Tuesday, 29 June 2010

Self-Evident Fact: Sedation


I’ve said that the sedation of the little girl carried by “The Stroller” was so self-evident that it would take just one paragraph to prove.

But there are so many self-evident things in this case that people have apparently failed to notice that I’ll take a little more than a paragraph on this particular issue.

There are five and only five unanimously accepted facts in the whole McCann saga: first, the girl seen by the Smith family was carried by a man, second, she was barefooted, third, she was dressed in flimsy pyjamas, fourth, she offered no resistance, and fifth, she had her eyes closed, apparently sleeping.

All the remainder facts are subject to disagreement; and in most, with an argumentation as stubborn as baseless and bizarre, aimed only to contradict for contradiction’s sake the most basic and irrefutable logic.

But on this post the objective is to look for consensuality to its possible extent.

Defended by the McCann & friends, and by a few exceptions on this side, such as both myself and Ironside, is that the man carrying the girl was wearing a jacket and beige pants.

These facts are taken from Jane Tanner’s statements, and aren’t accepted by those who believe that she didn’t see anyone and that the body was carried away in a blue bag, right below the coppers’, in this case, the GNR, noses.

As you might have deduced by now, I’m a firm believer that the blue bag did not serve for that purpose, yes, it did a “now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t” kind of performance but that will be analyzed in an upcoming post.

Today, what matters to be used as a baseline, is that a girl was carried, without any resistance and in an evident, uncontested, state of unconsciousness, barefooted and dressed in flimsy pyjamas, by a man wearing a jacket, from Apartment 5A to the Rua da Escola Primária where both were seen by the Smith family.

What is not consensual in the paragraph above? First the girl; most say was Maddie, and I say it wasn’t. Then, there seems to be a disagreement about what was effectively her state of unconsciousness. The Black Hats say she was asleep, most White Hats say she was dead, and Metodo 2 say she was simply sedated.

Lastly, and least important detail, but has to be taken into account, is the distance the carrier carried the girl. If you think Tanner’s sighting was real AND that it was Maddie that was seen by the Smiths, then the distance is around 700 metres (route taken to go EAST, past Murat’s house and turning back WEST towards where the sighting occurred); and if you believe, like I do, that it wasn’t Maddie; then the distance becomes a mere 400 metres (having turned WEST immediately after leaving Apartment 5A).

Here is a picture of the McCanns taken, I believe on May 5th, two evenings after the fateful night:
 
I don’t remember of any sudden meteorological alterations happening at the time, so I’m assuming that the temperature outside when the picture was taken was very similar to those of the evening Maddie disappeared.

As you can see by their clothing, they don’t to require protection from significant cold, but did find the need for some long sleeved clothing due to the night chill.

I would say that the evening temperature for PDL on an early May evening would be around 10-12ºC (50-54ºF). Chilly. Not freezing cold, but uncomfortably chilly.

It was uncomfortable enough to the point of having called Tanner’s attention the lack of a blanket covering the child she says she saw carrying before her eyes.

We have one precious reference that we can always look upon whenever we need to see what EXACTLY the McCann’s version of those evening facts is: The Channel 4 “Cutting Edge” documentary.

This documentary, may I remind you, was filmed under the close direction of Gerry McCann himself, and had in PDL with him Oldfield’s and Tanner’s presence.

I also remind you that the stated objective of this film was made so that it could enable the jolting of the memory of any possible further witnesses. This documentary was filmed late April, beginning of May, I cannot be precise, but that is irrelevant, as the idea was to reconstruct what the McCanns thought adequate to be reconstructed, showing only the detail that the McCanns thought relevant, so that any further potential witness watching it would have the same reaction Mr. Smith had when he watched Gerry McCann come off the plane.

So it’s natural, expectable and essential the importance that was, as should have been, given to detail.

The documentary was quite disappointing, as of all that particular evening’s multitude of events, only two were reconstructed: the Tanner’s Sighting and the Smith’s Sighting.

All the rest was explained by the participants, only in terms of how they happened, without reenacting anything.

Many of the events went completely unexplained, but those, certainly the McCanns thought that they wouldn’t trigger anything off anyone. Useless... in their opinion, mind you, not mine.

If my memory doesn’t fail me, these people received the documentation late July 2008, and spent almost a year translating its content. That can only mean that when they chose these two particular events in April/May 2009, they thought them to be the most relevant ones, so documented themselves well, and were meticulous in their reproduction.

Otherwise, one has to think, what would be then the use? Publicity? Intentional misleading? If so, why? Let’s not be negative, and assume that they read all the tranlated documentation thouroughly, and when they headed for PDL with the cameras, they had ALL details right, at least for those two important events.

Let’s then start by seeing how McCann, Oldfield and Tanner appear dressed for the filming:
 
Well, it seems to be a quite, quite chilly evening, doesn’t it?

But then again, they’re not reproducing any event, so they’re entitled to be dressed in whatever they deem comfortable.

