Thursday, 20 August 2015

We're knights of the big round table......

Evening all. As you will probably remember, Textusa's entire theory hinges on the barking mad idea that there was no round table at the tapas big enough to accommodate a party of nine, and therefore the tapas dinners never happened. 

Right now you are probably sitting there saying to yourself  "But that is nuts!" and you would of course be quite right. It is completely nuts. But that isn't where it ended. Because it soon emerged that Sky News had filmed reporter Martin Brunt sitting at ''The table that never was''.............

Swan Lake - Act 3


From Wikipedia:

Swan Lake 

 Act 3

"An opulent hall in the palace.

Guests arrive at the palace for a costume ball. Siegfried's mother commands him to dance with six princesses and choose one as a bride. Siegfried complains that he does not love any of them. Von Rothbart arrives in disguise with his daughter OdileHe has transformed Odile so that she appears identical to Odette in all respects except that she wears black rather than white. The prince mistakes her for Odette and dances with her. Odette appears as a vision and vainly tries to warn Siegfried that he is being deceived. But Siegfried remains oblivious and proclaims to the court that he intends to makeOdile his wife. Von Rothbart shows Siegfried a magical vision of Odette and he realises his mistake. Grief-stricken, Siegfried hurries back to the lake."

By now you are probably thinking "What is the mad old fool on about now?"

All I can say is, it gets even better..... 

As ever, Textusa's need to show off had even extended to her Rorschach Ink Blot test, which took her a fortnight to complete 

This is the post in which we said we were going to revisit the “shadow trick”.
I can't even fucking remember what the Shadow Trick was. If you are that desperate to know, and you are killing time waiting for a new kidney or something, I suggest searching her posts. But it might be worth leaving a will first, just in case.

As we said in our Textusa Corrects Textusa post, we've found out that the “shadow trick” was much a bigger trick than we thought it to be. We then said that what we had said about it in the Bluntly Brunting Things Up post was not "satisfactorily correct".
Or, in English, Textusa made a load of bullshit claims about how no big round table existed. Then someone found the footage of Brunty sitting at one. Textusa threw the blog into full reverse, like a man in a canoe who has just spotted a sign saying ''Beware - waterfall" with lots of bunches of petrol station flowers tied to it.

Today we intend to show it like it is, to your and our full satisfaction.
Or, again in English, today we are going to have another go at bullshitting our way out of this massive turd we landed in last time.

The investigation we did for this post, I must confess, was one of the most satisfactory to do because our assumptions made us begin to go down a certain path but our findings made us correct our steps.

We began at a stage that we’d figured out that the “shadow trick” together with the chair stance” onewere done with the purpose of creating the illusion that a round table was bigger than it really was and that it was of a different shape, oval, than it really also was.
Okay - what she is saying here is, faced with the clear evidence in the form of filmed footage of the table the Tapasniks occupied, she 'helpfully' explained to her deranged followers that Sky News had faked the footage years earlier in the sure and certain knowledge that sooner or later a prematurely senile, clinically insane dingbat would eventually figure out that there was no such table. Because they are in on it too, you see? Sky News. Oh yes, they gladly gave up the scoop to end all scoops in order to save the neck of a hairy-arsed, foul-mouthed doctor. And her husband. 

The problem is that we had a round table apparently bigger than those from the Tapas Bar as pictured byMr. Amaral.

It was a bigger than these but obviously not big enough to sit 9 people, nor 10 if you're to includeNajoua, the Quiz Mistress.
Why not? Oh yes, that's right - a table that size would be so vast it would generate it's own gravitational field and interfere with the Space/Time continuum. Sorry, I forgot. Do go on.......

Mr Brunt and his crew made sure that we got that clear.
See? In on it...... 

He doesn’t show the whole table for a reason. He is already sitting at the table and isn’t shown getting up. The camera also doesn’t pan around the room not allowing us to see the table among the rest of the furniture so we could've been able to compare it with others, nor can we make our own judgment about the size and adequateness of the esplanade.
He is sitting down, talking into the camera, you dozy mare. What possible reason would they have to start dicking about with it? And what the fuck reason would they have for determining the ''adequateness of the esplanade"?

As we’ve said many times, a round table for 9 is not an easy object to find.
It is insanely easy to find. 
If Mr Brunt had found such a table, we would have surely seen it in all it’s glory and size and most likely fully garnished with placemats, cutlery, plates and even napkins to make the set complete.
Why???!!!!!! Do you think they kept it ready just in case a roaming troupe of nine people just happened to drop in?

