Amaral and the dogs

[mercury]

Even an 85 minutes minimum rubbishes the theory stated in that disputed book and film doesn't it?
Because 9.10 to 10.00 is only 50 minutes.

Yes
But you are being too pedantic as Amaral was hypothesising
And you can never take uncorroborated witness statements (especially persons who were the last to see a missing person as gospel
From what I have read of your posts you thnk everyne is telling the truth, good luck with that

PS btw do you agree a dog akerted at 85 mins

[pegasus]

Yes
But you are being too pedantic
And you can never take uncorroborated witness statements (especially persons who were the last to see a missing person as gospel
From what I have read of your posts you thnk everyne is telling the truth, good luck with that

The main theory in that book and film IMO seems to claim something happened at about 9.10pm, doesn't it?

[pegasus]

... PS btw do you agree a dog akerted at 85 mins

IMO it's debatable whether that pad it was on the skin from 45 mins PM until 85 mins PM, or on the skin from 85 mins PM until 105 mins PM.

Later, when it was dog tested, 1 of the 5 dogs alerted to it.

If 85 mins (or 105 mins) is correct, the "chat/sofa-smithsighting" hypothesis in that book-film doesn't work IMO

[Anna]

IMO it's debatable whether that pad it was on the skin from 45 mins PM until 85 mins PM, or on the skin from 85 mins PM until 105 mins PM.

Later, when it was dog tested, 1 of the 5 dogs alerted to it.

If 85 mins (or 105 mins) is correct, the "chat/sofa-smithsighting" hypothesis in that book-film doesn't work IMO

No it would not even work at 8.30pm, when they went for dinner.

[mercury]

IMO it's debatable whether that pad it was on the skin from 45 mins PM until 85 mins PM, or on the skin from 85 mins PM until 105 mins PM.

Later, when it was dog tested, 1 of the 5 dogs alerted to it.

If 85 mins (or 105 mins) is correct, the "chat/sofa-smithsighting" hypothesis in that book-film doesn't work IMO

did you not read my earlier reply

[pegasus]

No it would not even work at 8.30pm, when they went for dinner.

The only way to make the "sofa+smithsighting" hypothesis fit would be to move chat to earlier, and smithsighting to later, and it is difficult to stretch that combination to get the 85 (or more) minutes of the dog study.

 

[mercury]

The only way to make the "sofa+smithsighting" hypothesis fit would be to move chat to earlier, and smithsighting to later, and it is difficult to stretch that combination to get the 85 (or more) minutes of the dog study.

 

youare assuming the mccanns told the truth
that could bewhere u might  be going wrong

[mercury]

Still waiting ferryman for an answerr,are you asserting Grime is a liar?

[pegasus]

youare assuming the mccanns told the truth
that could bewhere u might  be going wrong

To test Amaral's "sofa + irish sighting" hypothesis against dog studies, all that's needed is to estimate the time of the chat outside, and the time of the irish sighting, both of which IMO we know independently did happen, because there is an independent witness for the first and several for the second. 

[mercury]

To test Amaral's "sofa + irish sighting" hypothesis against dog studies, all that's needed is to estimate the time of the chat outside, and the time of the irish sighting, both of which IMO we know independently did happen, because there is an independent witness for the first and several for the second.

As i said youre assuming mccanns were truthful

[Eleanor]

As i said youre assuming mccanns were truthful

Are you asserting that The McCanns are liars?

[mercury]

Are you asserting that The McCanns are liars?

not assertng anything but they might be! if thats ok with you, feel free to delete delete thought lol
long as you dont insist eddie barked to sausages , meh, tara, off now

[Eleanor]

not assertng anything but they might be! if thats ok with you, feel free to delete delete thought lol
long as you dont insist eddie barked to sausages , meh, tara, off now

Then please don't suggest that other posters are.

[jassi]

Are you asserting that The McCanns are liars?

One can't really be sure, can one?

[Mr Gray]

Yes
But you are being too pedantic as Amaral was hypothesising
And you can never take uncorroborated witness statements (especially persons who were the last to see a missing person as gospel
From what I have read of your posts you thnk everyne is telling the truth, good luck with that

PS btw do you agree a dog akerted at 85 mins

amaral was not hypothesising...that's a mistake many make....he claimed to be able to prove maddie died in the apartment