tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post1149416990077662415..comments2024-02-04T19:08:45.476+00:00Comments on CRISTOBELL UNDECIDED: DEAR ZIGGY, WHO ARE YOU?Rosalinda Huttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comBlogger189125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-8135365210989829492017-03-06T10:08:33.184+00:002017-03-06T10:08:33.184+00:00Also for someone who is just a casual observer of ...Also for someone who is just a casual observer of the McCann case and not in any way connected to the McCanns I find it interesting that you found this post on the day it was written. So you obviously look on here most days and most likely ARE connected to the McCanns! Why else would someone have such a vested interest in this blog? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12105138881926871420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-85857532491543361532017-03-06T09:54:15.503+00:002017-03-06T09:54:15.503+00:00Do you know something that I have noticed in the l...Do you know something that I have noticed in the last ten years is that it's nearly all of the pro McCanns that resort to devious, rude and callous behaviour whilst the people who question the official story are labelled as trolls simply for pointing out facts. It's also nearly always the pro McCanns that use alter egos for commenting on blogs and YouTube, so any reasonable person would have to wonder why a genuine supporter of a poor couple who have had their daughter snatched by a paedophile would choose to use a fake name. Or choose to say some of the things their "supporters" have said I wrote the years including trolling a woman to death. So Ziggy you clearly have an agenda, just like Michael Walker, or looking4u2. Because any sane person looking at the facts without a bias opinion can see that Gerry and Kate have not been truthful and should finally give the people some answers to the many nagging questions regarding the disappearance of their daughter. And if they're unable to do this they should step out of the public eye because the whole case is a farce! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12105138881926871420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-79081306953465739742017-02-24T16:42:30.034+00:002017-02-24T16:42:30.034+00:00(Anonymous24 February 2017 at 13:40
As for your la... (Anonymous24 February 2017 at 13:40<br />As for your last point, from sender to receiver or from receiver to sender?)<br /> <br />Both.In my defence, I never asked those people to piss me off.<br /><br />Rather than address points individually up there ^^ I'll post link.<br /><br />I've read far too many supposed 'quotes' that have been attributed to people involved in the case, not least, the parents. I've also read the subsequent interpretations of those quotes by thousands of online bile - peddlars. <br /><br />I can ( as can you, dear reader) only hazard a guess as to what kind of chaos ensued on the night of May 3 2007.The shock of discovering the disappearance of a defenceless toddler far from home is horrendous enough, but who can really grasp the turmoil that was raging within each of the parents. I defy anyone to be word -perfect and have total (reliable) recall under such circumstances.It seems, however, that while level headed individuals can accept this fact, they are more than prepared to make the McCanns the exception to this rule. Exactly why they take this view doesn't seem to matter ; it's merely of secondary importance.To be fair to these anger junkies, they do try to justify their complete lack of empathy and sympathy by offering up all manner of pseudo deductive reasoning based on a mountain of assumptions built high enough and wide enough to hide the molehill of actual fact. Their apparent hollow -sounding rationale is that they 'just want justice for Madeleine'. This is used as some kind of anti dote to any criticism of their unfounded, and often irrational, rage. It becomes clear, however, once the pattern and route of their directed hatred is identified, that their fuel is hatred and their aim is revenge.Their targets are the parents of Madeleine.<br /><br />I hold the opinion that the MSM is nothing more than a governmental arm.It doesn't matter which government is dictating to us in their unerring quest to establish the new Dystopia , propaganda is a tried and trusted tool in the shaping of the collective consciousness of the masses. The 'mass' media is only 'mass' because of the size of the audience it can reach and the means it has to do so.The size of ownership of this machine is far from mass.On the contrary, in comparison to it's audience, it's minuscule.But large numbers are rarely needed if you have the majority of the power.An 'elite' run the country and the world; thousands rule billions.That's power.But what does this have to do with the case in point you ask( I heard you).A lot.<br /><br />The media's other agenda is to make vast amounts of cash for their shareholders.Gauging the zeitgeist is of the highest importance in order to know what the 'market' is.Their trick is to colour the views of the public first, encourage a momentum, then keep it going.Should an alternative view begin to rival the agenda it will be exposed as lies, conspiracy, or just hidden away.Get the herd onside first and the 'battle field' will always be uneven.This is why so many people repeat so much crap.They trust the liars who feed their needs.