Re: Latest textusa blogspot UPDATE - New blog Bombshelling re Goncalo Amaral on Page 22.

by Guest 30.05.14 22:19

But I've seen pictures of how they positioned themselves at this big round table [PJfiles], whereas it seems impossible such table ever existed. Ask PM. IMO they've been there, but not all of them all the time ...

Apart from that, with no offense to Textusa, but it gives me a migraine to read those long texts, with bolding et all. So I skim read and may have missed something really interesting and worthwhile. And that's a pity, isn't it?

by rainbow-fairy 30.05.14 22:40

Thank you for linking to 'nottextusa' AndyB...
I stumbled over it when googling 'big round table' as I really couldn't understand what textusa was getting at. It seems that Amaral confirmed the existence of the table?
I did see you defend HelenMeg (I believe it was in the same blog post I was mentioned in). This was the only reason I didn't link before as I didn't feel comfortable with it. I had no idea my post was on there!

I find textusa's assertion in the 'stinkbombs' post that - paraphrased - 'if you aren't a friend of textusa blog, you aren't there for the truth' really offensive and, honestly, boll**ks.

I haven't read the latest textusa, but - may attempt it as I'm intrigued if this is the post she explains (eventually possibly maybe) why swinging is more likely than paedophilia. Makes no sense to me - if it were me, I'd far rather people think of me digging about in fruit bowls than think of me as a nonce. Just saying...

ETA: Just picturing, if I was ever in the situation of any of the Tapas lot picking my keys out I'd tell 'em to keep my car. And I LOVE my car big grin

by cockerspaniel 30.05.14 22:47

a,lChâtelaine wrote:But I've seen pictures of how they positioned themselves at this big round table [PJfiles], whereas it seems impossible such table ever existed. Ask PM. IMO they've been there, but not all of them all the time ...

Apart from that, with no offense to Textusa, but it gives me a migraine to read those long texts, with bolding et all. So I skim read and may have missed something really interesting and worthwhile. And that's a pity, isn't it?

all im saying is, the textusa sisters have gone to a lot of time and trouble with their "swinging" theory and just by the shear volume of effort that they have put in to it it deserves some respect and a fair hearing whether or not you may agree with the swinging theory. As far as i can see it carries as much weight as any other theory ive read and just because its a bit convoluted and sometimes hard to follow does not mean it has any less merit. as i said earlier, if readers of textusas blog end up here and are further enlightened then thats no bad thing.sorry clay if you find it hard to follow but i reckon its well worth reading again and again until their point/theory is understood. once this is understood it makes a very interesting blog to follow and i for one (certainly among plenty of others on here) im sure will continue to do so .

chatelaine, i think it is a pity if you just skim read textusa, if you have the time i highly recommend hanging in there and re-reading, they certainly "seem" to have a lot of bases covered! besides what have you got to lose?

by cockerspaniel 30.05.14 22:50

rainbow-fairy wrote:
AndyB wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:The things is, we are all entitled to our own opinions on what to read, what to dismiss. I find it quite offensive and against the spirit of discussion that you would make a deliberate attempt to dissuade posters from reading views that you do not agree with. Some of us do not believe Textusa promotes 'nonsense'. I would think it more than reasonable if you said something to the effect of 'I dont agree with Textusa for this reasonxxxx' - but you dont do that. Why dont you simply ignore the Textusa thread ? Why do you feel such a need to rubbish it so emphatically. Sorry, but you dont come across as someone who is prepared to debate things, only to state what is right or wrong in your opinion, rubbishing others. If you cant provide a logical argument against someone elses theory but can only say it is 'nonsense' then why not ignore this thread.
Jeez Helen, I'm beginning to regret defending you at nottextusa. Why such sensitivity? I am no more dissuading others from going to that web site than you are forcing textusa's views on anyone else. I happen to believe that textusa spouts nonsense. I am entitled to that view and I am entitled to express it just as you are entitled to believe textusa is the last bastion of sanity and to express that view. I really don't understand your intolerance towards those that disagree with textusa. Now how about answering the questions I put to you following your previous attack?