But let’s look now at the reenactment. Besides the fact that two witnesses, Wilkins and Tanner, having said that the Gerry/Jez meeting took place next to the sidewalk near the apartment, and the scene being filmed according to the sole testimony of another witness, McCann himself, what is relevant here is how warmly the actress portraying Jane Tanner is dressed:
 
As well as of the supposed abductor:
 
And of the Smith family:


Sleep usually begins when the rate of temperature change and body heat loss is maximal.

The average adult’s lowest temperature is at about 5 AM, or two hours before waking time. Human beings are endotherms - able to thermoregulate - , that is, maintain their body temperature.

Body temperature is regulated through a balance of heat absorption, production and loss. When we’re sleeping, we tend to compensate the lack of heat absorption and production by lowering down the body temperature.

That’s why we need blankets to sleep peacefully, and that’s why even room temperature feels so cold during the night.

When we're cold, we wake up.

There can ONLY be three reasons to justify the girl’s state of unconsciousness: sleep, sedation or death.

She certainly was not asleep. Do I really have to explain why? It’s IMPOSSIBLE for a child, barefooted and flimsy dressed, not to wake up when been carried by a total stranger for 700 metres (McCann version) in a night chill.

And on waking up  as she HAD to, upon finding herself in the arms of an absolute stranger in the middle of the night, and in the middle of nowhere familiar, it’s IMPOSSIBLE not to have reacted.

That child, to be Maddie, according to the McCann version, HAD to be awake and frightened, NEVER ASLEEP.

 It’s also IMPOSSIBLE for a child, exposed feet and flimsy dressed, not to be wake if carried for 400 metres (my version) even by someone that she could be very familiar with, in a night chill.

That child, NOT Maddie, HAD, to be FULLY AWAKE and alert. The fact that the child was barefoot and flimsy dressed while being carried by a man wearing a warm jacket in the chillness of the night; RULES OUT ANY POSSIBILITY for that pair to be just “a” father carrying a daughter, however negligent that particular parent might happen to be.

Very importantly, it proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that she was forcibly unconscious.

There are ONLY two reasons that can explain this forced unconsciousness: sedation or death.

This is so, so self-evident that only the willful blind will not see it. It certainly doesn’t make me a brilliant person to point it out. Nor even reveals above-average intelligence. It’s a clear fact, it’s an obvious fact, and it’s a fact that to even pretend it’s not there you have to turn your head away with your eyes shut really hard.

And like this fact, there are so many others are as evident and yet remain unseen, as I’ll show you.

That is if the McCanns don’t confess meanwhile and save me the trouble.

I’ve already explained how death can be ruled out. We’re then left with the ONLY other alternative: SEDATION.

As I said, no parent would throw on himself a warm jacket and take outside his ill-dressed offspring into the night’s chill. If only there was only one jacket available, priority would go, so says nature, to the child.

 He wouldn’t do that, unless he had the intention of proving a point.

And what point would that be? Well, to prove the point that at that time, at that particular quaint little Portuguese village a man was seen out on the street carrying a little girl, albeit the chilly night, in an exact replica of Madeleine Beth McCann at the moment she was supposedly abducted: blond, barefooted, apparently sleeping and dressed in flimsy pyjamas.

Saturday, 26 June 2010

Such Nice Compliments!



I was born a brunette, am a blond by option, but today have become a redhead. Even my hair has become crimson from such intense blushing. 

Nice and heartfelt compliments, as those you can read below, tend to have that effect on oneself, and these people just didn’t hold anything back, so, as you might imagine, I’m all swollen up with pride. 

Not wanting to spoil such kindness, I do have to highlight something. Not withstanding the light criticism of my anonymity by people so well and clearly identified, as well as the self appointed capability of judging who has and who hasn’t merit to use the internet (complimented with the explicit physical threat against my person posted by a “Wednesday”), as also having the enlightenment of calling other as “hate sites” when, they themselves transpire kindness and tolerance, I would like you to take particular notice of what these people think are the objectives of CEOP.  

CEOP is then to target people like me.  

CEOP that, I remind everyone, stands for Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. 

I have, more often than not, lied about my age. But, let me be honest for just one minute here, I confess to be over 18. I’ll even reveal that I’m over 21. I can drink alcohol in the States, that’s how old I am. 

So let me appease the mind of these people, that if they think that CEOP should focus on my protection, to please not to worry. I’m no longer a child. 

If they think that CEOP is to target me because I’ve revealed ANYWHERE on this blog that I may be a threat to children, then, yes, I should be targeted. 

Please feel free to quote me where I’ve revealed the potentiality of becoming that threat, because not even I was aware of such darkness in my soul. 

If the CEOP is to target me because I accuse the McCanns & Friends of being guilty in the manslaughter of the British citizen, Madeleine Beth McCann, I simply cannot see the connection between “Child Exploitation and Online Protection” and whatever I'm to be accused of. 