<br /><br />If you are to examine what little evidence and fact connected to the Madeleine case there is properly, it's important to be objective and come to it with no preconceptions.If you already have preconceptions, put them to one side.It can be done- I did it. Look again at the quotes and accusations and the often wild conclusions jumped to based on pointless interpretations of body language, clumsy readings of speech and photographs. Decide which is of more importance- police files or media reports.Ask why ten years has done nothing to solve anything.Ask why the media lie or tweak and are rarely carpeted for it( their bosses ?).Ask why the media cling to sensationalism rather than probability and misquote to support their lies.<br /><br />With this in mind I offer this :<br /><br />http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main%20PageZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-27209215600149370412017-02-24T14:27:18.245+00:002017-02-24T14:27:18.245+00:00Anonymous 24 February 2017 at 13:11
ZiggySawdust 2...Anonymous 24 February 2017 at 13:11<br />ZiggySawdust 23.2 @21:24<br /><br />“"You can dismiss 'scent' or 'DNA' on the grounds that it may be contaminated by bleach. You can't 'unsay' something."<br /><br />Very true, which is why my current concern is with the blatant contradiction between what the Police have had to say about that night's incident being reported 'that day' and accounts from various other sources, e.g. Kate McCann. They cannot each be telling the truth. One or the other perhaps, or neither even. That there is a lie somewhere in the mix appears indisputable.”<br /><br />Might it not be said thst the McCanns and others have ‘unsaid’ much by changing their various initial statements at a later date?<br /><br />“They cannot each be telling the truth. One or the other perhaps, or neither even. That there is a lie somewhere in the mix appears indisputable.”<br /><br />Very much so. Thank you.<br /><br />“The string pullers' motive? That's the $64,000 question”<br /><br />Very interesting observations, suggestions and conjectures at http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2015/09/metaphoric-comprehension-revisited-by.html<br /><br />T<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-8758948964789641572017-02-24T13:40:30.364+00:002017-02-24T13:40:30.364+00:00Ziggy @21:24
As for your last point, from sender ...Ziggy @21:24<br /><br />As for your last point, from sender to receiver or from receiver to sender?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-59332257119831626382017-02-24T13:11:27.360+00:002017-02-24T13:11:27.360+00:00Ziggy Sawdust 23.2 @21:24
"A new direction i...Ziggy Sawdust 23.2 @21:24<br /><br />"A new direction isn't necessarily a digression. It could be a new area that has a lead."<br /><br />That's as may be. Personally I favour pursuing one enquiry at a time.<br /><br />"You can dismiss 'scent' or 'DNA' on the grounds that it may be contaminated by bleach. You can't 'unsay' something."<br /><br />Very true, which is why my current concern is with the blatant contradiction between what the Police have had to say about that night's incident being reported 'that day' and accounts from various other sources, e.g. Kate McCann. They cannot each be telling the truth. One or the other perhaps, or neither even. That there is a lie somewhere in the mix appears indisputable.<br /><br />The string pullers' motive? That's the $64,000 question<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-14822634133273013832017-02-23T22:14:30.277+00:002017-02-23T22:14:30.277+00:00Ziggy Sawdust @21:12
"(that's why i pose...Ziggy Sawdust @21:12<br /><br />"(that's why i posed the questions above lol)"<br /><br />Unfortunately they're not terribly perceptive questions (sigh!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-70265481591831229052017-02-23T21:24:17.582+00:002017-02-23T21:24:17.582+00:00@ anon 21:06
''Because I wish to stick to...@ anon 21:06<br /><br />''Because I wish to stick to the issue at hand and not invite digression''.<br /><br />A new direction isn't necessarily a digression. It could be a new area that has a lead.<br /><br />''If that's the case, how many different detectives in the last ten years have missed this little nugget or failed to pursue it?"<br />"If that's the case!??"<br /><br />No, it's a lie if it's the facts you're quoting. If you have a suspect in a possible murder or abduction and he lies about his whereabouts or anything else pertinent to the case, it's a red flag.<br /><br />''The PJ exposed that anomaly in very short order.''<br /><br />And did what with the information ? You can dismiss 'scent' or 'DNA' on the grounds that it may be contaminated by bleach. You can't 'unsay' something.<br /><br />''As to how and why 'detectives in the last ten years have missed this little nugget or failed to pursue it', your guess is no doubt as good as mine, but I think 'third party involvement' might offer a clue. ''<br /><br />I've been saying a 'third party' ( and fourth, fifth, sixth etc) is why ten years has done nothing.GM and KM aren't third parties as you and I know.The string pullers are.What's their real motive ?<br /><br />''Vodafone reckons the average duration of phone calls on its network has halved in five years.''<br /><br />Good for Vodafone and their made up market research. If they'd have listened to two of five calls i had today they'd have thought again.They lasted under 30 seconds and not nicely.<br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-15568516879288128072017-02-23T21:13:40.522+00:002017-02-23T21:13:40.522+00:00@21:08
