I should add that either way, commissioned abducting gang, or loner burglary gone wrong, there likely would be phone activity. In the first case amongst themselves ... or to the man who commissioned them (and aboard a yacht?/ boat nearby). In the second case to seek help or even to find someone who would buy his valuable commodity .... a pretty blonde little girl
Only my opinion ... and quite possibly incorrect, but worth considering
Where was this so-called gang Sadie as local witnesses reported the road empty and quiet before 10pm? As for your yacht theory I believe that has been scuppered long ago as the RV Naomi Corlett was on an African charter on 3 May 2007. Almost as silly as your little Moroccan blonde girl theory.A gang of burglars is hardly going to advertise itself is it Angelo?
A gang of burglars is hardly going to advertise itself is it Angelo?Oh and to further undermine your post
The thread, Sadies theory lays out what I believe could be the scenario. As you know, having read the theory, I believe that it is very possible that a watcher / getaway driver could have been in the shadows overlooking 5A. There were cigarette ends found there the day afterwards. Also a man (2 peeps even) could keep themselves out of sight very easily, either over the wall in the walled pathway which runs immediately in front of the appartments, in that treed parking area at the front of the building, or in a number of other spots.
Where have I said RV Naomi Corlett was involved, Angelo?
Oh, and thank you so much for the insult, which incidentally shows that you have not only limited vision, but also a lack of mental dexterity. In fact, a closed mind. Why not try opening it a little?
Madeleine sighted in three places which are the three main canabis/hashish/kif growing and trafficking/ processing places in the World.
1) Zinat in the Rif Mountains of Morrocco where it is grown
2) Molenbeek St John, Brussels, largely populated by peeps from the Rif and the major hub for processing and distribution
3) Leh in the High Himalayas, India. An isolated spot on the Ancient Trade routes and the place where almost all the Hashish imported into India enters the Country
Open your mind, please Angelo.
Where was this so-called gang Sadie as local witnesses reported the road empty and quiet before 10pm? As for your yacht theory I believe that has been scuppered long ago as the RV Naomi Corlett was on an African charter on 3 May 2007. Almost as silly as your little Moroccan blonde girl theory.This witness neither saw Gerry, nor Jez, nor Jane, nor Russell , nor Matt, nor Kate going to and fro .... so the witnesses statement hardly covered the whole time span, did it?
A gang of burglars is hardly going to advertise itself is it Angelo?
The thread, Sadies theory lays out what I believe could be the scenario. As you know, having read the theory, I believe that it is very possible that a watcher / getaway driver could have been in the shadows overlooking 5A. There were cigarette ends found there the day afterwards. Also a man (2 peeps even) could keep themselves out of sight very easily, either over the wall in the walled pathway which runs immediately in front of the appartments, in that treed parking area at the front of the building, or in a number of other spots.
Where have I said RV Naomi Corlett was involved, Angelo?
Oh, and thank you so much for the insult, which incidentally shows that you have not only limited vision, but also a lack of mental dexterity. In fact, a closed mind. Why not try opening it a little?
Madeleine sighted in three places which are the three main canabis/hashish/kif growing and trafficking/ processing places in the World.
1) Zinat in the Rif Mountains of Morrocco where it is grown
2) Molenbeek St John, Brussels, largely populated by peeps from the Rif and the major hub for processing and distribution
3) Leh in the High Himalayas, India. An isolated spot on the Ancient Trade routes and the place where almost all the Hashish imported into India enters the Country
Open your mind, please Angelo.
A gang of burglars is hardly going to advertise itself is it Angelo?
The thread, Sadies theory lays out what I believe could be the scenario. As you know, having read the theory, I believe that it is very possible that a watcher / getaway driver could have been in the shadows overlooking 5A. There were cigarette ends found there the day afterwards. Also a man (2 peeps even) could keep themselves out of sight very easily, either over the wall in the walled pathway which runs immediately in front of the appartments, in that treed parking area at the front of the building, or in a number of other spots.
Where have I said RV Naomi Corlett was involved, Angelo?
Oh, and thank you so much for the insult, which incidentally shows that you have not only limited vision, but also a lack of mental dexterity. In fact, a closed mind. Why not try opening it a little?
Madeleine sighted in three places which are the three main canabis/hashish/kif growing and trafficking/ processing places in the World.
1) Zinat in the Rif Mountains of Morrocco where it is grown
2) Molenbeek St John, Brussels, largely populated by peeps from the Rif and the major hub for processing and distribution
3) Leh in the High Himalayas, India. An isolated spot on the Ancient Trade routes and the place where almost all the Hashish imported into India enters the Country
Open your mind, please Angelo.
3) Leh in the High Himalayas, India. An isolated spot on the Ancient Trade routes and the place where almost all the Hashish imported into India enters the Country
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019698/Madeleine-McCann-Hopes-dashed-sighting-India.html
2) Molenbeek St John, Brussels, largely populated by peeps from the Rif and the major hub for processing and distribution
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SHE'S+NOT+MADDIE..+SHE'S+MY+DAUGHTER%3B+Dad+dismisses+sighting.-a0182776255
1) Zinat in the Rif Mountains of Morrocco where it is grown
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1564280/Morocco-photo-is-not-Madeleine-McCann.html
'There were cigarette ends found there the day afterwards.'
I smoke 40 a day, I don't snatch kids.
?>)()<
Thank you WSpam
3) Leh in the High Himalayas, India. An isolated spot on the Ancient Trade routes and the place where almost all the Hashish imported into India enters the Country
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019698/Madeleine-McCann-Hopes-dashed-sighting-India.html
2) Molenbeek St John, Brussels, largely populated by peeps from the Rif and the major hub for processing and distribution
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SHE'S+NOT+MADDIE..+SHE'S+MY+DAUGHTER%3B+Dad+dismisses+sighting.-a0182776255
1) Zinat in the Rif Mountains of Morrocco where it is grown
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1564280/Morocco-photo-is-not-Madeleine-McCann.html
'There were cigarette ends found there the day afterwards.'
I smoke 40 a day, I don't snatch kids.
?>)()<
Three yr olds in harems? Right, ok
Or carried around in broad daylight by drug lords and or their minions, and in front of cctv cameras, why? pls don't answer, just wondering!!
And could we please stop claiming that little Bushra is Madeleine because she isn't!
(http://i.imgur.com/iq9kIJP.jpg?1)
Who is claiming that Bushra is Madeleine, John? What an odd claim.
A very young photograph of Madeleine there, I think I remember reading that she was two in that photo. Her face had changed considerably by the time she was abducted.
The little girl on the wo/mans back definitely wasn't Bushra. I can assure you of that. And she looks very like Madeleine when she was 3, nearly 4 ... dont you think?
Who is claiming that Bushra is Madeleine, John? What an odd claim.
A very young photograph of Madeleine there, I think I remember reading that she was two in that photo. Her face had changed considerably by the time she was abducted.
The little girl on the wo/mans back definitely wasn't Bushra. I can assure you of that. And she looks very like Madeleine when she was 3, nearly 4 ... dont you think?
The little girl on the wo/mans back definitely wasn't Bushra. I can assure you of that.