And what is this obsession with Placemats???
And ''even napkins" she ponders, as if this is the height of sophistication. I can only assume she just grabs a bite at the truck stop......

But no, Mr.Brunt never gets to show us the whole table, that place where the T9 last had peac
And I'm sure he feels really bad about it. 

So we thought that it could be a table brought in from The Mill, Ocean Club’s real restaurant, or then from some private house in PdL.
Yes, every time they need a large table the obvious thing to do is to roll one down the hill from the other restaurant half a mile away.

And isn't it a nuisance when restaurants pop round your house and ask to borrow your furniture? The cheeky bastards from my local Italian restaurant popped round and borrowed 2 dining chairs, a bedside cabinet and a towel rail last week - if this goes on, we'll be eating off the floor.

Although the table is shiny and highly reflective it’s seems to be darker than the ones from Mr Amarals’pictures and this seemed to confirm our suspicions that it was table brought from outside on purpose.
So one table is darker than another and you immediately suspect they robbed it from a neighbour?

Why? Who the fuck thinks like that?

We then started to seek evidence to prove this fact.
It's not a 'fact',  you utter cockwomble; it's a delusion. 

We started by checking that the square tables were of similar dimensions as the round tables. 

Textusa gazed warily at the fragile tables. "There is no way they will hold a whopper of these dimensions" she said to herself

Both are a fold-away type, with X-format legs, typical of this kind of outside furnitureFragile by nature not meant to be used with frequency to hold the weight of the various objects, food and liquids that are usually involved in a full course meal for 9 people.
What were they eating, that the table wouldn't hold it's weight?
A whole cow?
A pig in a bap?
Whale fillets?

I can say without fear of contradiction that I have never brought dinner to the table, only for the table to collapse under it's weight. It rather defeats the idea of being a table, don't you think?

No Textusa post is complete without some frigging arrows

Then we set out to compare the props used during the Brunt report 
Props?  There are props now?
and the furniture we see in Mr. Amaral’s pictures and verified that in fact the chairs were the same, and that a table from the Tapas Barwas used as the shadow (in blue) of the table legs’ X-format is clearly visible. This shadow comes from a table that's in the middle of the set of chairs (in yellow) near the beam.
What???? No, I'm sorry, let me try that again. What???????? 

And then… and then I was struck by a fist.
Oh, if only 

No, not figuratively speaking, literally. Struck really hard by this fist:
I can understand why 

Here is a close up of Mr Brunt's fist, complete with bite marks inflicted when he read Textusa's post and tried to stop laughing 

This fist hit me just like a cricket ball batted for 6 and that landed right in my teacup!!
Oh get on with it 

Remember the question I asked in our Bluntly Brunting Things Up post about the picture above?
No, I've lost the will to live 

"Where is the table’s shadow?" That was the question I asked.
Shadow? The whole bloody thing is in shadow, you blind bint; it's night time! 

And when I asked that question that was when the cricket ball should have hit not the teacup but me bonkers on the top of my head to serve me right and show me how stupid I was being.
What - there were no mirrors around?  

I even give myself the clue to the right path when, following that embarrassingly stupid question, I went and  wrote that Mr. Brunt has the left half of his face lit up, while the other side is in shadow, meaning that a light projector from his left was used.”

I should have never have asked where was the shadow, as it’s perfectly visible in the carefully positioned chair on the right of Mr. Brunt, but should have asked the following crucial question: where in the heck is the light?
Textusa, you are a cerebrally challenged blogger and compulsive liar with a table fixation - don't pretend you possess any forensic knowledge or skill because you simply don't. It's a bit of film shot in a small restaurant - not the set of Iron Man 4.

Where is the light on the table? Where exactly on that side of the table does the light end and the shadow begin? 

In other words, where is the EDGE of the table??
It's there, between the table and the space that isn't the table. It's perfectly visible to everyone except the clinically insane - ah, I think I see your problem. 

There isn’t one and it should be one there. No, not SHOULD be but HAD to be!
There is one. Stop wetting your pants, you mad harpy.  

Oh fuck, what is it this time?

