The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

something nefarious

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by tigger on 17.12.13 20:20

It did not even matter if he was recognised by the Smiths - Gerry had the Tapas friends to alibi him for that time.
Then the sighting would still  be useful as a second independent sighting.
Smith saw man and child but mistaken about  id of man Must look similar to GM. Simple.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Guest on 17.12.13 20:59

@bobbin wrote:
I do not believe for one second that Gerry carried a 'dead' body. No trace was found on him at all, even if all of his trousers, shirts etc. had been washed many times from the Thursday 10 p.m. Smith sighting and the arrival of the dogs, since Kate's clothes and other things, including cuddle cat who had been washed, did signal to the cadavour dogs.
But if Gerry was appalled that he'd been seen by the Smiths he'd want to get rid of any identifiers that could link him as being the carrier of the child. So therefore surely he'd have made certain the clothes he was wearing that night could never be found and destroy them. Were the trousers ever seen again after the photo of them on the bed? This would also explain why no cadaver scent was linked to Gerry, only Kate.

I don't believe he'd burn the clothes to avoid detection by dog - I reckon they probably thought thorough washing of the items would suffice for that purpose , hence Kate accidentally retaining traces on her clothes - but was purely in case the Smiths would subsequently recognise the clothing they'd seen their man wearing.

All theory and guesswork, of course.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Copodenieve on 17.12.13 22:34

When I first read Tony Bennett´s theory that Smithman never existed and that the Smith´s are lying, I was quite doubtful. However, after reading this thread it does seem to make more sense than the other two theories. Maybe Gerry arrange for Murat to get the Smith´s to report a false sighting but they backed down at the last minute and then changed their minds when Murat was accused in order to defend him (Not sure now, but I think Tony said that too).
avatar
Copodenieve

Posts : 98
Reputation : 49
Join date : 2013-10-27
Location : Leeds

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Curioser on 18.12.13 0:44

@Doug D wrote:I agree with russiandoll regarding some of textusa's theories, but her blog dated 29th November makes a lot of sense. Anyone not wanting to be seen carrying a child through the streets had plenty of warning of the Smith party approaching & a number of opportunities to divert & escape before they were close enough to make any sort of identification. I don't know how accurate the meandering walk & crossing over to ensure he could be seen are, but even without these additions it seems reasonable that this was either an entirely innocent act (ie not 'abductor' or GM) or a deliberate ploy to ensure witnesses. Assuming it was a deliberate ploy carrying a 'stooge' who then needed to be returned to the OC by someone else, in case they were seen and similarly identified, it would not have been difficult to meet up & pass the child to someone who would then be walking back roughly from the night creche if a cover story was ever needed.

The Smith's walked up a narrow staircase and suddenly appeared on what had looked like an empty road. I think he was surprised. They said he kind of tried to turn his head away and conceal his face behind the child. It was him I reckon, and he didn't want to be seen.

To hide the child perhaps he put the body in a house he knew to be empty or shoved her under a rock in seawater. Nothing like seawater to clean up and hide smells.

____________________
I have no direct knowledge of the case. I'm just reading the files. It's all speculation. Don't sue me!
avatar
Curioser

Posts : 166
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Curioser on 18.12.13 0:59

Dee Coy wrote:
@bobbin wrote:
I do not believe for one second that Gerry carried a 'dead' body. No trace was found on him at all, even if all of his trousers, shirts etc. had been washed many times from the Thursday 10 p.m. Smith sighting and the arrival of the dogs, since Kate's clothes and other things, including cuddle cat who had been washed, did signal to the cadavour dogs.
But if Gerry was appalled that he'd been seen by the Smiths he'd want to get rid of any identifiers that could link him as being the carrier of the child. So therefore surely he'd have made certain the clothes he was wearing that night could never be found and destroy them. Were the trousers ever seen again after the photo of them on the bed? This would also explain why no cadaver scent was linked to Gerry, only Kate.

