Help Needed from Morroco / MAROC, SVP, Please. Lookalikes.

Comparing with:

According to the search on http://madeleineinmorocco.blogspot.com/, Bushra's date of birth is very difficult to find, but I find: 2004. 2004 is written as a date on her certificate (which is NOT to be confused with her other family members' certificates, all included on the SAME Family Book of certificates. See below for details in photos + article snap ( from Daily Life . com ) and link to check it out.
How did I get to this result? I also looked for all other readable dates on this document and this one is clear: 1425. And before crying Wolf we should always search on the CULTURE that immerses the subject(s). 1425 is of course very likely to be the ISLAMIC date! And logically, OF BIRTH. And look what happens when we convert 1425 into the Western calendar: it's 2004.

So, Bouchra Ben Aisa / Bushra Benissa was BORN IN 2004, that's on the year after the famous missing child "Madeleine McCann" is supposed to have been born. I should search more but someone recently reminded me what the PRESS said at the time (and according to the blog linked above, probably not in a reliable manner): Bouchra would have been older than Maddy, which I seem to prove WRONG. However if Bouchra IS/WAS the model girl used by NSPCC this year 2011, in October or so, likely it would have been an older photo of her. But, I speculate, perhaps it's NOT Bouchra at all. However, given ALL the bizarre alerts of "sightings" (or Sigh... Tings!) that we, as the following public, have come through so far ("L0OK for Maddy" etc...) should I not find it strange, once again, that out of ALL the little girls in the world od about the age of 'Maddy', this little Bouchra was selected by a Spanish tourist.... who immediately photographed her... No. Enough! And now this more than CURIOUS NSPCC advert... NO. ENOUGH.
Too many "COINCIDENCES" in the CENTRAL CIRCUS of Children and photographs
may lead to DISCREDIT these organisations that help the McCanns and other families, (or themselves? Somehow I DISTRUST many charities and I wouldn't mind that their ACCOUNTS would be thoroughly checked. And of course, that the same would apply to the "LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED" FUND.) -DISCREDIT or even SUSPECT.

-and back to this topic, why was the press wrong? Or when is it accurate, does it ever happen that it can be accurate? Did ANY reporter cared to look at this certificate? Clearly not... I would have looked, to see if this appears to be a genuine document... and to see how old the child was... so where did they get their info from? The McCanns or Clarence Mitchell? If so, there's a mayhem! To be continued in case I could find out more... Links and info welcome!
_____________


Here are the details of my search from last night, before I realised I had an element of proof about my initial guess that Bouchra's date of birth (dob) could be 2004, followed by a few thoughts:


What the blogpost says: "But when you zoom this second image you can below "Ben Aisa Bouchra" (you can't see this name in this image but you can see it in first image) is date 23.11.1943 (or 1948)

And on the right page (where reads Ben Aisa and some other name) is date 3.5.1965 (or 1968)" - so that will be another entry, I'm searching but for now just guessing that the parent's entries will be on that page -hence "some other name" that I can see too as not being Bouchra.
Mmmh... Are there Readers who either live in Morocco / are from Morocco/ are familiar with the country and the way Birth Certificates are made, and could try to read what it says on this present one? Could it be a Family Book of birth certificates, hence the date of birth 1965 or 1968 who could be the one of Bouchra's Mum or Dad?

It seems that a date like 2004 is on Bouchra's details, her actual year of birth? Also, if this goes from the Muslim calendar, no date would match the European / occidental / Western calendar.

On the photo-crop just above, it seems it reads 33. 88 1343... which is no date for occidental calendar.

Here's some info:

" http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-the-western-islamic-and-jewish-calendars.htm