very enigmatic@21:08<br /><br />very enigmaticZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-66123703399054058072017-02-23T21:12:11.590+00:002017-02-23T21:12:11.590+00:00Anonymous23 February 2017 at 20:28
"...where...Anonymous23 February 2017 at 20:28<br /><br />"...where consular assistance is provided 24 hours a day, 365 days a year."<br /><br />Who knows?<br /><br />( that's why i posed the questions above lol)ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-42396606345556588722017-02-23T21:08:23.617+00:002017-02-23T21:08:23.617+00:00"Is the plot thickening, or thinning..."..."Is the plot thickening, or thinning..."<br /><br />It's coming along nicely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-66951675128049072272017-02-23T21:06:50.897+00:002017-02-23T21:06:50.897+00:00Ziggy Sawdust @15:03
"Isn't it a bit too...Ziggy Sawdust @15:03<br /><br />"Isn't it a bit too difficult to conclude anything from a 3 minute call from an unknown caller? If we don't know who made the call and what was said, what can we conclude of any value?"<br /><br />Even without knowing exactly what was said, and by whom, the very fact of a 'phone call from somewhere within the Ocean Club to the British Consulate mid-afternoon on Thursday 3 May is of interest and possible significance.<br /><br />I suspect you did not return, as I suggested, to the 2009 Police debriefing document I linked you with earlier. The statement on p.13 concerning first contact with any UK agency constitutes a more appropriate context for this discussion.<br /><br />"I think 3 minutes is a short call for any reason to anyone."<br /><br />No. It was long considered the average duration for a typical 'phone call:<br /><br />https://www.quora.com/How-long-is-the-average-phone-call<br /><br />"Vodafone reckons the average duration of phone calls on its network has halved in five years. People now talk for around one minute and forty seconds, rather than over three minutes."<br /><br />"...rather than take the enigmatic stance, why not add that 'different view' to the objections of my views or anyone else's ?"<br /><br />Because I wish to stick to the issue at hand and not invite digression.<br /><br />"The volley of text messages GM received but 'falsely' denied'? I take it you mean that he denied receiving them but he actually did receive them. If that's the case, how many different detectives in the last ten years have missed this little nugget or failed to pursue it?"<br /><br />"If that's the case!??"<br /><br />If you were not already aware of the 15 text messages McCann received on the Wednesday, reports of which he dismissed on camera as 'actually rubbish', then you have some serious catching up to do! The PJ exposed that anomaly in very short order.<br /><br />As to how and why 'detectives in the last ten years have missed this little nugget or failed to pursue it', your guess is no doubt as good as mine, but I think 'third party involvement' might offer a clue. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-6756206963121566012017-02-23T20:29:08.919+00:002017-02-23T20:29:08.919+00:00@09:37
Thank you for the link and the quote - int...@09:37<br /><br />Thank you for the link and the quote - interesting. <br /><br />The announcement being a change to the numbers, not a change in procedure, if this same regime of attendance were in place in 2007, that would invite further questions in relation to the 2009 debriefing account.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-81130284108966832562017-02-23T20:28:39.043+00:002017-02-23T20:28:39.043+00:00"...where consular assistance is provided 24 ..."...where consular assistance is provided 24 hours a day, 365 days a year."<br /><br />Who knows?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-29969061026129603242017-02-23T20:08:46.112+00:002017-02-23T20:08:46.112+00:00anon 09:37
''Our Consular team in Portuga...anon 09:37<br /><br />''Our Consular team in Portugal is available to provide assistance Monday to Friday, from 9.00am to 4.30pm. In an out of hours emergency these numbers will also connect you to the Foreign Office in London''<br /><br />but :<br /><br />anon 07:52<br />''This call was made around 14.04 on the 3rd''<br /><br />Is the plot thickening, or thinning...<br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-33905423106094631152017-02-23T15:03:46.158+00:002017-02-23T15:03:46.158+00:00@anon 01:25