I don't believe he'd burn the clothes to avoid detection by dog - I reckon they probably thought thorough washing of the items would suffice for that purpose , hence Kate accidentally retaining traces on her clothes - but was purely in case the Smiths would subsequently recognise the clothing they'd seen their man wearing.

All theory and guesswork, of course.

As far as I remember, the white trousers were never seen again. They weren't among the clothes that Eddie and Keela sniffed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9ZKNIIcqpI

____________________
I have no direct knowledge of the case. I'm just reading the files. It's all speculation. Don't sue me!
avatar
Curioser

Posts : 166
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Curioser on 18.12.13 1:32

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:@Russiandoll

Attempting to be seen but not be recognised seems to me like the plan of a lunatic or an imbecile.  It took a while, but Martin Smith did eventually identify him (mostly).  So it was proved to be a stupid plan in the end.

I'll ask the question again - what is the point of the decoy mission, when not doing it would seem to be a far safer course of action?

ETA I don't mean the purpose of the supposed decoy, you've explained that in detail - to be seen.  What I am after is: why be seen?

As I've said before, I go with the simplest solution.  The simplest solution in this case is that Gerry was attempting to conceal the body and got caught.  It is simpler, because if you go with the decoy alternative, we are assuming that Maddy died earlier and the body was disposed of before this time.  We are assuming that the McCanns were able to eat a meal as if nothing had happened - while I'm prepared to give Gerry the credit for possibly being capable of this, I'm not so much with Kate, not at all.  We need an explanation as to why Gerry didn't bother to get rid of his cream trousers.  We need an explanation of how they managed to bungle the manufacturing of the crime scene so badly.

The simplest solution is ... the simplest.  So I'll stick with that for now.

I'm with you wlbts. The only other theory that seems possible to me is that she died the previous night and they didn't notice until the morning. Then they would have spent the rest of the day, what?, making up a story and pretending she was still alive and hiding that she was missing from the others in the group. Their patterns did change on the Thursday...
This theory is well argued here: http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.com.au/p/theory-english.html

But I still can't believe that Kate could pretend everything was ok for a whole day, and go to tennis, and go to dinner, and drop the twins off and go for a run. She doesn't seem like that good an actor to me. Gerry maybe, but I just don't buy Kate being able to.

____________________
I have no direct knowledge of the case. I'm just reading the files. It's all speculation. Don't sue me!
avatar
Curioser

Posts : 166
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by russiandoll on 18.12.13 9:16

Maddie's fate hidden from the group? I don't think that is Johanna's theory, but I will re- read and stand to be corrected as always.

 So for those who believe that Gerry was the stroller, the sticking point is whether he was carrying his deceased daughter or a sleeping /sedated decoy.

  Johanna believes it was the former, Textusa the latter. My belief in the latter is due to the toing and froing from the tapas table of Tanner and O Brien and that they were doing prep for the walkabout. I also see a big red flag over Ella's missing out on the beach trip until later on and Russell's picking her up from crèche late afternoon and his statement that he could not recall Maddie in crèche at that time  [ she should have been according to her parents' statements]...but she should have been there and so probably was. This man is a scientist. Ella was the only child apart from McCann children to go to crèche after lunch rather than to the beach.

 Might be worth concentrating therefore on the q from wlbts.... the purpose behind each action and the risks and advantages of each. It boils down to panic or advance planning, when Maddie was discovered dead or dying and Gerry's appetite for risk v safety. Maybe we will never agree on these issues!

 btw Johanna's theory fits many if not all of the known facts. My divergence from it is over who was being carried. I am open to persuasion that it was Maddie, so  will be doing a lot of reading when the Christmas schedule allows!

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 18.12.13 9:36

@Curioser wrote:
But I still can't believe that Kate could pretend everything was ok for a whole day, and go to tennis, and go to dinner, and drop the twins off and go for a run. She doesn't seem like that good an actor to me. Gerry maybe, but I just don't buy Kate being able to.