If anything, AS BEEN STATED MANY A TIME and not only by me, and let me quote you on this “If ever CEOP should have a target it is” the McCanns

I know at least two children that should be protected from them. If you add their friends, it’s not only two children we’re talking about. 

Can anything be clearer for what is perceived by them to be the REAL objective of CEOP

And in my opinion, its not only a perception, it’s a reality. 

You be the judge, the thread below, is called "PeterMac – all things to all men", and it's quite entertaining:  

Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
by preciousratmotswe » 
Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:18 pm 

I have just had a look at that blog of Morais'. It's a curious heap of dung when one considers she has pretensions to being an intellectual. 

Most of the people who comment on it are quite clearly mentally unbalanced, some of them as we discussed above appear to have an unseemly interest in small children, and they are all contantly repeating stupid falsehoods about the case - which Morais often agrees with, in print. 

I can't understand how she thinks this is helpful to supporting Amaral, getting justice for Madeleine, or enhancing her own (totally pretend) status as 'journalist' and 'film-maker'. 

Of course it's a vanity project, but vanity projects are generally designed to show their creator in the best possible light. 

That blog shows Morais as ill-informed, rather stupid, spiteful and a very poor judge of character. The only thing that I can think of that she gets out of it is to have a small number of contributors tell her constantly how wonderful she is. 

But if I had a group of people who were unintelligent, sexually preoccupied with children, mean-spirited and cold hearted telling me that I was wonderful, I would probably imagine I was doing something wrong.

'Working from deep inside the McCann Machine'  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
by dcb2 » 
Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:22 pm  

morais problem started when she began to link to and have posts from textusa. If ever CEOP should have a target it is textusa. (…)  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
by dcb2 
» Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:34 pm  

Yes PR - but Levy and Sargento are real people - nutters, but none the less - real people. textusa is hidden unknown entity.  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men  
by preciousratmotswe  
» Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:57 pm 

I would prefer that it stay that way, personally. Something so repulsive is not going to improve in the light of day now is it? 

Any blog with Textusa and Ironside as admin has got to be deeply suspect.  

'Working from deep inside the McCann Machine' 


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
by dcb2  
» Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:59 pm  

I would prefer textusa to be wiped off the internet.  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
by Chinagirl 
» Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:01 pm  

“dcb2 wrote:I would prefer textusa to be wiped off the internet.” 

I think all decent people would, DCB. Disgusting piece of slime.  

"The motives of those who have tried to convince the world that Madeleine is dead, and who've disgracefully and falsely tried to implicate us [Madeleine's parents] in her disappearance, need to be seriously questioned."  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
By Raptor  
» Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:07 pm 

This textura hasn't invaded my conscious as such. I understand that they are a deeply flawed and very unpleasant character but these characters seem to be like moths to a light bulb for the cause.  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
by Wednesday 
» Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:17 pm  

“dcb2 wrote:I would prefer textusa to be wiped off the internet.” 

Only The Internet?  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
by dcb2 
 » Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:22 pm  

“Raptor wrote:This textura hasn't invaded my conscious as such. I understand that they are a deeply flawed and very unpleasant character but these characters seem to be like moths to a light bulb for the cause.” 

bren, bennett, hideho, stella, morais and all the others pale into insignificance when compared to textusa. Not recommended reading unless to take action.  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
by preciousratmotswe 
» Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:47 pm  

“dcb2 wrote:I would prefer textusa to be wiped off the internet.” 

Well yes, but it's unlikely to happen. The only people I know of routinely denied an internet connection are paedophiles and stalkers. Oh, hang on a minute...  

'Working from deep inside the McCann Machine'  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
by honestbroker  
» Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:51 pm  

“preciousramotswe wrote: 
“dcb2 wrote:I would prefer textusa to be wiped off the internet.”  
Well yes, but it's unlikely to happen. The only people I know of routinely denied an internet connection are paedophiles and stalkers. Oh, hang on a minute...” 

Has s/he drifted to that 'centre of gravity' that rejects Amaral as an obstacle to the hypothesis of cold-blooded murder, yet?  

Chairman of the bored.  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
 by dcb2 
» Fri Jun 18, 2010 3:53 pm 

 All the hate sites applaud amaral in his quest for justice. All the hate sites don't believe amaral's thesis. It is a real conundrum for them.  

"we support the man who we can prove is wrong cos HideHo has copied other peoples posts and has colours."  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
by preciousratmotswe  
» Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:12 pm  

“honestbroker wrote: 
“preciousramotswe wrote: 
“dcb2 wrote:I would prefer textusa to be wiped off the internet.” 
 Well yes, but it's unlikely to happen.The only people I know of routinely denied an internet connection are paedophiles and stalkers. Oh, hang on a minute...”  
Has s/he drifted to that 'centre of gravity' that rejects Amaral as an obstacle to the hypothesis of cold-blooded murder, yet?”

