I find it difficult to believe that none had phones with them that night.
Even when on holiday people seem to carry their mobile with them.
I find it difficult to believe that none had phones with them that night.
Even when on holiday people seem to carry their mobile with them.
And yet, if we take the airport video sequences at face value, we are led to believe that someone had a mobile phone capable of recording video.How did you figure it was recorded on a mobile phone?
Funny old life.
I find it difficult to believe that none had phones with them that night.11 years ago people were not as obsessed with their phones as they are now. Few phones were smartphones then and if you were on holiday you wouldn’t be expecting many calls and texts.
Even when on holiday people seem to carry their mobile with them.
11 years ago people were not as obsessed with their phones as they are now. Few phones were smartphones then and if you were on holiday you wouldn’t be expecting many calls and texts.
How did you figure it was recorded on a mobile phone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1oDCSByz0sThat proves nothing, unless that clip was posted by one of the parents in question?
That proves nothing, unless that clip was posted by one of the parents in question?
That wasn't what Robi asked.There was nothing to say that the footage had to have been taken using a phone though. By 2007 there is nothing to say that someone in the company was not in possession of a camera capable of taking short video clips depending on the size of the memory card used.
He effectively asked for a cite. I provided one.
The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
That wasn't what Robi asked.I neither like it, nor dislike it, just pointing out that a youtube clip title proves nothing apart from your susceptibility to making unfounded assumptions.
He effectively asked for a cite. I provided one.
The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1oDCSByz0sThat footage has been edited.
That wasn't what Robi asked.I asked how did you know it was recorded on a mobile phone?
He effectively asked for a cite. I provided one.
The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
I asked how did you know it was recorded on a mobile phone?
I neither like it, nor dislike it, just pointing out that a youtube clip title proves nothing apart from your susceptibility to making unfounded assumptions.
That Youtube clip PLUS http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6698737.stmThat seems definitive. Quote from article: "The mobile phone footage also shows her on an airport bus in the Algarve"
3rd paragraph down
That seems definitive. Quote from article: "The mobile phone footage also shows her on an airport bus in the Algarve"
Just in case there is still any doubt about video on the phone - from David Payne's rogatory interview -
Reply "Yeah we had err you know a very good flight err from my, I can remember it wasn't err, it was, the flight was about nine in the morning, nine, nine thirty. Err everyone you know seemed, it seemed to go without any event, we didn't remember it as one of the worst flights we'd ever had going, I couldn't say that about some of the other flights that we've been on so the kids you know I'm sure they'd, you know it was very easy you know they'd all behaved themselves and there's as least hassle as possible err you know everyone's excited, it's you know that time of the year you're all looking forward and err Lily you know and Madeleine you know had met many times before and you know they were happy to be together err I can remember you know them holding hands and you know getting on the plane and we've got the video footage on the, you know on the err phone of that you know when Madeleine, you know, slipped and banged her leg.
Well done Jass!
Now this opens up another line of thought. Yeah why didn't they take their mobile phones a with them to the Tapas bar
Why and what did they delete from their phones...
I presume this was the same footage where Gerry told the cameraman to f*ck off.Surely not!
I presume this was the same footage where Gerry told the cameraman to f*ck off.So easy for a poor audio track to be misheard ... wasn't there a similar kerfuffle when it was thought that Amaral had been heard saying f*ck the McCanns when he was saying something quite different in Portuguese. It being said he does not speak English.
IMO F off! Do you think I'm here to enjoy myself!
i heard it i also heard someone say that gerry spoilt it??
I'm sure you did, carly. But isn't it just amazing the way Gerry appears to be speaking in conversation and only a disembodied two words minus a Scottish accent are said?I wonder why the BBC editorial team didn't get a Portuguese speaker to listen and tell them "Fale com os McCann" only sounds like something else, but isn't really and didn't need to be bleeped out. I believe it is denied in blogs that he even spoke to a British reporter, let alone spoke in English.
I thought we were discussing videos of the McCanns?Madeleine's last video contains the allegation that a four letter word has been used which in my opinion is pejorative and unclear ... I am exercising my right of reply to show that such allegations regarding video content may be misheard and wide of the mark and should not taken at face value.
I can hear 'Cheer up, Gerry, we're (or 'you're') on holiday. I then hear '.....off' and '....enjoy myself'. He certainly doesn't look cheerful, unlike Fiona and Dianne who seem excessively animated.The audio content from the individual using the camera is clear on all counts ... although Gerry can be seen in obvious conversation ... absolutely nothing can be heard emanating from his mouth from when the camera started its pan at appx 0.18 until it pans beyond him.
The audio content from the individual using the camera is clear on all counts ... although Gerry can be seen in obvious conversation ... absolutely nothing can be heard emanating from his mouth from when the camera started its pan at appx 0.18 until it pans beyond him.
There were two men present and two male voices are heard.
i hear someone say clearly cheer up gerry we are on holidays and then gerry says f off and then someone else says youve spoilt it gerry
It is very clear on good audio receiver... f**k off d'you think I'm here to enjoy myself.
I got a snip of gossip from that Amaral quote or mis quote as was told- and it was forget the McCANNs which with an accent can be heard as f.k the McCanns
four candles or fork handles sir?
Lol
Forget the McCanns as if
How pathetic is that.
Twas f.k the McCanns.
Both the camera man and the reporter heard it loud and clear.
Yeah, they were both wrong!! ^*&&
Ergath you are totally wrong and the BBC apologised. You should apologise to Amaral perhaps.The plot thickens.
ECU Ruling: East Midlands Today, BBC1 (East Midlands), 12 January 2011[sic]
Publication date: 30 May 2011
Complaint
The programme included a brief exchange between a reporter and Gonçalo Amaral (a former policeman who had worked on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and had since written a book on the case). One word in the exchange was bleeped, and the report gave the impression that this was because Sr Amaral had used offensive language about the MrCanns[sic]. A viewer complained that this was inaccurate and unfair to Sr Amaral.
Outcome
The reporter's belief, reinforced by others on the programme team who viewed the recording, was that Sr Amaral had indeed used an English phrase which included an offensive term applied to the McCanns. On further examination, however, it became clear that Sr Amaral had been speaking Portuguese, and that an inoffensive phrase had been misconstrued. Upheld
Further action
The Editor of the programme has discussed the outcome with the producer and reporter involved. In future, the team plans to use interpreters if clips from interviews are unclear.
in BBC Complaints
Got my cite in early
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EuN_CT1Vbn0/TepVVDgivSI/AAAAAAAAINE/BtO19EE2Rbo/s1600/BBC+-+Complaints+-+ECU+Ruling-+East+Midlands+Today%252C+BBC1+%2528East+Midlands%2529%252C+12+January+2011_1307202873345.png
The plot thickens.
Which inoffensive word in Portuguese sounds like f**k in English?
*%87
I have read that it was ask the McCanns. Seems Erngath didn't read it though as she insisted it was Fcuk.
I wasn't around in them days but luckily the internet has all the old information available. Well some of it anyway.
as I recall the word certainly began with F
But as Amaral was speaking in portuguese then perhaps fala (ask) begins with an F then Davel.
Anyhow this is off topic as well as we are supposed to be discussing wether Gerry said fkuc
it was sil who wished to know which word was used
OK Davel, sorry 8**8:/:What!
Ithink looking at that video closely - imo it seems the video was to diffuse a situationIf you worry about things like that.
The way the twins were looking in gmccann direction - the two girls looking down...not at camera.
The awkward laugh of the group as gmccann said F off not here to enjoy myself so obviously didn't want to be there
IMO he does come across as aggressive and no regard of the children being there.
IMO that just shows what a nice family man gmccann is %56&
If you worry about things like that.
Its others that should worry about things like that.
imo
Everything about him and his body language sends signals of aggression and power and
Kate is almost covering the children in a protective sitting posture
We may never get the truth but one thing we can learn from this video is
Gerry is showing a pattern of extreme dominance towards the guy filming and members in close proximity on the bus
The interesting thing is that none of the others were shocked by what he said
Which indicates it was normal behaviour for him.
In my opinion your post is much more informative than you could ever imagine but not I think in the way you intend.
The footage to which you refer was filmed over eleven years ago. In my opinion it is enormously intrusive that two minutes of the lives of complete strangers is subject to such ill informed drivel at this remove.
In my opinion your post is much more informative than you could ever imagine but not I think in the way you intend.
The footage to which you refer was filmed over eleven years ago. In my opinion it is enormously intrusive that two minutes of the lives of complete strangers is subject to such ill informed drivel at this remove.
It would appear that David Payne filmed the sequence and, I would assume, made it public. I wonder why he would make public a piece of film that paints his, supposedly, close friend in such a bad light ?
It would appear that David Payne filmed the sequence and, I would assume, made it public. I wonder why he would make public a piece of film that paints his, supposedly, close friend in such a bad light ?
In my opinion the sequence was most likely in the cameras handed to the Policia Judiciaria. You may interpret it as you will and as many many pejorative blogs et al have done before you ... making it a matter of opinion regarding just who should be viewed in a bad light.You would think that who ever released would have made some announcement about it. So at this stage we have a video and don't know who released it.
In my opinion the sequence was most likely in the cameras handed to the Policia Judiciaria. You may interpret it as you will and as many many pejorative blogs et al have done before you ... making it a matter of opinion regarding just who should be viewed in a bad light.
You would think that who ever released would have made some announcement about it. So at this stage we have a video and don't know who released it.
You would think that who ever released would have made some announcement about it. So at this stage we have a video and don't know who released it.
A source 'close to the investigation', perhaps?
In my opinion the soundtrack is suspect to say the least and there are those who are content to start the rumour and view the result of their work and enjoy anon.
For example, the discussion in Portuguese featuring Mrs Fenn in the hairdresser which made a big noise in many an internet blog; it is worth bearing in mind that as Mrs Fenn did not speak Portuguese it was of no relevance or significance just as an eleven year old video is of absolutely no relevance or significance short of as a tool with which to abuse ... and in my opinion that is a very sad state of affairs.
Are you suggesting it was the PJ? I know they 'must be blamed for everything' but in this case the evidence is clear.
The video is copyright "AP" "AP Archive is the film and video archive of The Associated Press, one of the largest and most trusted sources of independent newsgathering." So unless we can find versions without "AP" on them.
Is the notion of a Weegie saying "f*****g" so outlandish that the tape must be a bootleg?
Is the evidence as clear as you suppose? The video is on YouTube. Do you hear an audio track?Parents release two mobile phone clips of Madeleine McCannhttps://youtu.be/t1oDCSByz0s
I wasn't discussing soundtracks. I was discussing your mistaken belief that the footage was taken on a camera which was given to the PJ who 'may' have released it. It was taken on a mobile phone by DP and the McCanns released it. That's what the evidence says.Did the PJ not look at everyone’s phones?
You have formed an extremely negative opinion of the man based on tnis short video clip. Gerry McCann will have come into contact with hundreds if not thousands of individuals in his adult life, and yet I’ve not read or heard such scathing criticism of the man from someone who doesn’t already have an axe to grind. Don’t you find that odd?
Its others that should worry about things like that.
imo
Everything about him and his body language sends signals of aggression and power and
Kate is almost covering the children in a protective sitting posture
We may never get the truth but one thing we can learn from this video is
Gerry is showing a pattern of extreme dominance towards the guy filming and members in close proximity on the bus
The interesting thing is that none of the others were shocked by what he said
Which indicates it was normal behaviour for him.
You have formed an extremely negative opinion of the man based on tnis short video clip. Gerry McCann will have come into contact with hundreds if not thousands of individuals in his adult life, and yet I’ve not read or heard such scathing criticism of the man from someone who doesn’t already have an axe to grind. Don’t you find that odd?
Is the notion of a Weegie saying "f*****g" so outlandish that the tape must be a bootleg?
Well that one has clearly been released by Reuters news. I've seen a longer version in the past.
Try here, Robitty: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg467275#msg467275
I think the important thing is that there is no audio track on the AP one and it is the audio which appears to cause all the angst.
I know many Weegies who would find the use of such language extraordinary. I know many Weegies who would not be daft enough to fall for doctored audio tapes attributed to someone born and bred in the East End of Glasgow.
I know many Weegies who would find the use of such language extraordinary. I know many Weegies who would not be daft enough to fall for doctored audio tapes attributed to someone born and bred in the East End of Glasgow.
You are claiming it is “fake news”?
And I know many Weegies who are savvy enough to recognise the taste of bullish*t when they’re fed it hence the scepticism of most in the abduction theory.Do you have a cite?
I know many Weegies who would find the use of such language extraordinary. I know many Weegies who would not be daft enough to fall for doctored audio tapes attributed to someone born and bred in the East End of Glasgow.
Do you have a cite?Ask Faithlilly to open her mouth wider.
Maybe so ! I was speaking from experience. My stepmother would have been appalled but site crews could scarcely open their mouths without uttering the "f "word.
Those happy days when the Kingston Bridge was under construction Ayrskin had a Fairy but no bridge.
But I digress
Accents: I rest my case with Jan Molby
Out of synch audio and video giving distortion of sound and mouth movements?; you ever hear of Skype?
I use Skype.
I am also bored with my intelligence being insulted by internet postings of adulterated video. Was it ever true that "the camera doesn't lie"?
Did the PJ not look at everyone’s phones?
Are you suggesting they nicked it off DP's phone?
Are you suggesting they nicked it off DP's phone?
How much of the documentation in public circulation on this case is not bootleg do you reckon ?
It seems to be increasing almost daily.
Are you suggesting they nicked it off DP's phone?I’m only asking questions.
But only documentation detrimental to the McCanns. It’s a funny old life !
But only documentation detrimental to the McCanns. It’s a funny old life !You may be unaware but there has been a concerted effort by some to paint the McCanns in as bad a light as possible since about the first week in May 2007. Sometimes this has even involved photoshopping photos involving the couple. Hard to believe I know, but true nonetheless.
I’m only asking questions.
The answers you seek are in here;Thanks, be a love and give me the page number.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/
Thanks, be a love and give me the page number.
Thanks, be a love and give me the page number.That's in the file as well.
You may be unaware but there has been a concerted effort by some to paint the McCanns in as bad a light as possible since about the first week in May 2007. Sometimes this has even involved photoshopping photos involving the couple. Hard to believe I know, but true nonetheless.
Photoshopping photos of The Mccanns is just the * Tip of the Iceberg * VS. i have been noticing it for years .... and increasingly.
The Internet is a thoroughly corrupt medium in the hands of crooks and dishonest people.
So much of it goes on to the detriment of the Mccanns that you have to wonder just WHO IS PULLING THE STRINGS and WHY ?
AIMHO
Who do you think is puling the strings Sadie and what is "it" apart from a few photoshopped images and forums etc?
All I can see (from my limited experience) is a number of people who don't believe the Mccanns showing that they don't believe them in different ways. I have to say I agree with you I don't agree with photoshopped images but I have seen them made of people from both sides of the fence in my travels.
There are groups of people on both sides who have got carried away by this case in my opinion. They see conspiracies and mysterious doings everywhere and will use any means to get their point of view across. In my opinion there were/are no conspiracies or mysteries and the only extraordinary aspect of this case is the unprecedented media attention it received, not just initially but for years.Thankfully that seems to be finally abating for some reason.Genuine question (don’t expect an answer though) - why do you find these trivial details remotely interesting?
The video footage is very interesting with or without sound. Why are the twins so interested in what is happening to their left? Why aren't the two girls looking in that direction? Why isn't Gerry McCann smiling and relaxed like Fiona and Dianne?
Personally I’m surprised no one has picked up one the sinister way Kate McCann tousles the hair of one of the twins - now that IS very interesting.... ^*&&
Genuine question (don’t expect an answer though) - why do you find these trivial details remotely interesting?
Glad to see you are entering into the spirit of the game ?{)(**Glad you’re recognising it is a game.
Are 'these details' trivial or are you posting your opinion of them as if it was an accepted fact?the direction in which the twins are looking on board the bus to the plane, and Gerry’s not smiling (during the very brief clip we see of him) are indeed trivial details. FACT.
Glad you’re recognising it is a game.
Yeah, it's like an online combination of Pedant's Corner and Trivial Pursuits.Also like Cluedo meets Whack-a-mole.
the direction in which the twins are looking on board the bus to the plane, and Gerry’s not smiling (during the very brief clip we see of him) are indeed trivial details. FACT.
