Monday, 30 April 2018


Evening all.

I have a couple of treats for you tonight

Here is the first

"We never lie, which is to assert something knowing it isn’t true and with deliberate intent to mislead."

Yes, dear readers, Textusa apparently said this with a straight face. However, her nose just broke the sound barrier, and is currently visible from three continents and the ISS

Let's have a few examples

She told you I was a number of different tweeters. Those claims were lies. She can try to pretend that she made a mistake, but the fact is, she knew it was a lie. Even when informed by someone who had known her for years that she was wrong, she continued to lie. Ultimately, her bad behaviour and lies ended with her leaving a facebook group and lost her many followers.

She simply made up stories; stories that I was 'controlling' certain accounts. She was not confused, or misled. She simply made it up.
Lies, invented to try to damage me, which was a bit silly of her

She repeatedly lied that Smithman stopped, after zig-zagging his way around the Smiths. 

She knows these are lies.

She claims the Brunt video of him sat at the Big Round Table has been manipulated by Sky. She knows this is not true. It was a lie she told because her earlier lie about the lack of such a table had been discovered

She lies repeatedly. She lies by omission, withholding posts which challenge her version of events.

She is a fundamentally and profoundly dishonest person. She always has been and she almost certainly will be. Her first instinct is to lie. It probably started early in childhood and she will never change.

She's a liar.


An extra treat, courtesy of Alexandr

Sunday, 29 April 2018


Some light reading for anyone desperate to know what Swinging BH means or where Murat keeps his grapes 


Answer the questions

Morning all

Just moving these here instead of the comments section so that Textusa can't claim she hasn't seen them

  • From Idiot Textusa

    "The Smithman zig-zagging is FROM the witnesses as per photographs that are in the PJ Files, showing clearly the 3 separate locations where Peter Smith, Martin Smith and AS say they see Smithman.

    About Smithman having stopped, it’s Gemma O’Doherty who says Martin Smith told her that. Could you please say who you are calling a liar? Is it O’Doherty or is it Smith?"

    Absolute nonsense. The three points are all in a short stretch of the same street and the Smiths clearly describe him as walking in the middle of the street.

    The Gemma O'Doherty article makes no mention of Martin Smith describing the man as stopping, nor do any of the statements, quite the opposite in fact.

    So the liar is Textusa
  • From Idiot Textusa again

    "He then says something that even though he denies it, we maintain what we have said. He says “At no point did I say I “linked with ex-pats”, nor do I have any contact with such. Nor do I have any links with PdL”

    In #2, there’s evidently a typo. It should read “He says he has links with ex pats in PDL” instead of “He says he links with ex pats in PDL”

    How else could he possibly say “but I learned recently, and I can't reveal the source on this, that Grange has been interviewing people with no connection with the case other than they happened to be in PdL at the time, as ex-pats” if he doesn’t have links with the mentioned British ex-immigrants?

    Does he have sources inside Operation Grange?

    He doesn’t correct us on the WOM accusation we made."

    No, I don't have sources inside Grange.

    No, I don't have links to an ex-pats, so you can ''maintain'' away to your heart's content.

    My source is my business, not yours, so fuck off.

    Your ''waste of money'' account wasn't worthy of an answer. Nor does it even make sense, given that no-one is paying me.
  • In particular, she has been peddling these lies about Smithman and the Smith family for years. So I am going to say it again - there was no zig-zagging, there was no 'stopping'.

    She even had the nerve to blame it on Gemma O'Doherty, when Textusa made the claim in 2013, in this passage of bullshit:
    I have now passed Smith 1 by 18 m (20 yds or 0.8 tennis courts), am at Smith 2, heading towards Smith 3.

    Here I do the most amazing thing for someone with a dead body avoiding contact: I stop!!

    Sky News, April 07 2008:

    Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year. The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep. "He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.”

    stopped long enough and with near enough proximity to be asked by a total stranger if the dead bodyof the child I'm holding was asleep. Isn't that just absurdly surreal?

    Absolute bollocks. No mention by anyone of him stopping. She's a liar.  


    A reply from Idiot Textusa

    The photos on these pages show unequivocally that none of the 3 locations pointed by the Smiths are in the middle of the street. All 3 are on the sidewalks. 
    The three locations are of the witnesses, not of Smithman, and are clearly labelled as such. In fact, Martin Smith actually said he was in the middle of the road, as was Smithman. Peter Smith also described Smithman as being in the middle of the road, so your claims are bollocks

    Uniting these 3 points, one does not obtain a straight line.
    As pointed out, these are the locations of the witnesses, not Smithman, fuckwit 

    Martin Smith says “States also that when he passed this individual he was coming down the middle of the road, in the street, also that at that time traffic is minimal or non-existent.”
    You appear to have deliberately omitted the next line, where he says :

    '' The witness was also walking in the same place." 

    ie, the middle of the street. It is these deliberate omissions which prove that you lie to your readers

    Peter Smith says “States further that when he passed the individual, the individual was coming down to his right, going around the deponent in the middle of the street. At that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent.”
    Peter was on the left pavement. Smithman, as he states, passed him on the right, in the middle of the street

    It is also perfectly evident in the photos to which you refer that there is no indication that Smithman 'zig-zagged' 

    To go from the right side of the street one has to pass the middle of the road. It’s in the middle of the road that Martin Smith sees Smithman first. That doesn’t mean he was walking in a straight line down the middle of the road but that he was passing the middle of the road when crossing it.
    Read my previous comment. 

    As you seem to be a little slow, let us explain what happened as one would explain to a 4 yr old.
    Really, Maria? Just grow up 

    Once upon a time, this man called Smithman was coming down on this street when a nice family was walking up it.