I'm not entirely sure hb because I try very hard not to read that awful site unless I feel I have to in order to find out what the buggers are up to. 

And dcb is right in that almost all those who are running sites and blogging, supposedly in support of Goncalo Amaral, the greatest cop the world has ever seen, don't actually believe his theory about what happened to the child. 

Why? Because they can see it's complete rubbish and doesn't add up in the most elementary of ways. They have overcome this by altering the night's activities to suit their own interpretation, or by the much simpler but totally batty method of moving the entire event to several days earlier. 

They aren't concerned in the least that GA told Kazlux that was bollocks. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id173.html 

 He isn't telling us everything he knows you see, and this is his big secret - that Madeleine died earlier in the week and the PJ know all about it. 

It's just that for some reason no-one knows they prefer not to say so, and Amaral even prefers to go into an interview with leaders of the internet antis and declare his faith in the creche records. 

 They are desperate, utterly desperate and so I think, increasingly is Amaral. 

His oxygen of publicity, the machine he and his friends created to feed disinformation to the media, has been silenced by legal action. 

Without it he is nothing but a desperate man doing desperate things with other desperate people, and it's all very sordid. 

They will all fall out in the end because the inherent contradictions in Amaral's position will pull them apart. Sargento will continue spouting crass falsehoods - he must have Morais sat with her head in her hands. And most posters on the anti forums are clinging to the hope that Amaral has more up his sleeve. 

I can tell them now, he doesn't.

'Working from deep inside the McCann Machine'  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
by dcb2 
» Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:18 pm 

Good summary PR - but you missed the most important bit: the haters don't care what they post as long as it has got hatred in there. 

They change their position to support other haters, then change it back again to suit themselves. Of course the best example of this is bren (as a regular poster - not like a blog writer like textusa)- not that she is anything anymore - but she shows how to generate hate whenever she feels like it.  

(they don't fall out cos no-one can prove what they say - they just adapt) (…)  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
 by Raptor  
» Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:15 am  

“dcb2 wrote: 
“Raptor wrote:This textura hasn't invaded my conscious as such. I understand that they are a deeply flawed and very unpleasant character but these characters seem to be like moths to a light bulb for the cause.”  
bren, bennett, hideho, stella, morais and all the others pale into insignificance when compared to textusa. Not recommended reading unless to take action.” 

Do you have a link for this blog, or can you PM me with it ?  


Re: PeterMac – all things to all men  
by dcb2 
» Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:17 am  

“Raptor wrote: 
“dcb2 wrote: 
“Raptor wrote:This textura hasn't invaded my conscious as such. I understand that they are a deeply flawed and very unpleasant character but these characters seem to be like moths to a light bulb for the cause.” 
bren, bennett, hideho, stella, morais and all the others pale into insignificance when compared to textusa. Not recommended reading unless to take action.”  
Do you have a link for this blog, or can you PM me with it ?”  



Re: PeterMac – all things to all men 
by Raptor  
» Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:37 am 

Yikes ! That's disgusting

Tuesday, 22 June 2010

A Human Being Is Always Human


Just like taxes, death is inevitable, they say. However, Agostinho da Silva, a Portuguese scholar, did say, with undeniable logic, that there’s no otherwise proof that the human being isn’t immortal.

The only existing proof is that all those who’ve died until today weren’t.

As the first person to be immortal is to never realize that fact, as he expects, like the rest of us, to die, but doesn’t, we all can be that immortal one. Only death will prove us not to be that, but doesn’t, as said before, prove that those who remain here aren’t.

Brilliant logic, although Agostinho da Silva has, himself, passed away and the likelihood of that happening also to all and each one of us seems to be very high indeed.

We’re all given the exact same time to prepare for that particular moment: a lifetime. But, inevitably, it always catches us unprepared. We’re simply afraid of it. No way around that. Be it because of the unknown it represents, be it for its unappealing irreversibility, unless you happen to be named Lazarus and even he didn’t escape it the second time.

Life is hard, but it’s much harder to leave it. So we block the anguish that it causes us, by simply ignoring that fact. We just live like we aren’t going to die. We know we will, but just pretend we won’t.

Death then becomes an avoidable subject, something to be kept at a very comfortable distance. We find its images either gross or shocking, because they remind us that our pretense is useless.

Our interaction with this subject is particularly difficult. But when it befalls on a child, it’s simply repulsive, for the injustice it implicates.

None of us know exactly how long a certain lifetime is supposed to be, but we do have a perception of what life expectancy amounts to, and certainly it isn’t only a childhood. This obviously influences the way a body of a dead child is carried.

There are physical and psychological reasons for us to carry a dead child the way we do. I’ll start with the easiest ones, the physical.

But to do that I have to explain one psychological detail, related to death itself and not with the ones which affect us in the decision in how we carry a dead child, which I’ll deal with later. That detail is humanity.

