawn raids for a sighting that was creative. The inform ation was always spontaneously volunteered. Far more likely would be the question in mind of just how distinctive the walk, carry or posture of GMC was... Could anything help make the identification more than 80% sure? Especially if someone has been round badgering your dad with the argument that everyone carries babies in the same way, minimising the distinctiveness. We research to vindicate or affirm ourselves. We don't waste time researching projects just to make a redundant lie... What? What did the lie gain? Did anyone go back to the police to add the research to the statements? Under pressure, far easier to say 'i' m just not sure' than keep trying to lie when you don't need to.

Trying to see grand conspiracy in everything is just as erroneous, wicked and detractive as ignoring or covering up the genuine evidence of conspiracy.

I've yet to see anyone credible explain why the Smith sighting is impossible and why a conspiracy is remotely plausible.
Pardon? What are you trying to say?
I'm saying that this thread has gone down the garden path of weaving a new dimension to a very frustrating but almost certainly much less complex real world case in which certain fantasists with over-active imaginations force perfectly reasonable and plausible testimonies into the realm of impossibility and then paint the multiple witnesses all sorts of shades of complicit, organised and conspiratorial. Right now we're discussing how a teenaged girl used a collaborative school project to reinforce a collossal lie as part of arguably the biggest case in the UK in the last decade. We're about three steps away from involving Sean and Amelie as co-conspirators on that fateful night and declaring that any inquisitiveness they might manifest about what happened to their sister is actually the Freudian voice of their own guilt leaking out like a backed up sewer.

I fully understand the immense frustration of seeing the cold hard facts point in the right direction but lack the missing dot connections to close the case. Patience is the answer to that. Time reveals all kinds of things. Firing off in random impulsive directions to fill in non-existent blanks or even shoot down evidence that might support our existing conclusions because you've started to see co-conspirators round every corner is not helpful. Its what gets people sued, its what gets the campaigns for truth and justice laughed at and marginalised, its what gets all of us tarred with the same brush of sheer instability.

I said before that I came here because somehow I associated this forum with the support for and faith in the rational and methodical approach and findings of GA's PJ team. At times I feel like I've fallen down a rabbit hole and found myself inside a movie: 'Being David Icke' or 'Shrimpton's List.'

Is that supposed to be a rational explanation to a simple question? I incidentally, haven not started to see any conspirators let alone co-conspirators but that aside who has been sued as a result of offering an opinion or laughed at for the same reason? I think you've become a bit carried away with your own ego.

I do not know for sure if the Smith sighting is for real or not but I am open to alternative views on any area of this case as I do not consider myself to be an authority, perhaps you should adopt the same principle. If you know something about this case that is not generally known then say so rather than telling others their views are worthless. Your rant to me suggests you have been over indulging in the amber nectar, come back when you are sober or if I'm wrong, more rational.

I apologise to the mods and admin if I've over stepped the mark but I object strongly to people who think they know better than every one else.

by **tigger** 01.12.13 7:57

PeterMac wrote:If the child is alive you carry it like this

If, sadly it is not, then this is more usual

Exactly, which is why I think that JT transposed something she'd seen (possibly recently) to an imagined event.

I would always leave my dominant arm free and btw I believe G carried a live child that evening, not Maddie.

Imo the creation of eggman took place during the writing of the timelines - the description of eggman however? When exactly was that created and with whose help? e.g. Those beige trousers etc. close enough to he Smithman's outfit so that should they describe him, he'd obviously also be eggman, despite the time gap, which Gerry desperately tried to close by getting JW to agree to a later time of their meeting.

by oakeso 01.12.13 10:41

The beige trousers were mentioned on the morning of 4th.

How to carry a child - (shamelessly nicked from unterdenteppich) <a href=

How to carry a child - (shamelessly nicked from unterdenteppich) Eggman10

" />

It's been pointed out many times that the PJ bottoms were knee length therefore wouldn't even been seen, let alone making out a pattern from the distance.

Note how Kate uses the same ruffle detail in her cardigan to try to emphasize the ruffles in the PJ bottoms which are barely noticeable upfront let alone from any distance.

by Guest 01.12.13 11:02

I simply think that the fact that Aoife chose to undertake extensive research into this particular subject indicates that the Smith sighting is genuine.

by Veritas 01.12.13 12:04

Dee Coy wrote:I simply think that the fact that Aoife chose to undertake extensive research into this particular subject indicates that the Smith sighting is genuine.

That makes two of us.

by **tigger** 01.12.13 12:57

oakeso wrote:The beige trousers were mentioned on the morning of 4th.

" />

It's been pointed out many times that the PJ bottoms were knee length therefore wouldn't even been seen, let alone making out a pattern from the distance.

Note how Kate uses the same ruffle detail in her cardigan to try to emphasize the ruffles in the PJ bottoms which are barely noticeable upfront let alone from any distance.

Would you have a link to that? Iirc they did not give any statements till much later.

by oakeso 01.12.13 13:07

Tigger, I think perhaps I have misunderstood your post as I know you'll have seen JT's statement. But here it is anyway.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm

( * ) Dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40, slim physical appearance, about 1.70m tall. Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back (she could only see him from behind). He was wearing linen type cloth trousers, beige to golden in colour, a "duffy" sic type jacket (but not that thick). His shoes were dark in colour, classic type. He had a hurried walk. He was carrying a child, who was lying on both his arms, in front of his chest. By the way he was dressed, he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".