    Walking in front of this family was Peter. Peter sees Smithman coming towards him walking on the sidewalk on his right and this is why he says “the individual was coming down to his right”.
    No, Peter did not say anything of the kind. This is what Peter said

    "At the beginning of this road, he saw an individual carrying a child. This individual was walking normally although with somewhat quick steps as he was walking downwards. He appeared normal to the witness, as if this were father and daughter. He adds that this individual was coming down the street, in an opposite direction to that of the witness and his companions."

    Nothing at all about seeing Smithman on the sidewalk on his right. You have simply made that up

    Peter Smith later told the nice police officers where Smithman was when he crossed with him and the police even made a nice drawing on a photo they took of the street, and the drawing showed an arrow with a “P” pointing to the place on the sidewalk on the right side of the street. On the sidewalk, not on the middle of the street.
    Ah, clearly you don't. The arrow indicated Peter's position, with Smithman passing him on the right, in the middle of the street, as he describes

    After crossing with Peter, Smithman decides to cross the street, and so goes around Peter and crosses it to the other side and that’s why Peter says “going around the deponent in the middle of the street”. The deponent a word that the nice police used for reasons you will understand when you grow up but means Peter. What Peter is saying is that Smithman goes around him into the middle of the street when he crosses it.
    Nonsense. Peter does not describe him crossing to the other side of the street, you are simply making that up

    In fact, the files actually say :

    "He also says that when he passed the individual, the individual was descending to his right, and walked past the witness in the middle of the street, given that at that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent."

    Behind Peter was walking Peter’s dad, Martin. When Smithman is crossing the street is when dad Martin first sees Smithman, who is in the middle of the street crossing after going around Peter and that’s why Martin says “he was coming down the middle of the road, in the street”
    So Peter has him in the middle of the road, and so, a few yards away, does Martin. No mention whatsoever of his changing sides or zig-zagging, just walking normally in the middle of the street. 

    Martin Smith later told the nice police officers where Smithman was when he crossed with him and the police even made a nice drawing on a photo they took of the street, and the drawing showed an arrow with a “P” pointing to the place on the sidewalk on the left side of the street. On the sidewalk, not on the middle of the street.
    Actually, it shows an M, and in his statement he says he was walking in the middle of the street, same as Smithman 

    Hope you now understand the meaning of “middle of the street” when both Peter and Martin Smith used it.

    About the photos and the 3 locations, please do ask a grown-up to show you what an arrow represents.
    We shall ignore your childish nonsense and reiterate that both men described Smithman as walking in the middle of the street, having passed Peter by Peter's right, and AT NO POINT does anyone mention him stopping, which was the other lie you have conveniently forgotten to address.

    You are a liar and a bullshitter, Maria. You have been spinning this tale for 5 years and it is absolute cobblers  

    So come on - are you going to retract this ridiculous claim of Smithman zig-zagging, and the even more ridiculous claim that he stopped, which it seems you now want to pretend you never said? 


    The idiot Textusa has posted a long reply, about whether Mary Smith spoke to Smithman or not, which frankly is immaterial. The claim Textusa made back in 2013, and has been making ever since, is that the man stopped.

    This is what she is now saying:

    Finally, to be clear, making a comment towards a total stranger and EXPECTING a response indicates that the man has stopped. 
    This is complete bollocks. Regardless of whether Mary Smith spoke to him or not, there is no indication whatsoever that he had stopped or that he stopped at any point. She's just a liar, simple as.  Frankly, it is insulting her readers to expect them to swallow this nonsense.

    Friday, 27 April 2018

    What she did on her holidays.

    This is from 3 years ago, but I thought it deserved another outing 

    Well here we are again, folks.

    Textusa's pretendy holiday is going well, and she has asked me to share some of her holiday photos with you, which I shall be doing shortly. After I have photoshopped them a bit and deleted the exif data, obviously.

    In the meantime, this is the reason the mad old bat interrupted her holiday - again.



    Textusa was worried - even the Prime Minister didn't interrupt his holiday this often.

    1. Introduction

    Last year we interrupted our summer break 3 times with the following posts:

    - “Outrageous” (02JUL14) in which we felt that we had to react to the farce that the July questionings done by PJ under SY request were;
    And thank god you did, because your timely intervention ensured that..............., er hang on... 

    - “No longer libel, so don’t call it libel” (18JUL14) because we had to clarify that the use “l” word was only favoured the other side as it was about damages and not libel (many disagreed with us then but time has proven us right);
    No it hasn't 

    - “Doomed pieces, emerging heroes” (15AUG14) because we felt we had to expose a manoeuvre from the other side which was the McCann v Murdoch libel trial.

    Oh yes, I remember this one. You saw this tweet:

        '' 01 Aug 2014 03:57: “Kate and Gerry McCann have filed a 

    case against The Times in the High Court. Interesting. No details 

    made public yet.”

    .....and decided you needed to come back and write 18,000 words 

    of utter drivel for no reason on God's earth, about a trial that never 


    But last year when we broke up for summer Maddie was one of the top issues on the news worldwide. SY had just put on that shameful show in Luz and Mr Amaral’s trial was finally being resumed after it was interrupted by the WoC question raised by the defence in January that year.
    Was it bollocks. It was a two day wonder in the tabloids 

    This year Maddie has become a non-issue.
    Fat bloody chance with you around, flapping your gums 

    Besides the 1st instance court sentence at the end of April, as of December last year the Maddie case has been subjected to a cloak of heavy silence.

    Even so we have already interrupted our break once with our post “Playful molecules”. We did it because we had to show Establishment that using forensics to support the burglar thesis would be a very stupid move, not to say a useless and cumbersome one.
    No, you did it because I had made you look a complete twat. Incidentally, the only people mentioning burglars were you and the most stupid of your supporters, which is to say, all of them. 

    Now we are interrupting for the second time. Reason? Expose double standards among those who say are looking for the truth.
    Or, because you just can't help yourself and Fred has gone on holiday with the woman from down the road? 