I think you might be right sadie,
I've been studying that photo very carefully & the dark haired girl on the left of the picture is definitely Joana,
If you zoom in really closely at the little blonde girls right eye you can just make out a reflection of Lord Lucan riding Shergar on his way to visit Elvis.
You have consistently claimed that the girl being carried was Madeleine but it was proven to be Bushra. Granted she and Madeleine look alike but that is where it ends. Your assurance undermines your credibility Sadie.Nothing has been proven, John. We are looking at a place (the Rif) where drug barons rule. Drug traffickers also do human./ salve/ sex trafficking according to reports read on the internet.
You also mentioned the yacht Naomi Corlett earlier today and apparently denied claiming that it was involved in Madeleines disappearance yet you inferred it here. (http://www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2141.msg71187#msg71187)
The little girl on the wo/mans back definitely wasn't Bushra. I can assure you of that.
I think you might be right sadie,
I've been studying that photo very carefully & the dark haired girl on the left of the picture is definitely Joana,
If you zoom in really closely at the little blonde girls right eye you can just make out a reflection of Lord Lucan riding Shergar on his way to visit Elvis.
So, if the girl on that woman's back was Madeleine, what was she doing with her then?
And what does that make her? Did police arrest her?
If I've managed to follow Sadie's "logic", she collecting hasish. Probably for the nanny who then dresses her in a kilt and walks her past a bank?
Bizarre is too kind a word....
I can't get my head round it either
So Madeleine age three is taken along for all these drug runs all over the world? Morocco, Belgium, India.....twilight zone....cos that's what drug smugglers, barons and co do, don't they? I must have lead a sheltered life.
Never mind
?8)@)-)
I used to have drag mine off round the supermercado when I couldn't find a baby sitter. Not much of a leap to dragging them off to the opium wars 8-)(--)
Just curious to know in what way your own eye has been accurately trained?
I think Sadie is a qualified engineer, buzz. She has taught technical drawing, and also has studied art, as I remember.
Perhaps she will correct me if this isn't quite right.
It was an insult and a disgrace what they did to little Bushra Binhisa and her family. Imagine making them produce a birth certificate for their own child just to satisfy a bunch of over zealous reporters.
The only saving grace was that little Bushra wasn't dragged away from her home unlike the two little gypsy girls in Turkey and Ireland.
I think Sadie is a qualified engineer, buzz. She has taught technical drawing, and also has studied art, as I remember.That is all correct. I spent 7 years on an engineering design drawing board, and later taught technical drawing .... and was an Art teacher for 18 years at secondary level. I also had my own kitchen planning company for a while. All visual stuff.
Perhaps she will correct me if this isn't quite right.
That is all correct. I spent 7 years on an engineering design drawing board, and later taught technical drawing .... and was an Art teacher for 18 years at secondary level. I also had my own kitchen planning company for a while. All visual stuff.
But maybe the thing that has trained my eye more than any other thing was the fact that my own art teacher, at school, recognised that my friend and I had a special ability with figure drawing. Without reference to the head , who would have been aghast at her "gels" drawing nudes, she persuaded us to join an adult lfe drawing class at Art College one night a week.
Intermittently, over 60 years, I have joined progressively advanced life classes and am now comfortable at drawing alongside Post graduate artists. Many of whom exhibit and sell their work, some for a living. I have little doubt that I could sell my work too.
My specialities are the human figure and portraiture. I think I can safely say that my eye is a trained one. I can usually get a very good likeness, even with just using shadows and no lines per se.. My work is modern and lively.
Psst, I will let you have a special offer ...
£1000 for a portrait of John @)(++(* Even a life drawing if you prefer 8**8:/:
Now hows about that? 8(0(*
I must admit to being somewhat confused by this discussion. Sadie, are you claiming that Bushra Binhisa is Madeleine McCann?
Yes, sadie is adamant that the Moroccan woman had Madeleine on her back ... and that a lookie-likee daughter was procured by 'them' ( the 'elites' )
Not only that, sadie's 'trained eye' also determines that the older child walking alongside is the murdered Joana Cipriano ( sadie can tell by her ankles )
It's all rather sad really
Oh I see, that must be this image then.
(http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/9128/89433078ce5.jpg)
Yes, sadie is adamant that the Moroccan woman had Madeleine on her back ... and that a lookie-likee daughter was procured by 'them' ( the 'elites' )My dear Icabod. Twisting my words as usual. That is sad.
Not only that, sadie's 'trained eye' also determines that the older child walking alongside is the murdered Joana Cipriano ( sadie can tell by her ankles )
It's all rather sad really
Where have you got transvestite from?
I am not totally sure about the wo/man carrying, but I almost 100% sure that the little girl being carried in the group photo at Zinat is NOT Bushra.
Having studied that group photo again I find it very suspicious and especially as parts of it are out of focus, probably intentionally so.Hahahah
Could be that some unscrupulous money grabbing opportunist photoshopped the original scene picture to make it look like Maddie.
That's exactly the sort of dirty tricks Metodo 3 got up to.
Nope, it's definitely a Moroccan tranny with pen circled nipples !! Dem darned Moroccans huh !!Are you male or female OP ?
Some people need sectioning....
Oh sweet baby Jesus, I honestly thought you were just taking the piss and having a laugh regarding the Moroccan transvestite !I think I might have seen Joana when she was younger, but I am nor sure if she was actually in the village group picking berries on a nature reserve near Figueira. I have talked about it earlier
Are you seriously suggesting that the parents of Madeleine McCann can not spot their missing daughter ?
May I ask you a question, have you ever met either Madeleine McCann or Joanna Cipriano ?
Vixte please please please post those photographs / images up on the forum, thanks in advance !!!
What year do you think you may have seen Joanna ?About 1999 or 2000. All the village was out in the adjoining nature reserve picking berries one sunny afternoon. I am basing the fact that I might have seen Joana on so many of the villagers being there. It was a wonderful old fashioned sight in my favourite place in Portugal, this nature reserve... right off the beaten track.
Not sure sadie if you have seen this video.. it is the same theory as yoursThanks Anna and thanks Vixte.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KVU2TB1-QM
Clearly the girl being carried in Morocco is younger and much smaller than the girl seen walking down the street in Brussels. In any event, Bushra's mother will know who the other woman was in the photo so effectively there is no mystery. Just another attempt to make something out of nothing but logic and common sense will always win over.
I'm surprised no-one has picked up on the blue sports bag? @)(++(*
(http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/9128/89433078ce5.jpg)
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.
Clearly the girl being carried in Morocco is younger and much smaller than the girl seen walking down the street in Brussels. In any event, Bushra's mother will know who the other woman was in the photo so effectively there is no mystery. Just another attempt to make something out of nothing but logic and common sense will always win over.The Rif mountaiuns John are cannabis country. They grow the hemp there and commonly call it Kif. It is a vast area and produces at least 50% of the worlds cannabis. It is the province of Drug Barons.
I'm surprised no-one has picked up on the blue sports bag? @)(++(*
(http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/9128/89433078ce5.jpg)
Two stills from the CCTV camera at a Brussels bank.
