A Thread To Discuss Alfred's Theory in detail.

[Alice Purjorick]

One would have thought that given the opportunity to discuss your theory in great detail, it would have been easily pointed out just exactly where you are wrong and why it wouldn't work.

No-one has done that.

No-one seems to be capable of doing that.

Instead we have had more of the usual obfuscation and drivel which seems to pass as humour: but no-one has as yet been able to contradict a single word of your theory.

Congratulations.

By that do you mean you believe Alf's no theory theory?
He has yet to state how the abductor got in apart from it could have been through a window the front door or the patio doors and the Portuguese cops were so dim they did not see the evidence of break abduction etc that was before their very eyes.
He will have to do better than that to convince the man on the street, your snide comments not withstanding.
The theory is like Euclidean geometry!

[Brietta]

By that do you mean you believe Alf's no theory theory?
He has yet to state how the abductor got in apart from it could have been through a window the front door or the patio doors and the Portuguese cops were so dim they did not see the evidence of break abduction etc that was before their very eyes.
He will have to do better than that to convince the man on the street, your snide comments not withstanding.
The theory is like Euclidean geometry!

I have never been the least bit minded to have my intelligence insulted by idiotic theories crushed by the weight of evidence to the contrary. 

Each one more desperate than the last; but each one believed as if it were holy writ; I'm not sure if smuggling the child into the old woman's coffin was the pièce de résistance or the juggling between the back of the couch, the garden and the parents' bedroom. 
You pays your money and you makes your choice.

Alfred's theory has the benefit of being realistic, believable and most important of all ... workable.

[Wonderfulspam]

I have never been the least bit minded to have my intelligence insulted by idiotic theories crushed by the weight of evidence to the contrary. 

Each one more desperate than the last; but each one believed as if it were holy writ; I'm not sure if smuggling the child into the old woman's coffin was the pièce de résistance or the juggling between the back of the couch, the garden and the parents' bedroom. 
You pays your money and you makes your choice.

Alfred's theory has the benefit of being realistic, believable and most important of all ... workable.

So realistic, believable & workable is it, that he can't actually explain what it is.

Brilliant!

[Alfred R Jones]

One would have thought that given the opportunity to discuss your theory in great detail, it would have been easily pointed out just exactly where you are wrong and why it wouldn't work.

No-one has done that.

No-one seems to be capable of doing that.

Instead we have had more of the usual obfuscation and drivel which seems to pass as humour: but no-one has as yet been able to contradict a single word of your theory.

Congratulations.

Thank you, my thoughts exactly

[Alice Purjorick]

I have never been the least bit minded to have my intelligence insulted by idiotic theories crushed by the weight of evidence to the contrary. 

Each one more desperate than the last; but each one believed as if it were holy writ; I'm not sure if smuggling the child into the old woman's coffin was the pièce de résistance or the juggling between the back of the couch, the garden and the parents' bedroom. 
You pays your money and you makes your choice.

Alfred's theory has the benefit of being realistic, believable and most important of all ... workable.

I cannot see the relevance of the content of your post to mine.
You are wittering about things I have never mentioned.
I accept I may ask questions you and he are incapable of answering or unwilling to answer.
Leave it at that
G'night

[Alfred R Jones]

I cannot see the relevance of the content of your post to mine.
You are wittering about things I have never mentioned.
I accept I may ask questions you and he are incapable of answering or unwilling to answer.
Leave it at that
G'night

You may ask questions that I don't know the answers to, but there is no genuinely asked question I am unwilling to answer, can the same be said for you?

[misty]

Can yo prove all the names came for the Portuguese, and your argument holds no weight, since if names of those questioned have been released, why hasn't SY simply said when and were the mccans and co., were questioned.

It doesn't take much , does it ?


As to changing testimonies, the mccanns and associates accounts changed, and please don't try denying that.

SY statement with names of witnesses?
No, didn't think so. So predictable.

[stephen25000]

SY statement with names of witnesses?
No, didn't think so. So predictable.

Both sides have leaked like sieves.

As to changing accounts of events and alterations. FACT.

[slartibartfast]

Both sides have leaked like sieves.

As to changing accounts of events and alterations. FACT.

You have to remember, when one side leaks, it is a terrible disgrace. When the other does, it is just setting the record straight.

[stephen25000]

You have to remember, when one side leaks, it is a terrible disgrace. When the other does, it is just setting the record straight.

Of course Slartibartfast. How could I think otherwise.

[Alice Purjorick]

You may ask questions that I don't know the answers to, but there is no genuinely asked question I am unwilling to answer, can the same be said for you?

I always lie 

[faithlilly]

I always lie 

Of course you are Alice ! Aren't all sceptics ?

[sadie]

You call them pointers sadie. I call them disperate imaginings glued together by wishful thinking.

Call them what YOU like Faith.

The fact remains that there were a large number of pointers/indicators that there was an abduction.


1)  The apartment was being watched

2)  A man was taking photographs of young children at Sagres beach

3)  The window and shutters were opened

4)  Sightings in several places that ring true, including photos in two that are, almost without doubt, Madeleine

5)  Both these photos /videos were in globally important Canabis/ Hashish / Kif / Hemp etc growing or processing places.
 
In the Rif Mountains of Morocco they grow over 50% of the Worlds supply of Hemp/ kif. 
In Molenbeek St John [Brussels] they process most of the Worlds supply of the basic stuff into Canabis hashish etc.

6)  A third sighting was in Leh, high up in the Himalayas where [IIRC] 70% of the Hashish used in India, enters the country

7)  Numerous sighting especially in Malta and Gozo. 
Let me remind you that Roderick Robinson was extradicted from Gozo, Malta.  I wish to make it plain that I am not accusing RR of anything, but merely pointing out that the only person extradicted has been from Gozo, Malta where there were so many sightings

8)  A run of 8 children abducted at roughly 2 year intervals over 16 years [1991 - 2007 ]  Alll likely to have been stranger abducted in PT. 
These started in the Porto /Guimares / Vila Nova de Famalicao area.  A man, an elite, was reportedly taken in by the Police, questioned, and released with a warning [in about 1999]

9)  Two/ three abductions in the proximity to PdL [Sept 2004 - Madeleine May 2007].  All three within about 20 miles
.
10)  Then there are the numerous things that I have found out about the man I believe to be the mastermind ... and what happened after May 3rd 2007.  I have at least 20 pointers, some very strong.  I am not able to disclose these, because they have gone into SY and may be sub Judice.

11)  Finally, I believe that I saw images of a little girl that was Madeleine about 3 years ago.  I think she is still alive.

12)  And there were the fag ends on the balcony block 4, immediately opposite 5a

13)  Jane Tanner saw a mann carrying a child at a relavent time.


Oh, and of course,

14)  SY are investigating abduction.  That is a very persuasive reason to believe in abduction.



Try and be open minded, Faith.  Not remain stuck in a rut with your eyes closed.

[stephen25000]

Yet again.

Prove the apartment was being watched.

and why would you watch somewhere in the broad daylight, if you intended to go in at night ???

and again, NO PROOF, the windows or shutters were open or moved.

[faithlilly]

Yet again.

Prove the apartment was being watched.

and why would you watch somewhere in the broad daylight, if you intended to go in at night ???

and again, NO PROOF, the windows or shutters were open or moved.

It's like knitting fog Stephen. Then again if sadie doesn't mind looking ridiculous who are we to object ?