    2. The Wayback Machine /WBM) CEOP Maddie webpage

    We received the following comment:

    “Anonymous 17 Jun 2015, 03:01:00

    CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th april 2007”

    The link led to the following picture:

    It apparently showed that Madeleine McCann had been already reported missing on the CEOP website on April 30, 2007, 3 days before she was reported missing by her parents on May 3, 2007.

    It seemed that Wayback Machine ( made a capture of that webpage on April 30, 2007.

    This is how we responded:

    Pay attention, everyone. This woman has deserted her family for this. 

    “Textusa 17 Jun 2015, 08:04:00

    Anonymous 17 Jun 2015, 03:01:00,

    Thank you for the link.

    One thing we don’t think is that our foes are stupid. It would be quite stupid for CEOP to put up Maddie as missing child as of April 30 and then go on defending she was abducted 3 days later.

    There has to be a technical explanation. If there isn't one, all we can see is it to be bait for conspiracy theories and if it is, then some seem to be biting it.

    Meanwhile, we think Nikki Plummer may have a reason:

    It would indeed be quite stupid. But then, you would know. Being stupid is about the only thing at which you excel.  

    3. Implications

    Today, 16 days after this find and much discussion around it if we were asked to sum up in a sentence what we think about this subject we would save on words and use only one: sigh.

    CEOP is an acronym that stands for Child Exploitation and Online Protection.
    Thank you, Professor 

    We would like to highlight 2 of those words: CHILD and ONLINE.
    Yes, because people may have forgotten them since the previous sentence 

    CEOP’s work is to target the most disgusting devious people on Earth who tirelessly educate themselves to not leave any sort of digital vestige.
    Which is of course why they are always getting caught 

    Paedophiles know perfectly well how loathsome they are, they are fully aware that police computer experts are doing their best to find them so they will do whatever is possible to continue their horrid activity without being traced digitally.
    You do know that isn't the only thing they do, don't you? 

    We are sure that all technical personnel working at CEOP had and have outstanding computer qualifications so that any stealth digital activity doesn’t go unnoticed. Computers should hold very little or no mysteries to them.
    *Loud snort* 

    The idea of CEOP having a page visible on the Internet on April 30 2007 advertising Maddie’s disappearance 3 days before the girl is said to have disappeared was announced to the world is just too far out there to contemplate.

    ''Too far out there to contemplate''

    Remember those words 

    Note that the webpage would have to be visible first so it would be archived.

    Conceived, created, uploaded, published and only then archived.
    Goodness, is there no beginning to your knowledge? 

    One has to wonder when did Maddie really lose her life as on April 30 11:58:03 if there was already a government agency on board and had already put out a tangible product.

    For it to have been published means there was a green light from someone to have it conceived, created, uploaded and published.
    You think? 

    More than one person was then aware of this page. It was not a one-person operation. Many people, both in and outside CEOP, had to be involved in this process. For starters the person who decided to use CEOP. Not talking about Jim Gamble but about the person who had the power to involve him and the agency in this affair.
    Ah! Like who? The PM? POTUS? Sep Blatter? 

    If, as it would be apparent if the date on the webpage was genuine, then there was a postponement of “Operation Maddie” to May 3, 2007 22:00:00.
    Matron, the strongest tinfoil we have in the building, please, stat! We're losing her....... 

    That means there was a change of mind sometime on April 30, after the page was made visible. The page would have been published on that day allowing Wayback Machine (WBM) to capture it and only then postponement for May 3 would have been decided. 
    Oh but, of course.  

    The question that MUST be asked is if whoever was deciding about what to do about Maddie’s death already had this level of cooperation and engagement from the UK government on April 30 why then go for the simulation of abduction thesis 3 days later?
    Must it? Really? You couldn't just fuck off with your bloody tent and come back in September? 
    Or to put in another way, why would the world ever need to know about Maddie, the girl with the coloboma?

    With this level of government support Maddie’s body could easily have been taken very discreetly out of Portugal without even its authorities ever knowing what had happened in their territory. And with this level of government support even if they knew it wouldn’t represent a problem. Nothing a quick diplomatic intervention wouldn’t solve.
    Matron, where is that bloody tinfoil? This patient has a tension pneumothorax, a BP of 60 over 40, sats of 65 and an audition for Holby - I'm not losing her now!

    After all, it seems, they supposedly sat on this problem for almost 4 days so they had plenty of time to think and rethink and, for example, among many other things make up appropriate and not contradicting timelines and flawless booking sheets. And taken lots of pictures of their Tapas dinners as then they would have been real.
    What the fuck are you on about now, you gin-raddled hag? 

    But after sitting for 4 days mulling over the subject of what to do, what do they decide to do? They decide to simulate an abduction in such a ridiculous way that it makes the absurd “Sharktopus vs. Pteracuda” seem credible. Does that make any sense?  
    Nothing you write makes any sense. 

    The fact that there was a simulated abduction shows very clearly that the decision to go for this scenario was one taken locally and under immense pressure, panic even. A decision discussed with little or even no coordination with anyone else outside the T9.
    Hang on - what happened to all the locals, ex-pats, restaurant workers, Ocean club staff and fellow guests you claim were all ''in on it''? Have you finally given up on that ridiculous notion? 

    A decision taken on that evening shortly after realising the seriousness of the situation and most likely without involving anyone who wasn’t in PdL at the time.

    Hastily arranged abduction scene, hastily written timelines, deleted phone calls, changed statements, glaringly obvious discrepancies none of which would have happened unless the abduction was decided in panic circumstances.
    Hastily convened briefings with all the staff to force them to lie, meetings with the other guests to get their story straight, fake a load of records etc.......... 

    Is the penny starting to drop inside that cavernous empty space where your brain should reside? 

