beiherhund | 12 points
Where is the evidence that the McCann sketch is based on more than one suspect? I'm sick of people claiming it is, not providing evidence, and then downvoting those who doubt their claim.King_of_the_sidewalk | 0 points
Here you go.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24539403
safetythrowaway1234 | 2 points
If you scroll down to the efits, the caption says:
E-fits of men police want to trace (Top row l-r): Sighted at 22:00 carrying girl; Seen near McCanns' apartment; Charity collector; (Bottom row l-r) Different image of man sighted at 22:00; Seen near McCanns' apartment; Seen in Ocean club resort on 3 May
The two sketches in question are top and bottom left. It only says the bottom is it is a different image of the man sighted at 10pm
King_of_the_sidewalk | 0 points
It says top l-r and bottom l-r.
beiherhund | 2 points
Yeah top image on the left is based on the same sighting as bottom image on the left
King_of_the_sidewalk | 0 points
How did you come to that conclusion?
beiherhund | 1 points
Because it says... top left to right, bottom left to right . Guess which efits are on bottom left and top left?!
And then goes on to say that these two efits are based on the same 22:00 sighting. Have you read nothing I've posted?
safetythrowaway1234 | 1 points
I could be mistaken, but I believe that means "left to right" and it goes on to describe each efit from left to right.
beiherhund | 1 points
What exactly are you referring to? The article consistently says these efits are considered to be of the same person.
released two e-fits of a man
Several people are said to have given the same man's name after e-fit images and a reconstruction were shown.
E-fits of men police want to trace (Top row l-r): Sighted at 22:00 carrying girl ; Seen near McCanns' apartment; Charity collector; (Bottom row l-r) Different image of man sighted at 22:00 ; Seen near McCanns' apartment; Seen in Ocean club resort on 3 May
King_of_the_sidewalk | 2 points
Scotland Yard suggested the case bore hallmarks of a "pre-planned abduction" - a number of men possibly carrying out reconnaissance had been seen by witnesses
beiherhund | 1 points
The leading theory of which is about a gang of thieves.
Regardless, you're missing the point. No one is disputing there are multiple suspects.
King_of_the_sidewalk | 0 points
"If anyone was in Praia da Luz around the time of Madeleine's abduction and has not spoken to the Metropolitan Police, or if they know who any of the e-fits might be" states that these e-fits are of multiple people not just one person.
beiherhund | 1 points
states that these e-fits are of multiple people not just one person.
As you say, they released six efits. Two of these efits are of discussion on this subreddit and per that article you linked, are believed to be of the same person. The other efits are based on different testimony and are not believed to be of the same man and are not believed to be the Podesta brothers.
King_of_the_sidewalk | 0 points
I missed the part in the article that said "they are not believed to be the podesta brothers" Where does it say the name podesta in the atricle for you to verify that?
beiherhund | 1 points
I'm talking about the four efits that aren't being used by pizza gate from that article. The key word I used was other . Is anyone here claiming that those other four efits are the podesta's?
I said they're not believed to be the podesta's as I'm yet to see someone claim the other four efits are the podesta's.
Just to make sure you get the point, here is the image of the six efits: http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/410/media/images/70493000/jpg/_70493984_untitled-1.jpg.
I said that the other four, I.e. the four not in question here, are not believed to be the podesta's. Can you show me a claim that says otherwise?
King_of_the_sidewalk | 0 points
"released 2 e-fits of a man" You filed to mention that the article released 6 e-fits.
beiherhund | 2 points
No I didn't, that's in my last quote above. Additionally, that quote relates specifically to the two efits of discussion on this subreddit:
Police, who outlined their latest findings in the search for Madeleine on the BBC One's Crimewatch, released two e-fits of a man seen carrying a child in Praia da Luz at 22:00 on the night Madeleine went missing.