Unless you can prove it's true, it's an opinion.IMO you're really letting yourself down with this argument. It's a self-evident fact that the direction the twins are looking in a short video clip of them on a bus on the way to a plane in the UK is a trivial detail and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the disappearance of their sister, same as a two second clip of Gerry not smiling and maybe or maybe not saying the F-word. If on the other hand Gerry was driving the bus, and the footage was taken seconds before he crashed into a plane of the runway and the whole lot of them exploded in a terrifying fireball, you may have had a point. To the best of my knowledge that didn't happen, nor did anything else happen on their way to the plane that took them to Portugal that had any great significance. Happy for you to argue otherwise of course.
IMO you're really letting yourself down with this argument. It's a self-evident fact that the direction the twins are looking in a short video clip of them on a bus on the way to a plane in the UK is a trivial detail and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the disappearance of their sister, same as a two second clip of Gerry not smiling and maybe or maybe not saying the F-word. If on the other hand Gerry was driving the bus, and the footage was taken seconds before he crashed into a plane of the runway and the whole lot of them exploded in a terrifying fireball on the runway, you may have had a point. To the best of my knowledge that didn't happen, nor did anything else happen on their way to the plane that took them to Portugal that had any great significance. Happy for you to argue otherwise of course.
My interpretation is as valid as yours. Neither of us can prove that our opinions are correct.Your opinion that the direction the twins are looking is interesting and worthy of further discussion but you haven't said why you think it may be significant. Therefore IMO you have offered nothing to the conversation apart from wondering aloud.
There are groups of people on both sides who have got carried away by this case in my opinion. They see conspiracies and mysterious doings everywhere and will use any means to get their point of view across. In my opinion there were/are no conspiracies or mysteries and the only extraordinary aspect of this case is the unprecedented media attention it received, not just initially but for years.Thankfully that seems to be finally abating for some reason.
The video footage is very interesting with or without sound. Why are the twins so interested in what is happening to their left? Why aren't the two girls looking in that direction? Why isn't Gerry McCann smiling and relaxed like Fiona and Dianne?
The twins did it.
You may be unaware but there has been a concerted effort by some to paint the McCanns in as bad a light as possible since about the first week in May 2007. Sometimes this has even involved photoshopping photos involving the couple. Hard to believe I know, but true nonetheless.
You may be unaware but there has been a concerted effort by some to paint the McCanns in as bad a light as possible since about the first week in May 2007. Sometimes this has even involved photoshopping photos involving the couple. Hard to believe I know, but true nonetheless.
Are you referring to the obvious spoof ones or something else?There is one infamous one of the McCanns with broad smiles on their faces, sat at a table counting a big pile of cash. I know for a fact that some people believe this to be an actual photo and not photoshopped.
There is one infamous one of the McCanns with broad smiles on their faces, sat at a table counting a big pile of cash. I know for a fact that some people believe this to be an actual photo and not photoshopped.
There is one infamous one of the McCanns with broad smiles on their faces, sat at a table counting a big pile of cash. I know for a fact that some people believe this to be an actual photo and not photoshopped.
Well we know Gerry was 'uplifted' a couple of weeks after his daughter's disappearance, the Fund being one of the things which contributed, according to his mother.What do you mean by that exactly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhuXKKX-MXI
All card carrying members of the "Whatever Happened To Darryl Click Society" no doubt.Do you ever have anything to contribute to the forum apart from wisecracks that no one understands apart from yourself?
[Free chicken carryouts and commemorative framed copies of "The Time Life Photo" when you sign up].
Well we know Gerry was 'uplifted' a couple of weeks after his daughter's disappearance, the Fund being one of the things which contributed, according to his mother.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhuXKKX-MXI
Very odd interview. Absolutely nothing to suggest that her son being brighter had anything to do with being nearer to finding his daughter.Was Gerry closer to finding his daughter at that point then?
There is one infamous one of the McCanns with broad smiles on their faces, sat at a table counting a big pile of cash. I know for a fact that some people believe this to be an actual photo and not photoshopped.
Gosh I remember that one. Are you sure the smiles were photoshopped ?Did I say they were?
If I thought my daughter had been abducted the only thing that would make me ‘ brighter’ is news that she had been found.Thanks for sharing.
Did I say they were?
Well, you said it was photoshopped so I assumed that was what you meant.I think you know very well what I meant, what game is this you’re playing?
There are groups of people on both sides who have got carried away by this case in my opinion. They see conspiracies and mysterious doings everywhere and will use any means to get their point of view across. In my opinion there were/are no conspiracies or mysteries and the only extraordinary aspect of this case is the unprecedented media attention it received, not just initially but for years.Thankfully that seems to be finally abating for some reason.
The video footage is very interesting with or without sound. Why are the twins so interested in what is happening to their left? Why aren't the two girls looking in that direction? Why isn't Gerry McCann smiling and relaxed like Fiona and Dianne?
could you give a cite for conspiracy groups on the supporters side,,...I havent seen any.....obviously there are conspiracies galore on the sceptic side
Anyone agreeing that Sadie’s theory is feasible is part of a group who believes in conspiracies. G said groups of people not conspiracy groups.
I see sadie as an individual...not a group........CMOMM is a conspiracy group
But if you think sadies theory is feasible then you are part of a group who believes in conspiracies. Likewise if you are among a number of people who think the dog searches were conducted in a way that made the McCanns look guilty then you are part of a conspiracy group ( see StoptheMyths )
But if you think sadies theory is feasible then you are part of a group who believes in conspiracies. Likewise if you are among a number of people who think the dog searches were conducted in a way that made the McCanns look guilty then you are part of a conspiracy group ( see StoptheMyths )What about if you believe that the McCanns were aided and abetted by one or more of their mates?
But if you think sadies theory is feasible then you are part of a group who believes in conspiracies. Likewise if you are among a number of people who think the dog searches were conducted in a way that made the McCanns look guilty then you are part of a conspiracy group ( see StoptheMyths )
weve had 3 claims now so 3 cites requiredI think Faithlilly is mistaking individuals for groups.
so who is part of sadies group...cite please
Anyone who believes her conspiracy theory is feasible ( of course that’s not you Dave you’re far to intelligent for that 8(0(* )
so no cites...as expected
What exactly do you want a cite for ?
Likewise if you are among a number of people who think the dog searches were conducted in a way that made the McCanns look guilty then you are part of a conspiracy group ( see StoptheMyths )
thats an accusation..can you cite a post supporting it...I doubt very much you can
Of course it’s not, it’s an illustration.
Anyway you’ll be wanting to be off now to watch the footie like real men won’t you ?
Of course it’s not, it’s an illustration.
Anyway you’ll be wanting to be off now to watch the footie like real men won’t you ?
im already watching the build up....its an accusation...not a cite..probably not true
It’s an illustration, it accuses no one but simply illustrates a point.
Do you ever have anything to contribute to the forum apart from wisecracks that no one understands apart from yourself?
Probably not.
But is it my fault others are so poorly read and informed ?.
Probably not.your talents are truly wasted on us numpties.
But is it my fault others are so poorly read and informed ?.
ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
You really do do irony so well Davel.
You really do do irony so well Davel.A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
I do many things well
real women watch the football too
What you do on a Wednesday night is up to you.... P.S. this is a joke.I don’t get it.
What you do on a Wednesday night is up to you.... P.S. this is a joke.Bring it home!
Anyone agreeing that Sadie’s theory is feasible is part of a group who believes in conspiracies. G said groups of people not conspiracy groups.
* sadie * hasn't shared her theory.
I am talking about the main theory which went to SY ... and that is the theory I presume you are talking about ?
Please get that straight Faith.
Neither you, nor anyone on here has heard my full S.Y. theory about what happened to Madeleine after she was abducted. What's more, you will not be hearing it either.
You have only heard snippets of bits that i have thrown out to attract criticism and hopefully get people thinking, to expand my thoughts.
Gunit helped me immensely with her criticism of my mini theory about the watcher on the balcony. She helped fill in bits that were worrying me. Thank you Gunit
I’m really not interested in your theory. The point I was making is that it involves a conspiracy.
Of course it’s not, it’s an illustration.Absolutely.
Anyway you’ll be wanting to be off now to watch the footie like real men won’t you ?
Almost every theory surrounding Madeleine's disappearance involves a conspiracy imo.
Do you ever have anything to contribute to the forum apart from wisecracks that no one understands apart from yourself?
What did his last off topic quip mean then? No googling now!
When were you appointed spokes person for the members here?
I along with many others enjoy Alice's quips and intellect.
I don't think that last video was interfered with... Madeleine doesn't look too happy, and neither does daddy!
What did his last off topic quip mean then? No googling now!
Do your own research! I am not answerable to you and laugh at your futile attempt at playing mind games.Mind games?? That's not my department I'm afraid. I'm not the one posting obscure references in off topic posts to make myself look 'cleverer than thou' for my own amusement.
Do try to stay on topic...
Mind games?? That's not my department I'm afraid. I'm not the one posting obscure references in off topic posts to make myself look 'cleverer than thou' for my own amusement.
well others are amused by them... something you may require help with accepting? most of us have to suffer that fate with a certain mod... oh the joys!
You do twist and turn peoples posts... shame it never really works out the way you want it to. tsk.
I wonder if the airport is the last video taken of the group on Holiday?
Likely to be the last one with Madeleine on otherwise we would have seen it by now. IMO
Yeah... unless it was deleted by accident that fateful night...
I don't think there was anything accidental about that at allAbout what? Them deleting a video that you don't even know existed in the first place?
About what? Them deleting a video that you don't even know existed in the first place?
I don't think there was anything accidental about that at all
Deleting calls.
The thing about that video is that you don't know what happened in the moments before David turned on the camera. Did Gerry just have to reprimand Madeleine for being naughty?
When were you appointed spokes person for the members here?
I along with many others enjoy Alice's quips and intellect.
I don't think that last video was interfered with... Madeleine doesn't look too happy, and neither does daddy!
The thing about that video is that you don't know what happened in the moments before David turned on the camera. Did Gerry just have to reprimand Madeleine for being naughty?
IMO David was a peacemaker who tried to keep the mood light.The Paynes and the McCanns were travelling together at this stage, hence it is only 5 adults of the latter Tapas 9.
The Paynes and the McCanns were travelling together at this stage, hence it is only 5 adults of the latter Tapas 9.
We've got David saying to Gerry to lighten up he is on holiday. I notice the other 2 Payne adults play up to the camera. What does Kate do?
She appears to be comforting the twins, but the twins are looking over toward Gerry.
How do you know what was actually said? How difficult is it to add a soundtrack to a video? In my opinion easy peasy.
How do you know what was actually said? How difficult is it to add a soundtrack to a video? In my opinion easy peasy.IMO not easy at all.
IMO not easy at all.Why would anyone add a damaging sound track?
Which is why there are some sources which can reasonably taken to be genuine.
IMO not easy at all.
Which is why there are some sources which can reasonably taken to be genuine.
Why would anyone add a damaging sound track?
There is no audio on the video released by Madeleine's parents.
May I add add it is simplicity itself to use editing tools to remove the original audio track in its entirety from a video ... it is simplicity itself to add an audio track to a video ... it is simplicity itself to mix audio with the original or add any audio effect be it voice over or music in the background.
That is not opinion ... that is fact.
There is no audio on the video released by Madeleine's parents.Try adding an audio track so it lipsyncs with the visuals.
May I add add it is simplicity itself to use editing tools to remove the original audio track in its entirety from a video ... it is simplicity itself to add an audio track to a video ... it is simplicity itself to mix audio with the original or add any audio effect be it voice over or music in the background.
That is not opinion ... that is fact.
Try adding an audio track so it lipsyncs with the visuals.As you have no experience in the field it is opinion not fact... In my experience there, are, free programmes on the net that make editing videos quite, simple
That is not simplicity.
This is not opinion. This is fact.
As you have no experience in the field it is opinion not fact... In my experience there, are, free programmes on the net that make editing videos quite, simpleCite for the part in bold.
Cite for the part in bold.
And now name a free video editor that makes lipsynching speech to visuals easy.
You can't do either of these, can you?
so do you have any experience in the field of...Try adding an audio track so it lipsyncs with the visuals......ita a yes or no..and will provide my cite...and if you had any experience you would be aware of the free software available..Provide your own cites rather than asking me to do it for you.
https://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/index.html?kw=music%20cutting%20software&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8KOxzKOe3AIV6pztCh20YwKLEAAYASAAEgItjvD_BwE
https://mashable.com/2013/07/27/editor-audio-free/?europe=true#d5MKZ0d94iq3
my eldest son reached the finals of a national songwriting competition and had a professional live video taken of a song performance...he felt it was a little too fast and using free software replaceded the whole soundtrack with a studio produced version...its absolutely seamless
Provide your own cites rather than asking me to do it for you.
Will we see your son's original video? No.
Will we see his updated video? No.
Will we hear from him firsthand if it was easy to alter? No.
You remain 2 cites short of a discussion.
so do you have any experience in the field of...Try adding an audio track so it lipsyncs with the visuals......ita a yes or no..and will provide my cite...and if you had any experience you would be aware of the free software available..
https://www.nch.com.au/wavepad/index.html?kw=music%20cutting%20software&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8KOxzKOe3AIV6pztCh20YwKLEAAYASAAEgItjvD_BwE
https://mashable.com/2013/07/27/editor-audio-free/?europe=true#d5MKZ0d94iq3
my eldest son reached the finals of a national songwriting competition and had a professional live video taken of a song performance...he felt it was a little too fast and using free software replaceded the whole soundtrack with a studio produced version...its absolutely seamless
The bolded bit is opinion posted as fact imo
People seem to be denying that it is Gerry McCann who can be heard saying 'Oop day you all right?' on the video. I wonder why?
There is already a cite which has been previously posted on this thread http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg473455#msg473455 which in my opinion separates fact from fiction.
Misty has backed up the fact of the matter in her post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg473912#msg473912 in which she asks the very pertinent question which I have taken the liberty of highlighting:
'New Footage Released Of Madeleine'; 29 May 07; 0'38"
SKY caption:'New mobile phone footage has been released in the search for missing Madeline McCann, showing the 4-year-old with her family boarding their holiday flight to Portugal. Watch the silent footage here.'
Who added the audio & when?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FAKE NEWS was in vogue long after "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" hit the headlines and in my opinion few ordinary people have been as wickedly targeted by it as the McCanns have been.
I think it is more pertinent to ask why a version with the audio removed was released in the first place, though we can probably guess.
In my opinion we hear Gerry McCann's voice at the beginning. Did someone add that? Why? I've never heard David Payne speak, but his words fit in with what we can see. Gerry McCann doesn't look cheerful at all.
I think it is more pertinent to ask why a version with the audio removed was released in the first place, though we can probably guess.
In my opinion we hear Gerry McCann's voice at the beginning. Did someone add that? Why? I've never heard David Payne speak, but his words fit in with what we can see. Gerry McCann doesn't look cheerful at all.And the fact that (in your opinion) Gerry doesn’t look cheerful in a video clip lasting less than five seconds is noteworthy because...? Don’t worry, not expecting an answer.
Can anyone think of a valid reason why the McCanns would have released a couple of video snippets less than 4 weeks after their daughter had disappeared, with the sound track from one supposedly portraying Gerry in a less than favourable manner?Excellent question.
Excellent question.
Can anyone think of a valid reason why the McCanns would have released a couple of video snippets?
Yes.OK.
Can anyone think of a valid reason why the McCanns would have released a couple of video snippets less than 4 weeks after their daughter had disappeared, with the sound track from one supposedly portraying Gerry in a less than favourable manner?
why is that so important to you...what is its significance....perhaps they had a difficult flight with three small children....
It's not important at all, but I have to wonder why people insist that there was no sound on the released video. I can hear Gerry McCann's voice so either there was sound or someone added his voice saying 'Up day, you all right?' I would like to hear an explanation as to why anyone would do that?I think Davel was askng why you think Gerry not “looking happy at all” was of any importance to you, but never mind, you don’t have to explain, we can guess.
I think Davel was askng why you think Gerry not “looking happy at all” was of any importance to you, but never mind, you don’t have to explain, we can guess.