    Only after the decision was taken
    Which decision? 
    and only after authorities had been called in
    Which authorities? 
    - making it from then on impossible to backtrack
    Backtrack to what? 
    - did those who decided
    Who decided? 
    realise the effective power they had supporting them.
    And who was supporting them? 

    In less than 24 hours the UK had deployed its ambassador to Luz and the mainstream media (power’shistoric business partner) was already churning out news of abduction and only abduction.
    Ah right. So the ambassador did it. Fairy nuff.

    So can I just check - did he fly around the moon really quick like Superman to turn back time, or had he invented a flux capacitor  so that he could just bend the Space/Time continuum at will?

    Presumably he kept it in his diplomatic blue bag, did he?

    But all this in our opinion happened after the alarm. When it was too late to correct all that had already been done in haste.

    If Maddie had died all those days before May 3 wouldn’t common sense make those involved realise that the best option was discretion?

    They had plenty of time to think about it. To realise that the best way to solve the very serious problem they had on their hands, knowing they had UK government support, would be to get professional risk management support who would coordinate all and have the body quickly and discreetly removed from site and no one would have known any better today.

    If for nothing else, to make sure the whole thing would be dealt with at home where all involved could be best controlled and not unnecessarily involve any authorities from any other country.

    Okay, let's pause there a minute.

    Your ''evidence'' that the 30th April page is an error is not the fact that copious individuals can attest to Madeleine being very much alive and around for some days after that, but rather that you think if she had died on the 30th ''it would have been handled a different way''?

    That is a little bit like deducing that the Eiffel Tower exists by studying the traffic flow around it, and noting that no cars pass over that parcel of land rather than just looking up and noticing there is a big, fuck-off tower there. 

    Instead they created a webpage showing the intent of making the issue public. And after initially changing their minds about it, they went ahead with that disastrous decision anyway 3 days later.
    So are you saying it was created on the 30th or not? Because frankly, Missus, it sounds like this could still go either way.

    The high level help they did get only came after the decision. alarm and calling of authorities and common sense tells us that if it had come before then all would have been done without major faults which was far from the case, as we know.
    The ''major faults'' you dreamed up, you mean? Like a doodle, some Murat-grapes and a negligence pirouette? ( Yes, dear readers, these are all Textusa specials. Watch out for our new section - ''Wot's this bollocks?'' - coming soon)

    It doesn’t take a genius to see that the abduction simulation was the most idiotic option to follow, so if it was taken it was because that idea didn’t even get the chance to sink in or to be rationalised. It didn't have any possibility to mature inside the heads of those who took it.
    Eh? What do you mean ''it was the most idiotic option to follow''? Why?

    To say Maddie was gone on April 30 at 12:00 and that it was decided to go for simulation of abduction on May 3 22:00 (more than 82 hours after) is to frankly call the UK government, the CEOP and Jim Gamble stupid.
    No-one is saying that, you dozy mare

    And because they made a blunder of it, they were also incompetent and amateur.

    Stupid, incompetent and amateur.
    Or that. 

    We know none of them are as 8 years and many million pounds of taxpayers money have clearly proven that.

    For example, we think that CEOP has been unacceptably unethical about Ricardo Firmino by continuing to display picture of a child as missing on its “Missing Kids” webpage when it has been completely clarified by PJ that is NOT the case.
    What the fuck has that got to do with it? 

    By doing so it has opened wide its doors to public criticism and to be seriously questioned as to what job it is really doing as from now on it is uncertain if the children listed there are really missing.
    No it hasn't. It's merely piqued the interest of a load of wild-haired, wine-swilling harpies, determined to make something out of nothing 

    One can choose many adjectives to qualify an anti online child exploitation government agency exploiting online the image of a child but stupid, incompetent and amateur are none of them. As CEOP has been warned that Ricardo is not missing, we would maybe say arrogant and pompous showing how they can keep themselves aloof from the rest of us.
    Warned by who - You? Some green-toothed loon with a cast in one eye from Bennett's mob? 

    By the way, as a side note, we ask people who are writing various hypothesis about the WBM subject starting their texts with  a “if the page was indeed created on April 30 then...” to somewhere along the line explain what is their opinion if it wasn’t.
    Why the fuck should they? You never do...... 

    Otherwise the hypothesis becomes a certainty, a fact. To be a hypothesis means there are other possibilities that should also be considered and explored. If it’s a certainty the word if should not be used.
    Please do not attempt to stray into this area. You know you don't understand it 

    For example, we consider the reason for the date to have been a technical glitch, a programming error. If it wasn’t, meaning the page was indeed created on April 30 11:58:03, 3 days before Maddie officially disappeared then we consider that the UK government, the CEOP and Jim Gamble are as said above inconceivable stupid, unbelievable incompetent and unimaginably amateur and the cover-up we have witnessed for the past 8 years can only be to avoid the embarrassment to them that the exposure of such stupidity, such incompetence and such amateurism would cause.
    You have just repeated, in a single paragraph, everything you said in the 8ft of turgid prose above it 

    We must wonder, if it was the case (which we stress we don’t think it was), how many hours in those 3 days that were to follow Maddie’s death without anyone doing anything did the British ambassador sat waiting in some room of his embassy for that phone call that would tell him he could finally head for Luz. Or was it because of his agenda the abduction was postponed 82 hours?
    Of course, this is only if your bullshit theories over the last few years are right. Which they aren't

    What you are really saying is ''I don't believe it because it would make all my theories cobblers'' 

    One thing is certain, the ambassador does not mention any waiting or any prior knowledge of Maddie’sdeath in his messages revealed by Wikileaks back in December 2010 on this subject. 
    Okay - not for a second do I think the ambassador had any ''prior knowledge'' of this. But I have not reached that conclusion based on the lack of a confession on wikileaks. If he had any involvement, what in the name of the bishop's bollocks would make him stick it in a message home?