The Gregorian calendar is generally used synonymously with the Christian and Western calendar. The Gregorian version, however, was actually named after Pope Gregory XIII. It has a year comprised of 12 months and 365 days, 366 in a leap year, which occurs by adding a day in February every four years. While the Gregorian calendar is based on the Julian calendar — the calendar was introduced around 45 BCE by Julius Caesar after consulting an astronomer — the Gregorian calendar is also based on the year of Christ’s birth.
The Gregorian calendar sought to improve on its predecessors. The purpose was to have a more regular format than the lunar calendars and Julian calendar. The Gregorian calendar took the place of the Julian calendar around the end of the 16th Century.
The Islamic calendar is based on the emigration of the Prophet Muhammad and his fellow Muslims, the Companions or Sahabah, from Mecca to Medina. The emigration is said to have been commanded by God after many years of Muslim persecution. The emigration took place in 622 AD or CE according to the Western Calendar or 4382 AM (Anno Mundi, or in the year of the world) according to the Jewish calendar. Hirah is Arabic for emigration and so, the Islamic calendar is also called the Hijri calendar. Years prior to the emigration are labeled as BH, Before Hijra, while years after the emigration are labeled as AH, Anno Hijra or In the year of Hijra. The calendar is based on the lunar year, has about 354 days and 12 months, each with either 29 or 30 days. The names of the months are Muharram, Safar, Rabiul-Awwal, Rabi-uthani, Jumada al-awwal, Jumada al-thani, Rajab, Sha’ban, Ramadan, Shawwal, Dhil-Q’ada, and Dhil-Hijja.
The Jewish calendar is a lunisolar calendar and is based on creation which is said to have occurred — around 3760 BCE according to the Western Calendar. The Jewish calendar, or the Hebrew calendar, has anywhere from 353 to 385 days, and 12 months, 13 in a leap year. Months have 29 or 30 days: Nissan, Iyar, Sivan, Tammuz, Av, Elul, Tishri, Cheshvan, Kislev, Tevet, Shevat, and Adar. In a leap year Adar I is inserted after Shevat, and the existing month of Adar is called Adar II — the thirteenth month. While the Western and Islamic calendars have a new year beginning with the first month, the new year according to the Jewish calendar begins in the seventh, not first, month of the year.
Another way these types of calendars differ is when the new day begins. In the Julian, Gregorian, Western and Christian calendars, the day begins at midnight. The Islamic and Jewish calendars, however, begin at sundown.
There are many other types of calendars; the Western calendar is perhaps the most popular, however. Another popular type of calendar — the Chinese calendar — is still used today for Chinese holidays and for astrological purposes. It is a lunisolar calendar with 12 months in a regular year and 13 months every second or third year. Days in the Chinese calendar begin at 11 PM, not midnight. While there is some dispute over when the Chinese calendar began, most believe it began somewhere around 2600 to 2500 BCE according to the Western Calendar.
Calendar conversion tools can be found online."

So I search. According to http://www.oriold.uzh.ch/static/hegira.html, 1343 Muslim year is 1924 Western year. No luck. So if it was as the Blooger found, 1965 on the certificate: it matches to a staggering year 2527!! -then it's pointless to try and convert 1968, lol.

Here's an attempt of cropping, zooming and playing on contast, exposure and effects:

If the date shown is 1943 in Muslim calendar, it's equivalent to 2506 on the Western one. VOID.

Now in the Western calendar it is 2011, in the Muslim one it is 1432.

Could this read 1925? or 1985? Respectively it gives in the Western conversion: 2489! and 2547!! SCOOP!!! Bushrah isn't born yet and she is very Sci-Fi, belonging to the future!

Right so either this is SOMEONE ELSE's Certificate, held in the Western calendar way, or it 's
not a date of birth, but a reference. Unless, hang on, it says a symbol followed by 985, something like this. Let's try it: Conversion says: 1577, Middle Ages! Nope, it won't be anything of the sort, either.

Enhanced cropped photo.

Let's go back to where I spotted something like 2004...:

Enhanced photo. Do you see the date or reference: "1388"? This is the islamic date for 1968 in western calendar. It matches the date that is on the next page, coincidently or not. Hence is this the Father/Mother's 'dob'? We are in sheer need of Moroccan helpers!

Anyway... Until we can get Moroccan People who know about how this birth certificates can be read, I'm thinking back to what stroke me earlier today: this sheer ressemblance between this girl above and the new Child Actress who stars in the NSPCC ad.

Same noise, same eyes and same everything...

Not saying it's got to be the little Bouchra Ben Aisa, however I'm not the only one who tilted at the very strange choice of image, something that inevitably will remind the public of Maddy, Bouchra and... in some extent, children who are used or mistaken one way or another. Sightings and Lookalikes Comedy show at the Central... All in all, NSPCC is about ABUSED and NEGLECTED Children, so was this choice completely innocent? Child actor who is Bouchra/ or at least is this ad-girl's lookalike and Bouchra having been mistaken for Madeleine, or used as a commercial prop somehow... back in 2007, precisely, it triggers a few thoughts, doesn't it?

By the way, the 3rd May 2007 in the Western calendar was the 14th of the 4th month of 1428 in the Islamic calendar. Thank you for reading and visiting The Lost Marketing Ploy blog.

Made and Sent By Our Friend Larry

-Many Thanks!-

An Interesting Theory

"It was to be the last night of the vacation and both parents were anxious to get to the supper

they had planed with all their party buds and the boys were tired from playing all day and they

had no problem getting them ready and put to bed.

Maddy was a problem because she knew it was the last night and did not want to waste any part of

it sleeping and really wanted to join her parents at dinner with her parent's friends and objected

to being left out of all the fun. She loved grownups and wanted to go too.

As the time for the parents to leave she got very unruly and demanded she should go with

them and it grew to be a war of wits between a 3 and a half year old Maddy and two parents who

wanted to celebrate one more time away from the children with friends.