And as for not justifying my opinions follow this link, which I previously gave in my reply to cockerspaniel [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Thank you for linking to 'nottextusa' AndyB...
I stumbled over it when googling 'big round table' as I really couldn't understand what textusa was getting at. It seems that Amaral confirmed the existence of the table?
I did see you defend HelenMeg (I believe it was in the same blog post I was mentioned in). This was the only reason I didn't link before as I didn't feel comfortable with it. I had no idea my post was on there!

I find textusa's assertion in the 'stinkbombs' post that - paraphrased - 'if you aren't a friend of textusa blog, you aren't there for the truth' really offensive and, honestly, boll**ks.

I haven't read the latest textusa, but - may attempt it as I'm intrigued if this is the post she explains (eventually possibly maybe) why swinging is more likely than paedophilia. Makes no sense to me - if it were me, I'd far rather people think of me digging about in fruit bowls than think of me as a nonce. Just saying...

ETA: Just picturing, if I was ever in the situation of any of the Tapas lot picking my keys out I'd tell 'em to keep my car. And I LOVE my car

keep my car...i love it ! lol!

by missbeetle 30.05.14 22:56

tigger wrote:
AndyB wrote:
cockerspaniel wrote:maybe because there is some merit to textusas theory ?

Let's for the moment assume that textusa's theory has some merit. Hell, lets say it has so much merit that they've got the whole thing cracked. Are you are suggesting that people that disagree with textusa, people like me, are expressing a contrary opinion because we recognise that their argument has merit? Why would we? What's our motivation, our agenda?

I've just sampled the link, highly recommend the February one, I'd forgotten all about Rev Heal ....so many revs in this saga they could have held a synod... Language is a bit like Chris Spivey, but it's very funny.

As for the BRT - I'm pretty sure they also went to Chaplins Bar after Tapas and perhaps they weren't at the Tapas every night, based on the fuzzy statements re booking, just like the tennis photo. The block booking may have been retro- fitting, they got in some nights but perhaps missed one or two, but don't forget it was included in the price and it would be wildly out of character for the T 9 to let a freeby go begging.
In any case, the table needn't have been round, just three or so tables pushed together. None of that group were very observant and it does somehow feel like a 'Camelot' ploy, (JFK and the young politicians saving the world) . perhaps the round table was also a bit of retro fitting.

Not Textusa is an absolute find!

I'd not come across it before.

My only thoughts on swinging are is that one would rather be nabbed for that than dogging!

by cockerspaniel 30.05.14 22:58

rainbow-fairy wrote:
AndyB wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:The things is, we are all entitled to our own opinions on what to read, what to dismiss. I find it quite offensive and against the spirit of discussion that you would make a deliberate attempt to dissuade posters from reading views that you do not agree with. Some of us do not believe Textusa promotes 'nonsense'. I would think it more than reasonable if you said something to the effect of 'I dont agree with Textusa for this reasonxxxx' - but you dont do that. Why dont you simply ignore the Textusa thread ? Why do you feel such a need to rubbish it so emphatically. Sorry, but you dont come across as someone who is prepared to debate things, only to state what is right or wrong in your opinion, rubbishing others. If you cant provide a logical argument against someone elses theory but can only say it is 'nonsense' then why not ignore this thread.
Jeez Helen, I'm beginning to regret defending you at nottextusa. Why such sensitivity? I am no more dissuading others from going to that web site than you are forcing textusa's views on anyone else. I happen to believe that textusa spouts nonsense. I am entitled to that view and I am entitled to express it just as you are entitled to believe textusa is the last bastion of sanity and to express that view. I really don't understand your intolerance towards those that disagree with textusa. Now how about answering the questions I put to you following your previous attack?

And as for not justifying my opinions follow this link, which I previously gave in my reply to cockerspaniel [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Thank you for linking to 'nottextusa' AndyB...
I stumbled over it when googling 'big round table' as I really couldn't understand what textusa was getting at. It seems that Amaral confirmed the existence of the table?
I did see you defend HelenMeg (I believe it was in the same blog post I was mentioned in). This was the only reason I didn't link before as I didn't feel comfortable with it. I had no idea my post was on there!