Relate that to the quote from earlier:
E-fits of men police want to trace (Top row l-r): Sighted at 22:00 carrying girl ; Seen near McCanns' apartment; Charity collector; (Bottom row l-r) Different image of man sighted at 22:00 ; Seen near McCanns' apartment; Seen in Ocean club resort on 3 May
King_of_the_sidewalk | 0 points
Right so 2 e-fits are of the same person. There are 6 e-fits. Nowhere does it state all 6 of these e-fits are of the same person.
beiherhund | 1 points
And no where did I claim that was the case. We're only talking about the two efits used in pizza gate ....jeez
beiherhund | 1 points
At least you finally admitted the two efits in question are of the same person. God knows where you got the idea that I said all six were...
Rezingreenbowl | 4 points | Nov 19 2016 00:01:23
There is no proof. Because they are infact efits of 1 person.
permalink
AStrangeLooop | 2 points | Nov 19 2016 00:04:32
And on top of that, why would the Podesta brothers themselves carry out the kidnapping. Sounds way too risky for people that have so much to lose and have supposedly been involved in child abduction for a long time.
permalink
Rezingreenbowl | 1 points | Nov 19 2016 00:10:34
Exactly. It's pretty ridiculous if you actually stop frothing at the mouth and take a sec to think about it.
permalink
JordanESK | 8 points | Nov 19 2016 00:19:18
Consider the parents were loaning their daughter out to elites to be raped after she had been drugged and left home alone for these elites to use her. Suppose they decided to just take her, knowing full well the McCanns wouldn't be able to point out who did it without implicating themselves. It would explain why the mother screamed "They've taken her!" when she discovered that Madeleine was gone.
permalink
beiherhund | 2 points | Nov 19 2016 01:10:53
Interesting. I'm definitely all for speculating but the number of people here who keep claiming things as evidence just because someone else has spouted the same shit is disheartening.
I feel like there really could be something to this pizzagate business but we're impatient and coming up with spurious links that make us appear as crazies.
permalink
JordanESK | 1 points | Nov 19 2016 01:19:06
I think we just need to avoid the satanism, occult aspect of it.
permalink
CredAndBercuses | 1 points | Nov 19 2016 01:27:00
That's like trying to sell pizza without any cheese. It's part of it, inextricable. But good luck I guess.
permalink
beiherhund | 1 points | Nov 19 2016 01:32:40
Hmm I'm not so sure myself after having seen the weird shit at Bohemian Grove. Though it might be worth laying off that aspect until further evidence is uncovered linking the two.
permalink
JordanESK | 1 points | Nov 19 2016 01:38:09
Oh, it's definitely real, but it hurts our cause to present the two issues together.
permalink
Rezingreenbowl | 1 points | Nov 19 2016 00:31:27
Top many assumptions and not enough evidence.
permalink
JordanESK | 4 points | Nov 19 2016 00:48:55
The red flag for me is the mom who specifically said "They've taken her." Who is "they"? I think the parents know more than they're letting on.
permalink
Rezingreenbowl | 1 points | Nov 19 2016 00:57:04
Maybe, but unless you've lost a child in such a way you have no idea what the normal reaction is. Imagine the panic of realizing your child has been taken, anyone who says they would be able to think clearly and rationally is deluded.
permalink
JordanESK | 1 points | Nov 19 2016 01:06:38
Yeah, like you said, this is all speculation. I'm taking the approach of basically turning this into two cases. One in which the parents are guilty and one where they aren't. It's the only way, to me, to really rationally explain how she disappeared.
permalink
Rezingreenbowl | 2 points | Nov 19 2016 01:44:39
For the record I believe the parents accidently killed her and covered it up
permalink
JordanESK | 1 points | Nov 19 2016 02:13:37
I hear that theory a lot, and it makes sense. If it weren't for the Podesta brothers matching the efits, I would go with that explanation. There's debate about whether the efits are the same person, but the distinct mole above Tony's eye, and the weight differences between both efits gives me pause to chalk it up to that theory.
permalink
M1GHTYEAGLE | 1 points | Nov 19 2016 07:33:47
By pointing out the mistake of assumption, you yourself have committed it thrice-fold.
permalink
ghochpa | 1 points | Nov 19 2016 04:23:03
Interesting in context of just reading a list of questions the mother supposedly was asked and refused to answer...one of which was "why didn't the twins wake up when the room was searched, or they were moved..." seemed to imply that they were drugged.....
permalink