As some supporters appear to want to show that they were all having a wonderful time I can understand why evidence to the contrary would be problematic.a) which supporters are you referring to m certainly not me I trust and b) a few second clip of Gerry McCann in a mardy (if that is what it is and not just his ironic Glaswegian humour on show) before they’d even arrived at their destination is hardly evidence that they were all having a less than wonderful holiday. Travelling with kids can be stressful and/or a ball ache. So what?
a) which supporters are you referring to m certainly not me I trust and b) a few second clip of Gerry McCann in a mardy (if that is what it is and not just his ironic Glaswegian humour on show) before they’d even arrived at their destination is hardly evidence that they were all having a less than wonderful holiday. Travelling with kids can be stressful and/or a ball ache. So what?
I find the bit between leaving home to travel on holiday and the bit prior to arriving at my destination complete with kids and luggage a quite stressful but necessary evil.
Then again this footage has been used to illustrate a conspiracy theory and in my opinion has been used to demonise quite ordinary circumstances ~ which is actually rather revealing although not in the way intended.
I think Davel was askng why you think Gerry not “looking happy at all” was of any importance to you, but never mind, you don’t have to explain, we can guess.
It wasn't except in so far as it fits with the soundtrack; 'Cheer up Gerry, we're on holiday'.But you’ve already stated how interesting you find parts of this video, such as the direction the twins are looking in, and Gerry not looking happy. You obviously find this video significant though won’t be drawn on why, never mind, I shan’t probe further as this usually causes you some distress.
I/we found it was all part of the adventure,but there you go all different I suppose.Are you one of those parents who lets their child scream all the way through a flight and smiles on indulgently at their beloved offspring, out of interest? I’ve never quite understood those people.
I/we found it was all part of the adventure,but there you go all different I suppose.
Are you one of those parents who lets their child scream all the way through a flight and smiles on indulgently at their beloved offspring, out of interest? I’ve never quite understood those people.
How (un)surprising that McCann sceptics all enjoyed travelling with their young offspring and clearly never found the experience in any way stressful or uncomfortable.
You seem to think it's impossible to have well behaved happy small children. I assure you it's perfectly possible for small children to go on a long journey without screaming at all.And of course how (un)surprising that perfect parents would also have perfect children. I should have known.
And of course how (un)surprising that perfect parents would also have perfect children. I should have known.
You attear to think that it's normal for a small child to scream throughout a flight. I think it's abnormal.
You attear to think that it's normal for a small child to scream throughout a flight. I think it's abnormal.
We were on a flight once where a babe/child was screaming, the parents or at least the mum was getting agitated, one of the flight attendants suggested giving the child a drink of water to help it swallow to equalise its pressure in its ears,quell surprise it worked,its the blooming parents are the worst in my experience.
I find a stiff dose of calpol normally helps them sleep
You will probably tell us that no parents have ever sedated children for flying.
will I..that post really shows a lack of understanding on your behalf...imo.....
Well as your previous post was being sarcastic, one has to assume the opposite is your stance.
Of course it's abnormal... But it happens... And it isn't necessarily the parents fault..
I just don't understand your obsession with your belief Gerry was in a bad mood.... How is it relevant to what happened or is it just an opportunity to slag Gerry off
Of course it's abnormal... But it happens... And it isn't necessarily the parents fault..
I just don't understand your obsession with your belief Gerry was in a bad mood.... How is it relevant to what happened or is it just an opportunity to slag Gerry off
You attear to think that it's normal for a small child to scream throughout a flight. I think it's abnormal.I don’t attear (sic) to think that at all, so you are completely mistaken on that score. That said, I have done enough international travel to know that young children do sometimes cry (loudly) on flights particulRly on take off and landings and that this can be stressful both for the parents and other passengers. in any case, it’s not just screaming that can cause a parent stress, but other interactions with other passengers - climbing up on seats, kicking the seat in front, throwing up in the aisle or on another passenger, etc.
Most flights last for over an hour. Are you saying that small children will scream for that amount of time or more? Jeez!enjoy!
Most flights last for over an hour. Are you saying that small children will scream for that amount of time or more? Jeez!
I rather think the question worth adding to the query, "Who added the audio & when?" is why?Exactly
enjoy!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=Cg6jvKt2h6s
Unfortunately there are parents who haven't a clue what they're doing. If you watch the clip to the end there are tips on how to approach travelling with youngsters. Snacks, drinks, games, distractions etc. I don't think any of them would have worked with that spoilt brat, however.It’s the thing these days not to reprimand the child for anything and to let them do whatever they want, whenever they want, to express themselves freely and without censure. I see it every day in my line of work. It’s annoying, stressful and can be destructive.
Some people apparently believe that Madeleine kept it up for longer than that though, do they not?
Really? Well not me. No-one mentioned any problems on the flight.You don‘t believe Mrs Fenn heard Madeleine crying for this length of time then?
It’s the thing these days not to reprimand the child for anything and to let them do whatever they want, whenever they want, to express themselves freely and without censure. I see it every day in my line of work. It’s annoying, stressful and can be destructive.
You don‘t believe Mrs Fenn heard Madeleine crying for this length of time then?
So parents who can keep small children amused during a long journey aren't 'perfect', they're just normal. Tt's those who can't do that who are abnormal/inadequate?Normal parents who know how to keep their children amused can also find themselves with a grumpy, querelous, tired, fidgety, unwell young child on their hands, especially on a flight. This can cause stress and discomfort to all concerned. Which part of this do you disagree with?
Really? Well not me. No-one mentioned any problems on the flight.
... and no one mentioned anyone being grumpy or behaving like a boor either.
... and no one mentioned anyone being grumpy or behaving like a boor either.
So Gerry may or may not have sworn and may or may not have been grumpy at the outset of the holiday and this is significant because...? Not expecting a reply of course!
It's less than the expected behaviour of the perfect parent behaviour which is now a competition in these days.
There is no audio on the video released by Madeleine's parents.How can you tell which one was released by the parents?
May I add add it is simplicity itself to use editing tools to remove the original audio track in its entirety from a video ... it is simplicity itself to add an audio track to a video ... it is simplicity itself to mix audio with the original or add any audio effect be it voice over or music in the background.
That is not opinion ... that is fact.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Avi.htmA better question would be who turned the audio off?
'New Footage Released Of Madeleine'; 29 May 07; 0'38"
SKY caption:'New mobile phone footage has been released in the search for missing Madeline McCann, showing the 4-year-old with her family boarding their holiday flight to Portugal. Watch the silent footage here.'
Who added the audio & when?
I first saw the video on Spudguns blog, along with another of a child screaming, supposedly Madeleine on the 2nd of May, which was disgusting lies, video's to cause hatred for the McCann's. Mrs Fenn herself said she didn't hear screaming and what the papers say is all rubbish.
The baby in the video was not screaming but crying in a distressed manner and was a representation of the way Madeleine would have cried on the 1st of May. It was never claimed that it was Madeleine. Don’t you think that a child, having woken up in a strange apartment, may have been just as distressed as the video showed ?Pointless speculation for which there is no right or wrong answer.
The baby in the video was not screaming but crying in a distressed manner and was a representation of the way Madeleine would have cried on the 1st of May. It was never claimed that it was Madeleine. Don’t you think that a child, having woken up in a strange apartment, may have been just as distressed as the video showed ?
The baby in the video was not screaming but crying in a distressed manner and was a representation of the way Madeleine would have cried on the 1st of May. It was never claimed that it was Madeleine. Don’t you think that a child, having woken up in a strange apartment, may have been just as distressed as the video showed ?
The baby was screaming. What Mrs Fenn said she heard was a child crying, getting louder and then calling Daddy. I beleive that would have been the Tuesday night IMO, Amelie woke crying, woke Sean and then Madeleine called Daddy. No screaming child at all.
My children have woken in an apartment abroad and cried, not screamed, and sometimes just went back to sleep.
The parents didn't say that Amelie woke Sean. Neither did they say that Madeline called for her Daddy. The witnesses said that Madeleine told them Amelie's crying had woken her.
Mrs Fenn said that a child cried for one and three quarter hours, ad called out for it's Daddy.
The baby was screaming. What Mrs Fenn said she heard was a child crying, getting louder and then calling Daddy. I beleive that would have been the Tuesday night IMO, Amelie woke crying, woke Sean and then Madeleine called Daddy. No screaming child at all.
My children have woken in an apartment abroad and cried, not screamed, and sometimes just went back to sleep.
The baby was screaming. What Mrs Fenn said she heard was a child crying, getting louder and then calling Daddy. I beleive that would have been the Tuesday night IMO, Amelie woke crying, woke Sean and then Madeleine called Daddy. No screaming child at all.
My children have woken in an apartment abroad and cried, not screamed, and sometimes just went back to sleep.
A faked video not claiming it was Madeleine but with a screaming child who is in your opinion "crying in a distressed manner and was a representation of the way Madeleine would have cried on the 1st of May".
What was it then? In my opinion an example of the "evidence" faked up by whomsoever to supply the target audience with the necessary "truth" to support the "lies" of their fantasies.
How can anyone allow themselves be taken in by manipulation such as this?
With the greatest respect Lace it matters not one jot what you believe. Mrs Fenn said it was the 1st and she was there. That you believe something that the evidence doesn’t support may be comforting to you but would not convince a jury.LOL. Not being there has never stopped you believing an awful lot that isn't supported by the evidence.
What was what ????Quite.
The crying baby in the video is very much good representation of how a distressed child would cry.
‘She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, ’
Poor child.
If you have any evidence to refute Mrs Fenn’s statement then perhaps you could post it here because so far the only thing I can see is emotive language posted to divert attention from the real issue.
What was what ????
The crying baby in the video is very much good representation of how a distressed child would cry.
‘She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, ’
Poor child.
If you have any evidence to refute Mrs Fenn’s statement then perhaps you could post it here because so far the only thing I can see is emotive language posted to divert attention from the real issue.
I knew nothing about this spudgun apart from his name ... I've caught up on a little reading about him after viewing your post ... and I am left wondering from which dark recesses such vitriol for people he doesn't know and who he has never met emanates from.
It doesn't surprise me at all that the first time you saw the video of Madeleine complete with soundtrack was on a blog such as his. A not terribly subliminal message was being sent out in conjunction with a terribly judgemental and misjudged opinionated mindset.
What a pity it is that more than eleven years after the event a couple of minutes of a phone video which as we have seen on this thread, was released without a soundtrack, is still doing the rounds as an exercise in judging the McCanns ... on this occasion Gerry ... having acquired it's very own soundtrack at some time after release.
With the greatest respect Lace it matters not one jot what you believe. Mrs Fenn said it was the 1st and she was there. That you believe something that the evidence doesn’t support may be comforting to you but would not convince a jury.
The McCann's say it wasn't the 1st and they were there too -It is a bit unusual for a daughter to cry out for her "Daddy" isn't it?
When asked about the fact her daughter had been crying on the night of the Tuesday for one hour and 15 minutes, between 10:30 and 11:45, she says it is not true. She says that on that night, after midnight, Madeleine went to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, and sleep with her and Gerry in their room. She says that before Madeleine appeared in their room, she had already heard Amelie crying, however she did not go to the room, as Madeleine went to the room almost at the same time she head the crying. She does not remember if afterwards she or Gerry went to the childrens' room, however she states that Amelie cried for a short time.
Madeleine said 'why didn't you come when Sean and me cried' the McCann's said Amelie was crying, which makes me wonder if Amelie woke first, then Sean and then Madeleine it makes sense. IMO
It is a bit unusual for a daughter to cry out for her "Daddy" isn't it?
What was what ????
The crying baby in the video is very much good representation of how a distressed child would cry.
‘She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, ’
Poor child.
If you have any evidence to refute Mrs Fenn’s statement then perhaps you could post it here because so far the only thing I can see is emotive language posted to divert attention from the real issue.
What was what ????
The crying baby in the video is very much good representation of how a distressed child would cry.
‘She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, ’
Poor child.
If you have any evidence to refute Mrs Fenn’s statement then perhaps you could post it here because so far the only thing I can see is emotive language posted to divert attention from the real issue.
The McCann's say it wasn't the 1st and they were there too -
When asked about the fact her daughter had been crying on the night of the Tuesday for one hour and 15 minutes, between 10:30 and 11:45, she says it is not true. She says that on that night, after midnight, Madeleine went to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, and sleep with her and Gerry in their room. She says that before Madeleine appeared in their room, she had already heard Amelie crying, however she did not go to the room, as Madeleine went to the room almost at the same time she head the crying. She does not remember if afterwards she or Gerry went to the childrens' room, however she states that Amelie cried for a short time.
With the greatest respect Lace it matters not one jot what you believe. Mrs Fenn said it was the 1st and she was there. That you believe something that the evidence doesn’t support may be comforting to you but would not convince a jury.
... and in my opinion the real issue concerns why individuals would choose to adulterate video and audio to doctor it to reflect prejudices which are more a part of their psyche than what actually happened.
I remain bemused why you and others wish to promote such obvious misinformation ... for example in the kangaroo court of the internet it appears to be acceptable to post audio of a screaming child as Madeleine McCann.
If you wish a cite for that ... may I refer you to the last sentence of your post and the innuendo contained therein.
Myth making of he highest order. You have no evidence to support your proposition but state it anyway.
You know full well that the internet is polluted with adulterated videos and photo-shopped images of the McCanns ... which really cannot be linked to on this forum because not only are they libellous some are obscene.
In my opinion the video under discussion on this thread is merely a less extreme example of a genre.
What was what ????
The crying baby in the video is very much good representation of how a distressed child would cry.
‘She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, ’
Poor child.
If you have any evidence to refute Mrs Fenn’s statement then perhaps you could post it here because so far the only thing I can see is emotive language posted to divert attention from the real issue.
IMO when Robert Murat was made an arguido, less than 2 weeks after Madeleine disappeared, Mrs Fenn's testimony at that crucial time stating Madeleine was unsettled & upset for over an hour on the Tuesday night may have helped in his defence. I wonder why she apparently chose not to mention the episode until several weeks later?
I can see no connection between Madeleine crying on 1st and Robert Murat being suspected of being involved in something on 3rd.
I think it’s a bit like the supporters mantra that the Smiths came forward to give Murat an alibi.and yet you seem to find one of the above scenarios perfectly plausible!
It’s strange that they think that Mrs Fenn and most of the Smith family, who only knew Murat in passing, would lie for him yet find ridiculous the contention that the tapas group would lie to save their friends from prosecution.
I think it’s a bit like the supporters mantra that the Smiths came forward to give Murat an alibi.
It’s strange that they think that Mrs Fenn and most of the Smith family, who only knew Murat in passing, would lie for him yet find ridiculous the contention that the tapas group would lie to save their friends from prosecution.
You have totally missed the point. A local man, UK ex-pat, son of a long-established Luz resident, was being accused of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Would it not have been helpful to both him & the investigating officers to have been told of this crying incident there & then? The investigation could have potentially looked at other avenues e.g. the Tapas group, when memories were fresh, rather than dither along until options were running out?
I think the same goes for the Smith sighting ... if Tannerman was pivotal of putting the heat under him ... Smith man could have been enough to turn it down a bit had the PJ known about it.Tannerman - 9:15 according to Jane. Robert Murat at 9:15 was at home with his mother wasn't he? Was that alibi not good enough?
It is a bit unusual for a daughter to cry out for her "Daddy" isn't it?Nah !
You have totally missed the point. A local man, UK ex-pat, son of a long-established Luz resident, was being accused of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Would it not have been helpful to both him & the investigating officers to have been told of this crying incident there & then? The investigation could have potentially looked at other avenues e.g. the Tapas group, when memories were fresh, rather than dither along until options were running out?
You have totally missed the point. A local man, UK ex-pat, son of a long-established Luz resident, was being accused of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Would it not have been helpful to both him & the investigating officers to have been told of this crying incident there & then? The investigation could have potentially looked at other avenues e.g. the Tapas group, when memories were fresh, rather than dither along until options were running out?
You have totally missed the point. A local man, UK ex-pat, son of a long-established Luz resident, was being accused of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Would it not have been helpful to both him & the investigating officers to have been told of this crying incident there & then? The investigation could have potentially looked at other avenues e.g. the Tapas group, when memories were fresh, rather than dither along until options were running out?
I think the purpose of the release of the last video taken of Madeleine has been entirely lost to a section of individuals who saw it only as yet another opportunity to vent their spleen on her parents.
Has anyone given the slightest thought why Madeleine's parents would release such a precious memento of a few seconds of Madeleine's journey into the public domain?
Surely a video is even better than photographs for identification purposes. Releasing the video on the 29th May 2007 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg473912#msg473912 was in my opinion a desperate attempt to give the public as good a representation of Madeleine as possible in the hope that someone seeing her might recognise her.