    4. Conspiracy theorists

    I want to insert a little note here.

    Textusa, despite the fact that she is a conspiracy theorist to the ends of her stubby little toes, hates being called one. 

    When I pointed this out to her, in the spirit of being helpful, you know, she said ''I never said it was a conspiracy, but rather that it is a massive cover up in which they have all participated''

    Now - call me Mr Picky, but can you see the tiny flaw here?  What does Textusa think a conspiracy is?

    Let me provide an example

    A load of people all knowingly participating in a massive cover up. That would be one......

    The WBM CEOP Maddie webpage has unquestionably been discussed.

    On Forums and on Facebook where the issue was discussed. We have been watching attentively.
    Really? But I thought you were on holiday? 

    On JH Forum alone the subject reached at the time we're writing an amazing 170+ pages, 1,600+ replies.

    It very quickly became a “techies” v “conspiracy theorists” debate. One of those we know will become another never ending myth spawning story.
    ''A never-ending myth spawning story'' or in other words, competition. 

    Core conspiracy lovers desperately want it to be true whether it is or not.

    As we said during our analysis on the Ocean Club booking sheets posts, computers do not make mistakes. They either work or they don’t.
    It's just like having Steve Jobs in the room. Amazing ....... 

    If they do, they simply follow instructions (and do that with an amazing speed - that’s their added value) and it’s in this that mistakes exist. Instructions instructing wrongly, commonly known as computer glitches.
    I thought you said they didn't make mistakes? Actually, you haven't a clue, have you? 

    If a computer is instructed to capture a webpage and archive it, it’s logical to think the time allocated, or timestamp, when that is done is the moment in local time of when it is being archived. In fact it usually is.
    And your point is? 

    But that recording process is but a set of instructions the computer is ordered to follow and the clock it is referring to when allocating the date is also just another set of instructions being likewise followed. 
    Ah, there wasn't one. Okay. 

    Both sets of instructions are made up by humans and both subject to human error. Both subject to human intervention if there’s a will and the right expertise to go with it.
    What the actual fuck are you rambling on about now? 

    No, we don’t think in the WBM case there was any sort of human intervention. We believe in WBM when it says it’s an error and it will correct it. Just raising the possibility and showing how ridiculous it is to say that a computer programme cannot be altered. It can but it does need the right expertise, which may be very hard to have or to find.
    I wonder if Horizon is looking for a new presenter? With this razor-sharp analysis, you would be a shoo-in, Text. 

    The fact that WBM programmers are trying to fix the problem means the possibility of correction, or human intervention, exists:
    Er yes. Pourquoi?  

    The computer clock being wrong is very unlikely as it’s tested literally billions of times by the eyes of computer users every single day many times a day and so any and all possible errors in the instructions that make it appear before our eyes have been corrected by now and that gives the users the assurance that the time they're looking at is the correct one. 
    Oh bless, you don't have a clue, do you? 

    We say the computer is correct when what we should be saying is that the instructions it is ordered to follow are correct.

    However the same assurance we have about the clock doesn’t exist when it comes to the instructions of allocating a date to a file when archiving.

    If the computer for some reason is ordered to assume that a certain file is to be dated Jan 1 1900, then that is the date that file will be allocated independent of computers not existing then. From that moment that date will be the one the computer returns whenever queried about it. No other, it knows no better.

    It’s not the computer making the mistake but the instructions. The computer, we repeat, is always flawless even when following instructions that will make it return erroneous results.
    Actually, that isn't correct.

    No, computers don't 'make mistakes' but they can return errors or be unable to complete a process and this can be because of hardware or software issues or even things like power surges or fluctuations 

    Have we forgotten the Y2K hysteria when billions were spent because of the panic that computers wouldn’t be able to acknowledge files written before 2000 when the clock went over 1999? 

    All those files people feared would no longer be accessible were they not created and did they not exist? They did and the possibility of a glitch making it impossible for the computer to access them did not alter that.
    That wasn't the concern, but it would take the rest of my natural life to explain it to you 

    The problem was not of when the files were created but of not having the instructions in terms of time to enable the access. Once those appropriate instructions were introduced by human hand the problem was corrected.

    The April 30 WBM Maddie webpage has all the elements for a good, juicy conspiracy theory. 
    Well, you'd know dear 

    First of all, it involves a government agency and that gets any conspiracy theorist salivating.

    Secondly it has a change of mind on the part of one of its participants, the WBM.
    What are you on about? This is a computer 'changing it's mind', is it? 

    WBM first replied (in writing) that April 30 date was correct and then corrected its position (in writing) that the date was an error. 
    The company, on having it pointed out to them that the date was before Madeleine's disappearance, realised there was an error 

    Conspiracy theorists love these changes of heart. For them there’s no such thing as a correction. It’s always back pedalling due to pressure.
    Oh dear. There now follows a lengthy piece of rambling, turgid prose where the mad old bat witters on about the fucking wayback machine including reproducing emails etc. So to save you from developing homicidal urges, just whiz past it until you see red text again. Good luck, see you on the other side  

    For them the only genuine information coming from WBM is the first mail. All other statements from WBM are suspicious. All according to them result from folding under pressure.

    Thirdly because it involves a degree of technical knowledge very few have. 

    Very few hold the “power of information” and the majority is unable to verify truthfulness of the information put out by self-proclaimed experts and much less contradict it. 

    The arguments presented can be specious and even dishonest and there are no consequences as the debate will quickly run off into technical jargon making it impossible for the average person to follow it or even understand what is being discussed.

    In the WBM case conspiracy theorists cling on to 2 pieces of arguable evidence, ignoring all other overwhelming circumstantial evidence, to formulate a thesis.

    The first arguable evidence is the WBM capture itself as already shown in this post.

