-
@Salacious-Crumb said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@MajorRage said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
I can't see any other explanation other than the kidnapped and sold. Nothing else makes any sort of logistical,or common, sense.
The Portuguese police have long suspected Maddie was sedated — parents are doctors, they’d had resort neighbors complain when Maddie was wailing for hours unattended the days prior, zero babysitter, so they wanted her to clam up and let parents enjoy themselves at the Tapas bar. If discovered, they would not only have accidentally lost a child, but their careers would have been destroyed. Cadaver and blood dogs independently found traces of both in that room, and the trunk of a rental car. Doesn’t mean parents are guilty, But the theory is not implausible, and indeed does make some logistical sense.
That maybe true, but there's a huge difference between this, and any sort of culpability in her disappearance. The 'Tapas 7' would all have be borderline psychopathic to be able to maintain an ongoing lie for so long without tripping themselves up or folding - especially over a subject matter which could arguably claim to be the most emotive thing on the planet - the disappearance/loss of a 3 year old child.
-
@MajorRage there seems to be too many people involved to keep it a secret. Generally the less the better. Take the Ramsey killing of the child pageant queen in the basement of her home. The parents swore ignorance and now the mother is dead. Even now there is gossip that suggested the older brother might have killed her accidentally and the parents protected him. If it's true the Ramsays aren't talking
-
These posts made me have a little read and revisit of the case and one thing stood out the really screws up the Tapas 7 conspiracy theory.
One of the Tapas 7 provided evidence that would have supported the abduction theory while Maddie's own father and an independent witness provided evidence that she was mistaken.
So the argument must go that Maddie's dad tried to scuttle a line of inquiry that supported the very premise he would be trying to promote AND convinced a random other to back him up before the evidence even came to light.
To top that off the evidence (man seen carrying child) proved to be correct but not Maddie and an abductor.
That would take some really complicated planning/thinking to come about. -
@Crucial said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
Occam's Razor in this one I think. Way too many assumptions and complications over and above the simplest explanation.
Child is missing = child wandered off or child abducted (or combination of the two) in most instances
Child is missing = accidental death followed by perfect cover up and disposal of body (and wider group conspiracy) thought out on the spot? Not the most plausible.
I kind of go the opposite way on that in terms of Occam's Razor:
Child is missing = Parents are involved.
Child is missing = Intricately planned abduction with days of reconnaissance or opportunist abduction that leaves no trace of evidence.Naturally in any attempt to cover something up things are going to be complicated, but like the Bain case it's a question of would a random person mass murder the family at 6am in the morning or was it someone within the home? The fact that David did a bunch wacky stuff to obfuscate evidence after the fact doesn't mean the simplest explanation isn't that it was him. Same principle here.
That said, I'm not really sure either way.
-
@Crucial said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@rotated do you really think
Child Missing and Reported immediately by Parents = Parents involved
that often?It's a small sample size for sure - but regardless if a genuine reaction or part of a cover up you are going to report it "immediately" to police. Again, using the Bain case why would David be guilty? He called the police as soon as he found the scene coming back from his paper run?
All I'm saying is statistically a child is much more likely to find harm due to neglect/harm from family members vs an opportunist kidnapping.
-
@Tim said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
Lyndon LaRouche, one of the all time greats, has passed on at 96. Queen Elizabeth finally got her man.
A legend has passed, without him we probably wouldn’t have David Icke and Alex Jones to point and laugh at .
-
@rotated said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@Crucial said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@rotated do you really think
Child Missing and Reported immediately by Parents = Parents involved
that often?It's a small sample size for sure - but regardless if a genuine reaction or part of a cover up you are going to report it "immediately" to police. Again, using the Bain case why would David be guilty? He called the police as soon as he found the scene coming back from his paper run?
All I'm saying is statistically a child is much more likely to find harm due to neglect/harm from family members vs an opportunist kidnapping.
Huge difference between missing body and being harmed.
BTW David Bain didn't call the police immediately. The time gap was a big piece of the prosecution case.