Yet another useful tool released to benefit Madeleine was corrupted to be used against her in my opinion.
What an accusation in red bold font. A pile of poo ofcourse.
Was it the McCanns who released that particular video and then you say it was dubbed? wow seriously. ^*&&
If it was dubbed, how did they manage to dub Gerry's voice onto the first bit and why?Certainly edited to some extent but the sound track is always the same.
Certainly edited to some extent[/b] but the sound track is always the same.
There was a longer version. Where the camera is focused on another person (a young girl) on the bus, who was not a member of the McCann Payne group, and that footage has been edited out.
Unless you have seen an unedited version, how can you know? - and how would you know it was the original in the first place?
If it was dubbed, how did they manage to dub Gerry's voice onto the first bit and why?
They didn't manage- would be the first observation! the why is... there is no reason why. Are we having that push pop up from supporters to remind us that the McCanns are a posh family, with irreproachable etiquette, that they would not use the suggestion of selected words 'to fornicate under the command of the king' off.No swearing please.
Oh really, and what was it Kate wrote in her book for the twins to read....
It was Gerry, and it was f*** off.
Certainly edited to some extent but the sound track is always the same.Yep, when there is one !!!!!
There was a longer version. Where the camera is focused on another person (a young girl) on the bus, who was not a member of the McCann Payne group, and that footage has been edited out.
and that could have been at the request of the girl/and family. to protect her identity.
The Reuters clip still has that child. It has Gerry speaking and, I believe, Dave also. He is the only adult not shown so it makes sense that he was taking the footage, as does the reaction of his wife and mother-in-law.But not to the same extent as what I recall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1AlT1Jg0fw
The Reuters clip still has that child. It has Gerry speaking and, I believe, Dave also. He is the only adult not shown so it makes sense that he was taking the footage, as does the reaction of his wife and mother-in-law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1AlT1Jg0fw
We have learned on this thread that Madeleine's parents released the video without a soundtrack. A very simple deduction can be made regarding the appearance of a mischievous soundtrack added sometime later.
We have learned on this thread that Madeleine's parents released the video without a soundtrack. A very simple deduction can be made regarding the appearance of a mischievous soundtrack added sometime later.Was that really true though?
If the soundtrack was simply the group having a bit of fun, and no bad language, why not release the soundtrack too ?
The soundtrack was of zero importance.How would you know if you can't hear it?
How would you know if you can't hear it?
My powers of deduction.And the less said the better, I should think.
It was a very short video, the importance of which was in my opinion to get a moving image of a little girl who was missing into the public domain in the hope that someone somewhere might recognise her.
She did not speak ... therefore the soundtrack if there ever was one ... was redundant as far as identification was concerned.
Only the moving image was important.
And the less said the better, I should think.
They would know that a destructive but vociferous minority would pull their every word apart. Best to get the image across with no sound and maybe there was no sound. The voices on that video do not sound genuine to me.
Has anyone got access to a voice analyser?
I wonder why DP then publicised the hardly flattering ( of Gerry ) piece of video ?
We have learned on this thread that Madeleine's parents released the video without a soundtrack. A very simple deduction can be made regarding the appearance of a mischievous soundtrack added sometime later.
Some people have convinced themselves that it was released without a soundtrack, but are unable to provide evidence to support their conviction imo.
Some people have convinced themselves that it was released without a soundtrack, but are unable to provide evidence to support their conviction imo.'New Footage Released Of Madeleine'; 29 May 07; 0'38"
The soundtrack was of zero importance.
Do you expect anyone to believe that DP pulled out his phone, switched to video, then turned off sound before pressing record?
Some people have convinced themselves that it was released without a soundtrack, but are unable to provide evidence to support their conviction imo.Your side are making the accusations. It is up to you to provide the evidence that proves something which may not be true.
If someone went to the effort of removing the soundtrack then there was obviously issues with the soundtrack. How much easier would it have been just to leave the video with a soundtrack ?Can you prove that there was ever a sound track ? We are talking about the infancy of mobile video phones here and to begin with there was no sound attached, it seems.
Can you prove that there was ever a sound track ? We are talking about the infancy of mobile video phones here and to begin with there was no sound attached, it seems.
http://www.businessinsider.com/complete-visual-history-of-cell-phones-2011-5?IR=T
Can you prove that there was ever a sound track ? We are talking about the infancy of mobile video phones here and to begin with there was no sound attached, it seems.
http://www.businessinsider.com/complete-visual-history-of-cell-phones-2011-5?IR=T
Could you prove there wasn't any sound on the earlier video phones as your link shows nothing of the sort. All IMO of course.
I thought I'd add that dictaphones had been around for years and I am sure that audio is much easier and cheaper to capture than video anyway so why limit the phone to video only.
You have made the claim. Sadie has provided the data you can use to show whether or not your claim is viable.
Why did people record super 8 footage in video only? If you consider that question it may go some way towards answering the question you have posed.
Super 8 was released in 1965 and discontinued in 2007 and wasn't anything to do with filming from a mobile phone so frankly I can't see what that has to do with the subject, sorry Brietta.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_8_film
I had a sanyo video camera in 1996 and that filmed with audio.
Why was super 8 discontinued in 2007? Perhaps because individuals like you preferred to to record video with audio.
However I think you are deliberately missing the point that video came first while audio came later.
What camera was used to film the last video taken of Madeleine McCann ... and did it have an audio recording capability? In my opinion you need that information to substantiate your belief that the original footage was released with audio.
Your side are making the accusations. It is up to you to provide the evidence that proves something which may not be true.
Excellent research Sadie. We take technology so much for granted now that we tend to forget that it all had to start somewhere and when it did start it came with a horrendous price tag.
I think you are correct in thinking that the first thing necessary to substantiate the claim being made for the existence of an original sound track is to determine what camera was used in 2007 and did it support the inclusion of a mic for audio recording?
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/girl-slips-and-grazes-her-shin-on-steps-to-aircraft-in-video-footage-released-by-desperate-parents-1-2456983 (https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/girl-slips-and-grazes-her-shin-on-steps-to-aircraft-in-video-footage-released-by-desperate-parents-1-2456983)
Laughter is heard...
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/girl-slips-and-grazes-her-shin-on-steps-to-aircraft-in-video-footage-released-by-desperate-parents-1-2456983 (https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/girl-slips-and-grazes-her-shin-on-steps-to-aircraft-in-video-footage-released-by-desperate-parents-1-2456983)
Laughter is heard...
I am sure it was released with the sound track and then the sound was removed when it was notice that Gerry used a naughty word. You can hear a lot of background noises that seem appropriate to the situation. If you look at the news coverage of when it was released there are a number of outlets that would probably have shown the video that just either refer to it or have a still photograph from it. Why would they do that when to show Madeleines last video would have been so much more powerful.
Here is the one I was watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1AlT1Jg0fw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1AlT1Jg0fw)
I can clearly hear Gerry McCann saying 'Oop day, you alright?' when the children trip on the steps. I can clearly hear someone I believe is David Payne speaking to Gerry on the bus. The background sounds are consistent with the locations. Therefore I'm of the opinion that it's more likely that any soundtrack was removed rather than added. No-one can prove otherwise in my opinion.Is Gerry having a Yorkshire moment? Isn’t he more likely to be saying “Oops a Daisy”?
Is Gerry having a Yorkshire moment? Isn’t he more likely to be saying “Oops a Daisy”?
I think the Oop Day was David Payne anyway. Sounds more like a northen English accent and very close to the microphone on the mobile phone.What does “oop day”mean then?
What does “oop day”mean then?
Obviously a shortened version oopsie daisy Vertical Swirl. I am sure it is acceptable to shorten oopsie daisy. People shorten phrases all the time especially to small children as you are probably aware.Personally I think it sounds like “oop there” but I’m not entirely sure that any of this is particularly important.
Personally I think it sounds like “oop there” but I’m not entirely sure that any of this is particularly important.
I agree Vertigo Swirl but you asked me. 8(0(* All I am trying to say is I believe the mobile phone had audio as well as video capability and that the audio was originally released with the video. The audio would then be removed when it became clear what Gerry was saying. I may be new to the case but I can read and I have read of several instances when things have been "whooshed" after their publicationPersonally and fwiw I think Gerry says “eff off”and that the audio is genuine, but I don’t really think it’s remotely important or interesting.
Personally and fwiw I think Gerry says “eff off”and that the audio is genuine, but I don’t really think it’s remotely important or interesting.
Personally and fwiw I think Gerry says “eff off”and that the audio is genuine, but I don’t really think it’s remotely important or interesting.
Thank you for agreeing that the audio was genuine and yes I too wonder why it is important. It was simply made important though by the succession of McCann supporters on here denying that the audio was genuine and had been added by someone later.
I think the most pertinent part of VS's post says ... "I don’t really think it’s remotely important or interesting." Which is a sentiment with which I agree wholeheartedly.
So have you changed your mind that the soundtrack was added later ?
Please do not restart this silliness of you putting words in my mouth. Such a misleading practice is firmly against forum rules.
It was a question. You earlier suggested that the soundtrack may have been added later. Have the cites posted subsequently changed your mind ?
Obviously since this is of some importance to you ... NB: I have not retracted a single word I have posted on this thread ...
Do you have a view as to why it was released in the first place ?Because it featured recent moving images of Madeleine?
Because it featured recent moving images of Madeleine?
And this from the Yorkshire Post doesn’t convince you that the sound was always there ?
‘Mr McCann is looking serious, which prompts his friend to joke: “Cheer up Gerry, we are on holiday.” Laughter is heard throughout the rest of the clip.’
Read more at: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/girl-slips-and-grazes-her-shin-on-steps-to-aircraft-in-video-footage-released-by-desperate-parents-1-2456983
Possible, but they weren't very good quality images so not clear to me what real purpose they could serve.Their value was presumably in that they were the last taken moving imagesof the missing child, I can see nothing mysterious or sinister in it.
Their value was presumably in that they were the last taken moving imagesof the missing child, I can see nothing mysterious or sinister in it.
Do you have a view as to why it was released in the first place ?
I wonder if it was released because it proves the fact that Madeleine did scraze her leg on the aeroplane steps? Re: Keela alerting to blood
And this from the Yorkshire Post doesn’t convince you that the sound was always there ?The fact that there was never a statement from the Tapas 9 saying the soundtrack was faked, strongly supports the idea it was genuine.
‘Mr McCann is looking serious, which prompts his friend to joke: “Cheer up Gerry, we are on holiday.” Laughter is heard throughout the rest of the clip.’
Read more at: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/girl-slips-and-grazes-her-shin-on-steps-to-aircraft-in-video-footage-released-by-desperate-parents-1-2456983
The fact that there was never a statement from the Tapas 9 saying the soundtrack was faked, strongly supports the idea it was genuine.But have they ever commented on stuff that is posted in forums ? I am doubtful if they would engage at that level and imo, who could blame them ?
But have they ever commented on stuff that is posted in forums ? I am doubtful if they would engage at that level and imo, who could blame them ?But those videos were shown by AP and Reuters. Bit different from the forums. Potentially libellous if it was faked IMO.
I wonder if it was released because it proves the fact that Madeleine did scraze her leg on the aeroplane steps? Re: Keela alerting to blood
If so, wouldn't it have been released after Keela's visit?When was Keelas visit? If it was after the release of the video, then obviously it needs looking at differently.
When was Keelas visit? If it was after the release of the video, then obviously it needs looking at differently.
It was you who suggested that there might be a connection between the two. On what basis did you make that suggestion if you don't know the sequence of the two events?Post modified. Thanks for your help 8((()*/
Post modified. Thanks for your help 8((()*/
It was you who suggested that there might be a connection between the two. On what basis did you make that suggestion if you don't know the sequence of the two events?Shhhhh!
Shhhhh!
I don't think anyone has yet twigged the significance. 8(0(*
(&^& (&^&
Several times, historically, I have made it clear that with my eye sight problems, I cannot usually scour the internet as some of you can. Sometimes my eyes are a bit better, but usually my eyesight can be variable
I always try to word my uncertain, investigating posts as "maybe" etc., or in this case "I wonder"
You, SIL, have made totally incorrect statements in your blog and as fact, when they are not. Have you corrected your blog mistakes that I highlighted a few months back? My bet is that they still stand.
Where is your integrity?
Several posters on here have laid into me because they have demanded a cite that I cannot find, but am confident was there once ( maybe still is, but perhaps I am looking in the wrong place ).
These same posters were asked for cites on several issues only a few weeks ago, but NONE were forthcoming
Such duplicity of standards to fail to give (several) cites themselves then repeatedly deprecate, belittle, a poster who has failed to find a cite.
Hypocracy at its worst
..... and how many posters go back and adjust their posts when proven wrong ?
... please dont try and pull the wool over peoples eyes, cos everyone has got things wrong at times.
I may have made some mistakes, as the rest of you have, but at least I can hold my head up high.
No cite withdraw your claim. Those are the forum rules. If you can’t prove it don’t claim it is a fact.Then you need to withdraw your claim that Brexit could affect the ECHR case
Then you need to withdraw your claim that Brexit could affect the ECHR case
The ‘could’ suggests I didn’t state it as a fact.
CR working pro bono @)(++(*
It can't....CR did work free if charge to the mccanns...that's probably bono
CR were on a retainer even before the McCanns decided to sue the Express. They were not working for free. If you mean, however, that the McCanns did not pay them with their own money and someone else was picking up the tab, knowing the McCanns liking for a ‘free lunch’ that’s entirely possible.
It can't....CR did work free if charge to the mccanns...that's pro bono
The Law Society disagree.
deletedYawn
Brietta said:
"We have learned on this thread that Madeleine's parents released the video without a soundtrack. A very simple deduction can be made regarding the appearance of a mischievous soundtrack added sometime later."
We have now learned this is NOT the case!
The fact that Gerry used foul language is not important as you say, however, why make out it never happened ,white wash it? if it is NOT important. May I suggest it shows the whiter than white 'middle class' posh family as not so posh after all. and perhaps a little higher on the 'ew' scale.
No evidence Gerry used foul language...you can hardly see his mouth let alone read his lips...your lip reader sounds a bit of a joke....and of course you cannot supply a cite to support them
Only in your opinion. is this another field you are 'expert' in?
we already have supplied a cite -you do not understand the evidence.
How people get their knickers in a twist over one swear word. People swear. It doesn’t mean they are evil, body occulters. Get over it. FFS.
When my two year old sister uttered the line “piss off raspberries” when encouraged to eat a bowl of said fruit, it cracked us all up and became a family favourite phrase from that moment on. We’re ever such a nice middle class family too don’t you know, despite my mother’s predilection for somewhat colourful language.
How people get their knickers in a twist over one swear word. People swear. It doesn’t mean they are evil, body occulters. Get over it. FFS.
It's the double standards that interest me. People who swear in front of their kids often wouldn't do it in front of their kid's teachers. People who swear in front of their friends wouldn't do it at work. If swearing is acceptable why not do it all the time regardless of the situation or company?
Because it is acceptable in certain situations but not others to some of us...it's a simple as that.
So using swear words is only acceptable in certain situations, you say. In that case it might be sensible not to use the words in front of children who don't understand context and may repeat the words at any time and in any place.
do you have proof gerry swore in front of the children...I havent seen any...cite required
do you have proof gerry swore in front of the children...I havent seen any...cite required
I never said he did, so no cite required. I was thinking of a friend who's child swore at a stranger in a shop because he was too young to understand context, he just repeated what he had heard.
It's the double standards that interest me. People who swear in front of their kids often wouldn't do it in front of their kid's teachers. People who swear in front of their friends wouldn't do it at work. If swearing is acceptable why not do it all the time regardless of the situation or company?There are plenty of things that I might do in front of the kids that I wouldn’t do in front of their teachers or my work colleagues. I don’t consider it double standards at all.
do you have proof gerry swore in front of the children...I havent seen any...cite required
I never said he did, so no cite required. I was thinking of a friend who's child swore at a stranger in a shop because he was too young to understand context, he just repeated what he had heard.And did the world stopon its axis? I first became aware of the F word when I saw it written on a swing in the neighbourhood playground and when kids would flick the V sign at each other. I saw a man do this on TV and announced to my parents that he’d just “done a f..k siign”. Needless to say this didn’t go down too well with them as I was only 6 or 7 at the time, but at the end of the day no great disaster.