    They say that if a chocolate company decided to stamp its bars with the date it was produced then one just has to look at the date a bar has been stamped with to be able determine without question the day it was produced.

    Said like that it makes sense. 

    But to say it like that either one is ignorant or is being specious, either way the best option would have been to not say anything.

    If the chocolate company that stamps its bars with the date produces 100 chocolate bars a day and then one finds that there are 30,000 with the same day stamped then something is not right.

    What is more likely to have happened is the dating machine being faulty or the company deciding to ridiculously alter its production output for just one day?

    We won’t even go into the possibility of someone making chocolate bars today and stamping them intentionally with a date of years ago.

    The second piece of arguable evidence is saying that the ONLY correct information is from the first mail sent by WBM. 

    The fact that it is was followed by other mails recognising the error is disregarded. The fact there was atelephone conversation recognising the error also is.

    For conspiracy theorists these matter little because they are evidently a backtracking on the part of WBM folding under the pressure of dark, evil powers.

    What powers, one asks?

    They seem to forget that WBM is based on the US and out of reach of any British influence and or threat.

    WBM says this about the legal use of their product:

    “The Internet Archive is a nonprofit organization dedicated to archiving the Internet and other digital materials, and providing public access to these records. We are not in the business of responding to requests for affidavits, or authenticating pages or other information from the Wayback Machine; this is why we make our collections available at no cost via our Web site, As a nonprofit, our resources are limited, and these kinds of requests are a significant drain on our time and funds. Please remember that an affidavit from the Internet Archive may not be necessary.

    Before asking the Internet Archive to authenticate your documents, we ask that you please seek judicial notice or simply ask your opposing party to stipulate to the documents' authenticity. Of course, the best source of such information is the party who posted the information on the URLs at issue, and the second-best source of such information is someone who actually accessed the historical versions of the URLs.

    However, if you are determined to obtain an affidavit authenticating printouts from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, we will do our best to help you in accordance with this policy.

    To initiate your request, you must send us payment as described below and an electronic list of the extended URLs for each page you would like us to print out. By extended URL, we are referring to the full URL that appears in the Address field of your Web browser when you are looking at the page in question (e.g., If you want more than one page from a particular domain, you must supply the extended URL for each page. Due to the undue burden on our limited resources, we cannot respond to requests for all linked pages at some particular domain. The list of extended URLs should be emailed to info at archive dot org. Please include your contact information in your email.

    Our standard fee is $250 per request, plus $20 for each extended URL therein, excepting URLs that contain downloadable/printable files. Any such URLs (for example, .pdf, .doc, or .zip files) instead cost $30 per extended URL. The Internet Archive does not automatically notarize the affidavit. If you would like your affidavit notarized there is an additional $100 fee.”

    That first mail is not an affidavit. Only affidavits have legal value and one from WBM costs money.

    That mail has no legal value and is in our opinion just an automated response from WBM because “as a nonprofit, our resources are limited, and these kinds of requests are a significant drain on our time and funds”

    They get queried from all over the world and apparently do not have time or resources to look at each request.

    Only those requests that come back (with are you sure it is correct?) get duly analysed and will receive an answer along the lines of having revisited the issue we can now say that…

    An innocuous and meaningless answer that will satisfy the simply curious. Simply being practical by placing a sort of filter on requests coming from all over the world on all possible topics.

    Nothing sinister about this.

    But could WBM be backtracking with the following mails to protect its reputation?

    To make such a statement is ridiculous. WBM has a legal disclaimer and they are quite clear that only affidavits have legal values. WBM affidavits are what are used in court and not mails.

    And even then WBM says if the dispute involves a date it’s the responsibility of the person wanting to prove the date was wrong/right to prove it, not WBM.

    The mails recognising the error that followed that first one are basically WBM saying something like having revisited the issue we can now ask you not to ask for an affidavit on this subject because we won’t give you one, it’s an error.

    The fact that PJ has shown no interest in this issue should also be further indication that all can be explained with technical reasons. Errors in programming are technical reasons as are programmes that don’t foresee certain eventualities which can’t be foreseen before the problem they cause pops up. 

    The fact WBM has unilaterally ceased conversations on the WBM Maddie webpage (they will only talk to the police from now on) it’s not, in our opinion, because they have something to hide but simply because they have lost their patience. 

    Maddie’s case has no importance for WBM as in the internet world - their world - it is not by far the only fish in the sea or the only pebble on the beach.

    There’s only so many times one can say one is wrong and not be listened to.

    And relax. Welcome back. To sum up, she thinks it was an error. There, wasn't that easy?

    So, what's next? 

    Chance would have it that one April 30 defender was put in a situation that illustrates this to perfection.

    HKP is a guest poster on Jill Havern Forum and a regular one at Madeleine McCann Mystery Forum on this one using his full nick, Hongkong Phooey.

    On June 30 the internet debate around this subject was surprised by the following find:

    The following URL appeared:

    First reaction was to think that HKP (Hongkong Phooey) was someone from CEOP infiltrated in the forums and that this find had outed him.
    That might have been your first reaction, dear, I doubt it was anyone else's 

    HKP immediately denied any wrongdoing. Why did he deny? Because he was innocent.

    He had nothing to do with the appearance of that URL. The person who had stepped forward and recognised the deed. On June 30, another JH Forum poster, Syn, recognised having done it to prove a point in a technical discussion:

    I did it to prove a point to HPK that relying on the WB Source Directory is futile. He posted either here or on the other forum that he was convinced WB had now added on 27 June 2015 and on 17 June 2007. They hadn’t. Someone had simply typed in that url themselves either deliberately or by mistake and added it to the WBM but of course as neither exist they just redirect to

    Anything can be added as I demonstrated by adding hongkongphooey to the archive saved on 27th June for to create the one on 29th June 2015. 