(http://i.imgur.com/P3WHtZL.jpg?1)
(http://i.imgur.com/zUkFJ8B.png?1)
CCTV footage from CCTV camera (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT82-o1_qIc)
So a blonde young girl whose face is a total blur is / might be Madeleine Mccann because?.....
PS that question is to anybody, not John in particular
Hark! what is it I hear??{)(**
"Can you prove she is NOT Madeleine McCann" >@@(*&) @)(++(*
Hark! what is it I hear?
"Can you prove she is NOT Madeleine McCann" >@@(*&) @)(++(*
So a blonde young girl whose face is a total blur is / might be Madeleine Mccann because?.....
PS that question is to anybody, not John in particular
She explained all that in the 2nd post of the thread. It's a little blonde girl in Belgium. 'nuff said. 8(0(*
It's all about the hash.
Thats right, blonde children dont have dark haired dark skinned nannies, of course.Clever thinking!Sometimes they are dark skinned and haired, but they are dressed and behave like nannies.
i think it is wrong that those little girls who are clearly cared for were hounded for looking like maddie most little girls in the world look similer as toddlers even i looked similer to maddie in my photos as a little girlBet their families were paid loads of lolly for the photos Carly. Loads of lolly for a few hours discomfort. Bet they laughed all the way to the bank ... and Bushra had some nice goodies bought for her.
Bet their families were paid loads of lolly for the photos Carly. Loads of lolly for a few hours discomfort. Bet they laughed all the way to the bank ... and Bushra had some nice goodies bought for her.
That's why her mother said she was terrified is it?Where did you get that from Lyall?
Well, this child's father came forward to police in Belgium when he recognised his daughter and her nanny from the footage, case closed, but some say "ah but that is what they want you believe"Major drug processing and trafficking area Red. Nobody crosses the Drug Barons.
It really was Madeleine, the powers that be hushed it up!!
What did you say in that post, Redblossom ? Nothing stimulates curiosity like a deleted post... It's a pity there's no deleted posts' cemetery thread.
i see my post in response to Sadies oking the family being intruded because they got a load of lolly has been deleted, why not delete the whole stupid fantasist thread??That would suit you wouldn't it? Then all the observations would not be there for thinking people to see
Bump and goodnight!!!!Is that aimed at me? FGS
Is that aimed at me? FGS
I have repeatedly said that the little girl on the back of the wo/man is not Bushra. I am virtually 100% sure of that. Several reasons mentioned
I have said that she looks remarkably like Madeleine ... and she does. Several reasons
I have noted that the wo/man carrying does not have a womanly figure apart from some stiff looking boobs and Bushras Mum has softer curves and I have queiried wwhether it is Bushras mother .... several reasons
I have pointed out that Children are kept in Harems in N Afica
I have pointed out thta 3 sightings have been in three major main drug trafficking places
I have assured you that I have a very keen eye onfigures and faces, but you chose not to listen
I have noticed that the little girl in the orange top looks very like Joana Cipriano, facially, posture and general figurewise and also her legs have the rather unusual shape that Joana has in herv known photographs and her feet and ankles are like Joanas too
So many things there (and some I will have missed, I guess) thta instead of facetious remarks you should,surely be seriosly considering them
BTW, I have never said that the little girl being carried IS DEFINITELY Madeleine, but I believe it likely that she is.
It is too late. I am tired, but enough there to answer your rather silly question.
Nigh Night
There's nothing to agree or disagree with, the issue is to stop nurturing conspiracy delirium.
Are you saying that you prefer for the sighting not to have been checked out Carly?
Are you saying that a little inconvenience ( along with probably a very welcome dollop of re-embursement) is too much ? Better not to check her out? That Madeleines fate doesn't matter? It might be Madeleine but dont check, after all it is a mornings work for the Bushra family
Is that what you are saying?
Im sure if a swat team came round your house looking for a missing kid and it had nothing to do with you it would be just another mornings work for you and you would have no problem with it
Im sure its a very very little inconvenience being shown as potential abductors and asked to PROVE your kid is your own
So little inconvience isnt it
Bit like a salesman coming to your door, so inconvenient, but you can tell hm to bog off norma,ly, but no, in this case you need to show your kids birth ceritifcate cos some woman snapped you and said oh they have Maddie I think and you have to prove it wasnf
lucky b........s didnt need to do a dna test!! To PROVE their child was THEIRS, how thoroughly disgusting is all this??
but sadie thinks its ok cos they might have been given loads of lollies for Their distress
8-)(--)
of course the other edge is they were paid to take part in some "maddie is in morroco" sham
>@@(*&)
Im sure if a swat team came round your house looking for a missing kid and it had nothing to do with you it would be just another mornings work for you and you would have no problem with itI would be delighted to help in a missing child case. No chore would have been too great for me.
Im sure its a very very little inconvenience being shown as potential abductors and asked to PROVE your kid is your own
So little inconvience isnt it
Bit like a salesman coming to your door, so inconvenient, but you can tell hm to bog off norma,ly, but no, in this case you need to show your kids birth ceritifcate cos some woman snapped you and said oh they have Maddie I think and you have to prove it wasnf
lucky b........s didnt need to do a dna test!! To PROVE their child was THEIRS, how thoroughly disgusting is all this??
but sadie thinks its ok cos they might have been given loads of lollies for Their distress
8-)(--)
of course the other edge is they were paid to take part in some "maddie is in morroco" sham
>@@(*&)
That would suit you wouldn't it? Then all the observations would not be there for thinking people to see
What is it with you guys? seems that anything that makes a serious attempt to unravel the mysteries is instantly ridiculed.
Do you want this gawd awful guy stealing more kids? Surely not.
This is a point that is not made often enough.This was a threat used by the McCanns years ago, in order to give some consistence to their abductor, turning him into public enemy number one when interest and fund's money were running down.
Any abductor is likely to be roaming the streets at the moment - unless he has been incarcerated for another crime in the mean time - and is a potential threat to other families.
This was a threat used by the McCanns years ago, in order to give some consistence to their abductor, turning him into public enemy number one when interest and fund's money were running down.
Madeleine is still the unique child abducted from bed in Europe since Savile Kent, who wasn't abducted in fact..
The point may have been 'used' by the McCanns, to use your words, Anne, but in nonetheless remains a fact that there is a possibility of abduction in this case.Before crying wolf, rationality requires evidence of abduction first thing. The one and only possible evidence, Tannerman, is now extinct...
Ergo the possibility of an abductor.
The point may have been 'used' by the McCanns, to use your words, Anne, but in nonetheless remains a fact that there is a possibility of abduction in this case.
Ergo the possibility of an abductor.
Before crying wolf, rationality requires evidence of abduction first thing. The one and only possible evidence, Tannerman, is now extinct...
Wait a minute..What people ? The PJ, yes, but not the McCanns, who claimed that Tannerman was evidence of abduction (the pjs matched). After they had to admit that no breaking-in through shutters/window occurred, Tannerman was the "one and only" evidence (read "Madeleine").
For years, people were saying that Jane Tanner's 'evidence' did not amount to anything.
Now that her sighting has been officially ruled out as significant in the inquiry, and another sighting as the focus, Jane Tanner's account is being referred to as 'the one and only possible evidence'
Does that make sense?
This is a point that is not made often enough.