And did the world stopon its axis? I first became aware of the F word when I saw it written on a swing in the neighbourhood playground and when kids would flick the V sign at each other. I saw a man do this on TV and announced to my parents that he’d just “done a f..k siign”. Needless to say this didn’t go down too well with them as I was only 6 or 7 at the time, but at the end of the day no great disaster.
As you say, most parents correct their children if they pick up bad language outside the home. How do you correct them if they've picked it up inside the home without being hypocritical, I wonder.You get them to say "Yes Daddy" rather than "Yeah".
As you say, most parents correct their children if they pick up bad language outside the home. How do you correct them if they've picked it up inside the home without being hypocritical, I wonder.You say “do as I say, not as I do” like most parents do, and don’t overly concern yourself if your kids think your a raving hypocrite. Parents ARE hypocrites, most of the time (apart from the perfect ones, that is).
You say “do as I say, not as I do” like most parents do, and don’t overly concern yourself if your kids think your a raving hypocrite. Parents ARE hypocrites, most of the time (apart from the perfect ones, that is).
You say “do as I say, not as I do” like most parents do, and don’t overly concern yourself if your kids think your a raving hypocrite. Parents ARE hypocrites, most of the time (apart from the perfect ones, that is).
Were your parents hypocrites?Of course!
Of course!.
.I never used it either IIRC.
Me too. I therefore tried to avoid doing it with my kids. 'Do as I say not as I do' was never a valid statement in my house except as a joke. Children learn by example, not by being dictated to.
I don't know any perfect parents so I suppose I can't comment on that but as for swearing, there was a little boy at a birthday party I was at recently. He effed and swore throughout the party (he was around 5) and his parents thought it was hilarious but no one else did.
Yes, I know that to happen and some parents apologise and chastise the child, others encourage it and bad behaviour by laughing it off.
Gerry, was on a public bus, other parents may not have wanted their children to be open to that kind of talk. It was as if he was playing to adult humour- forgetting children were there... self centred comes to mind and his arrogance is apparent when looking at this video.
You can be anywhere in public with your children and they might overhear a naughty word.
All the parents would have to do in this instance is say
Darlings do you see that "self centred" and "arrogant" man using that naughty word, don't you use that naughty word. ^*&&
It shows a lack or manners or concern for other passengers and their families,therefore arrogant and self centered- and I can assure you I have said out loud in laddish company on a train 'language please children here'
As I have said the McCanns and their supporters trying to make them out to be what they are not. Middle class and very posh not to be challenged on anything because they perceived as such important people. ^*&& (&^& 8(>((
It shows a lack or manners or concern for other passengers and their families,therefore arrogant and self centered- and I can assure you I have said out loud in laddish company on a train 'language please children here'
As I have said the McCanns and their supporters trying to make them out to be what they are not. Middle class and very posh not to be challenged on anything because they perceived as such important people. ^*&& (&^& 8(>((
IN YOUR OPINION.
.I kimd of predicted that would be your reply. I’ll bet neither you nor your husband ever smoked or drank alcohol in front of the kids either.
Me too. I therefore tried to avoid doing it with my kids. 'Do as I say not as I do' was never a valid statement in my house except as a joke. Children learn by example, not by being dictated to.
They are working class made good.That might be the nicest thing you’ve ever said about the McCanns. @)(++(*
I kimd of predicted that would be your reply. I’ll bet neither you nor your husband ever smoked or drank alcohol in front of the kids either.
What makes you think that? Our children often went with us for a Sunday lunchtime drink and smoking was a perfectly acceptable accompaniment to a drink at the time. They had crisps and a drink and sat down and behaved themselves.It’s not behaviour you should have been indulging in, in front of children is it? Vastly more harmful than letting slip the odd F-word IMO.
It’s not behaviour you should have been indulging in, in front of children is it? Vastly more harmful than letting slip the odd F-word IMO.What smoking? "Vastly more harmful than letting slip the odd F-word"
What smoking? "Vastly more harmful than letting slip the odd F-word"Smoking in front of children is harmful in two ways 1) passive smoking and 2) it sets a bad example and it is a known fact that children of smokers are more likely to smoke in later life than children of non-smokers.
Smoking in front of children is harmful in two ways 1) passive smoking and 2) it sets a bad example and it is a known fact that children of smokers are more likely to smoke in later life than children of non-smokers.It might be bad for your health but I think it is important for kids to learn to socialise too.
What smoking? "Vastly more harmful than letting slip the odd F-word"
of course it is...smoking around children is a form of abuse imoIt might be today but when we were growing up it was the norm.
of course it is...smoking around children is a form of abuse imo
Wow I agree with you Davel but all of this is off topic of course.No it is not.
of course it is...smoking around children is a form of abuse imoSince the relevant dates are 2007 (McCanns) and Unknown (G-Unit), your 2018 views have no bearing.
It’s not behaviour you should have been indulging in, in front of children is it? Vastly more harmful than letting slip the odd F-word IMO.
Really? I can assure you that it was quite normal to drink and smoke in front of children in the 1970's. I believe it's still quite normal to drink in front of them. It was also normal to carry children in cars without a seat belt, to let them play out with their friends and to let them walk to school.Did I claim it was abnormal? No. I said it was more damaging to the child’s well-being than the odd swear word, and set a far more damaging example.
Did I claim it was abnormal? No. I said it was more damaging to the child’s well-being than the odd swear word, and set a far more damaging example.
why are you making comparisons about two different things? if you really want to make a comparison then how about what caused MBMs disappearance was it parents smoking OR parents leaving her alone to fend for herself, telling us 'it felt safe'. smoking felt safe at some time in history...You are wrong. This discussion has been about how some people find it beyond belief and beneath contempt that anyone might utter the dreaded F-word in front of tiny tots, because it is so injurious to their development and social interactions, yet apparently other far more harmful behaviours carried out in front of children are A-OK. And this is apparently not remotely hypocritical either!
This discussion is about MBM not about what we would do.
You are wrong. This discussion has been about how some people find it beyond belief and beneath contempt that anyone might utter the dreaded F-word in front of tiny tots, because it is so injurious to their development and social interactions, yet apparently other far more harmful behaviours carried out in front of children are A-OK. And this is apparently not remotely hypocritical either!
If swearing in front of children is not considered by. some to be harmful in some way, then why so much sanctimonious tut-tutting about Gerry’s alleged use of the word in front of children? I’m not sure what you’re wanting a cite for btw. Also, MM disappearing due to inhaling second-hand smoke? Come again??
So, perhaps you can provide a cite for those words being used by a poster. Sorry them are your wordies ... 8**8:/:
You took the discussion to a comparison. One which does not reflect the integrity of the posts.
NOT one person has said swearing in front of children will harm their development. Not one poster has claimed that smoking is less harmful that swearing. So there you are. all sorted. ^*&&
Now about my comparison; which do you think is better MBM disappearing due to inhaling second hand smoke OR being left alone in an apartment in a strange country. which has the highest risk to her health?
Oh don't bother answering we know the answer already.
If swearing in front of children is not considered by. some to be harmful in some way, then why so much sanctimonious tut-tutting about Gerry’s alleged use of the word in front of children? I’m not sure what you’re wanting a cite for btw. Also, MM disappearing due to inhaling second-hand smoke? Come again??
You are absolutely correct Sunny. If this was to be shown on TV the sound technicians would dub over or remove all or part of the video. They would certainly not allow the words ' FO' to be heard by the viewing public.
However, I have my very own evidence which convinced me and others. We have a sign language /lip reading expert translator . Asked to look at the silent video,it was slowed down, and she wrote down what was said. FO was what was said. I trust her implicitly. She sympathises with the family so no bias at all.
I also know this to be true as I have other information from someone in the know. I am doing a Sadie and Davel here -NO not going to name names...
It has been mentioned already. some supporters took exception and denied that Gerry swore. They refused to accept that he did. for what ever reason I believe it was to sell the myth that they were this perfect catholic family who did nothing wrong. I mentioned that it showed hom to be arrogant and self centered- which it does.In your opinion.
The smoking comparison was to demonstrate your comparison was a pile of... and was useless to the discussion.
*%^^&
If you go to the YT version https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=p1AlT1Jg0fw you can alter the playback speed. I found playing it back at 1.5 normal speed the words are really clear.Did anyone check my joke?
"we are off" I'm really going to enjoy myself" is what I hear.
It’s not behaviour you should have been indulging in, in front of children is it? Vastly more harmful than letting slip the odd F-word IMO.
We took our children for a walk and a pre-lunch drink on Sundays sometimes. You sound very silly trying to make that sound like child abuse.In your opinion. I simply pointed out the double standard. You would never swear in front of your children but would think nothing of smoking and drinking in front of them, behaviour which is known to be potentially harmful in the long term, far more so to the child than the occasional swear word. I did not use the term “child abuse”, but if you will insist on coming over all holier-than-thou I will point out the hypocrisy in the argument. If you discover your 9 year old with a packet of fags and drunk on cider you are presumably going to advise him that this is not wise behaviour, and when he says “well, you do it”, you will reply...?
In your opinion. I simply pointed out the double standard. You would never swear in front of your children but would think nothing of smoking and drinking in front of them, behaviour which is known to be potentially harmful in the long term, far more so to the child than the occasional swear word. I did not use the term “child abuse”, but if you will insist on coming over all holier-than-thou I will point out the hypocrisy in the argument. If you discover your 9 year old with a packet of fags and drunk on cider you are presumably going to advise him that this is not wise behaviour, and when he says “well, you do it”, you will reply...?
In your opinion. I simply pointed out the double standard. You would never swear in front of your children but would think nothing of smoking and drinking in front of them, behaviour which is known to be potentially harmful in the long term, far more so to the child than the occasional swear word. I did not use the term “child abuse”, but if you will insist on coming over all holier-than-thou I will point out the hypocrisy in the argument. If you discover your 9 year old with a packet of fags and drunk on cider you are presumably going to advise him that this is not wise behaviour, and when he says “well, you do it”, you will reply...?
Now you're getting even more ridiculous. The standards of 2018 can't be applied to 1972. Do nine year old's get drunk on cider in 2018 because they go for a pub lunch and see their parents with alcoholic drinks? Please try to be sensible and stick to the subject; swearing in front of toddlers. .Who mentioned 1972? I notice you completely ignored the question. If it is your contention that children are not influenced by their parents’ behaviour then what is your problem with the occasional naughty word said in front of them? If anyone is being ridiculous and making mountains out of molehills well it certainly isn’t me!
Who mentioned 1972? I notice you completely ignored the question. If it is your contention that children are not influenced by their parents’ behaviour then what is your problem with the occasional naughty word said in front of them? If anyone is being ridiculous and making mountains out of molehills well it certainly isn’t me!
My argument was that parents should lead by example rather than expecting their children to do as they say not as they do. You then tried to suggest that children going for a Sunday lunch time visit to the pub with their parents were in danger of being found drunk on cider at the age of nine! A bit OTT in my opinion.You have very clearly misunderstood, deliberately or otherwise I’m not sure. At no point did I ever say that going for a drink before Sunday lunch would lead to your child getting drunk at the age of 9. Parents “leading by example” however has proven to increase the likelihood of children becoming smokers and drinkers if they regularly observe their parents partaking in such activities. I can provide cites if required. If it’s kids learning swear words then this is bad in your opinion, and parents should not swear in front of kids, despite the fact that it does no real harm. The same however cannot be said for smoking and drinking which can cause harm in later life, but which you appear to have no issue whatsoever with doing in front of your kids. Personally I would rather my child be exposed to the odd swear word coming out of my mouth than to have me exhaling fag breath in their direction on a daily basis, silly and ridiculous though it may seem to you. Swearing in front of the kids occasionally is no biggie, and to use Gerry’s “eff off” as yet another stick with which to beat him smacks of pettiness and making something out of nothing. IMO.
You have very clearly misunderstood, deliberately or otherwise I’m not sure. At no point did I ever say that going for a drink before Sunday lunch would lead to your child getting drunk at the age of 9. Parents “leading by example” however has proven to increase the likelihood of children becoming smokers and drinkers if they regularly observe their parents partaking in such activities. I can provide cites if required. If it’s kids learning swear words then this is bad in your opinion, and parents should not swear in front of kids, despite the fact that it does no real harm. The same however cannot be said for smoking and drinking which can cause harm in later life, but which you appear to have no issue whatsoever with doing in front of your kids. Personally I would rather my child be exposed to the odd swear word coming out of my mouth than to have me exhaling fag breath in their direction on a daily basis, silly and ridiculous though it may seem to you. Swearing in front of the kids occasionally is no biggie, and to use Gerry’s “eff off” as yet another stick with which to beat him smacks of pettiness and making something out of nothing. IMO.
So you think it better if parents don’t drink in front of their children? Probably should go elsewhere?I didn’t consider the other harmful effects of drinking around children which this article highlights:
You have very clearly misunderstood, deliberately or otherwise I’m not sure. At no point did I ever say that going for a drink before Sunday lunch would lead to your child getting drunk at the age of 9. Parents “leading by example” however has proven to increase the likelihood of children becoming smokers and drinkers if they regularly observe their parents partaking in such activities. I can provide cites if required. If it’s kids learning swear words then this is bad in your opinion, and parents should not swear in front of kids, despite the fact that it does no real harm. The same however cannot be said for smoking and drinking which can cause harm in later life, but which you appear to have no issue whatsoever with doing in front of your kids. Personally I would rather my child be exposed to the odd swear word coming out of my mouth than to have me exhaling fag breath in their direction on a daily basis, silly and ridiculous though it may seem to you. Swearing in front of the kids occasionally is no biggie, and to use Gerry’s “eff off” as yet another stick with which to beat him smacks of pettiness and making something out of nothing. IMO.
snip/Yes, and? It was a hypothetical situation (do you even have a nine year old child?), one which could have happened whether or not you went for a pre-Sunday lunch drink and one which you declined to give an answer to, apart from to call me silly and ridiculous. That’s fine.
"If you discover your 9 year old with a packet of fags and drunk on cider you are presumably going to advise him that this is not wise behaviour, and when he says “well, you do it”, you will reply...?"
You have very clearly misunderstood, deliberately or otherwise I’m not sure. At no point did I ever say that going for a drink before Sunday lunch would lead to your child getting drunk at the age of 9. Parents “leading by example” however has proven to increase the likelihood of children becoming smokers and drinkers if they regularly observe their parents partaking in such activities. I can provide cites if required. If it’s kids learning swear words then this is bad in your opinion, and parents should not swear in front of kids, despite the fact that it does no real harm. The same however cannot be said for smoking and drinking which can cause harm in later life but which you appear to have no issue whatsoever with doing in front of your kids. Personally I would rather my child be exposed to the odd swear word coming out of my mouth than to have me exhaling fag breath in their direction on a daily basis, silly and ridiculous though it may seem to you. Swearing in front of the kids occasionally is no biggie, and to use Gerry’s “eff off” as yet another stick with which to beat him smacks of pettiness and making something out of nothing. IMO.My Auntie smoked like a chimney but lived until about 70.
My Auntie smoked like a chimney but lived until about 70.Sad story Sadie.
Her wonderful daughter who never smoked, died of lung cancer at the age of 42. This was in the seventies.
I dont care for swearing but from what we now know, it seems that it is better than smoking in front of your kids.
My Auntie smoked like a chimney but lived until about 70.
Her wonderful daughter who never smoked, died of lung cancer at the age of 42. This was in the seventies.
I dont care for swearing but from what we now know, it seems that it is better than smoking in front of your kids.
Passive smoking is a killer....
Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. As a child I was exposed to smoking in homes, on buses and trains, in cinemas, restaurants and theatres. I'm 74 and have no problems with my lungs.
It is ....thats rather an uneducated comment
Explain.
You are quoting anectdotal evidence to support your claim...anyone who understands what evidence is would realise anectdotal evidence has no credibility
Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. As a child I was exposed to smoking in homes, on buses and trains, in cinemas, restaurants and theatres. I'm 74 and have no problems with my lungs.Yet. Your arguments sounds a little bit like “we’ve left our kids alone in the house and gone out drinking, and nothing bad has ever happened to them”.
Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. As a child I was exposed to smoking in homes, on buses and trains, in cinemas, restaurants and theatres. I'm 74 and have no problems with my lungs.Keep touching wood.
Would you say that smoking causes lung cancer or would you say there's an association between smoking and lung cancer?