I find textusa's assertion in the 'stinkbombs' post that - paraphrased - 'if you aren't a friend of textusa blog, you aren't there for the truth' really offensive and, honestly, boll**ks.

I haven't read the latest textusa, but - may attempt it as I'm intrigued if this is the post she explains (eventually possibly maybe) why swinging is more likely than paedophilia. Makes no sense to me - if it were me, I'd far rather people think of me digging about in fruit bowls than think of me as a nonce. Just saying...
ps
ETA: Just picturing, if I was ever in the situation of any of the Tapas lot picking my keys out I'd tell 'em to keep my car. And I LOVE my car

ps, just read nottextusa.. another interesting read! god will we ever get ANYWHERE with this case????? lol flag

by AndyB 30.05.14 23:11

cockerspaniel wrote:ps, just read nottextusa.. another interesting read! god will we ever get ANYWHERE with this case????? lol

Truce accepted, I have no wish to fall out with anyone. Can I ask why you say that textusa are sisters?

by HelenMeg 30.05.14 23:15

AndyB wrote:
cockerspaniel wrote:ps, just read nottextusa.. another interesting read! god will we ever get ANYWHERE with this case????? lol
Truce accepted, I have no wish to fall out with anyone. Can I ask why you say that textusa are sisters?

Truce - thank god the rain stopped - but the golf courses are still waterlogged here never mind

by Mirage 30.05.14 23:20

tigger wrote: "I've just sampled the link, highly recommend the February one, I'd forgotten all about Rev Heal ....so many revs in this saga they could have held a synod."
-----------------------------
Or, as my mother used to call it, a sodyn. big grin

by cockerspaniel 30.05.14 23:42

AndyB wrote:
cockerspaniel wrote:ps, just read nottextusa.. another interesting read! god will we ever get ANYWHERE with this case????? lol
Truce accepted, I have no wish to fall out with anyone. Can I ask why you say that textusa are sisters?

truce here also andyb,

i believe textusa are 3 sisters, that is what i have gleamed from what i have read, and if i recall correctly is how they refer to themselves at times. also they have a picture of 3 identical women on their homepage top right underneath the flags which i believe is supposed to relate to them in some form.

by AndyB 30.05.14 23:54

cockerspaniel wrote:also they have a picture of 3 identical women on their homepage top right underneath the flags which i believe is supposed to relate to them in some form.

Ok. Any idea what this, from the top left, is supposed to represent?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by littlepixie 31.05.14 0:00

A dogs nose

by rainbow-fairy 31.05.14 0:32

Well have just been away reading (wading) through 'Paedo v Nepio'
Well done textusa - am now more convinced than ever it is not swinging. Still more convinced by my first thoughts.
Shame, as I would love to think something as trivial (to my mind) as swinging is behind the 'VHLCU' as opposed to something more sinister.
Believe me, I take no pleasure in my conclusions. None. But I see far too many nasty indicators in this case (and far more than just those textusa has listed)

i want to be wrong (rare for me!). Just not convinced by this at all nah

by rainbow-fairy 31.05.14 0:51

If we believe textusa:

Every single member of the Tapas bar staff and diners lied as according to textusa there were no Tapas dinners at all

So when, between the 'accident' and alarm time, did the 'T9', all the staff and other OC staff (and ex-pats and villagers) get the brief that they had to invent 5 nights worth of dinners?

Some interesting theories posted by members re Kate and Gerry arguing over the 'quiz mistress' are impossible. Najoua Chekya lied. They were never there

Everyone in and around OC, PdL that week, was 'in on it'. To cover up swinging.

There are many more inferences I'm sure. But too tired to think of more right now.

by Liz Eagles 31.05.14 2:42

For those like myself who find reading Textusa's blog akin to wading through treacle in a pair of wellies....take heart. If you persevere, spend endless hours trying to read something that is designed to be difficult/obtuse and yet still come out the other side believing in the swinging theory then you could well be in for a special award. I'm surprised Textusa haven't thought of this for the black hats/white hats/stink bombers et al.

The golden wellie....because you're worth it.

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

Textusa: why use one word when 500 will do.

The new art of non-communication.

by kimHager 31.05.14 4:49

LOL Aquila
Rainbow fairy... I agree it cant be swinging i thought so for awhile but after reading the Gasper statements i am more than inclined to go sinister.... I would love to be wrong but most times our gut instinct is spot on. Id love to be wrong but i think its very unlikely due to the mccanns making sure no autopsy could be performed.. Imo only.

by **tigger** 31.05.14 6:37

Châtelaine wrote:But I've seen pictures of how they positioned themselves at this big round table [PJfiles], whereas it seems impossible such table ever existed. Ask PM. IMO they've been there, but not all of them all the time ...

Apart from that, with no offense to Textusa, but it gives me a migraine to read those long texts, with bolding et all. So I skim read and may have missed something really interesting and worthwhile. And that's a pity, isn't it?

The BRT picture reproduced earlier - do we know this is actually from the PJ files? Or is it a sketch for a newspaper simply filed somewhere else?
We already know they needed only 8 places every night as someone was sick each night.

But imo we're given an idealised picture, easily fixed in the mind of the public.
All this round table stuff didn't come out the very first day did it? PR and reputation management were on the spot very quickly. It's all part of the picture they wanted to give, young doctors and professionals, relaxing after saving lives 24/7 in the UK. Cruel fate etc.

textusa may well be right about there not being a big round table, or even room for it. Right about Brunt wondering where the thing was, but from there to never being in the Tapas bar and swinging is a really big step.
Seems it's the same with those who believe they consumed more than a bottle of wine each in about an hour. The Tapas sheets list the wine for the whole bar, which seats 20, then it seems about right.

I did read the BRT post as I had a day or two to spare at the time....thought there was something in it because the McCs certainly pretended not to know PdL at all. But early posts in the DM forum were from people who'd seen them at Chaplins and the MW staff having to go there to tell them the children were crying. So for some reason they wanted to pretend they'd never been off the 'compound' . That fits fine with the 'babes in the woods' image, feeling safe, lulled into a false sense of security,nbut with little else.

As for the quiz night, I do find it strange there was one on Tuesday as there was one in Chaplins as well. (In fact still is)
I don't believe The Kate/Gerry/Quiz mistress thing at all. Retro fitting an explanation for the rumpled bed in the children's room imo. If MW backed up the McCann statements which the PJ no doubt wished to verify, they'd say there was a quiz night.
Problem really is that the McCanns weren't very observant, narcissists never are. PR had to back it up, could hardly say X,Y and Z weren't true. Image of pure and honest doctors could not be besmirched.

In all I've read Textusa off and on, some interesting bits but really no great insights and with the DNA 'explanation' I'd really had it, evidence made to look suspect and significant when it's nothing of the kind.

by Mirage 31.05.14 11:41

I used to read Textusa with great interest and admiration, but gradually became put off by the verbosity and unnecessary layers of obscuration of the point at hand. As chatelaine pointed out, the visual distractions are another issue. Definitely not text-usa friendly!

Gradually, I gleaned the impression (perhaps unfairly) that you were entering hallowed halls as an under-educated interloper. An interloper moreover, who, arriving without a code manual, would sustain little hope of cracking the mystery of the text, let alone the mystery of the disappearance.

by Guest 31.05.14 11:56

It's probably a bit harsh but "supercilious twaddle" comes to mind with Textusa for me.

by Liz Eagles 31.05.14 14:32

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It's probably a bit harsh but "supercilious twaddle" comes to mind with Textusa for me.

Me too....I need a pen, a piece of paper and a variety of hats to read it....and all those acronyms are a minefield.

I hope The Word According to Textusa is never placed in that category. That would be most unfair.

by j.rob 03.06.14 14:16

I think she makes some good points. But I don't think that swinging would account for the level of cover-up. Having said that I find the tone of of the writing in Kate's book strange. And I found the Madeleine was Here series deeply creepy.