Yes indeed. I do understand that the idea that people are completely evil is a very seductive one, but I don't buy it in Kate's case. She seems a terrible actor to me. If Maddy did die before 3rd May, the only way that I can believe it is if Kate was unaware until her check.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 18.12.13 9:40

@russiandoll wrote:
 Might be worth concentrating therefore on the q from wlbts.... the purpose behind each action and the risks and advantages of each. It boils down to panic or advance planning, when Maddie was discovered dead or dying and Gerry's appetite for risk v safety. Maybe we will never agree on these issues!

Thanks russiandoll, I do feel that it is a very pertinent question. And no, I'm certain that some of us will never agree on these issues! I see it all as just floundering around in the dark until somebody is (hopefully) prosecuted anyway. I'd dearly like to get to the truth, but as we all know, we don't have enough information to go on, so of course we have different conclusions.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by lj on 22.12.13 3:38

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@bobbin wrote:

I think you failed to grasp ultimThule's message.
UNTIL the cry went out and subsequently then, the police would certainly be called, by someone/anyone, no-one would have been the wiser if Maddie had died on 3rd whilst her parents were at dinner.
But Gerry and Kate were the ones to let the 'cry' out re abduction, and start the whole ball rolling.
So we are facing two options.
1. Gerry genuinely believes Maddie has been abducted and goes into a panic, draws attention to the crisis, calls the newspapers, the police, anyone, everyone.
or
2. Gerry, being the calculating person he has shown himself to be, knows Maddie has 'died' previously, but to cover his and Kate's hides (or maybe even someone else's) rolls out a plan.

My apologies, but you have failed to take in the theory I put forward.  It involves option 3:

3. Gerry genuinely believes Maddie has wandered off and goes into a panic, draws attention to the crisis, people get involved.  Then Maddie is found dead at the moment of the scream heard by J.R.Salcedas.  At this point the decision to conceal the body is made.

Read the statement of J.R.Salcedas again that I quoted.  You'll see that option 3 is perfectly plausible in the context of this statement.

That theory has been discussed many times on this forum.
You can't blame the members, who have been here a bit longer, for getting a bit tired to rehash some things over and over again.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/
avatar
lj

Posts : 3322
Reputation : 196
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by tigger on 22.12.13 6:20

@lj wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@bobbin wrote:

I think you failed to grasp ultimThule's message.
UNTIL the cry went out and subsequently then, the police would certainly be called, by someone/anyone, no-one would have been the wiser if Maddie had died on 3rd whilst her parents were at dinner.
But Gerry and Kate were the ones to let the 'cry' out re abduction, and start the whole ball rolling.
So we are facing two options.
1. Gerry genuinely believes Maddie has been abducted and goes into a panic, draws attention to the crisis, calls the newspapers, the police, anyone, everyone.
or
2. Gerry, being the calculating person he has shown himself to be, knows Maddie has 'died' previously, but to cover his and Kate's hides (or maybe even someone else's) rolls out a plan.

My apologies, but you have failed to take in the theory I put forward.  It involves option 3:

3. Gerry genuinely believes Maddie has wandered off and goes into a panic, draws attention to the crisis, people get involved.  Then Maddie is found dead at the moment of the scream heard by J.R.Salcedas.  At this point the decision to conceal the body is made.

Read the statement of J.R.Salcedas again that I quoted.  You'll see that option 3 is perfectly plausible in the context of this statement.

That theory has been discussed many times on this forum.
You can't blame the members, who have been here a bit longer, for getting a bit tired to rehash some things over and over again.

Neither does that theory take account of ALL the evidence that night, so imo not worth discussing. It simply doesn't fit the evidence.
Besides, why go for maximum publicity.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 22.12.13 10:32

@tigger wrote:
@lj wrote:
That theory has been discussed many times on this forum.
You can't blame the members, who have been here a bit longer, for getting a bit tired to rehash some things over and over again.

Neither does that theory take account of ALL the evidence that night, so imo not worth discussing. It simply doesn't fit the evidence.
Besides, why go for maximum publicity.