-
@Crucial said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@rotated said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@Crucial said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@rotated do you really think
Child Missing and Reported immediately by Parents = Parents involved
that often?It's a small sample size for sure - but regardless if a genuine reaction or part of a cover up you are going to report it "immediately" to police. Again, using the Bain case why would David be guilty? He called the police as soon as he found the scene coming back from his paper run?
All I'm saying is statistically a child is much more likely to find harm due to neglect/harm from family members vs an opportunist kidnapping.
Huge difference between missing body and being harmed.
BTW David Bain didn't call the police immediately. The time gap was a big piece of the prosecution case.
The Bain gap was about 20 minutes, in the McCann case approximately 15 minutes before notifying police from when they both "discovered" the situation. Of course if you go with an alternate theory then there are hours between the last independent sighting of any missing/dead party and alive and well and the "discovery".
Again I do believe it is entirely plausible that it was an abduction. But to say that it is the most simple explanation is going a bit far IMO.
The most simple explanation for why she wasn't seen for the ~4 hours between last sighting and disappearance (despite several adults returning explicitly to check on her and the other children) is because she wasn't there....
-
@Rembrandt said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@Kirwan He is entertaining though. Just hard work seperating the nuggets of truth amongst all the ranting.
I wonder if this means they'll come for Rogans channel now?
Is he? He's fucking nuts. Conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory.
-
@Kirwan said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@Rembrandt said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@Kirwan He is entertaining though. Just hard work seperating the nuggets of truth amongst all the ranting.
I wonder if this means they'll come for Rogans channel now?
Is he? He's fucking nuts. Conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory.
Agreed. he may have once been sane and simply looked to profit from the imbecility of others, but you spend too long in that asylum and you'll end up proper mental yourself.
Judging him by what he says he believes in; he is batshit insane.
-
@Kirwan said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@Rembrandt said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@Kirwan He is entertaining though. Just hard work seperating the nuggets of truth amongst all the ranting.
I wonder if this means they'll come for Rogans channel now?
Is he? He's fucking nuts. Conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory.
Might be an acquired taste, certainly know a few people who go out of their way to watch him because he is nuts and then it's just hilarious when one of this theories is proved true like the whole 'turning the frogs gay' meme
-
@Kirwan said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
Is he? He's fucking nuts. Conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory.
It's very clearly an act. He agrees with gist of what he is saying and then puts a character over the top.
As for his feud with Rogan. It reminds me so much of a phoney radio war from the early 2000's. All done with a nod and a wink that helps both hosts ratings.
I'm just amazed out how many people are gullible enough to think the feud was real or in any way interesting.
-
@Duluth said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@Kirwan said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
Is he? He's fucking nuts. Conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory.
It's very clearly an act. He agrees with gist of what he is saying and then puts a character over the top.
As for his feud with Rogan. It reminds me so much of a phoney radio war from the early 2000's. All done with a nod and a wink that helps both hosts ratings.
I'm just amazed out how many people are gullible enough to think the feud was real or in any way interesting.
OK, then I find the character uber annoying and slightly spastic. I need my conspiracy theories delivered dialed down a notch.
-
@Kirwan said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@Rembrandt said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@Kirwan He is entertaining though. Just hard work seperating the nuggets of truth amongst all the ranting.
I wonder if this means they'll come for Rogans channel now?
Is he? He's fucking nuts. Conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory.
I thought he basically admitted in Court that it's pretty much all an act?
-
@mariner4life said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@Kirwan said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@Rembrandt said in Your favourite conspiracy theories:
@Kirwan He is entertaining though. Just hard work seperating the nuggets of truth amongst all the ranting.
I wonder if this means they'll come for Rogans channel now?
Is he? He's fucking nuts. Conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory.
I thought he basically admitted in Court that it's pretty much all an act?
I wonder if that was based on advice from his counsel? I.e. you can't seriously believe what I say therefore arguments about Sandy Hook etc. are just entertainment.
Your favourite conspiracy theories