Isn't it a bit too difficult to c...@anon 01:25<br /><br />Isn't it a bit too difficult to conclude anything from a 3 minute call from an unknown caller ? If we don't know who made the call and what was said, what can we conclude of any value ?<br />I think 3 minutes is a short call for any reason to anyone. To make a call to the consulate of that length doesn't add up to urgency. That's only my opinion. If Ben Salmon has the opposite view, fair enough. One of us could be right, both could be wrong. An unknown caller and a call about something we have no evidence of doesn't allow anyone more than speculation.<br /><br />''You might be talking about an emergency. Others of us take a different view. ''<br /><br />That's fair enough. But, rather than take the enigmatic stance, why not add that 'different view' to the objections of my views or anyone elses ?<br /><br />''You clearly see nothing strangely coincidental in this call being made during the day, when the official (2009) police debriefing announced that the first report to a UK agency in connection with the McCann case occurred during the day - when Madeleine was still around, allegedly.''<br /><br />I can't 'clearly' see anything.An Unidentified caller and the content of said call unknown.If i can't see it, you can't see it, and nobody has furnished the detail, who can see anything 'clearly'.<br /><br />The volley of text messages GM received but 'falsely' denied' ?I take it you mean that he denied receiving them but he actually did receive them.If that's the case, how many different detectives in the last ten years have missed this little nugget or failed to pursue it ? <br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-42756064395892436512017-02-23T11:46:26.321+00:002017-02-23T11:46:26.321+00:00ZiggySawdust 22 February 2017 at 20:33
“I enjoyed...ZiggySawdust 22 February 2017 at 20:33<br /><br />“I enjoyed that read. The 'doc' knows how to craft a line to be sure. I remember reading about the pub crawl somewhere and Ridout. It had all the hall marks of those spitting image press 'pigs' grunting, drinking and scraping for scandal.God bless our tabloids...”<br /><br />“I enjoyed that read.”<br /><br />Likewise, more than once.<br /><br />“The 'doc' knows how to craft a line to be sure.”<br /><br />Indeed. And much more than that I dare say.<br /><br />“I remember reading about the pub crawl somewhere and Ridout.”<br /><br />Reminds me of Karl Marx (pub crawl + erroneous propositions :))…<br /><br />“It had all the hall marks of those spitting image press 'pigs' grunting, drinking and scraping for scandal”<br /><br />You are not too bad ( :) ) at crafting a line yourself if I may say so, Fruity Footy. (hallmarks :))<br /><br />God bless our tabloids... :)<br /><br />More in due course.<br /><br />Namaste.<br /><br />T<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-84474395658300047522017-02-23T10:10:19.401+00:002017-02-23T10:10:19.401+00:00Anonymous 23 February 2017 at 01:25
One hundred a...Anonymous 23 February 2017 at 01:25<br /><br />One hundred and eeeeeiiiighty ( % :) )!<br /><br />T<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-44183355091759536892017-02-23T09:37:29.217+00:002017-02-23T09:37:29.217+00:00http://algarvedailynews.com/community-news/what-s-...http://algarvedailynews.com/community-news/what-s-happening/5489-new-telephone-numbers-for-british-consulates-in-portugal<br /><br /><i>Our Consular team in Portugal is available to provide assistance Monday to Friday, from 9.00am to 4.30pm. In an out of hours emergency these numbers will also connect you to the Foreign Office in London, where consular assistance is provided 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.</i><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-49165492874243677342017-02-23T01:25:41.853+00:002017-02-23T01:25:41.853+00:00Ziggy Sawdust @22:46
"...the call only laste...Ziggy Sawdust @22:46<br /><br />"...the call only lasted a max of 3 minutes. Allowing for the time taken for both parties to speak, it suggests a wrong number with time to redirect a caller to a right one."<br /><br />How strange. The analyst (Ben Salmon) arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion and for the very same reason. I quote (parentheses mine):<br /><br />"its (the call's) duration reflecting this as the ‘correct number’ for whatever issue was passed on."<br /><br />"It's highly likely that the caller was either on holiday or working there if it was to the Consulate."<br /><br />Yes, since the call in question was made from the Ocean Club. A statement of the obvious rather.<br /><br />The Consulate is called for many reasons and often."<br /><br />You don't say. Well clearly you do, but it adds nothing to your objection.<br /><br />"An 'emergency' of the type we're talking about involving the events of May 3rd i'd guess would involve a longer call."<br /><br />You might be talking about an emergency. Others of us take a different view. Although appropriate to your own perception of the affair your guess remains just that - a guess.<br /><br />"Plus, why would anyone connected make the call earlier that day if Madeleine was still around?"<br /><br />Why indeed.<br /><br />Maybe 'if' has a little more to do with it than you'd care to accept.<br /><br />Why should GM falsely deny having received a volley of text messages the day before, or KM suddenly be put off photography on the Thursday afternoon if Madeleine was still around?<br /><br />You clearly see nothing strangely coincidental in this call being made during the day, when the official (2009) police debriefing announced that the first report to a UK agency in connection with the McCann case occurred during the day - when Madeleine was still around, allegedly.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />How strange. The analyst in question came to the very opposite conclusion for exactly the same reason. I quote (parentheses mine):<br /><br />"...its (the call's) duration reflecting this as the ‘correct number’ for whatever issue was passed on".<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-24640769867675658382017-02-22T22:46:49.366+00:002017-02-22T22:46:49.366+00:00@anon 07:52
