Monday, 11 June 2018

Cloud cover my arse

Click here

Evening all

Right - finally found time to come back to this. Apologies for the post-and-run yesterday

So, Baldylocks Bennett tweeted a weather satellite image, supposedly showing Portugal under cloud cover at 1pm on 3rd May 2007 and which he claims is ''proof'' of his bonkers theory that the ''Last Photo'' was taken on the previous Sunday.

Here is the tweet

So it would appear that, along with his many other deficiencies, Bennett is also crap at Geography. And at using the zoom function

Because here is the location of PdL

Can you see it?

Practically at the tip of the mainland, on that last sticky-out bit..

And here is what you see when you zoom in on Baldy's pic: the PdL area with virtually no cloud cover, and ideal conditions for a piccy by the pool

Should have gone to Specsavers


  1. I wonder why the 'sticky out bit' appears grey rather than green?

    According to the Bennett 'tweet', "The EUMETSAT satellite image shows the cloud cover over Portugal at 1pm, Thur 3 May 2007"

    According to the Telegraph the last photo, so called, "was taken at 2.29pm on Thursday, May 3 2007."

    Might those clouds have drifted during the intervening hour and a half perhaps?

    1. It's green from where I'm sitting

      The clouds were moving to the east, so away from the coast, so it was getting clearer all the time.

      I also posted a table of data the other day showing that Bennett is talking out of his arse. I mean, he posted the satellite image - did he not think to check that the cloud cover included PdL? I would have thought he could see individual blades of grass with those glasses.

  2. Well, we had Textusa's final statement on the dogs (sorry about that, by the way, I suddenly found I'd brought the infection with me to here. No more.) and now we have researcher and Downing Street correspondent Mr Bennett's summation of his case against the McCanns.

    "To clarify, IMO based on evidence I believe a plan was made in the days before 3 May 07 for Jane Tanner to invent an abductor, THEN for #NunoLourenco to phone the PJ next day, with a photo of WK's car & so send the PJ down the wrong track. It succeeded: see #Amaral's book #McCann". Tweet timed 11.37 AM on June 11 2018.

    Deny it as he might - when it suits him - the accusation is that two parents set up a premeditated conspiracy ending in the death of their own child.

    And people wonder why you and I claim to be utterly revolted by that whole crew of Usual Suspects and wonder why I christened his place a cesspit, i.e. a hole full of filthy and stinking scum with pieces of flaking shit slopping around in it.

    That was over-generous. Of course, the people on twitter McCann didn't throw their arms up in the air, or say they'd forward the tweet to Carter-Ruck or express shock. Nope. A few of them don't like him and tell him to get lost but almost nobody found anything morally objectionable, let alone utterly horrific and shocking, in what he posted. And he attached Goncalo Amaral's name to it.

    They, that is twitter McCann, are as beyond redemption as Bennett;they and the Walker 1000 character, oops sorry to identify you, not only deserve each other but are, in a very deep sense, mirror images of each other. That's why they go on interacting on an hourly basis.

    1. Morning JB,
      No worries as regards spreading the infection, but I can see I am going to have to introduce counter-measures akin to a Foot and Mouth outbreak, and get everyone to drink a pint of sheep dip or whatever it is they do.
      Bennett puts me in mind of those sick people in America who have harassed the families of those killed in the 9/11 events, or school shootings, claiming the people they lost that day were actors. He doesn't give the tiniest shit about those he attacks with this nonsense.

      As far as Textusa goes, I am largely ignoring her, and just having a glance for the fun value. I am not interested in her latest theory or how she appears to have invented an entirely new state of matter, because she is so irredeemably thick that she wouldn't understand anyway. It would be like buying a book on algebra for a pigeon.

    2. "the accusation is that two parents set up a premeditated conspiracy ending in the death of their own child."

      Why do you say 'ending in the death'? 'The accusation', if represented by the statement you quote, makes no reference to any death.

    3. Butting in here - I don’t think there is any doubt that Bennett’s position is that Madeleine is dead, is there?

      No nitpicking please - we get enough of that from Textusa’s home for the Terminally Bewildered 😳

    4. I am not concerned with defending Bennett. My question concerns JB's use of the word 'ending', which implies a very specific point in a chain of events and insinuates that the child's death was planned. Is that an aspect of Bennett's 'position' do you think?

      I don't do 'nitpicking'. That's for the Twitterati. I do however subscribe to accuracy wherever possible, since the English language allows us that luxury.

    5. You appear to be taking JB to task about the impression created by Bennett’s lunacy. Leave the hair-splitting out, please. Thanks

    6. If I may quote your good self:

      "there is a fine line between people being asked to defend an idea and being asked to defend themselves and I'd like to keep it to the former, not the latter."

      According to JB earlier: "the accusation is that two parents set up a premeditated conspiracy ending in the death of their own child."

      That the McCanns conspired in the death of their own daughter is the idea inferred and articulated here. You may take the view that JB is not required to defend it since it is merely "the impression created by Bennett's Lunacy."

      My point however is that the statement JB refers to as the basis for his interpretation makes no reference to death at all.

      Perhaps Bennett has elsewhere alluded to a planned mortality. In which case those are the remarks to bring forth. I merely wish to know (from JB since he raised the point) where he got the idea from, as it cannot be read into the citation in question.

      With respect, 'Bennett's Lunacy' is not the answer.

    7. @ JB

      That just about sums up Jill Hav'em's hell hole.

    8. I recognise the laboured prose style.

      I don't care about any of your points; I don't come here to debate. Genuine debate is not possible on the internet, particularly about the McCann case. and the time for debate is long over.

      I repeat that: I don't come here to debate. I come here to share information with people I trust. After ten years in this game I know who they are.

      So I'm saying, quite nicely, forget it: I'm not interested in addressing you, whoever you are.


  3. Morning, NT

    I am concerned that you are being unfair to a pigeon here.

    Have a good day.


    1. No pigeon was harmed in the making of this blog

    2. Oh, what a relief!


  4. Anon @ 8.42

    Fuck off, eh.

    Anything else from you goes in the bin


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