Translate

Monday, 6 August 2018

Ducking fool



Afternoon all,

I have been sent some interesting posts this afternoon. The sender wishes to remain anonymous for the present. As they probably won't make sense on their own, I am going to try to reconstruct them in sequence. Textusa seemingly published some of the posts after being given a nudge, but not all of them, and the sender thought it was particularly interesting to see which she left out, and how yet again she ducked all requests for evidence.

To the sender - please let me know if this sequence is correct; I know you say she sat on some of them for a while, so the sequence in which they were written and the sequence in which they were published is going to differ; if you see any errors I can correct them later.

My text is in red as usual, Textusa's in black and the sender in blue


  • Nora Batty.

    We see that although we have said that it was raining, you stuck your head out the window and decided that Jules was the one to be right when she said it was dry.

    We respect your decision even though we don’t agree with it.

    However, we would like to point out 3 things:

    Firstly, justice is not and cannot be based on liking but only on facts. 

    It’s not a question of liking if the dogs are reliable or not, it’s a question of being factual if they are reliable or not.

    In fact, the discussion around the dogs is legally pointless. The Portuguese justice system has already decided that they are:
    “2. On 1st instance, it was given as proved the following factual matter:
    (…)
    6. The dogs of the British police “Eddie” and “Keela” detected marks of odour of human blood and of cadaver in the apartment 5-A of the Ocean Club (al AR).
    7. The dogs of the British police “Eddie” and “Keela” detected marks of odour of human blood and of cadaver in the automotive vehicle rented by the AA. Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann after the disappearance of Madeleine (al. AR).”
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CWZ1fz0MihI/VxYyZMV3gpI/AAAAAAAAC_Q/EjoFWjpHqmMepRXCvwwUlVskH2X6Y9BbQCKgB/s1600/TRL_Page_05.jpg

    So, legally, when one supports those like NT who say that the dogs don’t prove from where the scent they alert to is coming from, one is going against a legal decision made in a legitimate court of law.

    Facts are facts and true justice can only be based on facts.

    Secondly, we would like to say that there’s no one in the world that hasn’t been fooled. And no one who has been fooled, has been fooled knowingly.

    We will quote ourselves from our post “The TRUTH”, which we recommend you visit:
    http://textusa.blogspot.com/2015/09/truth.html

    “Truth on the other hand although not only convicts the T9 it also involves many others in the obstruction of justice and body concealment. TRUTHmongers cannot allow that.

    Are all those out there who don’t subscribe to Textusa TRUTHmongers?

    Obviously not. Fortunately there are many truth-seekers. Good-hearted tenacious people.

    Unfortunately many of them have been influenced by TRUTHmongers in such a manner that it makes it hard for them to let go of beliefs created through time.

    Also, it’s also very hard to “part ways” from “friends” made while seeking for the truth. To come to terms that one can no longer trust in those one trusted.

    Much easier to fool someone than to convince someone that s/he has been fooled, as Mark Twain said.

    We understand that.

    Unfortunately TRUTHmongers also do and exploit it very effectively. A TRUTHmonger is only a “Knight of TRUTH” with the help and support of the truth-seekers. Ultimately these are who give them their credibility.

    A voice needs echoing and without them, s/he is only a seller of nothing, striking the same piano key endlessly because the tune s/he is limited to play demands the tune be of a single note.

    We trust the readers’ capability to tell the difference between truth-seekers and TRUTHmongers.”

    Thirdly, we believe you must have mentioned many times Sr Amaral and his family. And we’re perfectly happy with it.

    We have no reason to believe that you’re not a truth-seeker. Hearing you speak of them is not offensive.

    What we will not accept is that people we know are here to deceive, like we believe Jules is (we know you disagree) to speak about them. That to us is a line they should have the decency to not cross.

  • ''In fact, the discussion around the dogs is legally pointless. The Portuguese justice system has already decided that they are:
    “2. On 1st instance, it was given as proved the following factual matter:
    (…)
    6. The dogs of the British police “Eddie” and “Keela” detected marks of odour of human blood and of cadaver in the apartment 5-A of the Ocean Club (al AR).
    7. The dogs of the British police “Eddie” and “Keela” detected marks of odour of human blood and of cadaver in the automotive vehicle rented by the AA. Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann after the disappearance of Madeleine (al. AR).”