    The question that has to be asked is if Syn had not come forward how many would have believed in HKP crying his innocence?

    If Syn had not come forward HKP would still be denying it today. Over and over in the exact number of times he wouldn’t be believed.

    HKP wouldn’t be believed in the exact same way as he, HKP, and others like him do not believe in WBM when they deny the date is correct.

    We would like to highlight something present in this HKP episode and which we call the stupidity factor.
    Textusa is going to highlight the ''stupidity factor'' Please pay attention, she is an expert on this 

    If HKP was a CEOP mole it would have been really stupid on his part to create something with the name “mccannhongkongphooey” on CEOP’s website .
    You think? 

    We do not agree with HKP’s opinions but he has demonstrated quite clearly that he’s not stupid. It makes no sense for him to have created that URL.
    You think? 

    That stupidity factor that exonerates HKP is the same one that should exonerate CEOP on the WBM webpage.
    You think? 

    For us it’s very obvious it’s an error and we know those who have jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon can’t jump off without looking foolish.  
    So true. Rather like the fucktards who came up with the preposterous idea that it was not possible to seat 10 around a table, therefore there never were any tapas dinners 

    We would like to warn we won’t get into any technical debate about the WBM page, so comments of that nature will not be published.
    Thank fuck 

    We're fully aware that myths are always based on things that cannot be proved or disproved and people will always believe whatever they want to believe.
    Uh huh 

    Some will persevere until the tip of their fingers wear out and continue to say there’s meat on the bone even if what still is there was glued on by them.

    The point of this post is not about the WBM, however, the fact that it is being discussed (and how) elsewhere is.

    5. Internet debate

    But what we REALLY want to highlight today is that it was discussed. Really, really discussed.

    Each one having the chance and TAKING IT to throw in their best arguments after doing proper research on the subject to defend their positions.

    All parties taking nothing for granted, all parties exploring all possibilities even if minimal.

    We were obviously very happy to see the issue debated.

    We think it is a subject worthy of discussion because only through appropriate and respectful exchange of ideas can one come to substantiated conclusions.
    Ha ha - like your respectful exchange of ideas about a disappearing table and Sky news manipulating footage of their reporter, yes? 

    The information is now available to readers and they can now to go through it all from both sides of the discussion and make up their own mind about it.
    Oh how nice of you 

    However, we must point out a sad note. Our opinion is that the debate was only reasonable up to a certain point and from then on has unfortunately resulted in the solidifying of the epithet of conspiracy theorists that the other side has tirelessly worked to give us all without success but now got a great push without making any effort.
    People call you a conspiracy theorist because you are, dingbat.  

    Fortunately there are some sane people out there who put up a good fight.

    One day it will dawn on some people that the sun rises not because it’s being pulled up by CIA or MI6 invisible strings under orders from lurking powers wanting us all to believe that the Earth is rotating when it's not. There is a sunrise every single day because our planet does effectively rotate on its axis.

    But it's only our opinion and it is only worth what it is worth.
    No, I think the bit about the Sun is pretty much proven 

    We support debate and there certainly was one around the WBM.

    However what we can’t let pass by is the double standard we witnessed.

    What we witnessed was people being passionate, really dedicated to investigation and getting deep into discussing the WBM while having dismissed as unimportant (or not even touched the subject) about the manipulation on the Ocean Club’s booking sheets and on the Mark Warner crèche sheets we exposed on various posts.
    That's because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the booking sheets or creche sheets have been manipulated. If you actually asked any of your fawning dangleberries what the evidence was, they wouldn't have a fucking clue. They merely believe it because you said so and they are all as thick as mince 

    With WBM  they seemed to apply all their supposed computer expertise yet with the booking sheets the possibility of the use of OCR being the sole reason for the mistakes was brought up and apparently accepted without reservation.
    Oh diddums, wouldn't they go with your fuckitty do dah explanation? 

    Only that can justify the silence around the most likely manipulation of these documents handed over by both Ocean Club and Mark Warner to the PJ in the course of the investigation about Maddie’sdisappearance.
    No, it's because there was no evidence of manipulation whatsoever. Do go on..... 

    The nurses had already warned Textusa about eating the floral arrangements, but they drew the line at her shoving them up her arse and prancing about singing Morrisey covers

    It’s like when being presented 2 flowers, one yellow and one red to determine which one is a rose:

    - with the yellow they stand their ground and not budge an inch about it being a rose just because they know that roses can be yellow and so take the discussion deep into the variances of tonality of that specific colour down to the minute differences of wavelengths between Yellow (CMYK) (process yellow) (canary yellow), Yellow (NCS) (psychological primary yellow), Yellow (Munsell), Yellow (Pantone), Yellow (Crayola), Unmellow yellow, Lemon, Mellow yellow, Royal yellow, Gold (golden), Cyber yellow, Safety yellow, Trombone yellow, Khaki, Goldenrod and Olive no matter how much the gardener responsible for the flower says it is not a rose.
    And there, ladies and gentlemen, you have a typical Textusa paragraph. A load of utter bollocks expressly designed to make the reader wonder what the fuck they were on about 

    - with the red flower they'll just say “Oh, that’s just a carnation, they're red, duh…” and be completely satisfied, plus, according to them a discussion not only is not needed as it's a waste of time no matter that the plain evidence showing it is a rose.
    What the fuck was that all about? 

    Why discuss the WBM webpage to exhaustion but look the other way when it comes to the booking sheets?
    Because they can see there was an error with the wayback machine, whereas you made up all the stuff about the booking sheets 

    Maybe because one feeds conspiracy theory and helps accumulate clutter around the subject and so is eagerly fuelled while the other, because it proves the active participation of the resort in the cover-up, is disregarded, set aside, dropped like a stone.
    We will be dealing with ''Clutter'' in the Wot's this bollocks? section, but in brief 'clutter' is the inconvenient truth which nibbles at the edges of Textusa's clinically insane theories, rendering them nonsense and making her look like a demented gobshite. 