@lj - You can't blame new members for getting a bit tired of longstanding members not respecting their opinions just because they've been signed up for longer.

@tigger - Give me at least one piece of evidence that disproves this theory, and I'll reconsider it.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by tigger on 22.12.13 12:14

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@tigger wrote:
@lj wrote:
That theory has been discussed many times on this forum.
You can't blame the members, who have been here a bit longer, for getting a bit tired to rehash some things over and over again.

Neither does that theory take account of ALL the evidence that night, so imo not worth discussing. It simply doesn't fit the evidence.
Besides, why go for maximum publicity.

@lj - You can't blame new members for getting a bit tired of longstanding members not respecting their opinions just because they've been signed up for longer.

@tigger - Give me at least one piece of evidence that disproves this theory, and I'll reconsider it.


i already had but you must have missed it. Explain how they had a number ( according to Tierney and the GNR - see the files)of the iconic photographs ready (well before the PJ came ROB statement - so within max. 90 minutes of thediscovery) complete with a very distinctive coloboma which according to the McCanns ( Piers Morgan interview May 2011) did not exist,
Apart from the photoshopping necessary, why release an out of date photo and not a recent one from the dozens that can be expected to be on the camera.

I could list a dozen  other reasons but long standing members have put in a lot of time and effort in researching the files and the facts. Their findings are recorded here in various topics and can be found in the appropriate forums listed under 'Home' .

Eta: you did not answer the max. publicity question above. Could that fit with the panic scenario? Not imo.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Mirage on 22.12.13 12:22

I quite agree Tigger. This has been thrashed out many times.

Mirage

Posts : 1904
Reputation : 757
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by ultimaThule on 22.12.13 14:50

I was taught that manners maketh wo/man, consequently if I ask someone to give me something I accompany my request with the word 'please'.
avatar
ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 22.12.13 18:33

@tigger wrote:
i already had but you must have missed it. Explain how they had a number ( according to Tierney and the GNR - see the files)of the iconic photographs ready (well before the PJ came ROB statement - so within max. 90 minutes of thediscovery) complete with a very distinctive coloboma which according to the McCanns ( Piers Morgan interview May 2011) did not exist,
Apart from the photoshopping necessary, why release an out of date photo and not a recent one from the dozens that can be expected to be on the camera.

I could list a dozen  other reasons but long standing members have put in a lot of time and effort in researching the files and the facts. Their findings are recorded here in various topics and can be found in the appropriate forums listed under 'Home' .

Eta: you did not answer the max. publicity question above. Could that fit with the panic scenario? Not imo.

I haven't missed anything - I have read through the majority of the files, read 'The Truth of the Lie', read 'Madeleine', and looked at the facts. I've spent a long time reading through this forum, much longer than I have been a member.

Firstly, I do not know why members of this forum assume that because the McCanns later on pretended that they hadn't made much of the coloboma to Piers Morgan, that it didn't exist in the first place and must have been photoshopped into images to prove one existed when it didn't. I've read many posts here describing photoshopping, none of which I find very convincing. And in each of the threads, I find opinions such as mine, that just because people want to imagine image manipulation doesn't mean that it exists. There is nothing people like me can do when images are posted with claims of image manipulation, with big red arrows drawn on them to point the 'obvious' photoshopping, when to us they just look like unedited photographs.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 22.12.13 18:35

@ultimaThule wrote:I was taught that manners maketh wo/man, consequently if I ask someone to give me something I accompany my request with the word 'please'.

I don't particularly enjoy being patronised, but I shall try to remember my manners in future.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Guest on 22.12.13 18:55

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote: [...]

