Weather, Tides, Moon etc near PdL around the time of the abduction.

[Redblossom]

Thanks CG.  I did see Icabods comments attacking the poster rather than the post.  I thought better of him, but seems he has joined the peeps who continually infer that I have dementia or alzheimers.  I have noticed, they particularly try and pull me down when I post something that makes Amarals theory look a likely farce.

I know that I have scored when they do it.

But, I also know that it is a classic propaganda move to say something over and over.  After a while the lie becomes a "truth"

[Thanks to John/ Admin for removing Icabods comments.]

I am wondering why none of them have helped with understanding tides etc. 
As usual, they have drowned the topic out by changing subjects and sneering at me. 

I know that my thoughts are only my thoughts, but they are carefully thought out and fit thus far.  They also fit the next stage of the abduction  ... perfectly.

Would be good if they argued the points and put some possibilities forward ... but they never do .... cos they haven't got any ideas ... just blame The Mccanns ... based on lies, feelings and myths.


Seems several are determined that Madeleine stays lost for ever.  I wonder why?

people disagreeing with you never means that they a) support Mr Amarals theory or b) that you must be onto  something real or big and as you accuse they try to shut you up to conceal what you are discovering LOL!
Can you actually see what you are saying here? And in your previous posts? That people here are in the know of what happened and must stop you at all costs revealing it. Its crazy and its paranoid and  IMO should not be allowed that you accuse fellow posters of complicitness in something, in fact it beggars all belief

 

rather presumptious and arrogant of you to decide the reasons why people dont agree with you.

Perhaps its just because they think its a load of crap in their opinion, or they just do not agree or understand any central point being maken

As for your insipid accusations and paranoia and fuzzy logic  that some people do not want a missing child to be found, that is, well beyond the pail at best

And you are one of the last people entitled to lecture about attacking the post and not the poster as you have attacked many people over time and in very personal intrusive ways, and not the message, hypocritical from where Im sitting
And if Icab has decided to leave here because of his/her frustration with nonsensical and far fetched posts, and any expectation they should be taken seriously, thats a sad day as he is a valuable poster


Oh and why should anyone feel the need to help out with studying bloody tides as if that would prove anything at all, youhave a notion, thats it,you will have to come up with something more solid than that, err like some kind of  evidence, starting with any that Madeleine was abducted

[sadie]

I think I have my connection back.  Our modem was running really hot for the past few days and today is cooler, thank goodness.  Could overheating have caused the problem?

The one were she claims to have walked past two people on the same side of the road the dimensions of which would indicate she would be in their faces, without them seeing her, yet at the same time she is able to see a man carrying a child and what that child is wearing from what was originally 50 metres then 5 metres that the two men didn't see and one of whom said he was at the other side of the street.

Yep she was fairly close.  From the Cutting Edge video

she indicated that they were standing on the edge of the pavement, actually over the kerb.  One of the statements (I forget which, but I have just read it) also says that one man was in the road and the other on the pavement.  And this was where the alleyway between 5A and the tapas reception was.  Plenty of space there.  She could have looped well round them easily without getting very close, but yep she was still fairly close.  Agreed.

However two men were intent in conversation and quite possibly looking at a sleeping / half awake little boy in his push chair.  Very possible that neither Gerry nor Jez saw her.

The one who went past an alleged open shutter 4 times across the car park and didnt see that.

Can we be accurate about this please?  Let's do this as factually as possible.  There is some difference in timings but not a lot considering they were on holiday and would not be looking at their watches or clocks all the time.



After Janes sighting :
 
Only 3 of the tapas group went across this car park.



Jane went anticlockwise twice (9.17ish + 9'35 -9.40ish) .. and clockwise once 9.20ish) = three times total
Matt, talking to Russ, went anticlockwise once (9.25ish) .  Alone,  went iclockwise once (9.28ish) = twice total
Russ, talking to Matt, went anticlockwise once (9.35/9.40ish).  Alone went clockwise 9.55ish= twice total

So a total of 7 trips, either clockwise or anticlockwise, along the route Tapas reataurant to respective apartments.  I think the ones where people were chatting can be ignored as their attention would largely be on each other.

Five of the trips were unaccompanied so in these cases the persons attention would not be destracted by talking.


Now that I am back on the internet, I intend to do an indepth analysis of how much anyone looking forward as they walked would / would not have seen the blinds/shutters raised.  It will take me time as i have other things going on in my life and there is quite a bit of work in that.

The one who identified Murat (along with the others) then changed her mind when it was obvious it wasn't him. .