Any abductor is likely to be roaming the streets at the moment - unless he has been incarcerated for another crime in the mean time - and is a potential threat to other families.
Where is he then? No similar crime has been committed since, so I guess he either never existed or has taken early retirement from child snatching.@)(++(*
Maybe the point that there has been no repeat crime is one that's worth making.
Where is he then? No similar crime has been committed since, so I guess he either never existed or has taken early retirement from child snatching.
Maybe the point that there has been no repeat crime is one that's worth making.
How do we know there has been no repeat crime?
The criminal is flexible. Such a person is not exactly likely to be operating within the cream of society. He may have committed different types of crime since then, perhaps in another place, and no -one will have connected the dots.
How do we know there has been no repeat crime?
The criminal is flexible. Such a person is not exactly likely to be operating within the cream of society. He may have committed different types of crime since then, perhaps in another place, and no -one will have connected the dots.
But we are being told to fear a man who enters our homes and steals our children. That is what both you and Sadie have said in this thread!
Sadie "Do you want this gawd awful guy stealing more kids? Surely not"
Sherlock "This is a point that is not made often enough.
Any abductor is likely to be roaming the streets at the moment - unless he has been incarcerated for another crime in the mean time - and is a potential threat to other families."
You're both using emotive language, conjuring up images of men hiding in wardrobes, waiting to pounce on our children.
I think that a point worth making is:
There has been no repeat crime with the same M.O.
There is no evidence that "this gawd awful guy" has ever offended again. In fact there is no evidence that he ever existed at all!
But we are being told to fear a man who enters our homes and steals our children. That is what both you and Sadie have said in this thread!
Sadie "Do you want this gawd awful guy stealing more kids? Surely not"
Sherlock "This is a point that is not made often enough.
Any abductor is likely to be roaming the streets at the moment - unless he has been incarcerated for another crime in the mean time - and is a potential threat to other families."
You're both using emotive language, conjuring up images of men hiding in wardrobes, waiting to pounce on our children.
I think that a point worth making is:
There has been no repeat crime with the same M.O.
There is no evidence that "this gawd awful guy" has ever offended again. In fact there is no evidence that he ever existed at all!
Great post.
Actually has there actually been ANY child in area of PDL etc, where a child has been snatched from their bedroom and proven as such?
There are thousands of criminals out there who have never been caught and may never BE caught. Why would you exclude this possibility from the McCann case? That's illogical imo.
Does their expertise and the means they have at their disposal to establish the veracity of the McCanns mean nothing?
No.
And there is evidence that this criminal exists. The open shutter and window are evidence that a stranger was involved in this crime. Choosing not to believe that is not proof that it didn't happen. SY believe it.
You mean connected the dots, commas, asterisks, dashes and colons.
But we are being told to fear a man who enters our homes and steals our children. That is what both you and Sadie have said in this thread!
Sadie "Do you want this gawd awful guy stealing more kids? Surely not"
Sherlock "This is a point that is not made often enough.
Any abductor is likely to be roaming the streets at the moment - unless he has been incarcerated for another crime in the mean time - and is a potential threat to other families."
You're both using emotive language, conjuring up images of men hiding in wardrobes, waiting to pounce on our children.
I think that a point worth making is:
There has been no repeat crime with the same M.O.
There is no evidence that "this gawd awful guy" has ever offended again. In fact there is no evidence that he ever existed at all!
Great post.
Actually has there actually been ANY child in area of PDL etc, where a child has been snatched from their bedroom and proven as such?
Maybe these thousands of criminals havent had
The whole world and its wife looking out for them and the child
Interpol
Three police forces investigating
Cold case reviews by several people
Seven sets of private investigators in addition to ones commissioned by various media
Untold number of ex coppers/other "experts" chipping in
Unprecedented constant worldwide media campaign for years
Millions of pounds spent
2.5 million pound reward
Unprecedented number of suspects
Etc etc etc
They must be living in the river Styx
Just a thought.....
The theory that the girl in that moroccan photo was the missing child is disproved because the child in the photo was traced.
The theory that KM opened the window is disproved IMO because it comes from accidental transposition of a photo of a GNR thumbprint from another room.
The theory that KM opened the window is disprovedIs the claim that the window was opened proved to begin with ?
No.
I reckon that now you're introducing the myth of SY "believing" the open shutters/window, as if SY would take a hearsay as a fact.
Be careful, Benice, because "choosing not to believe that is not proof that it didn't happen" is a typical argument of conspiracy fans.
So do you think the SY team believe the McCanns are liars Anne? It seems obvious to me that the very first thing SY would want to establish was whether they had any doubts about the credibility of the McCanns as truthful witnesses. It seems they were able to satisfy themselves that they were telling the truth. If they were not able to do that - and had the slightest doubt - then no way would they have publically ruled the McCanns out of the investigation.
Or do you think SY said ...''We don't believe they are truthful people, we think they are lying - but let's rule them out of the investigation anyway''
Surely not.
And would that very long list of resources have been brought to the case if society as a whole did not consider it paramount to attempt to catch criminals and serve justice?
My point was that thousands of criminals dont get caught (as Benice stated) because such humungous resources are not brought in most cases. Even when they are, unprecedently, as in this case, it has not found the "criminal"
... or even determined what the crime was
Astonishing really
... or even determined what the crime wasIs it ? Without a body ?
Astonishing really
You seem to be suggesting that the police had to make a decision whether or not to 'believe' everything the McCanns told them ... based on nothing more than an unevidenced assessement of them ( the McCanns ) as being 'truthful witnesses'
I don't think it works like that
However credible a witness may be, if what they are saying is non credible then it would, naturally, be questionable to the police
The suggestion that the bedroom window was opened by an abductor after he had already entered the apartment by some other means ( and without intending to use it as an exit point ) IS questionable
Do you really think the police would accept such an implausible suggestion at face value, ? ... that they would simply set aside their doubts because they had already 'decided' that the McCanns were 'honest witnesses' and everything they say must, therefore, be truthful whether it makes sense or not ?
You, and others, might unquestioningly accept the McCanns' every utterance as gospel truth, but why on earth would you think the police would do the same ?
If I was one of these abductors I would have been put off this particular crime for ever more. Especially in Portugal. The PJ won't make the same mistakes again.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. They nearly did in Madeira a couple of weeks ago.
Thank God that child was found alive. His parents would have been banged up by now if he had died or never been found.
Funny that The PJ stopped searching because it was dark, full moon and all.
Bushra's parents were well compensated for their inconvenience, what little it was.
That's not what her mother said, and I expect they'd much rather not have been descended upon by the rapid press pack in the first place.
"What little it was?" >@@(*&) Easy for you to say isn't it.
What harm came to the child or her family" I saw a very nice photograph of them all smiling after it had been establish that she wasn't Madeleine.
The general inference is that EVERYONE is lying, including the dogs, the PJ, the Moroccan mum...
Everyone except Team McCann of course.
They've already told us they used different doors, locked.didnt lock them, searched/didnt search, prostrate on the bed/up writing a timeline, Murat was HIM, Hewlett was HIM, don't forget Posh Spice the Australian Child Dealer.