Observe the following on the above picture. One can see light reflected on Mr Brunt’s closed fist and even in what is visible of his forearm, which is quite a bit, when this part of his body is actually at angle thatgets no direct light, that being the reason it’s not as bright as the fingers, but still perfectly visible. One can outline distinctly the knuckle line in Mr Brunt's fist.
Oh dear.

Mr Brunt’s knuckles form an edge which is clearly visible but right in front of it there's no clearly defined table edge!! Could someone please show me a clearly defined table edge in the white trapezium above? There isn't any!!
Yes there is. Don't be silly.  

And darkness doesn't serve as an excuse because there had to be one by the amount of light thatilluminates so well the chair on the right of Mr. Brunt!

We’re either before a most strange phenomenon that defies the expansion of light waves or before some sort of illusion.

I don't know about you but I'm not going against the laws of physics.
Not least because you don't know what they are  
Let's save some time.
You are pretending that there is no edge to the table and that it's an artificially created image. This is bollocks. The only illusion is the one you are attempting to pull. 

And this illusionism might just explain one of the most interesting things there is to be watched on Mr Brunt’s report. Some may call it the “fidgeting edge” but I prefer, to maintain things within the ballet theme, to call it the “ballerina table”.
Of course you do. Matron, the syringe if you please  

Use a yellow one, Textusa.We haven't had a yellow one for a while.....

Like a ballerina that is up on her toes and doesn't go anywhere although we can see her feet in movement so the same happens with the table. With the “ballerina table” if you watch when Mr. Bruntdoes his "Negligence Pirouette" (from 1:35) you can see that edge move, flickering a couple or more times, and, like the ballerina, goes nowhere.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The ''Negligence Pirouette". This remarkable move consists of Mr Brunt getting up from the table and walking off. One wonders what other dance moves he might have executed instead; a ''Don't give a shit'' polka, perhaps,  a ''Fuck You'' foxtrot, or a ''Twatdangle'' tango?

Textusa claims that the table ''flickers'' briefly and then goes nowhere, a move which for reasons best left for her psychiatrist to explore, she likens to a ballerina.

Quite why she decided that his getting up required such a fanfare, but if I were him I should be careful about reaching for a paper and saying ''Seeing as I'm up, I might as well go for a dump", lest she turn that seemingly mundane operation into a 4 hour rock opera with a guest appearance by Dame Kiri Te Kanawa

So there you have it. Brunt was filmed at the table that Textusa claimed never was. Someone said ''Hang on, Brunty was filmed at that table'' and so Textusa had to make the table go away. Any normal person would have said "oh yes, you're right. There's the table"

But Textaloons aren't normal people

         And you know why the edge moves so?
It doesn't move

The edge moving is just a consequence of the fact the image has been digitally manipulated, or I think the correct term is remastered, with the intent to hide in the best possible way the REAL edge of the table on the right side of Mr. Brunt, something that should be clearly discernible but after this is done,no longer was. 
It has not been digitally remastered. To prove the point, here is the same picture, enlarged slightly and with the brightness and contrast increased. 

It's a big fucking table. Now fuck off
The red line is roughly where the edge of the table is. What follows is one of the most nonsensical piles of steaming excrement you are ever likely to accidentally tread in

And to further prove what we're saying you only have to enlarge the following area below: 

It doesn't take an expert that there are areas where it seems that some of the colouring seems like it was done with a large paintbrush:

This is not the way pixels spread out when an image is enlarged. You can testify to that by looking at the various images we've enlarged in this and other posts. This is pure image manipulation.
No it isn't. And what you know about ''image manipulation'' could be written on the back of a sultana. 

Knowing that we were before a visual HOAX we stopped looking for an external or internal table because we had first to try and determine what table we were looking for!

To solve our problem we got an unexpected help from Mr Brunt when he does his “Negligence Pirouette”:
How does she type that with a straight face?  

When he does that so does the camera move, to confirm this you’re now able to see more of the back of the chair on the right of Mr. Brunt than you could before.
Oh my god - seriously? Call the cops  

It’s an ever so slight movement but enough to alter the “lighting arrangement” and with it may just provide a clue that answers many questions.
This is priceless stuff. She's utterly barking. I am going to bow out here and let you enjoy her desperation unmolested by me. If you want to fast forward, scroll down until you see red type again. Good luck and see you on the other side. 