Firstly, I do not know why members of this forum assume that because the McCanns later on pretended that they hadn't made much of the coloboma to Piers Morgan, that it didn't exist in the first place and must have been photoshopped into images to prove one existed when it didn't.  [...] .
***
I haven't directly addressed you before, that I remember WLBTS, but I have to now ... This is quite a non-evidential remark. They didn't "PRETEND", they "MARKETED" the coloboma, whether it existed or not is another item. They LIED. Again. That's the point. At least for me. And with that comes - quite naturally - the question: did she really have a coloboma???  And as a  consequence, the question: "did they photoshop the coloboma" for their "wider agenda"?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by tigger on 22.12.13 20:15

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@tigger wrote:
i already had but you must have missed it. Explain how they had a number ( according to Tierney and the GNR - see the files)of the iconic photographs ready (well before the PJ came ROB statement - so within max. 90 minutes of thediscovery) complete with a very distinctive coloboma which according to the McCanns ( Piers Morgan interview May 2011) did not exist,
Apart from the photoshopping necessary, why release an out of date photo and not a recent one from the dozens that can be expected to be on the camera.

I could list a dozen  other reasons but long standing members have put in a lot of time and effort in researching the files and the facts. Their findings are recorded here in various topics and can be found in the appropriate forums listed under 'Home' .

Eta: you did not answer the max. publicity question above. Could that fit with the panic scenario? Not imo.

I haven't missed anything - I have read through the majority of the files, read 'The Truth of the Lie', read 'Madeleine', and looked at the facts.  I've spent a long time reading through this forum, much longer than I have been a member.

Firstly, I do not know why members of this forum assume that because the McCanns later on pretended that they hadn't made much of the coloboma to Piers Morgan, that it didn't exist in the first place and must have been photoshopped into images to prove one existed when it didn't.  I've read many posts here describing photoshopping, none of which I find very convincing.  And in each of the threads, I find opinions such as mine, that just because people want to imagine image manipulation doesn't mean that it exists.  There is nothing people like me can do when images are posted with claims of image manipulation, with big red arrows drawn on them to point the 'obvious' photoshopping, when to us they just look like unedited photographs.


Sigh .....it was just a fleck which you wouldn't notice unless you were very close... Kate said in the interview, soyour argument fallsdown.
The coloboma in Maddie's eye  changes both shape and position which is an impossibility.
Read the Vanity Fair interview and what Gerry says about the eye.

Re the bolded bit - possibly because you're looking with your brain?  Many had not noticed Maddie's missing elbow in the ice cream photo. The reason even obvious photoshopping escapes most people is the same reason why many 'compare two very similar drawings or photos'  puzzles work. The brain looks with a kind of shorthand, say in low quality JPEG.
On the other hand, it could be that some people might be on a mission to rubbish photoshopping in this particular case

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Hongkong Phooey on 22.12.13 20:50

@tigger wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@tigger wrote:
i already had but you must have missed it. Explain how they had a number ( according to Tierney and the GNR - see the files)of the iconic photographs ready (well before the PJ came ROB statement - so within max. 90 minutes of thediscovery) complete with a very distinctive coloboma which according to the McCanns ( Piers Morgan interview May 2011) did not exist,
Apart from the photoshopping necessary, why release an out of date photo and not a recent one from the dozens that can be expected to be on the camera.

I could list a dozen  other reasons but long standing members have put in a lot of time and effort in researching the files and the facts. Their findings are recorded here in various topics and can be found in the appropriate forums listed under 'Home' .

Eta: you did not answer the max. publicity question above. Could that fit with the panic scenario? Not imo.

I haven't missed anything - I have read through the majority of the files, read 'The Truth of the Lie', read 'Madeleine', and looked at the facts.  I've spent a long time reading through this forum, much longer than I have been a member.

Firstly, I do not know why members of this forum assume that because the McCanns later on pretended that they hadn't made much of the coloboma to Piers Morgan, that it didn't exist in the first place and must have been photoshopped into images to prove one existed when it didn't.  I've read many posts here describing photoshopping, none of which I find very convincing.  And in each of the threads, I find opinions such as mine, that just because people want to imagine image manipulation doesn't mean that it exists.  There is nothing people like me can do when images are posted with claims of image manipulation, with big red arrows drawn on them to point the 'obvious' photoshopping, when to us they just look like unedited photographs.