    One is worthy to be discussed, the other, apparently a complete waste of time to give it even another look.

    One they want people to run circles around, the other they want it to be left alone, no attention called to it.
    That's because the WBM error was evident and provable and your loopy claims weren't. 

    6. Booking sheets

    When we said Smithman was Gerry McCann carrying a live child to be seen and so materialise the abductor, the subject was not discussed and where it was, it was ridiculed.
    And rightly so

    When we said there was no negligence, the subject was not discussed and where it was, it was ridiculed.
    And rightly so 

    When we said there was no Big Round Table and so no Tapas dinners and that they only existed to justify a non-existing negligence, the subject was not discussed and where it was, it was ridiculed.
    And rightly so 

    When we showed the involvement of others outside the T9 but present in Luz in the cover-up, the subject was not discussed and where it was, it was ridiculed.
    And rightly so. You see, Textusa, the problem about coming up with bullshit theories is that people have the tendency to soil themselves laughing at them. I know someone who laughed so hard at one of your theories that he actually vomited.

    The reader can easily note that whenever swinging is brought up as a possibility to be behind the cover up the subject is never discussed and where it is, it's ridiculed.
    Because it's ridiculous. Here to help.  

    Maddie was killed in the UK, body brought to Luz, had a family lend her girl to pose as Maddie until alarm? Let’s discuss it.
    Let's discuss how ridiculous it is, you mean. 

    Is Maddie buried under Murat’s drive way even though the property was searched to the inch? Let’s discuss it.
    Well everyone thinks that is ridiculous too 

    Was Maddie the victim of a paedo? Let’s discuss it (by the way, we DO agree with this discussion but all has to be discussed and nothing taken for granted).
    So what are you griping about then? 

    Was Maddie killed before the 3rd and the group counted on no one being able to recognise Maddie's face after literally making it a worldwide icon? Let’s discuss it.

    Did a family lend their daughter to impersonate Maddie for a whole week but after her disappearance was never again confused with her? Let's discuss it. 

    Was Maddie victim of a Satanic cult? Let’s discuss it.

    Is the freemasonry the reason for the cover-up as in these things masonry is always involved? Let’s discuss it.

    Have they built a house in Luz that looks like a bunker on the top of the hill so as to bury Maddie under it? Let’s discuss it.

    Was Maddie a clone, a scientific experiment gone wrong? Let’s discuss it.

    Did Maddie really exist? Let’s discuss it. 

    Was UK government involved via CEOP in Maddie’s demise 3 days before she disappeared? Let’s discuss it.

    Only the most deranged place any credence in any of these theories because they are all palpably ridiculous. 

    Yet you really don't see why people don't even bother to discuss your theories???

    It is because, Textusa, they are the most ridiculous of all. They are so ridiculous that even other loonies won't give them the time of day. No self-respecting conspiracy theorist will even look at them

    That is how ridiculous they are. And of course it doesn't help that you have surrounded yourself with a core of mentally socially and no doubt aesthetically challenged individuals whose idea of a stimulating discussion is to write 'bum' on a wall then laugh at it

    Was the cover-up all about protecting the reputation of those swinging there that week? Nah, that’sridiculous, discussing it is a waste of time.
    Because it is utterly, painfully ridiculous. So ridiculous that not even a bunch of people who lift up a leg to fart are willing to have anything to do with them. 

    Let’s discuss every single STINK BOMBS (So Truth Is Not Known - Bring On More Barmy Stories) out there and the ones yet to be invented but not swinging. That would be a ridiculous waste of time.
    An explanation for 'Stink bombs' will be available in Wot's this bollocks? shortly 

    But in short a ''stink bomb'' is any idea of minimum credibility which Textusa doesn't like because a) it cannot be shoehorned around her mad utterances and b) she didn't think of it first 

    We remind readers about what we have said about this: “Spectacular STINK BOMB are meant to be noticed, aimed to discredit all those interested in the truth about Maddie... To fatally wound the cause of searching for the truth as to what happened on that night.”

    If the WBM CEOP Maddie webpage is not spectacular then we don’t know what the word means. Over 170+ pages of forum discussion show we do.

    So when we published the posts about the booking sheets we did not expect them to be discussed as we're not expecting for that to happen with this post.
    No, you had every expectation of them being discussed until the end of time, but I pissed on those particular pomme frites 

    However, the fact that we remain faithful to the principle of what is known cannot be unknown makes us continue to write and so continue to walk our own path.
    ''What is known cannot be unknown'' 

    Honestly, have you ever heard a wankier 'principle' than that?  I would ask her what it's supposed to mean, but I fear she would attempt to tell us. It's too big a risk, guys. Even for you, I'm sorry.

    More than 1,500,000 hits says that we are not walking alone.
    No, it tells you 1,500,000 people are pissing themselves laughing 

    About the Ocean Club booking sheets, an instance where again the computer is blameless, we are not finished. We will be coming back to them with quite interesting finds. Of the reasonable kind, the kind people apparently prefer to pretend to ignore.
    No you won't dear.  

    Post Scriptum: the fact that we have published on a Friday doesn’t mean we have returned from our summer break. It was just a coincidence.

    Of course it was

    Now, I did promise you some highlights from Textusa's holiday snaps, so enjoy

    Textusa's twins, Jamie and Angus, enjoying the beach and really working that Ibiza look 

    Fred flaunting his curves in a made to measure mankini with an adorable little parachute and Dangermouse accessories

    Fred photobombs Textusa and her full time carer as Text flaunts her beach body with just a hint of side boob

    A golden tan, a lime bikini and a swipe of blue eyeshadow - Textusa is ready to hit the town 

    A gift from the genius that is Aleksandr Orlov