What are the discrepancies between the McCann's and the friend's statements?

[Mr Gray]

No. Nor did I say anything remotely like that.
Next question.

the next one was a statement not a question

[Robittybob1]

The whole exercise is only repeatable at accurate full scale model level. Or on site.
All that has been proved is that under certain conditions of which we have not been fully appraised the window can be slid back and a pillow passed through it. Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships it has been decreed less or more oh yes that's how it was done. Conclusion reached and cast in stone on half a tale.
I am give or take 1900 tall. I can reach an object with both hands approximately 1000 in front of me provided it is at waist height. I doubt I could dead lift the equivalent of a car battery at that distance from that height.
Hint as I have posted before: have a look at bloody good test book on ergonomics it is relevant If you don't think it is you will come up with the wrong result.
This little "window scenario" rapidly becomes a conspiracy theory because no one seems willing to look at the venture as whole under all the conditions that would have obtained at the time.
Certain assumptions have to be made about the construction, attitude and aspect of the window.

It seems your main objection is lifting the weight of Madeleine through a window.  If it was an abduction through the window it would have to be a two person operation. Your concerns are lessened considerably if there was a person on the inside passing a sleepy child through the window toward you on the outside.

[jassi]

It seems your main objection is lifting the weight of Madeleine through a window.  If it was an abduction through the window it would have to be a two person operation. Your concerns are lessened considerably if there was a person on the inside passing a sleepy child through the window toward you on the outside.

There is , of course, no evidence of one abductor, let alone two.

[Robittybob1]

There is , of course, no evidence of one abductor, let alone two.

It is more likely two rather than one. If it was an inside job using cleaners to leave the window unlocked the team could also have the key to the front door.  The team maybe totally unaware the sliding patio door was unlocked (this is because they weren't planning to use the patio door).
A third member could be the driver of the getaway car.
Note this scenario is not part of my theory but it could be useful in part.

[stephen25000]

It is more likely two rather than one. If it was an inside job using cleaners to leave the window unlocked the team could also have the key to the front door.  The team maybe totally unaware the sliding patio door was unlocked (this is because they weren't planning to use the patio door).
A third member could be the driver of the getaway car.

Or of course Rob, zero members.

[Robittybob1]

Or of course Rob, zero members.

My post was edited "Note this scenario is not part of my theory but it could be useful in part." 

[Robittybob1]

If we accept that the shutters were raised we then have to decide who raised them.

[Alice Purjorick]

It seems your main objection is lifting the weight of Madeleine through a window. If it was an abduction through the window it would have to be a two person operation. Your concerns are lessened considerably if there was a person on the inside passing a sleepy child through the window toward you on the outside.

Wrong!
But your idea of a person on the inside rather screws up some other details.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the mods and being awarded points for profanity or whatever:
My old granny used to say "there is more than one way to kill a cat ; you do not have to suck its brains out through its arse using a straw".

[faithlilly]

Wrong!
But your idea of a person on the inside rather screws up some other details.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the mods and being awarded points for profanity or whatever:
My old granny used to say "there is more than one way to kill a cat ; you do not have to suck its brains out through its arse using a straw".

Indeed 

[Robittybob1]

Wrong!
But your idea of a person on the inside rather screws up some other details.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the mods and being awarded points for profanity or whatever:
My old granny used to say "there is more than one way to kill a cat ; you do not have to suck its brains out through its arse using a straw".

In your previously posted post you said " Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships it has been decreed less or more oh yes that's how it was done. Conclusion reached and cast in stone on half a tale.
I am give or take 1900 tall. I can reach an object with both hands approximately 1000 in front of me provided it is at waist height. I doubt I could dead lift the equivalent of a car battery at that distance from that height.
Hint as I have posted before: have a look at bloody good test book on ergonomics it is relevant If you don't think it is you will come up with the wrong result."

That took up more than half the post so I said "It seems your main objection is lifting the weight of Madeleine through a window."  Thinking the equivalent weight of Madeleine was why you used the term "car battery".

[Alfie]

In your previously posted post you said " Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships it has been decreed less or more oh yes that's how it was done. Conclusion reached and cast in stone on half a tale.
I am give or take 1900 tall. I can reach an object with both hands approximately 1000 in front of me provided it is at waist height. I doubt I could dead lift the equivalent of a car battery at that distance from that height.
Hint as I have posted before: have a look at bloody good test book on ergonomics it is relevant If you don't think it is you will come up with the wrong result."

That took up more than half the post so I said "It seems your main objection is lifting the weight of Madeleine through a window."  Thinking the equivalent weight of Madeleine was why you used the term "car battery".

Pinning Alice down on anything he's written is akin to trying to nail jelly to a wall.  It's pointless, but nice try.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Wrong!
But your idea of a person on the inside rather screws up some other details.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the mods and being awarded points for profanity or whatever:
My old granny used to say "there is more than one way to kill a cat ; you do not have to suck its brains out through its arse using a straw".

I would have loved your granny!  lol

Shall I?.. ok so sombody goes into the apartment via???? and another one is out side opening the shutter..
ok.. yeah  could be done  but the BIG question is. WTF?

I think the shutters/window and whooshing story is a red herring. A fake entry point for a fake abduction in that scenario..IMO.

[Alice Purjorick]

In your previously posted post you said " Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships it has been decreed less or more oh yes that's how it was done. Conclusion reached and cast in stone on half a tale.
I am give or take 1900 tall. I can reach an object with both hands approximately 1000 in front of me provided it is at waist height. I doubt I could dead lift the equivalent of a car battery at that distance from that height.
Hint as I have posted before: have a look at bloody good test book on ergonomics it is relevant If you don't think it is you will come up with the wrong result."

That took up more than half the post so I said "It seems your main objection is lifting the weight of Madeleine through a window."  Thinking the equivalent weight of Madeleine was why you used the term "car battery".

So?
Which part of the first and last sentences do you find so difficult to comprehend.

All that has been proved is that under certain conditions of which we have not been fully appraised the window can be slid back and a pillow passed through it. Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships

This little "window scenario" rapidly becomes a conspiracy theory because no one seems willing to look at the venture as whole under all the conditions that would have obtained at the time.
Certain assumptions have to be made about the construction, attitude and aspect of the window.


That seems to me to clear enough to anyone who is not deliberately trying to be obtuse or in the case of Alfie goading.

[Robittybob1]

So?
Which part of the first and last sentences do you find so difficult to comprehend.

All that has been proved is that under certain conditions of which we have not been fully appraised the window can be slid back and a pillow passed through it. Without taking into consideration dead weights and positional relationships

This little "window scenario" rapidly becomes a conspiracy theory because no one seems willing to look at the venture as whole under all the conditions that would have obtained at the time.
Certain assumptions have to be made about the construction, attitude and aspect of the window.


That seems to me to clear enough to anyone who is not deliberately trying to be obtuse or in the case of Alfie goading.

We know the actual window, so we don't need make "assumptions .... about the construction, attitude and aspect of the window".
I would be "happy to look at the venture as whole under all the conditions that would have obtained at the time".

[Miss Taken Identity]

We know the actual window, so we don't need make "assumptions .... about the construction, attitude and aspect of the window".
I would be "happy to look at the venture as whole under all the conditions that would have obtained at the time".

Well, with all that knowledge we have to consider:
1. what is the build of the said 'abductor'
and how agile was he/she.
2. what did maddie weigh in at? how tall  and what angle would the 'abductor' be carryig Maddie out of the said window
3. was Maddie a dead weight?
4. why did Maddie not wake up during this heist?
she woke up many other nights...