CB Fry

It's a fair challenge. Just so you know, I am not trying to achieve anything. For me this is little more than playing fruit ninja or chucking birds at pigs or whatever those games are. Line up some conspiracy freedom fighting saps with all their "challenging of official narratives" and I'll do what I can to pi ss all over it. Hose them in it, if I can. Its pointless, but then so is posting up bonkers theories about the Boston bomb attack on this forum.

Lee Rigby not being a set up is not an "official narrative", sweet cheeks. It just wasn't. The Boston Bomb not being a "false flag" is not an "official narrative" either. It just wasn't. As you posted up there is no "official narrative" on Kate and Gerry McCann but there are people on the outer reaches of internet throwing accusations at them, mainly based on lies, misinformation, misquotations and general malevolence. Let's always remember this. You do not challenge "official narratives". You're little more than a harmless fantasist.

Someone posts up info about Kate and Gerry searching for their daughter on the night she went missing and whoosh, SOG is gone. That, and your snide little "you're not a parent, you don't understand" routine has also been trampled into the dust too. You've had an absolute blinder, you really have. Maybe tomorrow you can yet again pretend that John Stalker agrees with you, and maybe yet again post up that interview. We'd all love to see it.

Because I was thoroughly enjoying the inferred moral superiority from you every time you asked the question.

Did you only start believing in conspiracy bulls hit after you had children? Were you normal before?

So you haven't managed to come up with a single reason why the police would say that families of missing children are really not the best people to go out hunting for them? Thought not. Keep thinking sunshine. It might help you make things "add up".

Where on earth have I suggested those three statements are false? I am saying you are pulling them out completely out of context with the outcome of the investigation, as if those three statements have more worth than other inputs into the investigation which you probably find not "interesting reading" because it doesn't suit your angle. This is perpetuating the myths that the McCann websites feed on, slicing and dicing fragments of information to suggest the parents are guilty of something they are not even suspects for anymore. Fair play for reproducing the concluding statement. Its not a satisfactory end to any investigation but regurgitating bits of it to try and bring forth a guilty verdict through the will of a few people on the internet is just a waste of everyone's time.

Yeah, yeah but didn't she look all shifty in that video and that?

Any police force in the world would tell you that in this kind of situation the last people you want traipsing around doing fingertip searches is the parents. For lots of reasons that even me, and I, like, have no empathy whatsoever, can understand. Have a little think yourself why keeping the parents away from the actual physical search is a good idea, and then come back to me.

How did the initial investigation pan out then? Did it end with the McCanns being charged with killing their own child and hiding the body? Or being charged with some other concealment of what they did? Or did it end with them being charged with absolutely nothing at all? For the benefit of the topic, can you remind me? Because, and you know, I don't have any empathy or nothing so just disregard it if you like, but you'd kinda think Joao, Ricardo and Tavares would be the people most driven to land this conviction, wouldn't they? I mean, they're the initial investigating team. So you'd think they investigated, wouldn't you? You know, I lack empathy, but why do people on the internet retreading random statements completely out of context of the entire investigation (where the McCanns are no longer suspects) how does this move the investigation on? What have you seen with your expert eye here that Jaoa, Ricardo and Tavares have missed? PS - don't get SOG to read the statements for you. He still thinks John Stalker thinks they dun it.

You didn't read the explanation on this very thread that says that this clearly refers to the fact they were all getting pis sed up with no adequate childcare. It was on this thread. In the last couple of days. Remember?

I'll stay on topic. The McCanns will never be found guilty of harming/hiding/covering up their own child. They won't. I don't care what four hours of Internet conspiro-bol locks from a fruitcake says. There's the topic. Do us a favour, get your little numbered self help book out. I love that. Your best weapon against howwible people who don't really like it when people spout lies about Lee Rigby, 7/7 or in this case. Cause you guys are the truth hunters aintcha? The heroes? The seeers? And we ruin your fun with, like, facts and stuff. Soz and that. Go on, get your numbered list out.

He said very clearly he thought they were abducted. Hilarious you posted a link to it again. Again! We've all read it. He says he thinks they were abducted and anyway this is from years and years ago. Nothing in it supports your "It don't add up" ramblings. As we covered on this thread about two days ago. No wonder "nothing adds up" with that memory.

So your little rant about him laughing was a lie. Apology accepted. Do you see how all these things that "don't add up" for you - we can add your made up assessment of John Stalker opinion to the list - can crumble into dust very easily? Because it is all nonsense.

Of course. Suing for libel means covering up guilt. Thanks Mr "Some things don't add up" At least this proves Pap definitely is mental. He's "gone after" people saying that about him and no mistake.

The "Gerry laughing his head off" lie is a lie.

Who are the other people asking questions? Non mental people only pls. Goncalo Amaral is currently being sued for libel by the McCanns. I believe Pap is going to sue for libel Buctootim because he said he was a mentalist. There's a lot of it about.

It is a lie. Judging people's demeanour when they have experienced something you have never experienced is pathetic. You can make out that if it was you, you'd do this and you'd do that but frankly you have no idea. You're just making up scenarios and then judging. Pointless.

A civilised debate doesn't generally involve one side lying. The entire McCann conspiracy is not a civilised debate. Just hate filled people lying. That's kinda why it only exists on Internet forums and four hour videos made by cranks. Happy to help.

How about debating the fact that the "Gerry laughing his head off" is a simple lie. Debate that.

Okay, I'll give you a clue. It's a play on words combining the titles of two of their songs. One is one of their first ever singles. Oh no, I've said too much now. Good luck.

Spoiler alert: I am only CB Fry on here. But I guess our fearless warrior probably has pounded my handle into every forum he can think of, so already knows this. Spoiler alert 2: I'm not really on any other forums anyway. Tell a lie: I dabbled on a Prefab Sprout one probably five years ago. Go fetch, truth hunter!

Tell the grandchildren about your stunning victory, won't you? Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

You post everything you say on here - about Rigby, the Boston Bomb, 7/7 and everything else on your twitter timeline do you? Well done - it doesn't make you any less thick but well done anyway. The internet is never going to get too full for the same nonsense in two places. I'm sure you are the darling of social media. Anyway, as I said, I don't care who you are.

Pap is your real, full name is it? Fair enough. I neither know or care who you are, and I don't expect anyone to care who I am. I don't value internet forums the way you do. And I am not "making a stand" against anything here, just mocking you and your ker-razy views. If that's your latest stick to flail around at me, carry on.