They've thrown every efit in the mix except the RIGHT ONE (unless of course Andy is lying) and still they emerge unscathed in the minds of the British Public.
Amazing...
Well I wouldn't say that, SW. They are quite unpopular in many circles, and even many of their 'supporters' are losing patience, by all accounts.
I can't get my head around this continually need to bash The McCanns for any reason no matter how spurious.
The McCanns didn't report the sighting and neither did they personally check it out. But then in the next breath they are castigated for not rushing off to every sighting.
Just what are they supposed to do? Give up completely? Is that what you all want? Probably frightened to death that Madeleine might be found.
She wasn't smiling in the Al Jazeera documentary. Check it out.
Well they're not posting on this forum that's for sure.
>@@(*&)
How much did they get paid for that, I wonder? Not that I have any objections. The money probably came in handy.
8)-))) You just can't bring yourself to express any empathy for them can you. The point is nobody with any sense thought that was Madeleine in the photograph in the first place, but they were needlessly harassed anyway.
Is the claim that the window was opened proved to begin with ?Just as there is no reason to doubt the Moroccan woman's statement that the child on her back was her own child,
I thought it was a possibility. No decent person would mind in the case of a missing child. So why would they want anyone to feel sorry for them?
Oh, I get it. We will all have to feel sorry for whoever has Madeleine when she is found. Just as we were all expected to feel sorry for Hewlett because he was in hospital.
It most certainly is my business, along with everyone else they lied to and tried to defraud.
I don't like people who piss on my head and try to tell me it's raining, especially when a little girl is at stake.
Because this is the wild British press we're talking about, so yes they would mind and they obviously did (your use of the word decent shows what you really think).
Some of your friends here (and probably elsewhere) are still defaming that family six years later, but you clearly don't care about that either.
That's a mighty leap you've made there
Don't you understand why people are concerned that innocent children's lives have been invaded and disturbed as a consequence of this case ?
That's a mighty leap you've made there
Don't you understand why people are concerned that innocent children's lives have been invaded and disturbed as a consequence of this case ?
Oh, I get it. We will all have to feel sorry for whoever has Madeleine when she is found. Just as we were all expected to feel sorry for Hewlett because he was in hospital.
Not defending Hewlett in the slightest, but his MO didn't fit with abducting a 3 year old girl.
Not defending Hewlett in the slightest, but his MO didn't fit with abducting a 3 year old girl.
Excuse me and why not? Convicted peado living near of a missing child? Many cold cases even now have been revisited in the areas where the convicted offenders live or have once lived!
Do you know if any have resulted in a conviction?
Thank you. Neither of these were cold cases, though.
Excuse me and why not? Convicted peado living near of a missing child? Many cold cases even now have been revisited in the areas where the convicted offenders live or have once lived!
Hewlett was interested in 12 and 13 year old girls....
Madeleine's "abductor" appears not to have reoffended.....kind of strengthens the "non abduction" theory when you put it like that. 8((()*/
On the other hand, it might be someone who was just a tourist an a Spring break.
How do you know that?
How do you know it is not the same person who took Joana and Madeleine? And even Renee Hase because some of these people are interested in both sexes.
It could have been a person who lived near Joana's village, and later took employment near PDL.. this was never investigated..
Re-offend implies an incident since then. Why are you highlighting incidents prior to May 2007? Please highlight an incident since May 2007 where an abductor has entered premises and taken a child then you may be onto something......provided of course you can tie this person back to Madeleine.
I notice even the Daily Record is calling it an 'alleged incident'
How do you know that?
How do you know it is not the same person who took Joana and Madeleine? And even Renee Hase because some of these people are interested in both sexes.
It could have been a person who lived near Joana's village, and later took employment near PDL.. this was never investigated..
oh poor child snatchers- abusers.. they never meant to do that..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563085/Elementary-school-coach-45-charged-murder-dragging-10-year-old-girl-street-walked-home-broad-daylight.html
I fail to see the relevance of this.
Any story about any child getting stolen/gone missing/killed seems to be relevant over the past years. Its called joining the dots when they dont join really, what does that get you?
A scribbled picture
@)(++(*
[/quote
You are so funny. @)(++(*
Do you do it on purpose?
Any story about any child getting stolen/gone missing/killed seems to be relevant over the past years. Its called joining the dots when they dont join really, what does that get you?You are so funny. @)(++(*
A scribbled picture
@)(++(*
Do you do it on purpose?
I fail to see the relevance of this.
that was my answer to 'alleged' as in here some people every attempt of a child snatching see as a made up story..
No.
Just this one.
that was my answer to 'alleged' as in here some people every attempt of a child snatching see as a made up story..
Everything should be "alleged" until a conviction in a court of law.
Hewlett was convicted but you were still listing him on your victims of McCann's panel.
Huh?
Are you operating on the theory that if someone's guilty of A, they must also be guilty of crime B, even though there is no evidence of a connection?
I could take that logic one further if you like.
The McCanns are guilty of neglecting their children therefore they are also guilty of disappearing Madeleine.
There. I like how that works...!
You cannot compare or equalise Hewlett and The McCanns,.. they were never convicted of anything, no criminal record.. and he was a scambag peado convicted of abusing girls..
You cannot compare or equalise Hewlett and The McCanns,.. they were never convicted of anything, no criminal record.. and he was a scambag peado convicted of abusing girls..
ETA: Scambag is my new personal nickname for Kate.
Well that means he must have done it then, him and every other convicted sex offender on the planet.
Hewlett attacked 12 -15 yr olds, doesnt have an MO for toddlers! Scraping barrels as ever, jesus
Cant say I have!
Will leave yu to spread your wisdom and kowledge and speculate then, or rather, state ANY type of sexual predator could have been involved.! That will narrow it down wont it?
>>>>>As I said, done with you
Oh, you all get so emotional on this subject.. why is it?
I don't speculate.
It is well known fact a number of UK registered child abusers were in Portugal at the time Madeleine went missing ( is it 150?).. then you get unregistered.. then the Portuguese ones.. then the registered ones from all around the world.. then the unregistered ones from all around the world... so you can imagine how many of these people possibly were there at the time..
Not a real heaven for children!
Oh dead what a drama.. and I only said facts.. I did not state peados took Madeleine.. I only said they had a chance.. since the fact is the number of them were present in Algarve..
If SY thinks there were several snatchers then it wasn't a child sex offender who took Madeleine.. unless there was a group of them operating in PDL.. and if it was then it will come to light..
We just have to sit and wait..
That is not Madeleine! It is Bushra. Case closed.Yep, I agree. THAT photo is Bushra... but THAT photo was taken days afterwards. The original was taken by Clara Torres who is part of the big Torres wine family
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/fisherwy/RvqklYpBHmI/AAAAAAAAJAU/xHWkndAG0rA/Bushra,+who+resembles+the+missing+girl+Madeleine+McCann%5B3%5D.jpg)
Facts presented overpage, which cannot be disputed ... and the abuse starts !sadie, how can anyone prove your 'observations' incorrect ?
If you think that you can prove my observations incorrect, then attack the post.
Do NOT CHICKEN OUT by attacking and deriding the poster.
Lets see your proofs that my observations are incorrect
sadie, how can anyone prove your 'observations' incorrect ?