Sigh .....it was just a fleck which you wouldn't notice unless you were very close... Kate said in the interview, soyour argument fallsdown.
The coloboma in Maddie's eye  changes both shape and position which is an impossibility.
Read the Vanity Fair interview and what Gerry says about the eye.

Re the bolded bit - possibly because you're looking with your brain?  Many had not noticed Maddie's missing elbow in the ice cream photo. The reason even obvious photoshopping escapes most people is the same reason why many 'compare two very similar drawings or photos'  puzzles work. The brain looks with a kind of shorthand, say in low quality JPEG.
On the other hand, it could be that some people might be on a mission to rubbish photoshopping in this particular case

The photoshopping has become a very emotive subject, it would be interesting to know what either the PJ or SY think of the photos which have done the rounds. it is not beyond the realms of possibility that some 'enhancements' have been done and that there are folks on this forum that have a purpose when it comes to these topics.
avatar
Hongkong Phooey

Posts : 310
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Five Star on 22.12.13 20:51

    @1:31 

does this help the debate?


avatar
Five Star

Posts : 110
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-21
Location : erf

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Newintown on 22.12.13 21:39

@Five Star wrote:    @1:31 

does this help the debate?



Watching that video of Madeleine really upset me, it made me want to cry.  She seemed to look like a little lost orphan and the only thing that made her happy was having a pair of new shoes, bless her little heart.  Mind you she didn't really look happy in the video at all, she seemed to be stuck on the stairs with her new shoes or in the stairwell on her own, I must mention that in the video the twins looked nearly as big as she did, although she was some months older than them.

I said a long time ago on the forum and I still believe that Madeleine didn't live with the McCann family full time and was only brought back into the family on high days and holidays, Birthdays, Easter, Christmas etc. which having now heard from the horses mouth, Kate McCann, saying on CW that the only time Madeleine seemed to be missed was at family functions, seems to confirm my opinion, which was for them normal if Madeleine didn't live with her and GM full time.

The question is: who did Madeleine live with full time and why?

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"

avatar
Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Curioser on 23.12.13 14:02

@tigger wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@tigger wrote:
i already had but you must have missed it. Explain how they had a number ( according to Tierney and the GNR - see the files)of the iconic photographs ready (well before the PJ came ROB statement - so within max. 90 minutes of thediscovery) complete with a very distinctive coloboma which according to the McCanns ( Piers Morgan interview May 2011) did not exist,
Apart from the photoshopping necessary, why release an out of date photo and not a recent one from the dozens that can be expected to be on the camera.

I could list a dozen  other reasons but long standing members have put in a lot of time and effort in researching the files and the facts. Their findings are recorded here in various topics and can be found in the appropriate forums listed under 'Home' .

Eta: you did not answer the max. publicity question above. Could that fit with the panic scenario? Not imo.

I haven't missed anything - I have read through the majority of the files, read 'The Truth of the Lie', read 'Madeleine', and looked at the facts.  I've spent a long time reading through this forum, much longer than I have been a member.

Firstly, I do not know why members of this forum assume that because the McCanns later on pretended that they hadn't made much of the coloboma to Piers Morgan, that it didn't exist in the first place and must have been photoshopped into images to prove one existed when it didn't.  I've read many posts here describing photoshopping, none of which I find very convincing.  And in each of the threads, I find opinions such as mine, that just because people want to imagine image manipulation doesn't mean that it exists.  There is nothing people like me can do when images are posted with claims of image manipulation, with big red arrows drawn on them to point the 'obvious' photoshopping, when to us they just look like unedited photographs.


Sigh .....it was just a fleck which you wouldn't notice unless you were very close... Kate said in the interview, soyour argument fallsdown.
The coloboma in Maddie's eye  changes both shape and position which is an impossibility.
Read the Vanity Fair interview and what Gerry says about the eye.