Yet. Your arguments sounds a little bit like “we’ve left our kids alone in the house and gone out drinking, and nothing bad has ever happened to them”.All fine on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights but on Thursday we weren't so lucky.
Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. As a child I was exposed to smoking in homes, on buses and trains, in cinemas, restaurants and theatres. I'm 74 and have no problems with my lungs.
Both .you cannot deny you were quoting anecdotal evidence
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3749017/
Both? There's a difference between a cause and a correlation.
Do you think it's acceptable to smoke around children
I think that people have become obsessed by the dangers of smoking. There are many dangers in the world; vehicle exhaust fumes, for example, are just as dangerous to a child, but parents who avoid cigarette smoke are happy to transport their children in cars.
“If more drivers knew the damage they could be doing to their children, I think they’d think twice about getting in the car.”
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/816148/air-pollution-cars-toxic-gases-children
I think to talk about the dangers of smoking being an obsession is ridiculous..
We should try and reduce all risks to our children...some of us do
Some people take risks, others don't. I. for example. always had an responsible person caring for my children. Others have been known to leave them home alone.With regular checks .....
Some people take risks, others don't. I. for example. always had an responsible person caring for my children. Others have been known to leave them home alone.If you smoke around children you do so in the knowledge that you are risking not only your health but that of your children’s also. On top of that you are setting a very bad example to those children.
With regular checks .....
Some people take risks, others don't. I. for example. always had an responsible person caring for my children. Others have been known to leave them home alone.Anyone who smokes around children is showing a serious disregard for their welfare....I wouldn't leave children alone...nor would I allow them to inhale passive tobacco smoke
Anyone who smokes around children is showing a serious disregard for their welfare....I wouldn't leave children alone...nor would I allow them to inhale passive tobacco smoke
What of noxious fumes from vehicles?
What of noxious fumes from vehicles?I believe it is now illegal to smoke and drive in a car containing children, however it is not (yet) illegal to say “f..k off” on an airport bus in front of them.
I believe it is now illegal to smoke and drive in a car containing children, however it is not (yet) illegal to say “f..k off” on an airport bus in front of them.
A triumph for the anti-smoking lobby but not necessarily for the children breathing in pollutants from traffic exhausts.Do you object to laws protecting children from being confined to small spaces and forced to breathe in their selfish parents’ harmful exhalations? Do you think it would be better if they outlawed swearing in front of children instead? I don’t expect a straight answer to this btw, but your post does give me the impression that you do and you do.
I am still of the opinion that using expletives in front of small children is unacceptable.
My children were brought up in a non smoking home.
We once travelled by coach to Italy and in the seats in front of us there were two women smoking and it really worried me that my children were breathing in the cigarette smoke.
Sometimes the children attended football matches where swearing could be heard.
Easy to say to children, don't use the bad language you may hear, not so easy to remove the harmful effects of passive smoking.
No concern about the traffic emissions I see.
I believe it is now illegal to smoke and drive in a car containing children, however it is not (yet) illegal to say “f..k off” on an airport bus in front of them.
It was on a network not just the bus. Hence why they had to dubb out Gerry.As Gerry said "We are not here to enjoy ourselves".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
So why has this thread turned into a smoking thread? this is about the McCanns behaviour. This is becoming very tiresome. VS and Crew goading posters who refuse to toe the McCann line. They ask questions then answer themselves ? what the...
It was on a network not just the bus. Hence why they had to dubb out Gerry.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
So why has this thread turned into a smoking thread? this is about the McCanns behaviour. This is becoming very tiresome. VS and Crew goading posters who refuse to toe the McCann line. They ask questions then answer themselves ? what the...
It was on a network not just the bus. Hence why they had to dubb out Gerry.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
So why has this thread turned into a smoking thread? this is about the McCanns behaviour. This is becoming very tiresome. VS and Crew goading posters who refuse to toe the McCann line. They ask questions then answer themselves ? what the...
It’s a lot easier if you ask the question and then give the answers that fit your agenda.Which is exactly why we are being asked to “wonder” why Gerry was grumpy and swearing, isn’t it?
As Gerry said "We are not here to enjoy ourselves".
I don't think it counts as goading when they do it. @)(++(*"I don't think it counts as goading when they do it. @)(++(*" is also goading. There is goading and goading and we have to tell them apart.
"I don't think it counts as goading when they do it. @)(++(*" is also goading. There is goading and goading and we have to tell them apart.I totally agree.
"I don't think it counts as goading when they do it. @)(++(*" is also goading. There is goading and goading and we have to tell them apart.
"I don't think it counts as goading when they do it. @)(++(*" is also goading. There is goading and goading and we have to tell them apart.
I think it is very easy to tell them apart.
If someone takes the thread off topic and then turns on sceptics demanding they answer stupid questions like... what would you do blah blah all the what if's to try and show them up as bad people.
However it is good as it shows them up as having lost the argument or do not have anything interesting to say.
This thread is a typical example of this behaviour- If I were a mod I would wipe all off topic about smoking and rubbish. The discussion is about the video. one part of that conversation was Gerry using a profanity... and exclaiming 'tongue in cheek' he was not there to enjoy him self... The supporters jumped on this and started making all sorts of claims.
Goading involves more than one comment imo.Well does it?
I think it is very easy to tell them apart.They are allowed.
If someone takes the thread off topic and then turns on sceptics demanding they answer stupid questions like... what would you do blah blah all the what if's to try and show them up as bad people.
However it is good as it shows them up as having lost the argument or do not have anything interesting to say.
This thread is a typical example of this behaviour- If I were a mod I would wipe all off topic about smoking and rubbish. The discussion is about the video. one part of that conversation was Gerry using a profanity... and exclaiming 'tongue in cheek' he was not there to enjoy him self... The supporters jumped on this and started making all sorts of claims.
Goading involves more than one comment imo.No it does not IMO.
I think it is very easy to tell them apart.What sort of claims did we make that you so object to?
If someone takes the thread off topic and then turns on sceptics demanding they answer stupid questions like... what would you do blah blah all the what if's to try and show them up as bad people.
However it is good as it shows them up as having lost the argument or do not have anything interesting to say.
This thread is a typical example of this behaviour- If I were a mod I would wipe all off topic about smoking and rubbish. The discussion is about the video. one part of that conversation was Gerry using a profanity... and exclaiming 'tongue in cheek' he was not there to enjoy him self... The supporters jumped on this and started making all sorts of claims.
What sort of claims did we make that you so object to?A little bit off topic sorry.
Perhaps your lip reading friend will come up with the answer to the request already made regarding the failed lip synchronisation and the profanity delivered in a non Glaswegian burr.
I disagree. I come from very near Glasgow and I think the swear words sound just as you’d expect if a Glaswegian was delivering them.
Aye ... Right ^*&& ~ almost as convincing as Gerry's lip movement FOLLOWED by the 'Glesga Keelie' epithet.
Aye...right ? Please explain ?Me too! Please explain ?
Aye...right ? Please explain ?
Me too! Please explain ?
Really? You who are aux fait with Parliamo Glasgow?
I am absolutely aux fait with the Glasgow dialect but am confused at what you appear to doubt. Either that I am from North Lanarkshire or that I believe the profanity expressed on the video is delivered in a Glasgow accent. Please clarify ?
The interrogation point in your quote suggested you referred to the double positive in mine ... didn't you?
Perhaps your lip reading friend will come up with the answer to the request already made regarding the failed lip synchronisation and the profanity delivered in a non Glaswegian burr.
She is not a friend, she is a co worker. She wrote what she saw. Being deaf an all she didn't quite grasp the accent!
But anyway, As I have mentioned. This video would have the word dubbed or removed for TV etc. Under communication act 2003.
you can hardly see gerrys mouth never mind read his lips...so i find your claim bogus
Does it really matter whether he was swearing or not? I believe he was but I can't understand why some of the posters on here seem to be trying their hardest for it to be not true regardless of the facts, just like the pro bono thread. What are they worried about?Why are some posters so obsessed with the fact that Gerry allegedly swore on the video in the first place? It’s a complete nothing point which comes up over and over again, thanks to sceptics who seem to view it as something significant, but what exactly?
Why are some posters so obsessed with the fact that Gerry allegedly swore on the video in the first place? It’s a complete nothing point which comes up over and over again, thanks to sceptics who seem to view it as something significant, but what exactly?
Who gives a hoot about either Gerry swearing or the McCanns paying a retainer to CR and not being "pro bono" both are unimportant yet some spend post after post denying both facts. That is the only reason why either are "signficant" IMO. Both threads would have been closed pages ago if some posters would agree with facts.I doubt it. The issue of Gerry allegedly swearing comes up over and over again, regardless of anyone disputing whether or not he is swearing. Those bringing up the subject are always of the sceptic persuasion. It’s obviously very important to them!
I presume this was the same footage where Gerry told the cameraman to f*ck off.^^^^first mention of the alleged swearing, by a sceptic, right near the beginning of this thread. Why mention it, if it wasn’t considered in some way significant by the poster in question?
I doubt it. The issue of Gerry allegedly swearing comes up over and over again, regardless of anyone disputing whether or not he is swearing. Those bringing up the subject are always of the sceptic persuasion. It’s obviously very important to them!
You could be correct but of course it works both ways. Some posters on the supporter of the equation won't allow that he may have sworn.There would have been no discussion about it at all if it hadn’t been brought up - again.
^^^^first mention of the alleged swearing, by a sceptic, right near the beginning of this thread. Why mention it, if it wasn’t considered in some way significant by the poster in question?
Probably just to wind supporters up & then sit back and enjoy the response ?{)(**Absolutely right, trollish behaviour in other words.
Absolutely right, trollish behaviour in other words.
You could be correct but of course it works both ways. Some posters on the supporter of the equation won't allow that he may have sworn.
You could be correct but of course it works both ways. Some posters on the supporter of the equation won't allow that he may have sworn.
In fact he isn’t correct. My question would have been simply that, a question had not Brietta attempted to suggest the soundtrack to the video had been doctored in some way.Why did you ask a question to which you already knew full well what the answer was?
The voice of reason. 8)--))
I find it is strange that there are people on this forum who's only employment seems to be selling a jigsaw of a theory with many bits missing, some don't fit and important parts are withheld to stop the pieces falling into place.
When pieces are found which have a fit- some one adds a piece that doesn't fit or kicks the board!
If the original video was silent, who put words into their mouths so to speak?
If you do not want to believe Gerry swore. Don't- no one cares any more. The debate has gone as far as it can go.Truth will out.
If the original video was silent, who put words into their mouths so to speak?
And their lips will still move.
Did you know, if you turn the sound off on the TV it appears silent.
And their lips will still move.The lip movements are not visible on the video
The lip movements are not visible on the videoThey are to me. Gerry's lips mouth, move but no words. It is possible to be lost for words.
They are to me. Gerry's lips mouth, move but no words. It is possible to be lost for words.
Not clear enough to lip readIt would be difficult, I agree.
it doesn't matter what he said or didn't say in the video , it takes us no further forward in finding MadeleineWhereas I find both videos to have fragments of information that may take me forward.
Whereas I find both videos to have fragments of information that may take me forward.
Hence the importance of what Gerry said.
Importance to you.....but not necessarily to anyone elseEach to their own method.
If you do not want to believe Gerry swore. Don't- no one cares any more. The debate has gone as far as it can go.
I have never said that I don't believe Gerry swore, I was asking who turned the sound on when it was silent? How do we know that is what he really said?as we all have done.
I have never said that I don't believe Gerry swore, I was asking who turned the sound on when it was silent? How do we know that is what he really said?
Whereas I find both videos to have fragments of information that may take me forward.
Hence the importance of what Gerry said.
Importance to you.....but not necessarily to anyone else36 pages and counting. &^^&*
36 pages and counting. &^^&*
Maybe he doesn't like flying.
36 pages and counting. &^^&*
I don't think anyone believes it has any relevanve to Maddie's disappearance...looks like you are on your own therePerhaps you missed Sunny's post just above.
Perhaps you missed Sunny's post just above.
Anyway, I have no problem with leading the way. ?{)(**
Albeit there are enough posts on this thread to suggest I am not alone.
The thread is in place purely to criticize Gerry ....rather than any importance in Maddie's disappearance....even if you think Maddie died in an accident it isn't relevant
Can you provide a cite this thread is to criticize Gerry..I thought it was to discuss the last video of Maddie.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg467266#msg467266
I would take Faithlilly to be being factual. It appears Gerry did say just that.
It may appear factual to some posters but to others it does not.
Regardless of if Gerry said any naughty words it is interesting to me that his total demeanor appeared depressed and slightly aggressive. Why so when he was supposed to be going on a much looked forward to holiday.How many seconds do we see of Gerry in the clip? Are you able to assess whether or not a person is depressed or generally aggressive from a few seconds of video footage?
Can you provide a cite this thread is to criticize Gerry..I thought it was to discuss the last video of Maddie.How much discussion has there been about Madeleine’s appearance in the video? Virtually none I think.
How many seconds do we see of Gerry in the clip? Are you able to assess whether or not a person is depressed or generally aggressive from a few seconds of video footage?
How much discussion has there been about Madeleine’s appearance in the video? Virtually none I think.
It is obvious for all to hear that that was exactly what Gerry said.
The thread is in place purely to criticize Gerry ....rather than any importance in Maddie's disappearance....even if you think Maddie died in an accident it isn't relevant
Really?
Sorry, because you say that it is obvious for all to hear does not make it true
I do wonder if a father who corrected his little daughter when she said huhah instead of yes would use a profanity in front of her.
Doesn't sound like a Glasgow accent to me.
Well it does to me and I come from a few miles south of Glasgow.
As do I.
Then I find it strange that you say the accent isn’t Glasweign.
Yes in my opinion (we are allowed them here I hear) in the few seconds you see him he looks not very happy and angry. Why? Everyone else looks like they are having a good time and excited about the holiday to come. Gerry on the other hand does not.I think he’s just expressing his dry Glaswegian sense of humour. Anyone ever told you to “cheer up”, when you were perfectly cheerful, just staring into space and not looking particularly animated? Has that ever got on your nerves even just a little bit? Probably not as it wouldn’t support your contention that Gerry was depressed and aggressive, but it’s the kind of thing I can imagine myself saying - it is humour, not anger. It’s so obvious and inconsequential I can’t believe we’re still talking about it 30pages later.
Please feel free to expand on that theme.Why? What’s to discuss?
Why? What’s to discuss?
The thread wasn't about Maddie, but whether the video clips were recorded with a mobile phone. That was resolved early on and then the thread wandered - as they do.They are allowed to wander as long as they don't go off topic!
As the children stumble on their way up the aircraft steps two booms can be heard ... appx 0:09 ... in my opinion not what would have been heard as part of an original recording.
That is definitely Gerry’s voice.
That is definitely Gerry’s voice.Saying what?
What a terribly strange response to my post ... "As the children stumble on their way up the aircraft steps two booms can be heard ... appx 0:09 ... in my opinion not what would have been heard as part of an original recording."
"BOOM!" "BOOM!" Quite clearly a sound effect. Did even that sound Glaswegian to you?
What a terribly strange response to my post ... "As the children stumble on their way up the aircraft steps two booms can be heard ... appx 0:09 ... in my opinion not what would have been heard as part of an original recording."
"BOOM!" "BOOM!" Quite clearly a sound effect. Did even that sound Glaswegian to you?
As the children stumble on their way up the aircraft steps two booms can be heard ... appx 0:09 ... in my opinion not what would have been heard as part of an original recording.That is the sound of Madeleine foot and knee hitting the stairs IMO. What makes you think otherwise?
That is the sound of Madeleine foot and knee hitting the stairs IMO. What makes you think otherwise?
I don't know what the two clear "BOOMS" are intended to signify but in my opinion they are foreign to any original soundtrack if one ever existed.
Just listen to it very carefully.
You are making myths, IMO
Your opinion and mine seldom coincide particularly where the facts re concerned. It is my opinion that the two 'booms' heard on the soundtrack as the girls stumble on the stair is not an original soundtrack but is an addition to it and listening to it is sufficient to endorse that view.
Not sure why you think the booms prove the soundtrack is not authentic. Surely even you can appreciate that while individuals are boarding a plane and baggage being loaded there is multiple reasons why you would hear loud noises.
Why do you find it so difficult to believe that Gerry did actually swear ? Surely that’s a more logical explanation than the added soundtrack conspiracy you are trying to push ? It does however explain your behaviour. If you can’t stomach the idea that Gerry would swear, hearing that he may have been involved in his daughter’s disappearance must bring you to apoplexy.