We went back to the Tapas Bar round tables. What did we know of them? Not much. Only that they were of the same dimension as the square tables as we’ve said already. And that both types had the same X-format fold away legs.

We noticed that the square tables had a patternquadrilateral designs, each made up of 7 wooden slats, within an outer border:

Now it made sense that the furniture, for obvious decorative reasons, were bought in bulk, thus, as example, all the chairs are the exact same type.

If that was so, then the round tables would have the same pattern as the square ones:

Unfortunately, if we have little imagery of the Tapas esplanade, we have less than that on the Tapas Bar round tables. We only have two pictures, and both from Mr. Amaral’s book. And only one shows the top of the table but at a very slanted angle:

Augmented, it tell us nothing about the tabletop. It can have a pattern but it can also be with no pattern at all. So these are the two possibilities for the Tapas Bar round tables' tabletop, with a pattern and without one:

But if we go back to our now familiar “Negligence Pirouette” what do we see?

A pattern.

And similar to the one we find in the square tables:

Also you can also see in this picture what they so desperately tried to hide: the table's edge on the rightof Mr Brunt:

The "reflection" that you see in front of Mr Brunt's sleeve is not reflection at all because it curves the opposite way. That, dear reader, is the illusive edge of the table. 

And now we might understand that the reflection below (area in blue) is also a non-reflection but theinside of Mr Brunt's sleeve. If not that, then it's a reflection of what?

 This is my personal favourite. You can clearly see the edge of the table, but she decides to draw in a new one! Seriously, the loons who fawned all over her and told her how wonderful she was must have been taking the piss. No-one could be that dense.

Mr Brunt used nothing but a Tapas Bar round table. Remarkable to say the least.
What a load of cobblers. He is clearly sat at a large round or oval table. End of story  

And, as you know, if you can't see that, you know we know the reason why.

And here is the manipulation. If you don't agree with her you are obviously a ''Black Hat" 
What a stupid cow 

So, in Swan Lake's terms, Von Rothbart (Mr Brunt) had transformed Odile (a Small Round Table (SRT)), so that she appears identical to Odette, (a Big Round Table (BRT), to Siegfrieds’ eyes.
Hilarious ! I am reminded of this 

We’ve vainly, for almost 4 years, tried to show Siegfried that he is being deceived. But Siegfriedremained oblivious and proclaimed that it was Odette (a BRT), and those saying otherwise were raving mad lunatics.
You ARE a raving mad lunatic. This is not up for discussion 

Von Rothbart (Mr Brunt) had showed Siegfried a magical vision of Odette (a BRT) and we now hope thatSiegfried now realises his mistake.

The SRT was never a BRT. The T9BRT never existed. “Odile” was just a Tapas Bar round table.
'' Check it out, I'm the C-A-S-A, the N-O-V-A,
And the rest is F-L-Y,
You see I go by the code of the doctor of the mix,
And these reasons I'll tell you why.''

This is how we think this illusion was created:

For you to compare and make up your own judgment:
Oh please stop, I'm in pain now  

 In trying to fool us, Mr Brunt only confirms the obvious: a Tapas bar round table could never, ever, sit 9 people.
It is a big fucking table you dozy twat  

We know that the Swan Lake has alternative endings, so we’ll patiently wait to see which fate will be chosen for the Final Act of this Maddie Affair. However, in none of the possibilities things end up well forVon Rothbart or Odille

Mr Brunt, you can say that you set up the table as a prop in the way described for dramatic effectalleging that you believed that the story of the table was true.
He's just sitting at a table. He wasn't to know that several years down the line a brain-damaged doxy from the lunatic side of the street would accuse him of doing a ''negligence pirouette'' and making a little table look huge. He'd only gone for a pint....... 

But then, with each trick you saw yourself "forced" to use to make the story "true" shouldn't you have rapidly become a disbeliever?

The fact the piece was aired means that that didn't happen. And you're very clear in your words that that was THE table: 
Of course it was the fucking table. Fortunately, he doesn't share your delusions  

I’m sitting at the table where the McCanns and their friends were eating on the night that Madeleine disappeared. This place is shut now for the winter.

The apartment is some distance away, it’s beyond the swimming pool, there’s a wall and a hedge, and behind that there’s a path.

It would be very difficult, from here, to see anybody going in and out of the apartment.

Going to check on the kids wasn’t easy.

Well, 80 paces as far as the gate, the distance between the Tapas Bar and the apartment, not quite as Gerry McCann described it.