Re the bolded bit - possibly because you're looking with your brain?  Many had not noticed Maddie's missing elbow in the ice cream photo. The reason even obvious photoshopping escapes most people is the same reason why many 'compare two very similar drawings or photos'  puzzles work. The brain looks with a kind of shorthand, say in low quality JPEG.
On the other hand, it could be that some people might be on a mission to rubbish photoshopping in this particular case
How is this comment not insulting to wlbts?

I could purport that some people are on a mission to prove something not provable to support their entrenched position, but I'm feeling far too polite. Fair enough to disagree but why accuse people of having an agenda when they are just searching for a workable theory? Several members are just as missionary rubbishing the idea that the photos are genuine and not significant in any convoluted way. The photoshop opinions have been thoroughly thrashed out and I have decided to leave those topics alone now. There is no way to have a good discussion about it because opinions of the participants seem set. Mine weren't set. I did some work on the images myself and could find no sign of tampering. Now they're set. No point arguing about it.

We're all entitled to our opinions without being accused of some hidden agenda. 

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you're wrong. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make you right. Perhaps it would be good to have a couple of threads where people are allowed to follow their theories without having people leap in to say, "But you're wrong because you haven't taken account of the dish running away with the spoon!". If you then say, "But in my theory there is no dish and no spoon." you are accused of all manner of nastiness. "Someone has an agenda to divert attention away from the dish and it's obvious that the spoon is integral to the action. Why is this person trying to shut down my discussion of the spoon? They must be a troll or a plant or a shill because I can't discuss this theory without inserting the spoon where it belongs."

Imo, it devalues the discussions. If I was being rude I could say that this kind of intervention limits the discussion of reasonable theories and that sometimes that seems to be the aim, but I'm probably just paranoid.

____________________
I have no direct knowledge of the case. I'm just reading the files. It's all speculation. Don't sue me!
avatar
Curioser

Posts : 166
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 23.12.13 14:15

@Curioser wrote:
How is this comment not insulting to wlbts?

I could purport that some people are on a mission to prove something not provable to support their entrenched position, but I'm feeling far too polite. Fair enough to disagree but why accuse people of having an agenda when they are just searching for a workable theory? Several members are just as missionary rubbishing the idea that the photos are genuine and not significant in any convoluted way. The photoshop opinions have been thoroughly thrashed out and I have decided to leave those topics alone now. There is no way to have a good discussion about it because opinions of the participants seem set. Mine weren't set. I did some work on the images myself and could find no sign of tampering. Now they're set. No point arguing about it.

We're all entitled to our opinions without being accused of some hidden agenda. 

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you're wrong. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make you right. Perhaps it would be good to have a couple of threads where people are allowed to follow their theories without having people leap in to say, "But you're wrong because you haven't taken account of the dish running away with the spoon!". If you then say, "But in my theory there is no dish and no spoon." you are accused of all manner of nastiness. "Someone has an agenda to divert attention away from the dish and it's obvious that the spoon is integral to the action. Why is this person trying to shut down my discussion of the spoon? They must be a troll or a plant or a shill because I can't discuss this theory without inserting the spoon where it belongs."

Imo, it devalues the discussions. If I was being rude I could say that this kind of intervention limits the discussion of reasonable theories and that sometimes that seems to be the aim, but I'm probably just paranoid.

You've summed up my thoughts on this perfectly Curioser, there's very little I can add.  I'm not insulted as I don't take these 'discussions' personally, but that doesn't mean an insult wasn't given.  I've been accused of having no manners a little earlier for not adding the word 'please', and now another in a long series of insinuations of being a 'troll' or a 'shill'.  I have no objectives here apart from trying to take part in discussions about what happened to Madeleine McCann.

As this is now a common and automatic reaction from some posters to any debate regarding the 'photoshopping', I'll stay away from the subject in future.  And those who wish to silence any dissenting opinion on the subject can feel happy at this little personal victory.