Give me one single reason why any video footage posted on the internet should be trusted unconditionally?
Give me one single reason why any video footage posted on the internet should be trusted unconditionally?
Give me one single reason why any video footage posted on the internet should be trusted unconditionally?
Why should video footage be less trusted than anything else on the internet?
Because we have been given no reason to doubt it ?
There is something rather sweet about trusting internet posts that you cannot possibly know the provenance of ... I actually did not suppose such naivety still existed.
There is something rather sweet about trusting internet posts that you cannot possibly know the provenance of ... I actually did not suppose such naivety still existed.
There is something rather sweet about trusting internet posts that you cannot possibly know the provenance of ... I actually did not suppose such naivety still existed.
Some trust politicians, the police, the media, even people they don't know. Each to his pwn I say.
Do you really think that that kind of naivety exists in any of this after this case ?
We know the provenance of this video because it has been covered extensively in the press and we know there was a soundtrack for the same reason. Further we know most of the content of the video because it was included in press articles about it. That you choose to believe that there is some ridiculous conspiracy to convince the public that Gerry said a bad word ( really ? ) is a matter for you alone.
There is a cite at the beginning of this thread indicting that the owners of the footage released it minus audio ... thus the audio track was added by someone ... I have no idea who that may have been and I am willing to bet that neither do you.
‘‘Mr McCann is looking serious, which prompts his friend to joke: “Cheer up Gerry, we are on holiday.” Laughter is heard throughout the rest of the clip.’
Do you still believe the video was doctored at a later date Brietta because this article is dated 28th of May 2007, the same date as similar articles from the BBC etc ?
Actually the Yorkshire Post seems to have scooped the story. The other reports seem to be dated 29th May.
Already been posted but obviously you missed it.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/girl-slips-and-grazes-her-shin-on-steps-to-aircraft-in-video-footage-released-by-desperate-parents-1-2456983
From the article.
‘Mr McCann is looking serious, which prompts his friend to joke: “Cheer up Gerry, we are on holiday.” Laughter is heard throughout the rest of the clip.’
No ... I did not miss it then or now ... despite the fact there is no mention of profanity in the audio track of the video which was released by its owners without one.
No ... I did not miss it then or now ... despite the fact there is no mention of profanity in the audio track of the video which was released by its owners without one.
Did you expect the newspaper to quote Gerry saying "fxx off" Brietta? I think they covered it nicely and it shows that there was originally a soundtract which fits in with the one currently online.
In your opinion perhaps ... most certainly not in mine.
Now you’re just making yourself look silly Brietta. The article posted tells you that there was a soundtrack attached to the video. Why do you still think the soundtrack was added later ?
Please remember your manners when you post and remember also to differentiate between what is your opinion and what is fact.
And please remember that we are all adults here and don’t need to be lectured in such a condescending way.
As to the video I am not stating my opinion but a fact, a fact for which I have already supplied a cite twice. You said when originally released the video had no soundtrack. I have supplied a contemporary newspaper article that proves that there was indeed a soundtrack and further supplies extracts from that soundtrack. Further the extracts detailed in the newspaper article exactly mirror thes soundtrack we see on YouTube.
There are links to two videos on the forum.
One link is to the video released by Madeleine's parents without a soundtrack.
The other was released by who knows and has a sound track. But sound or the lack of it is not the only difference.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg467275#msg467275
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg473455#msg473455
Did you spot the difference?
The newspaper article was published on the 28th of May and describes a soundtrack which mirrors the soundtrack we see in the YouTube video. I believe this report was one of the earliest.
Anything else is deflection.
There are links to two videos on the forum.
One link is to the video released by Madeleine's parents without a soundtrack.
The other was released by who knows and has a sound track. But sound or the lack of it is not the only difference.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg467275#msg467275
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg473455#msg473455
Did you spot the difference?
The original silent video has Madeleine highlighted, which isn't the case in the video complete with audio.
UK media outlets must have been supplied with videos + audio to know what Gerry said as Madeleine tripped on the steps. I cannot find any other existing copy uploaded by UK media still online - can anyone else?
Presumably the PJ already had a copy of the video footage after confiscating the mobile phones on 4th May 2007..........surely they wouldn't have allowed such footage to inadvertently find its way out of that ever-open window?
The sequence of the edits in the official video released by Madeleine's parents differs from the YouTube video to which you refer.
If the sequence of the edit was reversed in the YouTube video ... don't you think the soundtrack was also subject to interference?
That the visual evidence does not reflect your opinion does not make it 'deflection' ... it makes it 'fact'.
There are links to two videos on the forum.
One link is to the video released by Madeleine's parents without a soundtrack.
The other was released by who knows and has a sound track. But sound or the lack of it is not the only difference.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg467275#msg467275
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg473455#msg473455
Did you spot the difference?
One of them was released by Reuters and the other is Associated Press (AP). Both are reputable media companies IMO.
One of them was released by Reuters and the other is Associated Press (AP). Both are reputable media companies IMO.
Exactly Sunny. So is Brietta suggesting that Reuters somehow tampered with the video ?
There is absolutely no problem with the video officially released by Madeleine's parents. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg473455#msg473455
I think you may have failed to grasp the point I have been making.
Why on earth would you suppose Sunny has any understanding of what I may ... or more succinctly ... may not be suggesting?
We are not best PM buddies on this or any other arena as far as I know.
I think you have failed to make your point clearly.
Reuters released the video, with soundtrack, that you think has been interfered with.
The Yorkshire Post published an article which describes the soundtrack to the video within a day of its release.
What more evidence do you need that the video you see on YouTube has not had the soundtrack added at a later date ?
Why on earth would you suppose Sunny has any understanding of what I may ... or more succinctly ... may not be suggesting?
We are not best PM buddies on this or any other arena as far as I know.
I think that an intelligent person like you understands my point precisely. ^*&& Particularly as I have not deviated from it and particularly as you as much as anyone with an interest in Madeleine's case is au fait with the devious manipulation which occurs to all things Madeleine practised by internet 'wizards' of mixed renown.
There is absolutely no problem with the video officially released by Madeleine's parents. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg473455#msg473455
I think you may have failed to grasp the point I have been making.
Brietta Perhaps you can re read mine and Faithlilly's post again and apologise. I mentioned absolutely nothing about yourself. IMO both are "official" videos and both have been modified. One (AP) has been cut in the middle to bring the part with Madeleine facing the camera to the beginning has her highlighted so people know who she is . It is that simple IMO
If I understand you correctly you are saying that the McCanns' officially released a silent version because that's what it says on the youtube caption and yet you disbelieve any youtube version with sound.
If that's not the case, what is the provenance of an official McCann version?
Are you suggesting that you believe the content of every YouTube video posted and expect me to do likewise?
There are one or two which I can recommend. One which demonstrates how to change the time on my husband's watch being one. Another concerning changing a duvet cover isn't bad either.
On the whole though ... I am very selective about YouTube videos ... particularly ones which are easily debunked as has happened on this forum when some obnoxious woman turned tail and fled as a result of being shown up for what she is, some time before I joined. But it was a fun read at the time.
Brietta: I think you need to restate your position on the video. IYO was it released without a sound track or not?
What evidence do you have that the PJ confiscated anyone's mobile phone on 4th May 2007?
The video released officially by Kate and Gerry was released minus a sound track (not opinion ... fact!); there are at least two cites to that effect on the thread; the original posted by Misty and later repeated by me.
The video released officially by Kate and Gerry was released minus a sound track (not opinion ... fact!); there are at least two cites to that effect on the thread; the original posted by Misty and later repeated by me.OK so the version often shown may not be the version released by Kate and Gerry. The video was recorded IMO on David's phone so only DP could confirm which version is the original.
Brietta: I think you need to restate your position on the video. IYO was it released without a sound track or not?Robitty: I have complied with your request; perhaps now you may see fit to use your moderating skills to protect me and other posters when it happens to them, from the archetypal pack behaviour which prompted it.
I retract the word "confiscated" as I mistakenly thought that was the reason for DP acquiring 2 additional phones on 4th May. However, I would expect the phone footage to have been shared with the PJ at an early stage.
I retract the word "confiscated" as I mistakenly thought that was the reason for DP acquiring 2 additional phones on 4th May. However, I would expect the phone footage to have been shared with the PJ at an early stage.
In my opinion it would have been extraordinarily remiss of the PJ not to have asked for the content of memory cards and I believe that diligence was indeed carried out.
David Payne was interviewed on 4th May. There's no evidence that they asked to see his phone. He was not interviewed again until his rogatory interview.
I have wondered why the last photo and the tennis ball one weren't within the files on the internet. If they are there I have failed to find them. Can anyone explain this please?
In my opinion it would have been extraordinarily remiss of the PJ not to have asked for the content of memory cards and I believe that diligence was indeed carried out.
Tennis balls photo.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3404.jpg
Tennis balls photo.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3404.jpg
I fear that your cite might lead people to think that the photo was included in the photos handed in by the group. As it doesn't appear with those photos, delivered in early May;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm
I believe it came from here in November;
He added that a few days later, on 7th May, the same Pat Perkins sent him an email containing a request for help to find Madeleine and containing an annex with a photo of Madeleine for public distribution.
Joined in annex are photos of the bar and a copy of the email.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AURELIO_GUERREIRO.htm
This was the email;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAT_PERKINS.htm
Thank you Misty, do you have the last photo link too? *&(+(+
I provided a link to the photo in the files.The request was not for the provenance of said photo.
Perhaps you would provide the relevant links to all the holiday photos uploaded by Gerry onto disc & given to the PJ - or is their absence from the files proof that none exist?
AFAIK neither photograph was given to the PJ when the other photos were handed over by Gerry McCann and Michael Wright on or around 9th May 2007;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm
Thank you Misty, do you have the last photo link too? *&(+(+
You don't actually know that or indeed when the PJ obtained all the photos from Kate's camera.
The facts as I see them.
28th May 2007. The Yorkshire Post announces the release of the mobile phone footage and describes it. The soundtrack is mentioned and described.
At some point two videos are placed on You Tube. One has the soundtrack described and the other doesn't.
It makes sense to deduce that the video had a soundtrack originally but it was removed subsequently.
There does seem to be some dubiety about the soundtrack.
My own take on it is that the person speaking as Madeleine trips is most certainly not Gerry and I am not yet convinced that the expletive is in a Glaswegian accent.
Further to that, I do wonder that a father who corrected his little daughter when she said huhah would then use such an expletive in front of her.
There does seem to be some dubiety about the soundtrack.
My own take on it is that the person speaking as Madeleine trips is most certainly not Gerry and I am not yet convinced that the expletive is in a Glaswegian accent.
Further to that, I do wonder that a father who corrected his little daughter when she said huhah would then use such an expletive in front of her.
There does seem to be some dubiety about the soundtrack.
My own take on it is that the person speaking as Madeleine trips is most certainly not Gerry and I am not yet convinced that the expletive is in a Glaswegian accent.
Further to that, I do wonder that a father who corrected his little daughter when she said huhah would then use such an expletive in front of her.
Absolute rubbish. She does however at best turn a blind eye to abuse dished out to others and at the worst is the instigator of much of it.
The person that speaks when Madeleine falls is David Payne not Gerry.
And it doesn’t bother you that the source of the video being questioned is Reuters ?
Actually the source ... and owner ... of the video, is not Reuters.
The facts as I see them.I can accept that as being most likely.
28th May 2007. The Yorkshire Post announces the release of the mobile phone footage and describes it. The soundtrack is mentioned and described.
At some point two videos are placed on You Tube. One has the soundtrack described and the other doesn't.
It makes sense to deduce that the video had a soundtrack originally but it was removed subsequently.
The video is reposted but the original source of the video is most certainly Reuters. Further the soundtrack mirrors exactly the soundtrack detailed in the Yorkshire Post.
I really do not understand your reasoning here.
Please explain in which way the source of the video is Reuters?
Look at the first video in post 594.But what is your reasoning?
The fact that the video has REUTERS plastered across the first few frames is purely incidental 8(0(*Did you mean coincidental? The word "Reuters" did not appear by accident or by a twist of fate. I think incidental is the wrong word TBH.
Did you mean coincidental? The word "Reuters" did not appear by accident or by a twist of fate. I think incidental is the wrong word TBH.
"incidentally
adverb
1.
used to add a further comment or a remark unconnected to the current subject; by the way.
"incidentally, it was many months before the whole truth was discovered"
synonyms: by the way, by the by(e), in passing, en passant, speaking of which, while on the subject; More
2.
in an incidental manner; as a chance occurrence.
"the infection was discovered only incidentally at post-mortem examination"
synonyms: by chance, by accident, accidentally, fortuitously, by a fluke, as luck would have it, by a twist of fate;
Get it right.
Whatever.
Here is a link to the original Reuters article. There is no video or link to a video in this article.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-portugal-child-video/new-video-of-madeleine-released-idUKL2954678220070529
Here is a link to the original Reuters article. There is no video or link to a video in this article.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-portugal-child-video/new-video-of-madeleine-released-idUKL2954678220070529
Thank you Misty. I think that rather blows the Reuters claim right out of the water. Interestingly enough I didn't give the comments section associated with the alleged Reuters release a look until now, and guess what ... the same old same old.
Any excuse though ... or none ... rather sad really.
Well that one has clearly been released by Reuters news. I've seen a longer version in the past.The AP version has definitely been edited. I might be wrong in thinking there was a longer version but I do wonder why the clip doesn't end on looking directly at Dianne but more on the people sitting behind her.
How do you know what was actually said? How difficult is it to add a soundtrack to a video? In my opinion easy peasy.It is all the background noise that would be hard to replicate. We hear the camera operator mostly and the background noises.
Those who are determined to cling to their unfounded beliefs have so far been unable to explain the article in the Yorkshire Post on 28th May 2007 which clearly demonstrates that their claim that a soundtrack was added after the video was released is false;
Today her parents have released two heart-rending video clips of Madeleine, captured on a family friend’s mobile phone.......
The film was captured after their friend tried to take a photograph, but ended up recording the group as they were driven the short distance to the terminal......
Mr McCann is looking serious, which prompts his friend to joke: “Cheer up Gerry, we are on holiday.”
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/girl-slips-and-grazes-her-shin-on-steps-to-aircraft-in-video-footage-released-by-desperate-parents-1-2456983
It is very strange that they chose only cites that fit a possible agenda rather than this one. IMO this is the most important Cite. Perhaps the video was given to the Yorkshire Post early by Michael Wright as he is a Yorkshire resident.
Those who are determined to cling to their unfounded beliefs have so far been unable to explain the article in the Yorkshire Post on 28th May 2007 which clearly demonstrates that their claim that a soundtrack was added after the video was released is false;
Today her parents have released two heart-rending video clips of Madeleine, captured on a family friend’s mobile phone.......
The film was captured after their friend tried to take a photograph, but ended up recording the group as they were driven the short distance to the terminal......
Mr McCann is looking serious, which prompts his friend to joke: “Cheer up Gerry, we are on holiday.”
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/girl-slips-and-grazes-her-shin-on-steps-to-aircraft-in-video-footage-released-by-desperate-parents-1-2456983
In that article they talk about the length of the videos and I find it rather surprising!
"One clip – 13 seconds long – shows her sitting on an airport bus, the other – nine seconds – is of her boarding the flight."
Read more at: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/girl-slips-and-grazes-her-shin-on-steps-to-aircraft-in-video-footage-released-by-desperate-parents-1-2456983
13 and 9 adds up to 22 seconds but the "Reuters" clip is 36 seconds long isn't it! So the McCanns released a heavily edited version by the sounds of it.
The AP video shows 9 seconds of footage on the bus having cut out the footage of Fiona and Dianne. It also has 9 seconds of footage of the boarding of the plane. Total 18 seconds.
The Reuters video shows 9 seconds of footage of the boarding, and around 22 seconds on the bus.
There seems to have been some confusion.
In my opinion the Reuters version is clearly the full version, unless someone is going to suggest that extra footage was added using look-a-likes. 8(>((
Goo point G.
Thank you Misty. I think that rather blows the Reuters claim right out of the water. Interestingly enough I didn't give the comments section associated with the alleged Reuters release a look until now, and guess what ... the same old same old.
Any excuse though ... or none ... rather sad really.