(https://h42a.wordpress.com/2017/02/2...@anon 07:52<br /><br />(https://h42a.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/other-call-records-pt-3/):<br /><br />“British Vice Consulate, Portimao – This call was made around 1404 on the 3rd. It lasted just under three minutes. Given the information on their website, their number is not much use unless there is some kind of emergency or bereavement.”<br /><br />A 'phone call made 'on the same day'.<br />Well, well''<br /><br />Hmmm..stretching a bit here methinks...<br /><br />Putting aside that the caller isn't known, the call only lasted a max of 3 minutes. Allowing for the time taken for both parties to speak, it suggests a wrong number with time to redirect a caller to a right one.<br /><br />It's highly likely that the caller was either on holiday or working there if it was to the Consulate. The Consulate is called for many reasons and often.<br /><br />https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-vice-consulate-portimao<br /><br />An 'emergency' of the type we're talking about involving the events of May3rd i'd guess would involve a longer call.Plus, why would anyone connected make the call earlier that day if Madeleine was still around ?<br /><br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-59535871643039237432017-02-22T20:33:04.627+00:002017-02-22T20:33:04.627+00:00@ T 18 February 2017 at 11:42
I enjoyed that read...@ T 18 February 2017 at 11:42<br /><br />I enjoyed that read. The 'doc' knows how to craft a line to be sure. I remember reading about the pub crawl somewhere and Ridout. It had all the hall marks of those spitting image press 'pigs' grunting, drinking and scraping for scandal.God bless our tabloids...<br /><br />@ T Anonymous22 February 2017 at 12:53<br />Anonymous 20 February 2017 at 11:15<br /><br />Re Brenda Leyland and 'betrayal'.<br /><br />I remember seeing the 'ambush' by Brunt. I remember being struck by the calmness and dignity that Brenda L displayed. Brunt trying to look all 'fly-on-the-wall' grass roots as she merely gave him calm short responses.Then off she went. It's hard to imagine that she was on her way to carry out a planned suicide.But, officially, that's what she must have been doing.<br /><br />Sky TV are the guilty party.It's up for debate if they 'betrayed' broadcasting's code of ethics.But they certainly trespassed upon Brenda Leyalnd's right to privacy in order to harass her.That's not up for debate. If the idea behind the ambush was to highlight hate speech on Twitter, then Sky should have been in touch with Twitter beforehand to point it out and question them with regard to their responsibility to members of the public and the potential for danger and them being party to libel and defamation.If that discussion took place, then she was betrayed by Twitter also.But Twitter and Sky thrive at the same gutter level.<br /><br />That the tragedy of Brenda Leyland can be put at the door of people who disagree with the online majority who call G and K McCann killers of their own child is a sign of the times.These are bad times.One angry impetuous mind is dangerous enough. When it finds so many others like it and then a platform to shout from, anything nasty can happen.<br /><br />R I P BL<br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-33743000740747905972017-02-22T18:06:09.973+00:002017-02-22T18:06:09.973+00:00Anonymous @13:07
“British Vice Consulate, Portima...Anonymous @13:07<br /><br />“British Vice Consulate, Portimao – This call was made around 1404 on the 3rd."<br /><br />Quite the find!<br /><br />NL<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-44982053367651154782017-02-22T17:04:21.769+00:002017-02-22T17:04:21.769+00:00Hi T@12:53
I agree with and respect your view, me...Hi T@12:53<br /><br />I agree with and respect your view, mental health issues hopefully will be recognised and be openly discussed without any stigma attached. Were I agree with you, yes Brenda didn't have to tweet or comment but however the same applies to the McCanns they didn't have to leave their children unattended and therefore set in motion a chain of events that were now discussing.John100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-28737656297431655632017-02-22T17:03:33.134+00:002017-02-22T17:03:33.134+00:00@ 12:53
They identified BL after posting on Faceb...@ 12:53<br /><br />They identified BL after posting on Facebook about the McCanns.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com