One or the other parent, Both Doctors, suggested they give Maddy a sleeping pill or a setetave and

the case was made. Maddy would not be going to the dinner party.

While Kate was having a quick shower and did her face, Gerry got out his Medical bag and selected

a suitable drug for little Maddy and gave it to her. She had had this done to her before so she made no fuss

and accepted the needle as before.

The needle did not take the desired effect right away and Maddy started up again about wanting to join the party

and Gerey put his Medical bag away and left Maddy to continue to stew and protest and went and took

a shower as Kate finished putting on here face and....

When Kate was ready she came out and found Maddy searching her clothes for a dress to go to the party

and had to tell Maddy one last time she was not going with them and she had to go to sleep now as they were

already late and she got out her own Medical kit and proceeded to give Maddy a sedative and got her ready for

bed and put her there.

Maddy, at that point gave up the protest because the first sedative was starting to kick in and when Gerry came

out of the bathroom he dressed to party and Maddy was quiet now and they did their final checks and kisses and left

for the Party.

To be continued.. in part two. cause there is more to the story, much more." - Credits to our Friend Larry. -

See the page "How does this make you feel? - A Theory By Larry" here on this blog in a near future for the part two. http://thelostmarketingploy.blogspot.com/p/how-does-this-page-make-you-feel.html

Court in February 2012 - the COMEDY SHOW continues!

Info from Little Morsals blog: http://littlemorsals.blogspot.com/2011/10/joana-morais-mccann-libel-trial.html

"Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Joana Morais: McCann libel trial hearings to start in February 2012

Original Source: Joana Morais
Article reproduced here with the kind permission of Joana.

The civil complaint filed by the McCanns against Gonçalo Amaral, over his book "Maddie - A Verdade da Mentira" (The Truth of the Lie) will start to be tried in February 2012.

The first two hearings have been scheduled for the 9th and 10th of February, 2012, at 9.30 a.m., at the Civil Court of Lisbon.

The defence fund that supports Mr Amaral by helping to finance the legal expenses related to this trial, is still in operation. Donations are very welcome. Please refer to Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral for contributions. Thank you.

Kate's Corpses Argument DEBUNKED.

Remember what Kate Healy apparently said to the Press to refute the cadaver odour which was detected by police sniffer dogs on HER OWN CLOTHES in the summer 2007?

According to The Sun, Kate Healy stated that due to her work, she had been in contact with several dead bodies as a locum doctor, hence the smell of death all around these places - and her OWN clothes. [see link, from The Sun:

"The dogs also sniffed items of clothing — and the film shows Eddie again picking up a scent on some of Kate's.
The family GP [= Kate] has insisted she came into contact with at least SIX dead bodies before going on holiday with her husband and three children."


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/maddie/1651651/Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-wrongly-named-as-suspects-over-Maddie-disappearance-by-Portuguese-police-after-sniffer-dog-evidence.html#ixzz1j066kD8A


However, now I am wondering how could she come up with such pretense while being highly trained in biology and medecine, had she said this herself? Surely she should have checked a thing or two before she made her assertion. How RIDICULOUS this sounds, for anyone who searches a little bit in Forensics Science, and finds that she would have had to stay in contact with these CORPSES for 90 MINUTES for the odour to impregnate her clothes so strongly that it could be detected by a trained EVRD (CADAVER) dog!!!!!

( Beside, it seems that in her book there is no mention of this,  no more than of the odour on her clothes -fact that is yet a crucial element in the case. It gets me to wonder, why mention this to The Sun, but not in the book "madeleine"[sic], and why not even a paragraph on this cadaver odour? Kate gave me the impression that she was pretty much relieved after Gerry, her husband, pondered like a hard, final, conclusive decision that all the dogs' findings were 'worth nothing' as it's "no exact science". She as well as him NEVER questioned these facts in the way that it could be linked to their daughter's fate, why was this? Anger and immediate 'pondering' rushed to replace, as it seems to me, any question in their mind. It CAN'T be cadaver odour, the dogs LIE, they're garbage and beside, LOL, they had never been in Portugal before! I truly laughed at reading this part.
Here is Yan's demonstration:

"Some thoughts also on the tests done which indicate that it takes 90mins for contamination to occur.
The tests are based on exposure times alone, ie the length of time a piece of material was exposed to a body / cadaver.
The cloth exposed for a 90 min period resulted in the most detection.
The suggestion is when a body is decomposing it take 90 minutes before contaminating anything.

In fact this test totally contradicts the knowledge that contamination is instant. What it does in effect is suggest that something has to have been in contact with a body / cadaver for 90 mins before becoming contaminated enough for the dogs to accurately detect anything.
ie - If you look at the suggestion that KM as part of her work came into contact with dead bodies, this would mean she would have had to have spent 90 mins in very close proximity to one before becoming contaminated. "