This forum rule:

2. NEVER ATTACK ANOTHER MEMBER - that includes calling people trolls etc.

is becoming ridiculous, when members are just getting around this by insinuating it rather than being direct.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by aquila on 23.12.13 14:16

@Curioser wrote:
@tigger wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@tigger wrote:
i already had but you must have missed it. Explain how they had a number ( according to Tierney and the GNR - see the files)of the iconic photographs ready (well before the PJ came ROB statement - so within max. 90 minutes of thediscovery) complete with a very distinctive coloboma which according to the McCanns ( Piers Morgan interview May 2011) did not exist,
Apart from the photoshopping necessary, why release an out of date photo and not a recent one from the dozens that can be expected to be on the camera.

I could list a dozen  other reasons but long standing members have put in a lot of time and effort in researching the files and the facts. Their findings are recorded here in various topics and can be found in the appropriate forums listed under 'Home' .

Eta: you did not answer the max. publicity question above. Could that fit with the panic scenario? Not imo.

I haven't missed anything - I have read through the majority of the files, read 'The Truth of the Lie', read 'Madeleine', and looked at the facts.  I've spent a long time reading through this forum, much longer than I have been a member.

Firstly, I do not know why members of this forum assume that because the McCanns later on pretended that they hadn't made much of the coloboma to Piers Morgan, that it didn't exist in the first place and must have been photoshopped into images to prove one existed when it didn't.  I've read many posts here describing photoshopping, none of which I find very convincing.  And in each of the threads, I find opinions such as mine, that just because people want to imagine image manipulation doesn't mean that it exists.  There is nothing people like me can do when images are posted with claims of image manipulation, with big red arrows drawn on them to point the 'obvious' photoshopping, when to us they just look like unedited photographs.


Sigh .....it was just a fleck which you wouldn't notice unless you were very close... Kate said in the interview, soyour argument fallsdown.
The coloboma in Maddie's eye  changes both shape and position which is an impossibility.
Read the Vanity Fair interview and what Gerry says about the eye.

Re the bolded bit - possibly because you're looking with your brain?  Many had not noticed Maddie's missing elbow in the ice cream photo. The reason even obvious photoshopping escapes most people is the same reason why many 'compare two very similar drawings or photos'  puzzles work. The brain looks with a kind of shorthand, say in low quality JPEG.
On the other hand, it could be that some people might be on a mission to rubbish photoshopping in this particular case
How is this comment not insulting to wlbts?

I could purport that some people are on a mission to prove something not provable to support their entrenched position, but I'm feeling far too polite. Fair enough to disagree but why accuse people of having an agenda when they are just searching for a workable theory? Several members are just as missionary rubbishing the idea that the photos are genuine and not significant in any convoluted way. The photoshop opinions have been thoroughly thrashed out and I have decided to leave those topics alone now. There is no way to have a good discussion about it because opinions of the participants seem set. Mine weren't set. I did some work on the images myself and could find no sign of tampering. Now they're set. No point arguing about it.

We're all entitled to our opinions without being accused of some hidden agenda. 

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you're wrong. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make you right. Perhaps it would be good to have a couple of threads where people are allowed to follow their theories without having people leap in to say, "But you're wrong because you haven't taken account of the dish running away with the spoon!". If you then say, "But in my theory there is no dish and no spoon." you are accused of all manner of nastiness. "Someone has an agenda to divert attention away from the dish and it's obvious that the spoon is integral to the action. Why is this person trying to shut down my discussion of the spoon? They must be a troll or a plant or a shill because I can't discuss this theory without inserting the spoon where it belongs."

Imo, it devalues the discussions. If I was being rude I could say that this kind of intervention limits the discussion of reasonable theories and that sometimes that seems to be the aim, but I'm probably just paranoid.
I don't think you're paranoid Curioser. I think you are disgruntled and have been disgruntled with this forum for quite a while. You have your very own thread with your very own theory. I think you are the only person on this forum to have that. It might be better to have a blog if you don't wish to be interrupted. Most of your posts I read are to moan about the forum or other posters.

@Admin

Please remove my post if it is deemed inappropriate.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8702
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum