Unsolved The Beaumont Children

[newbie11]

i am not Pro Mcintyre here you go with your narrow minded views. THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE IS THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN TOLD , IT IS A GAME OF BELIEVE IT OR NOT! THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE ABOUT ANYTHING IS CHECK AND DISMISS...I MEAM THE WARREN REPORT SAID JFK WAS SHOT BY 1 BULLET THAT ENTERED HIS HEAD AND BOUNCED AROUND AND INJURED OTHERS IN THE CAR THAT DAY...DO WE BELIEVE THAT AFTER SEEING THE VISION ....NO...BUT YOU PROBABLY DO LOL.

Do you even know who the f your speaking to?
Getting a bit tired of your personal insults. Implying what you think I know; ********. Do you know what I spent 6 years of my life doing as a career?! I think I know what a bullet is and is not capable of doing when it’s shot at a persons skull.

 

[newbie11]

I am not sure you need permission from the owner when it is a criminal case...The Police do not want to entertainn anything the Mcintyres are saying because i think they have thrown the Police under the bus saying they know everything and are involved in some level of corupption in this case and others.

No clue about how the legal system works either do you?
A search warrant has to be first signed by a judge. In order for the judge to sign it, there needs to be at the very least some reason!!

 

[newbie11]

The original quoted story said 'three other children' hence the question. This just says '3 other people' ... So no new info.

Relax newbie11

Lol darn misquoted reporting

 

[newbie11]

Don't worry about Newbi11 , this person just likes to De-bunk everyone else's theories without coming up with anyhing of their own

The Scientific Method

1. Observation / Question.
2. Research.
3. Hypothesis.
4. Experiment.
5. Collect Data.
6. Analysis Examine the data.
7. Conclusion.

You gonna argue with the scientific approach as well, are you?

Because the McIntyres account doesn’t even make it beyond step 1 or 2.

Debunking a theory is not taking a step backwards neither is it unhelpful or a bad thing, being able to eliminate something is still progress and a step in the right direction.

I don’t need to put forward a theory.

Why? Because I’m not going to sit here and just make one up.

Your sheer lack of knowledge, common sense added by your consistent personal insults are evident of ignorance.

Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm are a joke in it of themselves.

You are uninformed.

You simply have no idea what your blabbing on about.

Andrew can take a million polygraphs and pass every single one of them if he actually believes what he is saying to be the truth . COUGH COUGH LIKE I JUST SAID THAT^^

What evidence is there that it’s not true? Alright, i’ll tell you.

I apologise in advance to everyone else for my next comment, it’s bound to be incredibly long. As we all know, there’s a lot!

Your last lil ‘try hard smart remark about the bullet’ (handle the truth) struck a nerve with me and now I’m rightfully damn well f** p** off.

 

[newbie11]

Give me some facts behind your theory?

Here one piece of irrefutable evidence for you; Andrew ON VIDEO states that this photo was taken 1 - 2 weeks after the Beaumont’s disappeared. He confirms that IN THIS PHOTO that the well/sinkhole (whatever) had not yet been filled in. HE CAN SEE IT!

Which would be fine, except, there’s just 1 tinsy problem . It’s insane.

Does that look like a photo that was taken in the year 1966?

So, if it wasn’t? Andrew is on record saying that he sees the sink hole in not yet filled in hence his reasoning that it must be 1-2 since BC disappearance.



Go ahead. I dare you to try and argue that the photo has been digitally colourised.

I volunteer whenever I can to help restore family photos after people loose their homes to bushfires/flood (whatever).
I have seen thousands of different family photos, I’ve restored god knows how many.
You’ll never be able to fool me into believing that this photo was taken in 1966, period.
I can see the individual hair follicle on her legs. Skin pigmentation. To achieve what would need to be done in order to achieve this, we are talking- tens x tens x tens hours of work.



You want physical evidence the kids ain’t there? Your looking at it.

 

[Tues]

The original quoted story said 'three other children' hence the question. This just says '3 other people' ... So no new info.

Relax newbie11

I guess the '3 other children' was simply a typo.

 

[Macka_321]

Need to stop giving them air time. Still yet to see any evidence that this sink hole exists or am I missing something?

 

[Tues]

The original quoted story said 'three other children' hence the question. This just says '3 other people' ... So no new info.

Relax newbie11

Maybe it related to this? Post I made pages ago:

In 2005, current affairs program Today Tonight located a family whose two children and a third boy had been approached by a single male at Glenelg Beach just days before the Beaumont children's disappearance. Piecing together the image of the man seen on the beach that day, the family gave a description quite like the sandy haired man whose identikit picture was circulated at the time. Despite reporting this incident to police at the time and their repeated insistence that it might be significant, almost nothing was done. Channel seven producer Graham Archer say's 'it's incredulous, no record remains of their witness statements.
The three children, Kirsty McGregor, then nine, her sister Fiona and a boy companion, both aged eight, had been left briefly to play on the beach while the girls mother, Dot, went to the hairdresser nearby. She told the children she would check on them periodically and shortly after she left a man approached them, becoming quite aggressive when they asked him to leave them alone. When she came out to check on them Dot intervened, but when she returned to the hairdresser the situation became more serious. Trying to lure her children away, the man told them he was from Sydney and was returning there to look after his mother who was a invalid. Again Dot intervened, this time wading into the water fully clothed to rescue the children who were trying to swim away from the man. The last sighting the children had of the man was of him getting on a tram.

Debi Marshall, Lambs to the Slaughter, chapter 43 page 292.

 

[newbie11]

Maybe it related to this? Post I made pages ago:

Debi Marshall, Lambs to the Slaughter, chapter 43 page 292.

Nice pick up, this^ this really grabs my attention.

The behaviour of this man involved in the hairdresser incident is ‘unusually’ brazen,
BC suspect also unusually brazen..
This seems very credible

Today/tonight always great investigative work

 

[johnymac1]

I think we have debunked all three BC abduction theories

 

[Quadzilla]

I think we have debunked all three BC abduction theories

There's only 3?

 

[handle the truth]

Do you even know who the f your speaking to?
Getting a bit tired of your personal insults. Implying what you think I know; ********. Do you know what I spent 6 years of my life doing as a career?! I think I know what a bullet is and is not capable of doing when it’s shot at a persons sku

 

[handle the truth]

I do not care who you are and what you do lol...you are just a NOMAD that comes up with NOTHING!

 

[handle the truth]

6 years is not long enough ...i did a trade for 6 years and was not an expert it takes years...i teach Martial
Arts and it takes 10000 hours before you are comprtant at that or anything ...so jog on Fledgeling...

 

[handle the truth]

No clue about how the legal system works either do you?
A search warrant has to be first signed by a judge. In order for the judge to sign it, there needs to be at the very least some reason!!

My best friend is a Police officer i think i know how the legal system works lol

 

[Kurve]

This thread is getting messed up with personal bickering, tone it down thanks people.

 

[handle the truth]

Here one piece of irrefutable evidence for you; Andrew ON VIDEO states that this photo was taken 1 - 2 weeks after the Beaumont’s disappeared. He confirms that IN THIS PHOTO that the well/sinkhole (whatever) had not yet been filled in. HE CAN SEE IT!

Which would be fine, except, there’s just 1 tinsy problem . It’s insane.

Does that look like a photo that was taken in the year 1966?

So, if it wasn’t? Andrew is on record saying that he sees the sink hole in not yet filled in hence his reasoning that it must be 1-2 since BC disappearance.



Go ahead. I dare you to try and argue that the photo has been digitally colourised.

I volunteer whenever I can to help restore family photos after people loose their homes to bushfires/flood (whatever).
I have seen thousands of different family photos, I’ve restored god knows how many.
You’ll never be able to fool me into believing that this photo was taken in 1966, period.
I can see the individual hair follicle on her legs. Skin pigmentation. To achieve what would need to be done in order to achieve this, we are talking- tens x tens x tens hours of work.

View attachment 1410922View attachment 1410927

You want physical evidence the kids ain’t there? Your looking at i

 

[handle the truth]

This thread is getting messed up with personal bickering, tone it down thanks people.

Ok no problem

 

[handle the truth]

Kodak released colour photos and Cameras in the early 1960 s here in Australia....Nice one Sherlock!!

The popular Kodak Instamatic camera range was launched in 1963. The small and compact Instamatics had a huge impact on amateur photography, as they were inexpensive, easy to use and loading the camera with film was fast and easy - users only had to drop a film cartridge (126 format) into the back of the camera. The camera came with flash for indoor and night photography, and took colour and black & white print film as well as colour slide film. By 1970, 50 million Instamatics had been made worldwide, bringing cheap, modern photography to the masses, and some of these were made in the Kodak Australasia factory in Coburg, Australia.

 

[BonzaRam]

Now you can not argue against this

I remember my Mum's Instamatic 100 from the 70s and I still have family photos that were taken with it. One thing that i find odd about photo that was posted a page back by newbie11 is it's size because all the photos I have ever seen taken from the Kodak Instamatic camera are standard approximately 90mm square in size. As far as I am aware that size didn't change until the early to mid 70s.

This article gives a decent review on them

"Prints; see pictures below. Early B&W prints with a white border were 3.5″x 3.5″ (89mm) with an actual picture area of 3″x 3″ (76mm) and later color prints (matte or glossy finish) were about 3-7/16 square (87mm) with no border. Good film and proper technique today will make good 4×4″ (102mm) prints."

Kodak Instamatic 100 Review - Photo Jottings

Today we review my very first camera; a Kodak Instamatic 100. My Parents bought this camera brand new for taking snaps of my older baby brother. Actually, my Dad took pictures of my brother with this good camera, and by the time I came alone, the fascination and uniqueness of babies and...

photojottings.com

Edit - BTW I can see what appears to be a well in that photo. If you look between the girls body and right arm and just past the arm there is what looks like stonework, the kind you find around many old wells across this country of ours. Of cause it could just be a pile stones though. Anyone got the skills to enhance part of the photo?

 

[johnymac1]

There's only 3?

I guess there are only two main ones constantly thrashed out in the big footy forums, Those involving the Stansbury and Castaloy locations . The other theories barely get a mention.
Dropbearess and I, probably share the same theory. A theory regarding a person that the BC kids may have been in contact with.

 

[newbie11]

6 years is not long enough ...i did a trade for 6 years and was not an expert it takes years...i teach Martial
Arts and it takes 10000 hours before you are comprtant at that or anything ...so jog on Fledgeling...

HAHAHAHAHAHA the whole point of your attitude towards me is your stance on the BC case … yet nothing to say about the evidence that’s been put in front of you ( yanno the evidence you asked for)

Honestly, neither hours or years give any real indication about someone’s knowledge about something.
It’s about the variety of experiences you’ve had during that time that teach you anything.

Go for you.. you might of spent your entire life doing martial arts in a studio, doesn’t mean you’d be able to even hit water if you fell out of a boat in a street fight.

This is a ridiculous argument.

 

[newbie11]

The popular Kodak Instamatic camera range was launched in 1963. The small and compact Instamatics had a huge impact on amateur photography, as they were inexpensive, easy to use and loading the camera with film was fast and easy - users only had to drop a film cartridge (126 format) into the back of the camera. The camera came with flash for indoor and night photography, and took colour and black & white print film as well as colour slide film. By 1970, 50 million Instamatics had been made worldwide, bringing cheap, modern photography to the masses, and some of these were made in the Kodak Australasia factory in Coburg, Australia.

With such high resolution aye?
Doesn’t matter how many were sold by 1970 buddy. If this photo was not taken 1-2 weeks after BC disappearance in 1966 then your entire argument is out, McIntyre theory disproved and out.

Will only need to look at the back of the photo to settle this once and for all anyhow.

 

[newbie11]

Apologies to the rest of the group for my incessant McIntyre squabbling as of lately, I’m sure I’ve made my view clear; that photo is inarguably proof enough + (there’s multiple different ways this can be proven with the original photo)
So..issuing my cease and desist for any future ‘handle no truth’ provocation



Subject change;

Are we able to collectively establish what the ‘actual timeline’ is?

Deconstructed and then reconstructing it part by part.. may able to at least come to an all agreed upon ‘actual timeline’

 

[handle the truth]

HAHAHAHAHAHA the whole point of your attitude towards me is your stance on the BC case … yet nothing to say about the evidence that’s been put in front of you ( yanno the evidence you asked for)

Honestly, neither hours or years give any real indication about someone’s knowledge about something.
It’s about the variety of experiences you’ve had during that time that teach you anything.

Go for you.. you might of spent your entire life doing martial arts in a studio, doesn’t mean you’d be able to even hit water if you fell out of a boat in a street fight.

This is a ridiculous argument.

well that has already been tested on a few occasions if you really want to know and i walked away but the other parties involved were a little worse for wear...but that is ignorance for you.