One could almost say that the relationship of the humanity of a corpse is inversely proportional to the settling of Rigor Mortis (RM) in it. The more RM settles in a body, the less humane it becomes. That’s why you never see a “stiff corpse” being carried by other than those professionally related to the carrying (undertakers, forensics, etc.), and do see the carrying of “limp” corpses by who we often assume to be a relative of the recently deceased.

The recently deceased are still full of humanity. We look upon them as a departed, only later do we see them as corpses.

So for the physical reasons, I’m only going to refer to recently deceased children. A child in full RM is not only exceptional as it isn’t applicable to the Smith Sighting. That would mean that Maddie would have to have been killed from 6/8 hours up to 3 days before, and in that timeframe certainly another means of transportation of the body, other than on foot, would have been found, and I'll not even speak about other gruesome details that the decomposition process implicates.

There’s one reason why, physically, a dead child is carried the way it is, and that is called gravity.
 
If the corpse of a child is carried in the VERTICAL position, then the uncooperative head becomes too heavy and will tend to wobble around as the neck muscles no longer maintain the head in its position.

This lack of cooperation is extended to the upper body as it offers no assistance in maintaining the verticality.
 
If a child is carried in the HORIZONTAL position, once again the uncooperative muscular mass becomes simply weight and the body, being smooth, will tend to slip between our arms and fall.
 
We have to find some leverage points to avoid this falling, and the human body has two very specific “picking up” points: under the knees, and under the armpits, as seen above.

To differentiate this position from the HORIZONTAL one, I’ll call this, the DECEASED position, as is only applicable to the transportation of a lifeless body. In the present case, a small body.

If you hold a body in the DECEASED position it doesn’t fall. However, there’s no support for the head, and that’s why it falls backward the way it does, visually violent to all that have to see it.

There’s another way to carry a body, and that is throwing the body over the shoulder, making the leverage point the hips. But that is treating the corpse like a carcass, and that’s disrespectful.

And respect is a psychological sentiment, so let me tell you why, other than physically, we carry the body of a dead child the way we do.

As I said above, we all have a difficult time to relate with that phenomenon called death. We want to be detached from it. But as humans we’re filled with an array of sentiments that we hold dear, amongst which I would highlight love and respect, and this is reflected in the way we treat our deceased, by wanting to have them treated with the utmost dignity and veneration.

This duplicity of feelings, detachment and love, affects the way we pick up the corpse of a child. The deceased is either known to its carrier, or it’s not, but either way, respect will be shown.

If it’s the body of a child one doesn’t know, one tends to carry it in DECEASED position as it the most detached but yet comfortable way we can transport it. We want to distance ourselves from the death that is right there before us, staring at us from that lifeless body.

To hold it by the armpits and transport it at arm’s length would be disrespectful, besides being physically too tiresome.

This mother gorilla holds her dead offspring in that manner, for she has no concept of respect or love, as is just capable to have nature’s impetus to provide motherly nurturing, and realizes that her offspring is now just a disposable “thing”:
 
If the body of the child is of one that was dear to us, we, for almost opposing reasons, hold it the same way.

We don’t want to detach ourselves from anything, but although our rationale tells us that the child is gone, we refuse to accept it, and want to show the world the disgrace that has befallen on us.

By holding it in the DECEASED position we’re exposing the body, showing it to everyone.

We may hold the body to our chest showing all the love we had, but when we have to transport it, the DECEASED position is the most humane, respectful and yet comfortable way to do it.
  
Jane Tanner’s above description of the abductor is a picture-perfect one would describe the DESEASED position.

Why? That will be dealt with later. The child in the Smith Sighting was not seen being carried the DECEASED position, but in the VERTICAL one, without any support to the head:


This can ONLY mean (no assumptions here, and completely beyond any whatever reasonable doubt) that the child was alive at the time of the Smith Sighting.

Saturday, 19 June 2010

Thank You

My friend is back home. Please extract from this simple phrase all the emotion it contains. Thank you all that wished my friend well.

Monday, 14 June 2010

Child-Carrying 101

Dedicated to you, my dearest friend.
 
Sometimes you have to go back to basics, back to the old school days where all sounded useless and boring, but today we know that that information captured by us made us whatever we happen to be today.

When explaining a more complex issue, we rarely give credit to those basics that allow us to understand the subject at hand. We’re awed by the new learning and we tend to forget that we could only have apprehended such new knowledge only if we built before a solid structure to implement the novelty. And how we human take for granted that structure. Or any structure.

Today I intend to handle child-carrying basics, or as in American, child-carrying 101.

In this process, we have one constant, the carrier. The adult.

The carried can vary in type, reason and way of handling. These simple variables will determine how we pick up a child and carry it from point A to point B.

There are two type of children one basically has to carry, two different reasons for doing so and two basic ways of carrying the child.

Type of children: TODDLER (T) and BABY (B).


The main difference between them is the cooperation they provide the carrier with by the muscular mass of each type of child.