Your observations are that Madeleine is being carried by a bloke in a pair of comedy boobs that some 'elite' pervert has drawn nipples on with ablue marker pen
Further more, you 'observe' that the older child in the photo is murdered Joana Cipriano ... because her feet and ankles tell you so
How, in God's name, is anyone meant to disprove such utter nonsense ?
You'd do better to remove sadie and her 'blue nipple' nonsenseAttack the post NOT the poster. Continual abuse from YOU Icabod
... out of kindness, if nothing else
@)(++(*
Agreed, some moderator needs to have the cohonies to pull the plug on sadies's account from a humanitarian perspective..
Yep, I agree WSpam.
Icabod abusing me again by misquoting. Why didn't he challenge the FULL words that I said?
I don't 'do' abuse sadieNot much, you dont. Lucky for you that most have been removed.
You post hysterical and fantasist nonsense ... it is not abusive to point that out
It is, as you might say, my 'observation'
sadie, how can anyone prove your 'observations' incorrect ?
Your observations are that Madeleine is being carried by a bloke in a pair of comedy boobs that some 'elite' pervert has drawn nipples on with a blue marker pen
Further more, you 'observe' that the older child in the photo is murdered Joana Cipriano ... because her feet and ankles tell you so
How, in God's name, is anyone meant to disprove such utter nonsense ?
Your observations are that Madeleine is being carried by a bloke in a pair of comedy boobs@)(++(*
I couldn't help but think of Stephen Fry and his golden pair & a turnip in the shape of a thingy.
'Wicked child'.
By the same token I've seen nothing in your hysterical rants of Madeleine and a dead Joana traipsing along a Moroccan road to convince me otherwise...Have you taken the time to compare the proportions eye to nose and nose to lips, for Madeleine, for the little girl being carried .... and most importantly for Bushra against the photo of the little girl being carried? Or cant you be bothered?
@ Sadie, are you claiming that you are more cognisant of Madeleine's attributes than her parents, who are not promoting this sighting on any level ?Pat, only today I have read that The Mccanns thought that the little girl could be Madeleine. Today I have been reading about Bushra, Madeleine and Zinat and comparing images. Dont ask me where I read it, but it was there in black and white, they thought that it could be Madeleine, but accepted the newspaper reporters photos as being bona fide.
Pat, only today I have read that The Mccanns thought that the little girl could be Madeleine. Today I have been reading about Bushra, Madeleine and Zinat and comparing images. Dont ask me where I read it, but it was there in black and white, they thought that it could be Madeleine, but accepted the newspaper reporters photos as being bona fide.
They were bona fide in as much as they showed Bushra on a womans back, but I maintain that the face of the little girl being carried is not Bushras face. Have you given Madeleine a little time yet, by comparing those proportions?
Or are you dodging the issue?
You're the one dodging the issueYou are not reading what I have written Icabod, or you would not have re-iterated that silly question.
Opposing pat asked you if you felt you were better able to recognise Madeleine than her mum and dad
Do you ?
You are not reading what I have written Icabod, or you would not have re-iterated that silly question.
Why won't you answer it sadie ?Stop wasting time Icabod and stop bullying. It is a silly question.
The McCanns have accepted that the little girl being carried in that picture was not their daughter
Who are you to tell them they are wrong ... and that they have failed to recognise her ?
I'm not bullying you sadie ... I'm just asking why you presume to recognise a photo as being one of Madeleine whilst her mum and dad have not
Don't you think Kate and Gerry know better than you ?
Seriously don't people have better things to do than persist in trying to make a square out of a triangle?
Why is this thread even active?
Stop wasting time Icabod and stop bullying. It is a silly question.
The Mccanns thought it might be Madeleine, as I do, but unlike me they accepted the word of people living in a drug growing area. People who are controlled by the drug barons and will say and do anything thta they are told to do.
To remind you:
What I have said is that
1) the little girl being carried is NOT Bushra. Never have I said the little girl IS Madeleine, but she certainly looks like her
and,
2) There have been 3 sightings in canabis/kif/hemp major drug trafficking centres.
i) Growing = the Zinat region of the Rif mountains = over 50% of the worlds supply
ii) Processing and distribution = Molenbeek St John, Brussels = where most of it is processed and distributed from. Also a town which is largely inhabited by Moroccans from the Rif mountains where the canabis is grown.
iii) Most Hashish is imported into India via = Leh in the high Himalayas on the ancient trade routes, used by traffickers.
3) The so called parents in the Leh sighting were called Belgian and French.
A person calling themselves Belgian, could well have dual Belgian/ Moroccan citizenship. If their families originated from the Rif mountains in Morocco and they had resided in Molenbeek for some time, that would be the sensible thing to do. To gain the bebnefits from dual citizenship.
The mother claimed to be French. Again, as i told you previously. Morocco used to be a French Protectorate and it is quite possible, it seems to me, that a person born in Morocco in that period could have dual Moroccan. French citizenship.
So it is quite possible that the parents in Leh, whilst calling themselves Belgian and French, were of Moroccan birth and upbringing.
4) Also drug traffickers are known to slave traffick and sex traffick. The drug routes used to go along the ancient trade routes. Leh in India is on the ancient trade routes.
5) And chilkdren are kept in Harems in N Africa by European businessmen
I repeat:
What I have said is that the little girl being carried is NOT Bushra. Never have I said the little girl IS Madeleine, but she certainly looks like her
Icabod, have you given Madeleine a moment to compare the features mentioned? Have you given a moment to compare the proportions of eye level to end of nose of these three girls. Madeleine, the little girl being carried and Bushra.
Are you going to give Madeleine those few minutes? Or do you prefer her not to be found? And the perp to be free ready for the next one?
Your decision Icabod. Do you give those few minutes, Icabod, or do you shun a possible sighting of Madeleine ?
Well, to echo what Icabod has said before (and bizarrely in my view, been deleted) This thread is cruel in that it portrays the delusions of someone obviously not very well.What is very noticeable is that you are all dodging the question. Are you afraid to answer it?
I'm taking my leave from here as an act of kindness.
What is very noticeable is that you are all dodging the question. Are you afraid to answer it?
Furthermore as is the norm with some on this forum, if the answer goes against your engrained views and might show you up as incorrect, you then:
1) Post numerous silly posts to swamp the question out so that new readers will not look thta far back and see the observations and question
2) Set about bullying and underrmining the posters credibility, by in some cases calling them liars and in other cases such as this, making out that the poster is mad.
You are putting about disinformation and propaganda, just cos you cant answer the question re the comparative proportions of Madeleines face, the little carried girls face and Bushras face.
Both your methods are underhand. Furthermore they show how insecure you are ... and the desperation you feel that you cant answer the question without letting yourself down because of long held beliefs.
Seems you are totally unable to admit that the proportions of the little carried girls face are NOT the same proportions as Bushras face. Nor are you able to admit that the proportions are very like Madeleines
The question still stands:
Have you checked the proportions out? I am referring to the comparison of eyes to nose and nose to lip
..... or maybe put simpler the length of the nose in relation to the length (vertical) of the upper lip (lip to nose). And does that comparison equate to Bushras proportions or relate to Madeleines?