If we add to all this his  unexpected “intimacy” with Jennifer and Robert Murat we have to questionMr Brunt's role in PdL.
Christ, you are one venomous bitch  

The picture above shows a man walking off with the emptiness of one who has just been shown where he has left his soul.
Oh give over, you vicious mad old trollop. The man filmed a piece to camera and is now off to show just how far it was to 5A. ''Left his soul''? My arse!  

We’ll not go the easy route to condemn your actions Mr Brunt.

Many have sold their souls for much less and we understand your predicament under the circumstances.

This does not minimize an ounce of the severity of your actions, it just states that in the current state of affairs of modern societies the soulless survival is taken as a regular lifestyle.
Seriously, get a life.Where the fuck do you get off making these accusations?  

We refuse to accept that.

At least without putting up a fight.

We hope that by exposing this deed of yours Mr Brunt we will allow your peers some “elbow room” in the real Big Round Table that life will never cease to be and they may act more independently than your generation of journalists or “journalists” was able to.
Ah yes, this ''deed of yours''

Shall we explain what this ''deed'' was?

Textusa claimed there was no Big Round Table

Someone turned up film of Martin Brunt sat at one.

Any normal person would realise they had made a mistake and re-evaluate their earlier claims.

But not Textusa. Instead she comes up with a post of devastating fuckwittery and accuses an innocent man of committing a crime. Evil hag. 

Finally, a word to our readers. We hope that you understand the importance of this post. 
We certainly do. We were almost out of toilet paper....... 

Post Scriptum:

First, to our reader Guerra, who submitted the video such a long time ago, we hope that now you understand the reasons for taking so long. The clues, as you can see, are all there to be seen immediately but the process of proving what we saw had to be painstakingly meticulous one and this takes time, a resource none of us have that much to spare from our personal lives.
She's probably still pissing herself, Textusa  

Second, we’d like to inform our readers thatfor personal reasons, we’re taking another break until the end of the month. We’ll continue to publish your comments, which, as you well know, are posts by themselves and the reason many come to visit the blog.
Need a long lie down after that, eh? 

Martin Brunt, practicing his Negligence Pirouette


  1. "What a load of cobblers. He is clearly sat at a large round or oval table. End of story"
    So you saying GA got it wrong when he points to a small table in the pics of his book?

    1. The text in Amaral's book says ''the place where Maddie's parents and friends dined"

      It does not say ''The TABLE where they dined''

      The next photo shows where the apartment was in relation.

      Do you really seriously think he was indicating that specific table? Do you think him and the rest of the PJ so stupid that they would hand a diagram of the big round table to Kate McCann during a police interview and ask her to indicate where each person was sitting, if no such table existed?

      Silly, silly person

    2. Brunt has the plastic canopy behind him and he's not far from it. In GA's pics the whole canopy is visible. Where is the large round or oval table that Brunt is sitting at in GA's pics?

    3. I'll type this very s l o w l y because you are obviously struggling to keep up.

      The text in Amaral's book says ''the place where Maddie's parents and friends dined"

      It does not say ''The TABLE where they dined''

      It's a funny thing with tables. They can be moved.

      Are you seriously saying ''The table isn't in that picture, therefore it doesn't exist?''


  2. You are a very bad man making fun of the nice Lady like that - its almost as if you don't believe her - and if you don' must be on TM!

    Shame on you and all your acolytes

    N..... (aged 6 1/2)

  3. Must admit, I thought this big round table thing could be explained (having seen it drift past and noted it as one of the many occasions when the T9 were unable to describe anything much - shutters open, closed, conflicting statements )by most of them having gone on to happy hour Chaplin's bar which might have had one or several. But it's pretty immaterial anyway, and I'm perfectly fine with round tables anywhere. Can't see any point in turning it into a teak-centered conspiracy. Now there's a thought..

    btw. I can't find your post on the little doodle - have you taken it off? I hope not as I'd quite happily read it again - and again.

    1. This one, you mean?
      Nope, all still there. I suppose I should tag them really, except all the tags would read ''barking'', ''deranged'' and ''beyond help'' so it might not help much.
      I'm still puzzling over the ''adequateness of the esplanade'', personally. I do hate an inadequate esplanade, don't you?

  4. This is the funniest thing I have ever read. hahahahahahahaha love it.


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