A BABY does have strong enough limb muscles, but lacks strength in both the back and the neck. Unlike the TODDLER, a BABY cannot stand upright, so, to be transported needs to have its upper body (back) and head fully supported.

One only transports a BABY in the VERTICAL position to have him burp, and return him to the supported HORIZONTAL position as quickly as possible:


On the other hand a TODDLER has much more muscular mass than a BABY, so is heavier and much more tiresome to transport:


Different reasons: SHORT (S) or LONG (L) distances.

There are a multitude of reasons to transport a child, but I want to just focus on these two, as they are what we instinctively take into account when we pick up a child.

Some factors, like being asleep or not, might influence the decision, but, for example, it’s irrelevant if the child is awake or not, sick or healthy, if you know you have to transport it  for 1,000 yards.

The same rationale applies if you have to transport it a dozen of steps.

For example, SHORT is when a child that has fallen asleep in a car and you want to carry from there to its cot or bed, and an example for LONG is if after you had a highly motivating lecture about tennis upon arrival on your overseas holiday at Tapas and wish to go dine at the only possible place: the Millenium Restaurant.

Ways of carrying a child:  over your shoulder or VERTICALLY (V);  across your chest or HORIZONTALLY (H):


So you have the following combinations: BSH, BLH, BSV, BLV, TSH, TLH, TSV and TLV.

Never thought it could be that complicated, did you?

In effect, whenever presented with a decision to make, any decision, the brain always initiates a calculus, pondering all different possible constants and variables and respective effects, coming up with a mathematical result, that we simplify its complexity by calling it “logical”.

Rarely, I repeat, do we give much importance to how wonderful is this machine we’ve been blessed with daily and what it’s able to achieve. We know its good, but don’t really value how good it is.

This post is about just one of those daily calculations. To understand why we choose the way we carry a child and how the other variables influence our decision.

We’re obviously analyzing the transportation of human being by another human being. Trolleys, buggies, strollers, prams and such, invented to facilitate this task, are not the issue, and only will be used as initial points or final destinations for SHORT distance carrying (S).

For a BABY, the HORIZONTAL position is the ideal way to be carried. It supports, and protects, the head and the back, and that is how we carry a baby either for SHORT or LONG distances.

The latter to be avoided at all costs due to the fragility of the body. Just think what would make you carry a newborn baby 1,000 yards. It would have to significant and you’d certainly walk each one of those yards as if you were stepping on eggs…


It’s the fragility, or the lack of cooperation of the muscular mass that is the key to the decision. The weight is not even taken into account. Example of that, is the countless hours some parents do spend with a baby in their arms in that position, desperately trying to get that crying machine into some sort of sleep.

But the HORIZONTAL position is only used to carry a TODDLER for SHORT distances, and only if the TODDLER is unconscious, for example and most commonly, asleep, or if conscious, ailing from some disease that has weakened him.


Here, there’s no fragility, but certainly there’s the weight.

The older the T, the heavier its muscular mass, the bigger the strain on the transporters arms and back. One naturally avoids this and resorts to picking up the sleeping TODDLER to a HORIZONTAL position, but quickly placing him the VERTICAL position for transportation effects.

You ONLY carry a TODDLER in the HORIZONTAL position if you don’t wish to disturb his sleep, and, even then, only if the distance is very SHORT. Otherwise, you’ll just put the TODDLER on your shoulder and away you go.

This has got to do with center of gravity of the bodies involved. The nearer in verticality they are, the less force is required. That’s why we tilt our bodies when transporting a weight. If the weight is in front, we tilt backwards, if on the shoulder or side, we do it sideways
.
As weight is almost an irrelevant variant when carrying a BABY, we hardly compensate. But it’s much different when carrying a toddler. Here the carrier compensates much more in the HORIZONTAL position than in the VERTICAL position.

What has this to do with the Smith Sighting? Well, as you know, we have two versions of how was the child seen.

According to the Smith Family, "The Stroller" carried the little girl in the VERTICAL position, but according to the McCanns, via the “Cutting Edge” documentary, he carried her in the HORIZONTAL position.

As you know, I tend to go with the Smith’s version.

That’s the natural position and it means that the girl in question presented cooperative muscle mass, which in turn means that she was alive. But let’s not discard the McCann version. What we know, from them, is that Jane Tanner saw him cross the road, from left to right, and some time later, he was seen heading from North to South by the Smith Family. That means he followed the following route:
 
That makes around about 700 metres (770 yards). Only from the Apartment 5A to the Smith Sighting mind you.

We, in the McCann version, don’t know how many more metres or miles did “The Stroller” walk AFTER having been seen. Also, and also according to the McCann version, I’m supposing that he carried the girl always in the same position, the HORIZONTAL one.

A normal 4 year old girl weighs 16,1 kilograms (35,49 pounds):.
 
That’s almost the weight of 2 cases of beer (20,08 pounds each). Now, you try and carry 2 cases of beer across your chest in your arms for the distance referred above, and then some more.