Agreed.
It seems largely here to expound the ridiculous theories of one person.
Make some attempt to get your FACTS right, Please Luz.
DRUG growing area?!!! What the F????
Those people were peasants.
This McCann case has gone over the board with making up false stories and accusing innocent people.
I know there will be no legal justice to get them all, but I hope their conscience, if they have one, tortures them for the rest of their lives.
I was toying with the idea of starting a thread called "The Sexual Deviations of the British Butterfly" just to see how long before Dr Amaral was mentioned.
I was toying with the idea of starting a thread called "The Sexual Deviations of the British Butterfly" just to see how long before Dr Amaral was mentioned.
Seriously don't people have better things to do than persist in trying to make a square out of a triangle?Mystery ! Why does a certain mod encourage poor hare-brained ideas combined with permanent attacks on whoever mocks them ?
Why is this thread even active?
Mystery ! Why does a certain mod encourage poor hare-brained ideas combined with permanent attacks on whoever mocks them ?
That production has nothing to do with imagination.
I know the same mod will erase this post. Welcome !
Posts were only removed for personal comments and attacks, Anne. If someone attacked you, I would do (and have done) the same.This is not true. You always leave Sadie post conspiracy confabulations. I ridicule her posts rarely, because she's on my ignore list. She also insults everybody, I don't, she doesn't interest me.
Posts were only removed for personal comments and attacks, Anne. If someone attacked you, I would do (and have done) the same.Yep please ignore it, but first Anne will you be brave enough to answer my question?
If you do not feel that this thread has any value, by all means ignore it!
This is the only photograph taken of the group ... actually this is an enlarged part of the only photograph taken
(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article508717.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/40B2CBCE-A873-C917-29E8380C784C42C7-508717.jpg)
Notice the blue nipples .... faded out on some copies .... I wonder why that happened? ..... who did that?
Mystery ! Why does a certain mod encourage poor hare-brained ideas combined with permanent attacks on whoever mocks them ?
That production has nothing to do with imagination.
I know the same mod will erase this post. Welcome !
Sadie, the image to which you refer wasn't taken as a photo. It was an image taken from a video recording taken from a moving car thus the poor quality.That's OK John. The proprtions show well enough ... and in my posts it is the proportions I am on about ... not whether she has a tiny pimple on her chin. 8(0(*
That's OK John. The proprtions show well enough ... and in my posts it is the proportions I am on about ... not whether she has a tiny pimple on her chin. 8(0(*
That's OK John. The proprtions show well enough ... and in my posts it is the proportions I am on about ... not whether she has a tiny pimple on her chin. 8(0(*
You will find that the real image of Bushra was doctored Sadie, guess by whom? A clue... Barcelonayou are talking in riddles now, John
you are talking in riddles now, John
Whats Barcelona got to do with it?
Posts were only removed for personal comments and attacks, Anne. If someone attacked you, I would do (and have done) the same.
If you do not feel that this thread has any value, by all means ignore it!
Yes they did show well enough to the trained eye. To someone like me .... and I am not alone .... who often draws portraits by shadows alone, dark and light areas.... no lines.
Do the proportions show well enough, though?
When the facial features seem blurred and spread, how is it possible to compare proportions?
How do you ascertain where a feature........say the nose or eye.... ends, or how close together eyes are or the depth of the upper lip?
Doesn`t the i.d. rather depend on being able to compare where features start and end on the face?
Edited to add...........The technology is available to make these comparisons. Why wouldn`t it have been done already, professionally?
You will find that the real image of Bushra was doctored Sadie, guess by whom? A clue... BarcelonaIf you are intimating that metodo 3 (or whatever their name is) deliberately presented that photo, that is a serious accusation, John.
Yes they did show well enough to the trained eye. To someone like me .... and I am not alone .... who often draws portraits by shadows alone, dark and light areas.... no lines.
I can tell you unequivically that the girl on the wo/mans back is NOT Bushra. The proportions are totally wrong ... as are cetain highlights on the face.
And I can also tell you that the proportions are remarkably like Madeleines , but I cannot be so certain about her because many children might have the same eye to nose and relative upper lip proprtions as Madeleine.
But the little girl aint Bushra.
Its a shame that the frame from the video film is so distorted. My eyes are not that good and I do not have Sadie's artistic training, but it does appear that the beautiful little Bushra girl has a shorter space between her nose and top lip, she also has more of a downturn to her eyes and less pink lips, than the video clip, which is not a good image. It would be good if someone could edit the image to be clearer, but I think it has been tried.I dont think it is a video clip Anna. I think it is a much magnified part of a longish distance photograph. If it were a video clip, then there would be other images and there are no other images !
'Ignoring' this thread is a poor option to offer
Members are pointing out why they feel it has no value and you should offer a reason for thinking it has
How, for instance, do you suggest members could respond to sadie's taunts of them being "not brave enough" and "too chicken" to answer the unanswerable question she poses ?
How, exactly, are we meant to determine if the 'proportions' on the grainy screen grab of little Bushra are the same as those on her photograph ? ( come to think of it, how did sadie do that ? ... what scientific method did she use when coming to the conclusion that the little girl is DEFINATELY NOT bushra ? )
Since you have taken the position of defending the 'value' this thread ( and sadie's theory on Bushra ) perhaps you'd like to address the main thrust of it
... that the grainy screen grab is not Bushra at all ... that it is probably Madeleine ... and the person carrying her is not her mother, it is a bloke in a pair of comedy boobs with blue marker pen drawn round the nipples
Are you defending the 'value' of that observation ? ... or are you merely defending the right of any member to post any insupportable nonsense regardless of how much it diminishes the credibility of the forum ?
Its a shame that the frame from the video film is so distorted. My eyes are not that good and I do not have Sadie's artistic training, but it does appear that the beautiful little Bushra girl has a shorter space between her nose and top lip, she also has more of a downturn to her eyes and less pink lips, than the video clip, which is not a good image. It would be good if someone could edit the image to be clearer, but I think it has been tried.Additionally Anna, the little girl has the alert look that Madeleine has ... an interest in everything.
I dont think it is a video clip Anna. I think it is a much magnified part of a longish distance photograph. If it were a video clip, then there would be other images and there are no other images !
Thankyou for giving Madeleine the couple of minutes needed to compare the proportions. No-one else that I have noticed has bothered.
Bushra is such a beautiful little girl, isn't she? Madeleine too.
That stance is rather insulting.... There is no purpose served by comparing the incomparable, simply to satisfy your sense of entitlement.Well Anna had a go at it, even if you are finding excuses not to.
The "upper lip distance" issue could be explained by the pulled down top- lip expression quite common in small children...........as is the pursed lip pout, which shortens the upper lip; similarly common.
It is only by comparing images of similar sharpness and facial expression that any judgement is possible i.m.o.
That stance is rather insulting.... There is no purpose served by comparing the incomparable, simply to satisfy your sense of entitlement.I am sorry Carew, I just noticed this. I think that you are grasping at straws but at least you are in agreement about the length of the upper lip.
The "upper lip distance" issue could be explained by the pulled down top- lip expression quite common in small children...........as is the pursed lip pout, which shortens the upper lip; similarly common.