Citation please Albertini, cos the only think that I can find is in Amarals book ... and he is a recognised liar. 
Oh and in rabidly anti forums etc. that hate Jane Tanner and The Mccanns and are blatently pushing Amarals view.

Time will tell whether SY are "the experts". After all they have had what, two and half years (more than twice what the PJ had with the original case), reviewing this case and found not a jot of evidence that has resulted in anything substantial to support abduction.

How do you know?  Wait and see.

And as i keep saying the fact they are not suspects now DOES NOT automatically mean they will never be suspects as the case progresses.

Let's see what the completed review and re investigation finishes with and then see.

Yep, I agree with you on that one.  Hopefully the guy isn't an untouchable.  I think he might be.

[sadie]

people disagreeing with you never means that they a) support Mr Amarals theory or b) that you must be onto  something real or big and as you accuse they try to shut you up to conceal what you are discovering LOL!
Can you actually see what you are saying here? And in your previous posts? That people here are in the know of what happened and must stop you at all costs revealing it. Its crazy and its paranoid and  IMO should not be allowed that you accuse fellow posters of complicitness in something, in fact it beggars all belief

 

rather presumptious and arrogant of you to decide the reasons why people dont agree with you.

Perhaps its just because they think its a load of crap in their opinion, or they just do not agree or understand any central point being maken

As for your insipid accusations and paranoia and fuzzy logic  that some people do not want a missing child to be found, that is, well beyond the pail at best

And you are one of the last people entitled to lecture about attacking the post and not the poster as you have attacked many people over time and in very personal intrusive ways, and not the message, hypocritical from where Im sittingAnd if Icab has decided to leave here because of his/her frustration with nonsensical and far fetched posts, and any expectation they should be taken seriously, thats a sad day as he is a valuable poster


Oh and why should anyone feel the need to help out with studying bloody tides as if that would prove anything at all, youhave a notion, thats it,you will have to come up with something more solid than that, err like some kind of  evidence, starting with any that Madeleine was abducted

Nobody need do anything Red.  Funny attitude you have!

Your attacks on me are recorded in another forum (some of them, but not the bedbugs one !  LOL!.]  Screen shots were taken because they were so abusive. 

Every jot of evidence that is produced indicating that Madeleine was abducted gets trashed by you especially.  The stronger the evidence / pointers, the more vicious have been your responces to the point of incoherence.

Why dont you try and justify your opposition to some of the facts (and theories) that are posted instead of resorting to abuse?

Logically argue your way out.


I cannot see why my posting the weather conditions, the tides, the moons path etc. should upset you.  May I suggest that if you cannot answer my posts with something constructive, then it might be better to just walk away from it all, instead of ranting.

They are facts and should be used as such.  If you can see no use for them, then I am sorry

Some might find them very useful.



And as for you thinking that I am saying that some on here are in the know ~ well some might be.  It is a recognised fact that perps join forums to watch what is going on and to subtledly alter perceptions.  Doesn't happen all th etime, but it does happen.

When posters say things like The Mccanns did it, or that Madeleine IS dead, then you begin to wonder.  Many times anti posters here have said things like that.  How do they know?



Personally I can find no way that the Mccanns would or could have done it, and I strongly believe in Innocent until proven guilty

Kate and Gerry did not have any of the necessary criteria that a perp would have

NO Motive to do it.  Their love and caring is obvious from numerous videos of the family
NO previous History of any crime
NO means, or opportunity to do it.
NO character indications they might do something like this.

Oh, I nearly forgot:  Their behaviour since has been examplorary.  They have tried every avenue they could to find Madeleine.  Yep, they have made mistakes employing fraudsters, but unhappily fraudsters feed off people who are disabled, as the Mccanns were by their distress and worry

People who badger for the case to be re-opened with SY at the helm, are not likely to have been the perps.  Think about it Red.



Please show me I am wrong, then I will reconsider.


So far NO anti / sceptic has given any pointer / facts that the Mccanns could be involved apart from your feelings and Amarals make believe.  Does he have anything except a feeling and a not so good story?  He has yet to present it if he has.

In the Madeleine case  Nothing, Zilch, nada, NO evidence ~ the same as in the Joana Cipriano case.



And as we all know Amaral is a proven liar twice over in PT Courts.  He tells a good story.  Is he causing people to languish in jail, convicting people on stories alone?  If so, he should be tried and locked up for a very long time.  IMO

[Benice]

Excellent post Sadie.   Spot on.