Do take into account that unwritten scientific rule that says "the same mass increases in weight the further the distance it has to be carried."

I won’t try it because I know I can’t do it.

But if I could've, when I crossed the Smiths I wouldn’t have hidden my face away. I would have my head thrown back, grimacing loudly from the sheer pain of my back and arms that certainly would be threatening  to dismember, as I would probably be slipping all over the place due to the pouring sweat.

I, like "The Stroller", wouldn't answer a "Is she asleep?" however polite it might be. Probably something much, much less polite would cross my mind to answer that question. Or any question, for that matter.

TOTALLY unpractical and unless he was trying to prove a point, I would say impossible.

This is important because when the McCanns place “The Stroller” with a girl carried in the HORIZONTAL position, in their desperate attempt to give credibility to the Tanner Sighting.

And as they have done that, they’re not only lying, but are also definitely interlinking “The Stroller” with Maddie.

And, and this is what is really important, they are, in effect, forsaking all other possibilities for that man to be just a father carrying his daughter somewhere, as no man would carry his daughter in the HORIZONTAL position all the way down Rua da Escola Primária and on towards the “Kelly’s Triangle”.
 

Tuesday, 8 June 2010

Pause

A friend is ailing. Do not feel like writing. Sorry. Don't know when I'll be back.

To a SPECIAL Friend

 

A friend is a friend, by definition and daily practice. His grief is our grief, his pain, ours. So is his joy as is his laughter. 

A friend doesn’t cry; he just completes our tears. 

A friend resists the harshest of erosions, that of time and of distance. One second he’s gone is an eternity of loneliness, whilst a conversation just continues even if interrupted for just some years. 

A friend owes us nothing, as we owe nothing to him. The balance-sheet between us is a clean slate. There’s no favors, no paybacks. Only that special something that makes us just want to do whatever is needed to be done, be it, or not, a sacrifice, that stops being one just because of him. 

A friend never asks, never expects. Love is intensity, is passion.  

Friendship is trust. 

A friend knows all our secrets, not because we’ve told him, but because he heard all of them them from our silences. 

There’s nothing worse than a betrayal from a friend, nothing better than a soothing comfort that he may provide. 

 To go through life without love is sad, to go without friendship is tragic. 

A friend is the greatest wealth of all. 

A friend is never down; he’s just giving us the opportunity with the associated pleasure of letting us help him.  
To be able hold a friend’s hand in time of his need, is all that this life is about.

Sunday, 6 June 2010

Eerie Coincidences...

 
Coincidence of tempers or coincident tempers?

It Happened Once...

And it will happen again.

This is Mr. Joran van der Sloot happily celebrating the fact that there WAS no evidence whatsoever to implicate him in Natalee Halloway’s death:


This is the McCann couple celebrating the fact that there WOULD BE no evidence whatsoever to implicate them in Maddie McCann’s death:
 
These WERE the headlines after Mr. Joran van der Sloot’s arrest:
 


THIS space reserved for the headlines that ARE to be after the McCann’s arrest:


It has happened once… it WILL happen again.

Thursday, 3 June 2010

Justice DOES Catch Up To Some Bastards


From Wikipedia:  

"Natalee Ann Holloway (born October 21, 1986) disappeared on May 30, 2005, during a high school graduation trip to Aruba, a Caribbean country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 

The American student from Mountain Brooook, Alabama, Holloway graduated from Mountain Brook High School on May 24, 2005, shortly before the trip. 

Her disappearance caused a media sensation in the United States. Holloway was scheduled to fly home later on May 30, but failed to appear for her flight. She was last seen by her classmates outside Carlos ‘n Charlie’s, a Caribbean chain restaurant and nightclub in Oranjestad, in a car with locals Joran van der Sloot and brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe

When questioned, the three men said they dropped her off at her hotel and denied knowing what became of Holloway. Upon further investigation by authorities, Van der Sloot was arrested twice on suspicion of involvement in her disappearance and the Kalpoes were each arrested three times.  

Due to lack of evidence the three men were released without charge after each arrest. With the help of hundreds of volunteers, Aruban investigators conducted an extensive search for Holloway. Special Agents from the FBI, fifty Dutch soldiers and three specially equipped Dutch Air Force F-16 aircraft participated in the search. 

In addition to the ground search, divers examined the ocean floor for evidence of Holloway's body. The searches were unsuccessful, and according to Aruban authorities she is most likely dead. On December 18, 2007, Aruban prosecutors announced that the case would be closed without any charges sought against the former suspects

The Aruban prosecutor's office reopened the case on February 1, 2008, after receiving video footage of Joran van der Sloot, under the influence of marijuana, making statements that Holloway died on the morning of May 30, 2005, and that he disposed of her body. 

Van der Sloot later denied that what he said was true, and subsequently gave Greta Van Susteren an interview (the contents of which he later retracted) in which he stated that he sold Holloway into white slavery. 