It is only by comparing images of similar sharpness and facial expression that any judgement is possible i.m.o.
Well Anna had a go at it, even if you are finding excuses not to.
I am sorry Carew, I just noticed this. I think that you are grasping at straws but at least you are in agreement about the length of the upper lip.
You have looked, my mistake
No...........I gave a reason as to why the upper lip proportion you gave as a justification for your view is not valid.I will agree with that, facial expressions DO alter proportions.
I must have made a comparison to make the point.......facial expressions alter proportions.
I will agree with that, facial expressions DO alter proportions.
But the highlights and shadows give absolutely NO indication of anything other than an alert but relaxed face, so it seems facial expressions such as you mention can be safely ruled out
(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/26/maddiespotted_narrowweb__300x540,0.jpg)
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/26/maddiespotted_narrowweb__300x540,0.jpg
http://img.welt.de/img/vermischtes/crop101083848/8018727786-ci3x2l-w620/maddiee-DW-Vermischtes-ZINAT.jpg
(http://img.welt.de/img/vermischtes/crop101083848/8018727786-ci3x2l-w620/maddiee-DW-Vermischtes-ZINAT.jpg)
(http://www.exposay.com/celebrity-photos/bouchra-benaissa-bouchra-benaissa-is-the-3-year-old-moroccan-girl-that-was-mistaken-for-madeleine-mccann-missing-4-year-old-b-14j4pM.jpg)
http://www.exposay.com/celebrity-photos/bouchra-benaissa-bouchra-benaissa-is-the-3-year-old-moroccan-girl-that-was-mistaken-for-madeleine-mccann-missing-4-year-old-b-14j4pM.jpg
Vertical proportions to measure:
Eyes to (end of) nose ... compared ... to (end of) nose to lip
Please compare Madeleines proportions to carried girls proportions .... then compare Bushras proportions to the carried girls proportions
The little girl being carried is NOT Bushra, but is remarkably like Madeleine. The long upper lip gives it away. Proportions all wrong for Bushra. It is there before your very eyes.
Case made.
I think you raise some very good points, icabod, and it is important to address them. We do want discussion to be meaningful and valid.
As far as what you describe as 'taunts' go, or comments or posts one feels are of little value, one is under no obligation to respond to them. In fact I believe the less emotive and personal post are, the better. That is just my opinion.
As to the content of this particular thread and how I myself should respond, I personally do not know enough about proportions and so on as to be able to make a meaningful comment. I do know that Sadie is qualified in technical drawing and art, and was a professional engineer for many years, hence her interest in the photographs. I myself know nothing of these subjects and don't feel that I have to put in comments simply to 'justify' the thread.
I respect you very much for wanting quality discussions and threads, icabod, and for stating the fact. I am of the same mind. Bear in mind, too, however, that we all have certain topics that we focus on because of our individual knowledge or interests, which are varied. We all bring something different here and that is partly what makes this forum so interesting. There is plenty variety in thread topics also, and so I don't think that we should all feel able or obligated to have to comment on things we are not interested in or don't know about, just because they are there.
I personally did not make any postings whatsoever, for example, on that very long thread of Dhingra's, good as the thing was, because my scientific knowledge is very minimal and I was not able to fully appreciate the discussion.
And I was not being flippant when I suggested that Anne ignore this thread. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be to say that we should focus on the positive and build up the threads we believe to be meaningful and which hopefully will lead us somewhere in this case. It is 'survival of the fittest' as far as these threads are concerned, and we can either attempt to create substantial discussion with some thing, or if that does not work, move on.
You will find that the real image of Bushra was doctored Sadie, guess by whom? A clue... Barcelona
Good post SH. And may I point out that there are plenty of theories posted on this forum which some people consider to be fantastical, and totally outlandish - whilst others embrace them and agree with them But no-one suggests that the threads be removed.
The suggestion that anyone can purport any theory/opinion they like on the McCann case except Sadie - is obviously wrong. Sadie is just as entitled to express her honestly-held opinions as anyone else. No-one here is being forced to read them or agree with them.
Good post SH. And may I point out that there are plenty of theories posted on this forum which some people consider to be fantastical, and totally outlandish - whilst others embrace them and agree with them But no-one suggests that the threads be removed.
The suggestion that anyone can purport any theory/opinion they like on the McCann case except Sadie - is obviously wrong. Sadie is just as entitled to express her honestly-held opinions as anyone else. No-one here is being forced to read them or agree with them.
I will agree with that, facial expressions DO alter proportions.
But the highlights and shadows give absolutely NO indication of anything other than an alert but relaxed face, so it seems facial expressions such as you mention can be safely ruled out
Do these blog entries help?
http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/biometric-analysis-madeleine-in-morroco.html
http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/blog-post_8777.html
http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/baby-bushra.html
Lot of other links on right hand side
I do not feel that you are in a position to safely rule anything out as if it were a fact.Carew, I tend to agree with you. Nothing should be ruled out. That is why what i am saying should be considered.
Carew, I tend to agree with you. Nothing should be ruled out. That is why what i am saying should be considered.
Rejected if there are sound reasons to do so.
BUT, I can tell you that with my experienced eye, I know that the little girl is not pulling her upper lip down.. To do so would affect almost her whole face ... and would lengthen her nose as well as her upper lip
Get a mirror and try it, if you dont believe me .
Out of curiousity Benice, do you agree with them ?
Do you agree with sadie that the little girl in the grainy image is 'definately NOT' Bushra and that she is probably Madeleine ?
Do you agree with sadie that the person carrying ( Madeleine ) is a man wearing comedy breasts with blue marker nipples ?
In fact ... does ANYONE here agree with that ?
Is there a single member who agrees with sadie and believes her observations are probably accurate ?
What is wrong with her being blonde? Fair hair blue eyes is a Nordic trait. So all you genii check your history and see the range the Vikings operated over in terms of raiding, trading, and colonisation. It includes Morocco nuff said.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2147.0Wspam. Hands up !
You should keep this self-glorification to your own dedicated forums.agree it is utter nonsense and bizzare and not at all normal imo
No offence.
Of all thehundredsthousands of mistaken sightings, it is difficult to understand why this one is topping the charts.
It is so obviously not of the missing child.
It's the blurred face in the picture that looks like a two-year-old Madeleine which confuses people. It must be remembered that it was late August 2007 when Spanish tourist Clara Peres filmed the scene and Madeleine would have been well over 4 years-of-age by then while Bushra wasn't even three.Good analysis.
...
Did you not watch the Al Jazeera documentary yet Sadie?
Do so immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEaDIhYABIg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEaDIhYABIg)
Well that seems conclusive!
This thread should now be archived imo of course 8(>((
WHY archived? Have I missed something over the last few days??
Señorita Torres passed by this parent carrying the child, she was a metre away from her yet never identified her. She claims to have been very aware of Madeleine's abduction when she photographed the group in Morocco (four months after Madeleine disappeared). If she thought it was Madeleine why didn't she and her boyfriend stop and check?
Question is, how did her CD of photos get into the hands of the worlds press? Who made a few job on the back of Bushra and her family which left the youngster mortified and scared to go out?