For instance, I find the passage in Kate's book where she refers to having a shower on the evening that Madeleine disappears quite peculiar. As many others have pointed out, it is strange to chose to have a shower at 6.30pm at the precise time you are getting your children ready to go to bed. And she herself writes that every other evening she had waited until after the children were asleep before showering.

She writes: 'At around six-forty, as I was drying myself off, there was a knock on the patio doors and I heard David's voice calling me. Swiftly wrapping my towel around me, I stepped into the sitting room.

'David had popped his head around the patio door, looking for me. The others had met up with Gerry at the tennis courts and he'd mentioned we were thinking of bringing the kids to the play area. David had nipped up to see if he could give me a hand taking them down.'

Why include this? It's just odd. And very narcissistic. (No surprises there, though.)

Then there is the reconstruction episode in the Madeleine was Here series where Jane Tanner disagrees with Gerry about which side of the road Gerry was standing on when he spoke to Jez that evening. The way that Gerry and JT interact with each other is suggestive of quite a close relationship and she also feels comfortable enough with him to make a joke about how Kate had been moaning about how long he had been gone (from the table) and that he must be watching footie - or words to that effect. I definitely got the sense that this was some kind of 'in joke' between the two of them and there is evidence of quite a warm relationship between the two of them.

So JT's comment to the Portuguese police that she is least comfortable with Gerry I would take with a pinch of salt. Unless, I suppose, she became more comfortable with him after the holiday. All those discussions about Tannerman no doubt would have bonded them I suppose.

by Hicks 03.06.14 14:39

The way I see it, Kate is purely waffling about taking a shower in order to fill up the time when she was obviously doing something else, perhaps scrubbing the flat in preparation for the 9.30/10.00pm alarm.
David Payne did not mention the visit to the apartment in his first statement. He never went there. This inaccuracy is one of the reasons why I don't believe Madeleine's death was an accident, she died before they went out to the tapas.

by russiandoll 03.06.14 16:09

the comments on the latest have gone a bit nuts. One from a person convinced that SY are planting cadaverine on the rocks for the dogs to alert to and now another maybe from the same person , saying that this is the biggest scandal in Europe, after Hitler.

by **Hobs** 03.06.14 17:34

Remember kate talks about showering at 6.30ish and then when gerry gets home she has a bath.

In statement analysis where water, washing hands, bathing is mentioned , it can be a sign of sexual activity taking place

This may explain the discrepancy of payne being there for 30 mins and kate saying 30 seconds.

Something went on between them that necessitated kate having a bath after having showered

A discepancy of a couple of minutes is not unexpected if it was over a period of time. A 30 mins dicrepancy is something else, what are they hiding?

by Bishop Brennan 04.06.14 13:00

j.rob wrote:
Then there is the reconstruction episode in the Madeleine was Here series where Jane Tanner disagrees with Gerry about which side of the road Gerry was standing on when he spoke to Jez that evening. The way that Gerry and JT interact with each other is suggestive of quite a close relationship and she also feels comfortable enough with him to make a joke about how Kate had been moaning about how long he had been gone (from the table) and that he must be watching footie - or words to that effect. I definitely got the sense that this was some kind of 'in joke' between the two of them and there is evidence of quite a warm relationship between the two of them.

Coincidentally I watched that footage earlier today (bored). I read it differently. I think JT blurted something very telling and very unwelcome as she said that "if Gerry had been on her side, then she definitely would have said something, as Kate had been moaning about how long he had been gone watching the football." Gerry cut her off instantly - far too quickly - marched across the road starting a very rushed new conversation about how he remembers it.

This blurt by JT is significant I think. Gerry's version has him away only for a few minutes and certainly NOT to watch football. But JT says it was long enough to warrant Kate's complaint. What had he been up to...? Probably we will never know, but there was no closeness in that interchange - just an abrupt and very obvious cutting off by Gerry after JT's slip-up.

Latest textusa blogspot UPDATE - New blog Bombshelling re Goncalo Amaral on Page 22.