    Is that not precisely what NT said, and which you complained about yesterday? That the dog alerts to the scent it has been trained to detect, but can't tell you how the scent got there or who it came from? The court said the dogs alerted to blood and cadaver. That's what NT says.

    it seems to me you are trying to misrepresent the court, here.

    It's also really offensive to say that people who don't agree with you are ''here to deceive'', especially when you still haven't produced any evidence to back up your claims

  • "Facts are facts and true justice can only be based on facts."

    Which brings us back to the problem - your claims are not based on facts. You have never produced any evidence at all to back up your claims about swinging, and that is your central thesis. You even ducked out on answering the question about how many agree with you.

    So if true justice can only be based on facts, where does that leave you?

  • Anonymous 6 Aug 2018, 12:10:00,

    No, and you know it's not.

    NT says (our caps) “a decomp dog only tells you that the products of human decomp are in the air, NOT HOW THEY GOT THERE or to whom they belong".

    Means that NT the scent could have come from ANYWHERE in the house as it wafted around for months there after the body was taken.

    We and the court by saying "marks", say the locations where the dogs alerted ARE the locations where the body was. Marks are the physical residue that the body leaves and that NT denies.

  • Anonymous 6 Aug 2018, 12:18:00,

    We'll ask you the same question we have asked Anne Guedes: what evidence you think could be expected to be found that would convince you that there was swinging?
  • Textusa 6 Aug 2018, 12:47:0,

    Talking about demanding proof. Hope you have gone over to NT to demand from him proof of his sedation theory.

    And as NT has hosted without any correction to date Nick’s comment about Kelly’s bar, we also believe you should go there as well to demand the substantiation of this.

    Interesting that it's only us who have to prove incontrovertible evidence of something that Anne Guedes has stated that "by privacy rule no evidence [of swinging] should be available".

    About the topic being discussed, that the dogs point to locations from where physical items emit the scent they are trained to pick up, we have provided more than enough evidence, so please read the blog.
  • I don't think you really understand this whole ''marks'' business, do you?

    The dogs alert to physical remains, sure, but they can also alert to residual scent. I have never seen NT deny ''physical residues'', like you are claiming, I just think he understands it a lot better than you.

    Please don't do that "What evidence would you expect to find?" cop-out again; If you are saying ''facts are facts'' then tell us a fact. Swinging isn't a fact. You have no evidence of it. Therefore unless you want to change your mantra to "Justice can only be based on theories" you're a bit stuck, aren't you?

  • I'm asking you what evidence, what facts, support your theory.

    You said "Facts are facts and true justice can only be based on facts.", so I would like to know what they are, in terms of your theory.

    You can't get out of things by telling me what I should demand from NT. I am asking - not demanding - what your evidence is and what facts support it. Surely you can answer that?
  •  You don't appear to have read Martin Grime's report, so let me help you out

    "What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner"

    That seems to be exactly what NT is saying, not what you are saying. It is also completely false to claim that the dogs cannot alert to residual scent ALONE. This has been proven in studies. So I'm afraid for all your indignation, NT is clearly the one who gets it and you are clearly the one who doesn't.


    As you seem to have decided not to publish any more of my posts, I will ask NT to post them instead.

    I'll give you five minutes first, but if I don't see them, I'll give them to NT

  • Anonymous6 Aug 2018, 13:02:00

    "I have never seen NT deny ''physical residues''"

    That made us laugh out loud.
  •  Well, perhaps rather than laugh out loud, you could quote him?

    You see, I think the problem we have here is that you don't actually understand what happens. You seem to have withheld the post where I quoted from Martin Grime's report - that won't make it go away, I'm afraid
  • Anonymous 6 Aug 2018, 13:11:00,

    Funny how the demand of proof is unidirectional and works only in our direction.

    Everything we have presented, we have justified. With too many words, to some. But it's there.

    Now, we ask you go ask evidence from NT simply because as a matter of principle, we think those who demand from us should be the first to welcome questions about the statements they make.

