Wednesday, 12 March 2014

I posted this on Textusa a while back.......

.....but it is worth repeating. Nothing has really changed - the bulk of her readers are as simple as they ever were. And they were always thick as two short ones.

Some of you people must live incredibly sad lives if all you can think about is your obsession with swinging.

This entire blog, and Textusa's entire premise, is built on lies. She has clearly attracted the right clientelle for the most part as the bulk of you would believe literally anything she told you.

Why don't you step back a minute and get a grip?

What Textusa is saying is that without any prior arrangement or knowledge hundreds of unconnected people all simultaneously got together to fabricate matching stories and provide alibis for a group of people they had for the most part never met and to whom they owed nothing. That hundreds of people who didn't know them and didn't owe them anything were prepared to risk long prison sentences themselves in order to cover up for people they didn't know. That multi-national TV companies would join in, fabricating footage for the express purpose of ''proving'' years later that there was no ''big round table'' and what's more they would go about it so clumsily that the ''forgery'' would be immediately spotted by a group of middle-aged layabouts watching a youtube clip?
That the catholic church and the governments of two nations would collude together to cover up the homicide of a small child at a holiday resort?

Does it ever occur to you, even for a second, that you have been taken for a complete and total ride by this lunatic?

That the reason she claims the Brunt video is photoshopped is precisely because it blows one of her loony ideas out of the water?

Because to believe as you claim to do, you would also have to believe that:

Every holidaymaker in the resort was ''in on it''

Every local resident was ''in on it''

Every member of staff at Mark Warners was ''in on it''

Every member of the british consulate staff plus the ambassador was ''in on it''

the catholic church was ''in on it''

Every member of staff at the tapas was ''in on it''

All the nannies, sports coaches, ancillary staff were ''in on it''

every member of the ex-pat community, even those in their 80's was ''in on it''

sky news were ''in on it''

Martin Brunt was ''in on it''

The police forces of two nations were ''in on it''

The forensic labs were ''in on it''

All these people. In on it. In on what you simultaneously claim was an accidental act of brutality committed in the heat of the moment and with no pre-planning involved.

...Tell me something. The statements of many of the witnesses corroborate each other. These statements are further corroborated by documented evidence such as the tapas booking sheets.
The people who were shown at having booked tables duly turned up and testify to that. Those who decided instead on a takeaway testify to that. Those who had tables booked testify to seeing the ones who didn't, waiting to pick up their takeaway meal. Other holidaymakers eating with them corroborate this. None of these people are in any way able to alibi the McCanns - if anything their statements merely clarify what they themselves were doing that night and who they saw. So who created this complex back-story? Because if you claim that the tapas wasn't even open, and the tapas dinners never even happened, then you need to explain who came up with the interlinking back story and why.

You won't be able to, of course, because it does not exist, but even then none of you have the wit or wisdom to come up with a scenario that fits.

And swinging?

Let's leave aside the fact that there is absolutely no indication that the place was being used for that purpose. Why would hundreds of people - yes, hundreds - perjure themselves and risk long prison sentences for conspiracy to cover up a serious crime, lose their jobs, homes, livelihoods, children and families rather than be ''tainted'' with an activity which isn't even illegal?

Textusa's central theory is nuts.

Because it's nuts, she had to invent even more ridiculous ones to support the first.

Because it's just not possible to tell one lie, you see? She told one. It didn't fit. So she told another and another and another.

And frankly, you are all too dim to see it.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.

Messages not for publication can also be left, or you can email