Holloway's family has criticized Aruban investigators throughout the search for a perceived lack of progress in finding her. The family also called for a boycott of Aruba, which gained Alabama Governor Bob Riley’s 's support but failed to gain widespread backing."

This is what Wikipedia has to say about Joran van der Sloot

 
 
"Natalee Holloway disappearance  

Joran as well as brothers 21-year old Deepak Kalpoe and 18-year old Satish Kalpoe were arrested on June 9, 2005, as suspects in the disappearance of American Natalee Holloway on May 30, 2005.

The Kalpoes were released from custody on July 14, 2005, but were re-arrested on August 26, 2005, on suspicion of rape and murder while Joran remained in custody.  

Van der Sloot and the Kalpoes were released on September 3, 2005, due to lack of evidence. Since September 6, 2005, Van der Sloot has resided in the Netherlands while attending college. When he was released, he was required to stay within Dutch territory pending the investigation. 

On September 14, 2005, however, a higher court removed any restriction on him. On November 21, 2007, van der Sloot was re-arrested in Arnhem, Netherlands, simultaneously with the Kalpoe brothers in Aruba for "suspicion of involvement in voluntary manslaughter and causing serious bodily harm that resulted in the death of Natalee Holloway" because of what the Aruba prosecutor's office also stated is "new incriminating evidence" related to the vanishing of Holloway.  

Van der Sloot was returned to Aruba November 23 and a court hearing on November 26 ruled to continue his detention for eight days. The Kalpoe brothers were released on December 1.  

Joran van der Sloot was ordered released on December 7, 2007, and was released without charge the same day. 

In 2008, an undercover video made as part of a Dutch TV show surfaced purporting to show Joran van der Sloot smoking marijuana and admitting to being present during Natalee's death. He seemed to suggest that she suffered some kind of seizure or heart failure after which an unnamed man loaded her on a boat and threw her into the sea.  

Although the evidence appeared damning, Joran argued he was simply trying to impress the other individual present, whom he believed to be a drug dealer. The courts in Aruba determined the video was insufficient to warrant prosecution.  

Father's death 

On February 11, 2010, Paulus van der Sloot, Joran's father and a prominent judge in Aruba, died of a heart attack at the age of 57 while playing tennis. Some claim that Paulus played a pivotal role in helping Joran escape prosecution in the death of Natalee Holloway.  

Death of Stephany Tatiana Flores Ramírez
 
 
On May 30, 2010, on the five year anniversary of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, Stephany Tatiana Flores Ramírez, 21, was beaten and stabbed to death in the Hotel Tac Sac in the avenue Miraflores district in Lima, Peru. 

Her body was discovered three days later on June 2, 2010. The room in which Ms. Flores Ramírez was discovered was booked in Joran van der Sloot's name where he had been staying since May 14, 2010

A hotel guest and an employee have come forward to claim they saw van der Sloot and the victim entering his hotel room together and the police have video of the two together at the Atlantic City Casino in Lima the night before. 

Police have stated Joran van der Sloot is the prime suspect in the murder investigation. Interpol has issued an international arrest warrant for van der Sloot and believe that he has fled the country into Chile and may be traveling to Argentina."
 
For those that do not familiar with legal terminology let me explain that, as per Carter-Ruck letter below:


when, related with Natalee Holloway's disappearance, where in the text is referred “…prosecutors announced that the case would be closed without any charges sought against the former suspects and “Due to lack of evidence the three men were released without charge after each arrest.”, it basically means, as everyone knows, that: “…the (…) authorities confirmed that there was no evidence whatsoever to implicate…” the three men, in the case, the two brothers and Joran van der Sloot


Update: According to IRONSIDE (and CNN) Mr. van der Sloot has been arrested. Now, we’ll see whatever does “WHATSOEVER” REALLY mean especially when preceded by a “no evidence”.

McCanns & Pals, DO PAY ATTENTION, this might "IMPLICATE" you...

Tuesday, 1 June 2010

So This Is How It Happened...

 

Now, this I call a work of art.

 The little girl wondering about… the evil man, no longer with a guitar…

A car… taking pictures, after pictures, discreetly one wonders in-between villas…

The room… the kiss, wrong bed, but nice to see…

The window, all it comes to mind is “rainbow”, for the color of the herring is no longer just red, but a multitude of light frequency…

The arms around the neck, the hesitation between a smile and a silent scream…

What an injustice… no Cuddly Cat.

The car… the carefully placed seatbelt, typical of any decent abductor…

And the smiles…

Oh, what a party! Even the glasses, so typical to serve the wine in expensive wine glasses in a second class slump in the Algarve…

Oh what joy, what wonderment.

Missed seeing Payne and Webster... would they find pretty people to play them too?

Now, I know why they didn’t want to do the reconstruction… we’d be all tearful of happiness.

 Thank you MariaC