    Now, we won't waste any more time with you, the blog must move forward and yes, you can take all your unpublished comments over to NT, after all isn't that the raison d'etre of his blog?

  •  No, actually you haven't.
    I think it is very revealing that one of the posts you declined to publish quoted from Martin Grime's report and illustrated that NT is spot on.

    Which presumably is why you declined to publish it.

    I think we can all take note of the fact that you were unable to provide any proof or indeed a single fact which supports your swinging theory.

    Have a good afternoon

    Anon - I hope they are in the right order, let me know if not and I'll correct them

    I'm also going to add this, which Textusa posted later

  • Oh Anonymous 6 Aug 2018, 13:20:00,

    You are killing us with laughter!

    "It is also completely false to claim that the dogs cannot alert to residual scent ALONE. This has been proven in studies."

    Before you make yourself look even more foolish, please go and read NT.

    He says that the cadaver scent is made up of ONLY airborne molecules, and when the body is taken away it doesn't leave any physical residue from which this scent is emitted from.

    So, according to him, the scent the EVRD dog picks up are these airborne molecules left by the body months before.

    In fact, what NT says, is that EVRD dogs ONLY alerts to residual scent.

    Please, the nest time you mention "studies" please provide links to them.
  • So just to come back on this as its clear you still don't get it, of necessity, molecules must be capable of being airborne or they can't travel up a nose. That's how smell works. In schools, we normally teach this in year 5.

    As regards physical residues, YOU insisted that when a body is removed, physical residues remain which emit a scent. I, and others, have tried to explain to you about 8 billion times that this is not necessarily the case, and that residual scent, adsorbed onto surfaces in the location, can also trigger an alert. You appear to think that when the body is removed, the volatile molecules all bounce along out of the door behind it. I would try to explain it to you again, but I fear it would be like trying to explain nuclear fission to a cheesy wotsit.

    No, I have never said the dogs react ONLY to residual scent, do not be ridiculous.

    Finally, I wouldn't be asking for studies if I were you, considering that the 'facts' you have produced to date total a big fat zero


    20 comments:

    1. Ducking, diving, weaving, bobbing, Swerving, hiding, lying, fobbing.

      ReplyDelete
    2. Nora Batty didn't stick her head out the window.. Nora Batty clearly stated that she didn't need to, when looking through clear glass.. (rolling eye emoticon)

      ReplyDelete
    3. It's painful to watch, this. She's never going to get it - or admit it if she does. I just don't get how anyone can still support anything she says if they've truly come here and read everything you've had to say on the matter NT. Madness

      As for her tantrum over people DARING to mention Amaral and his family, who the hell does she think she is? If we apply her logic (lol) then she's the one who disrespects Amaral, because according to Textusa he got it all wrong didn't he?!
      Sanctimonious old cow!

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. I think the words "Sanctimonious old cow" Are very well chosen :D

        Delete
      2. Most fitting isn't it.

        Going back to the issue of Textusa's rather worrying stance on hitting children - or rather, her perception of what's acceptable - we have this; (tweeter's handle redacted)

        'Based on what has *REDACTED* to qualify the slap as ‘nasty’?

        Unless, of course, it’s just a simple exercise to stoke up the hatred against the McCanns. Then people are surprised that those fighting to have the truth about what happened to Maddie are called haters by the media.'

        So Textusa, who thinks a grown man slapping a child so hard that she flies across the room and dies is simply discipline, wants to know what right this tweeter has to refer to such a slap as "nasty".
        Textusa, nasty doesn't even cover it, dear. You are deranged.

        As for "stoking up hatred against the McCanns", what is it you say NT? Massive irony klaxon?

        Delete
      3. Her entire take on that was really concerning. Firstly, her description of a massive backhander administered by a grown man to a three year old child as a ''disciplinary'' sanction, but also her description of a resulting hypothetical death as "an accident" indicates some very abnormal thinking, especially as there is no indication WHATSOEVER that any such thing took place; it exists only thanks to her pornographic little scenario

        Delete
    4. There can be no way on earth, Textusa fails to grasp what you're saying, NT. The same as it's not a mistake on their behalf, that they continually lie about those who CHOOSE to comment here, or CHOOSE to share your excellent blog.