In my opinion, looking at the evidence, the video was released in it's full uncut version initially, including the soundtrack. It was then edited to exclude those who didn't need/want to be shown. The soundtrack was removed perhaps because it was of poor quality, or because it wasn't needed, or because it did contain bad language.Once you cut the video and remove portions the associated soundtrack will not be continuous either. That would be a dead giveaway it was edited, so the soundtrack had to be removed IMO.
Once you cut the video and remove portions the associated soundtrack will not be continuous either. That would be a dead giveaway it was edited, so the soundtrack had to be removed IMO.
It was filmed as two separate events so there was no cutting to do, rather they were spliced together.I understand there are two separate videos but we are considering the length of each individual video e.g. was it 9 seconds or 22 seconds on the airport bus?
In my opinion, looking at the evidence, the video was released in it's full uncut version initially, including the soundtrack. It was then edited to exclude those who didn't need/want to be shown. The soundtrack was removed perhaps because it was of poor quality, or because it wasn't needed, or because it did contain bad language.
lol we have to keep saying it over and over. I said this way back. I even gave cites for use of language on TV and which act it breached. Here we all are still going on. It is as if some supporters are trying to whitewash the McCanns and show them as pure as the driven snow! how hilarious.Be careful not to libel the McCanns.
In my opinion, looking at the evidence, the video was released in it's full uncut version initially, including the soundtrack. It was then edited to exclude those who didn't need/want to be shown. The soundtrack was removed perhaps because it was of poor quality, or because it wasn't needed, or because it did contain bad language.
Who do you think was edited out of the video?If the final video is 9 seconds from a starting length of 22 seconds some parts of the recording have obviously been removed. Whether anyone in particular has been removed can be assessed by comparing them side by side.
I feel inspired to carry on identifying what portions of the video were deleted by the McCanns and then consider why they would be removed.
The last two people and a child. Only the McCann family and one child from the other family were shown in the shortened version.You mean the footage of Fiona, the Payne's youngest, and Dianne Webster, David is not in the footage as he is operating the camera.
No cite withdraw your claim. Those are the forum rules. If you can’t prove it don’t claim it is a fact.Did you provide cites when demanded a few week ago, Faith?
No cite withdraw your claim. Those are the forum rules. If you can’t prove it don’t claim it is a fact.This cite was requested prior to when John made the ruling re cites. - posts on this will be deleted.
Did you provide cites when demanded a few week ago, Faith? Such hypocrisy! You and several other people.
Below my cites ... IMO, just time wasters ... as if you didn't already know that my claim that the bushes had just been cut back was correct! (claim now removed by John).
Four points proving my claim. See my next post
This cite was requested prior to when John made the ruling re cites. - posts on this will be deleted.DO NOT REMOVE MY CITE!
DO NOT REMOVE MY CITE!
I have provided it and it has taken a very long time for me to find it with the totally overwhelming heat that has knocked me about
Rob, I have a right to defend my name and I have done so.
CITE for Bushes cut back
Oh the little thing, a cite, that was demanded by several people on here who themselves owed loads of cites about 2 months ago ... and NEVER gave them. It is below. One poster I except from this criticism.
Having waded thru a number of statements, but by no means all, I haven't found the exact cite I was looking for, but these three points/ photos prove what I was saying.
THE BUSHES HAD JUST BEEN CUT BACK immediately before Madeleine disappeared
1) http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_21.jpg
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_21.jpg)
Clearly showing freshly trimmed bushes on the PJ photos. Taken, by the PJ, on the night that Madeleine vanished
2) Matts rog:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
-snip-
4078 'Is there anything that you can think of, worthy of mention, up until the Wednesday night before we move onto the Thursday''
[Matts] Reply 'Erm, no, my initial thought is there's nothing that's leapt out that I haven't mentioned before. Erm, I mean, there was no sort of strange people or anything unusual with the, with the flat. Some people had, I mean, gardeners came round to trim the gardens once or twice, or maybe just once a week, I mean, because we were there for three weeks, maybe they came round slightly more. Erm, somebody had workmen in maybe during, the shutter we broke, the shutter, erm, broke for, the outside shutter by the patio door broke for us on the first day, I think it went back up into its, so you couldn't actually drop it on the outside, the shutter by the patio, but we didn't drop that anyway, erm, until we got in at night, but I think it broke and it had to be, and I think they did come, yes, they did come and repair it. But apart from that there wasn't really anybody else (inaudible)'. -snip-
3) http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/notwviewfrompatio.jpg
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/notwviewfrompatio.jpg)
This shows more or less the same view as the PJ photo taken the night Madeleine disappeared. On this photo the bushes have grown a little BUT on the PJ Photo taken at the time Madeleine went, the bushes are cut right back
4) 10 year video of kate and gerry mccann sky @1.16 on
http://youtu.be/RdkfvdgQYUs
@1.16 This shows this pom pom bush, which is one of the two shown in the photos above. It has clearly JUST been trimmed. It will never be the same size again. As the bush matures its size grows, its branches thicken and it will gradually get bigger, even though trimmed regularly.
----------------------------
OK, I haven't found the exact cite I was looking for, but these four points/ photos prove exactly what I was saying.
THE BUSHES HAD JUST BEEN CUT BACK immediately before Madeleine disappeared
My eyes are not good ... and I resent people disbelieving me, I am Huguenot and proud of my honesty. ... And anyway, established members on here should know me better than that by now.
Do you have a clear photograph of the foliage on the outside wall rather than the veranda ?Only dogs, cats and other animals cannot understand that what is shown height and width wisewise on one side is the same from the other side. Humans know, so it is unnecessary to show the other side.
Do you have a clear photograph of the foliage on the outside wall rather than the veranda ?It is the same part of wall in the two photos, and it was the outside wall, not the verandah.
Only dogs, cats and other animals cannot understand that what is shown height and width wisewise on one side is the same from the other side. Humans know, so it is unnecessary to show the other side.
I expect you know that. Are you just time wasting again?
I think Sadie is correct that the foliage was freshly clipped.
I have two photographs
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-resort-the-ocean-club-where-her-17520521.html
https://www.paimages.co.uk/image-details/2.4636520
I still don't believe they had an adequate view of 5a though.
I think Sadie is correct that the foliage was freshly clipped.Thank you Sunny.
I have two photographs
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-resort-the-ocean-club-where-her-17520521.html
https://www.paimages.co.uk/image-details/2.4636520
I don't know how to add them here sorry.
I still don't believe they had an adequate view of 5a though.
Thank you Sunny.
I like your photos, but unfortunately none are dated
... and none are taken from the angle that Gerry had his view
Thankyou for taking the trouble to find them.
No problem Sadie. The reason I picked those two were there was a policeman outside the apartment and the other had sky news people there so I made the assumption they were close to the date of Madeleine's disappearance.
I think one is the 8th of May so close but not close enough for our purposes.How much can foliage grow in 5 days fgs?!
Your photographs from the night seem to show only the veranda foliage clearly. Do you have a clearer photograph, from the night of the disappearance, that shows clearly the foliage on the wall bordering the path that runs in front of 5a ? That is the foliage that obscured the patio door.Which side of the path do you think this foliage was on? The path was East -West so was it on the South side or the North?
You have failed to produce proof that the bushes on the outside wall, the bushes that obscured the tapas friends view, were cut just before Madeleine’s disappearance. It shows neither grace nor integrity to let such misinformation pass without comment.The bushes in the PJ photos are obviously recently trimmed.
The bushes in the PJ photos are obviously recently trimmed.
The ones from the night ?Yes.
The bushes in the PJ photos are obviously recently trimmed.
Rachael Oldfield said her view was limited to the top of the patio doors because of the foliage. She was there on 3rd May. No-one here was there, so why not accept Rachael's testimony?I wasn't debating the view.
Reply 'Erm well kind of the top half really'.
1578 'Okay'.
Reply "Yeah you know, I didn't get a full you know, you couldn't get a full view sort of right in, cos there were bushes, there were bushes and stuff there, erm'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
Yes.
I wasn't debating the view.
Sadie was challenged as to recently trimmed bushes. She provided the evidence to support her claim. Any debate about the view needs to allow for recently trimmed bushes.
In such tiny steps, we make progress. 8((()*/
I accept you were discussing bush trimming. Why is bush trimming of interest?LOL. Perhaps this is one for the personal grooming forum.
I accept you were discussing bush trimming. Why is bush trimming of interest?The PJ photos show the vegetation is neatly trimmed.
LOL. Perhaps this is one for the personal grooming forum.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id21.htmWe have previously shown that there are errors in that GMB page, in that they identify the wrong building looking back across to the Tapas Bar. I have a feeling they are identifying the Kid's Club or whatever it was called as the Tapas.
If you scroll down to the bottom of this link there is a photograph of the front of 5a with a police on the pavement at the side ( Who Owns 5a ) which suggests it was taken close to the disappearance. Notice the height of the bush at the front.
CITE for Bushes cut back
Oh the little thing, a cite, that was demanded by several people on here who IMO themselves owed loads of cites about 2 months ago ... and NEVER gave them. It is below. One poster I except from this criticism.
Having waded thru a number of statements, but by no means all, I haven't found the exact cite I was looking for, but these three points/ photos prove what I was saying.
THE BUSHES HAD JUST BEEN CUT BACK immediately before Madeleine disappeared
1) http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_21.jpg
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_21.jpg)
Clearly showing freshly trimmed bushes on the PJ photos. Taken, by the PJ, on the night that Madeleine vanished
2) Matts rog:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
-snip-
4078 'Is there anything that you can think of, worthy of mention, up until the Wednesday night before we move onto the Thursday''
[Matts] Reply 'Erm, no, my initial thought is there's nothing that's leapt out that I haven't mentioned before. Erm, I mean, there was no sort of strange people or anything unusual with the, with the flat. Some people had, I mean, gardeners came round to trim the gardens once or twice, or maybe just once a week, I mean, because we were there for three weeks, maybe they came round slightly more. Erm, somebody had workmen in maybe during, the shutter we broke, the shutter, erm, broke for, the outside shutter by the patio door broke for us on the first day, I think it went back up into its, so you couldn't actually drop it on the outside, the shutter by the patio, but we didn't drop that anyway, erm, until we got in at night, but I think it broke and it had to be, and I think they did come, yes, they did come and repair it. But apart from that there wasn't really anybody else (inaudible)'. -snip-
3) http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/notwviewfrompatio.jpg
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/notwviewfrompatio.jpg)
This shows more or less the same view as the PJ photo taken the night Madeleine disappeared. On this photo the bushes have grown a little BUT on the PJ Photo taken at the time Madeleine went, the bushes are cut right back
4) 10 year video of kate and gerry mccann sky @1.16 on
http://youtu.be/RdkfvdgQYUs
@1.16 This shows a pom pom bush on the lh side of the photo. This is one of the two shown in the photos above. It has clearly JUST been trimmed. It will never be the same size again. As the bush matures its size grows, its branches thicken and it will gradually get bigger, even though trimmed regularly.
----------------------------
OK, I haven't found the exact cite I was looking for, but these four points/ photos prove exactly what I was saying.
THE BUSHES HAD JUST BEEN CUT BACK immediately before Madeleine disappeared
My eyes are not good ... and I resent people disbelieving me, I am Huguenot and proud of my honesty. ... And anyway, established members on here should know me better than that by now.
That post is typical of your attempts to stay on topic. 90% off topic and right at the last sentence or so come back onto topic with some unsupported proclamation.
Why was this person allowed to take this thread off topic? and why did mods continue to encourage off topic on this post. I believe it was to deflect from the main discussion. Should they all be removed? or put onto other threads?
back on topic...It has been explained as to why the audio would be removed. This was due to TV showing the video clip and Gerry saying a notty word. Trying to defend this is futile and unrealistic in a debate.IMO
That post is typical of your attempts to stay on topic. 90% off topic and right at the last sentence or so come back onto topic with some unsupported proclamation.
"Trying to defend this is futile and unrealistic in a debate." Is that your opinion?
"This was due to TV showing the video clip and Gerry saying a notty word." That is also opinion.
What about ".It has been explained as to why the audio would be removed." That too sounds like opinion, so in the end all we got was a load of your opinions which don't have to be supported.
Perhaps, as a moderator. you could answer the question asked? The post being questioned made no attempt at all to conform with the thread topic.There are many moderators on the forum and it isn't just me who decides whether a post is on topic or not. OK I agree on the surface it seems off topic, but to research as to whether it was in response to another accepted post, becomes a mission.
That post is typical of your attempts to stay on topic. 90% off topic and right at the last sentence or so come back onto topic with some unsupported proclamation.
"Trying to defend this is futile and unrealistic in a debate." Is that your opinion?
"This was due to TV showing the video clip and Gerry saying a notty word." That is also opinion.
What about ".It has been explained as to why the audio would be removed." That too sounds like opinion, so in the end all we got was a load of your opinions which don't have to be supported.
There are many moderators on the forum and it isn't just me who decides whether a post is on topic or not. OK I agree on the surface it seems off topic, but to research as to whether it was in response to another accepted post, becomes a mission.
Perhaps, as a moderator. you could answer the question asked? The post being questioned made no attempt at all to conform with the thread topic.I have gone back through the links provided by the quotes and I would say it was your post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg474776#msg474776 that threw the discussion into disarray IMO.
If the post had been deleted on sight then pages wouldn't have been taken over. as a mod I am asking the question. any answer- any time ?
If we are going to promote the rules...
"Trying to defend this is futile and unrealistic in a debate." Is that your opinion?
Yes! Due to observation. However, this thread is a testament to that.
"This was due to TV showing the video clip and Gerry saying a notty word."
It was shown on TV and it is illegal, as has been explained, to use profanity in news clips. [research the telecommunications act 2003]- I have already quoted earlier on in the thread.
HENCE why I said ".It has been explained as to why the audio would be removed."
It was explained at the time from a question who would remove the audio.
I have gone back through the links provided by the quotes and I would say it was your post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9636.msg474776#msg474776 that threw the discussion into disarray IMO.
The debate gets heated, and it is important IMO not just to restrict that debate.
So are you saying that the sound track on the Reuters one was original?
Are you saying the AP clip was on TV so they had to remove any profanity (even if it was barely audible)?
why would reuters lie? I have yet to see a cite which claims the video had NO audio.Your points are noted and I tend to agree. What I can't do is verify what appeared on TV in the UK. I was not there to see it.
I am NOT saying the AP clip was removed - I am saying IF there was profanity it would have to be removed before being broadcast-due to the law here in the UK.
Please note I was replying to the question why would anyone remove audio! and put it back on...
If the post had been deleted on sight then pages wouldn't have been taken over. as a mod I am asking the question. any answer- any time ?
If we are going to promote the rules...
"Trying to defend this is futile and unrealistic in a debate." Is that your opinion?
Yes! Due to observation. However, this thread is a testament to that.
"This was due to TV showing the video clip and Gerry saying a notty word."
It was shown on TV and it is illegal, as has been explained, to use profanity in news clips. [research the telecommunications act 2003]- I have already quoted earlier on in the thread.
HENCE why I said ".It has been explained as to why the audio would be removed."
It was explained at the time from a question who would remove the audio.
I would say that the problem for mods is that as a mod you flick between threads to see what is being said. If you look for last unread then it can take you straight to an off topic post which may appear as a valid comment but from another thread. No excuse but a fact of life.
Thanks for explaining Slarti. So if we members notice a topic going on a wander can we highlight this to have it brought back.
I know some posts pop in and out and is interesting to watch what it throws up. But Mods can start up a new thread if they think it is interesting enough? OR is that just John who can do that?.
Back on topic of topic.
I really can't see any issue with Gerry saying a f word. Perhaps not in front of the children, but I think he was being 'funny' for the camera , by saying he was not there to enjoy himself.
Yes, please report. Anyone can start a new thread which would be assessed and approved by a mod.And it is fun too to see the thread you started grow.
Thanks for explaining Slarti. So if we members notice a topic going on a wander can we highlight this to have it brought back.
I know some posts pop in and out and is interesting to watch what it throws up. But Mods can start up a new thread if they think it is interesting enough? OR is that just John who can do that?.
Back on topic of topic.
I really can't see any issue with Gerry saying a f word. Perhaps not in front of the children, but I think he was being 'funny' for the camera , by saying he was not there to enjoy himself.
i also took it that he was being funny for the camera, amazing that people think otherwise and then try to make out this video has some relevance to his daughter's disappearance !Family dynamics often have a large bearing as to what happens.