      Hopefully people who read this, will be able to see just why nobody responds to any of Textusa's infantile "if you don't reply, then you're a liar", demands.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. She is a very odd person, is she not? She puts me in mind of the original ''Snake Oil'' salesmen, claiming a multitude of unproven to downright impossible benefits of their elixir. I mean, who can forget this:

        "We say the body releases a syrupy substance, which we have called “cadaver compound” and which we say is the physical source for the scent Eddie signalled."

        Well, that's great. One tiny problem - that doesn't happen.

        This arose from her finding a picture showing purified cadaverine in a tube. In it's purified state at room temperature and pressure it is an oily liquid. She immediately extrapolated that Madeleine's body would be covered in an ''oily sheen'' of neat cadaverine, a compound which, I might add, can only be obtained in it's pure form by a complicated extraction process involving solvents, separation and a fractionation column.

        But what is astounding is that, although she knows she made up every word of this ''explanation'' she tries to defend it to the death, despite it being, literally, a physical impossibility.

        It reminded me very much of an exchange I read between a group of people following the disappearance of the Malaysian airways jet which disappeared and which we now know entered the Indian Ocean thousands of miles off course.

        One poster insisted that the rescuers should be looking in space.

        His reasoning was that they could have accidentally flown a bit too high and somehow escaped the Earth's gravity, and were probably fine, just bimbling about in orbit.

        After several minutes of what can only be described as ''stunned silence'' someone pointed out to him that commercial airliners cruised at about 500 miles an hour, whereas they would need to accelerate to about 25,000 miles an hour to achieve escape velocity, and if it was as easy as ''flying a bit too high'' we'd all be popping over to the moon every five fucking minutes.

        Now here's the thing

        Most people would realise, on a forum full of scientists and engineers, that they had just made a complete plank of themselves, and either gracefully conceded, had a bit of a laugh, and never mentioned it again. Failing that, perhaps disappeared for six months and returned with a new name.

        Not this one.

        He decided to brazen it out. He stuck to his guns, despite seasoned engineers explaining patiently to him that it was not physically possible and that the big clue was the fucking huge rockets fueled with liquid oxygen and hydrogen which were normally strapped to the side of anything bound for space.

        And that's Textusa and her syrupy corpse.

        Delete
      2. Also meant to add the point was about neglect and how being in kellys bar without the kids means that it was probable they were alone. Btw textusa you stalking bint...that comment was on fb..not nts blog. So
        1 its not his problem to correct me if i'm wrong(if i am feel free to prove it)
        2 you can't even get that right. I mean i'm flattered at my age to have a stalker...

        Delete

      3. Sade Anslow
        20:25 (10 minutes ago)
        to me

        Sade Anslow has left a new comment on your post "Ducking fool":

        What 😂😂 so Textusa isn't just limiting herself to the McCann case then lol.


        (Sade - apologies, I accidentally deleted your comment and had to restore it. I'm an idiot)

        Delete
      4. Ohh lol, no worries.
        I'm interested in any decent forum discussing the Malaysian airlines flight NT if you'd kindly email me a link. My dad is a huge plane fanatic and not the best with using the internet so I'd love to show him some links 🙂

        Delete
      5. Will do, I can think of a couple he might enjoy :D

        Delete
      6. Have emailed you some links - tell him to get in quick before Textusa sends her stalker drones in :D

        Delete
      7. Lol!! Oh god, I didn't think this through did I?

        Delete
    5. What comment about kellys bar textusa?
      That the group was seen in there. Thats not a myth. They had been there without the kids. Stop diverting you tool

      ReplyDelete
    6. Peter Mac And Cheese7 August 2018 at 00:11

      Just lately there are so many things Textusa finds funny or interesting that just aren't. Seems very forced.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. She's flapping about like a hanglider in a hurricane

        Delete
    7. Imagine referring nora batty to one of her own blog posts as evidence. Whoever you are Nora Batty...an excellent dismantling of textusas premise...can't even call it a theory.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Have you seen her latest garbage today? Hilarious! Reams of complete garbage she attributes to Martin Grime and which he has never said, marinaded in her own brand of "Science" - ie, bullshit. She really is thick

        Delete

    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 nottextusa@gmail.com