Besides the fact that they’re all shown in that priceless piece of evidence handed out on a silver platter to all of us by the Black Hats themselves that is commonly known as the “Mockumentary”, what is the single common characteristic between the Pimpleman sightings?
If you've answered that it’s the fact that he was seen at three different times by three different people in exact the same place, your answer is... wrong.
Yes, although it’s true that all three, JW, TS and Derek Flack say they have seen Pimpleman standing at the corner of the parking lot opposite the Tapas Complex Entrance, he has also been seen once by TS at the back of Apartment 5A and one other time by JW in Rua do Ramalhete.
He was seen a total of five times by those same three people.
He was seen staring at the Apartment 5A by four and not the five witnesses (JW’s first sighting sees him staring somewhere else), so that also isn’t it.
As it isn’t the game “Now I see, now you don’t” played by both team “TS & Mum” and team “Derek Flack & Partner” because JW’s 3 yr old child can hardly be qualified as a “player”, so there's no "JW & Daughter" team...
So what is it? What is it that is common in all 5 sightings?
I’ve already given you a clue as to what it is in what I’ve written above but I’ll give you a further hint: it’s something so extraordinary that it can be decomposed into two subsequent remarkable phenomena.
And it's something so important that it proves that Pimpleman, if he exists, suffers from such a serious handicap that accusing him of abducting Maddie is not only ridiculous as is cruel beyond any human expression as the poor man would be unable to abduct a parrot even if it landed on his shoulder.
Have you found the answer? No? Then I’ll tell you what it is: in all the five sightings he’s staring obsessively.
To understand the importance of this fact, let me do two experiments with you.
Experiment 1 - Staring
For this experiment you're only required to have a couch, as comfortable as possible, a TV and a timer.
The timer has to be placed outside the line of sight between the couch and the TV Set, but near enough to enable you, with just one quick look, to see what time it’s marking, allowing you to calculate, at any moment, how much time is there still left until end of the experiment.
During the experiment other people and any pets may enter and exit the room as they usually do, so don’t tell them you’re undergoing an experiment, nor ask from them any special behavior.
Set the timer for 15 minutes, sit comfortably in the couch and stare at the TV Set, which is switched OFF.
You’re not allowed to look at ANY other object in the room, just at the TV’s blank screen until the timer sounds. If your eyesight as so much moves away from it, such as taking a peek at the timer, do restart the experiment all over again.
Were you able to do it? Very much doubt it as looking at an inanimate object is as exciting as looking at... an inanimate object.
In fact nothing could define better boredom. The mind needs to be occupied, and staring at something you know won’t move or provide any sort of novelty requires a degree of concentration that is physically tiring.
Pimpleman is said to have been seen five times staring fixedly at something, in such a focused and concentrated manner that he doesn’t move his eyes from it even when people pass by him.
Three people say that happened on five occasions, can you believe it?
Add to all that the fact that Pimpleman isn’t, unlike you, under any sort of experimentation, and could, if he wanted to, look somewhere else from time to time.
So the first decomposition of the “staring obsessively” statement that we can make is that Pimpleman has this uncommon capability of observing fixedly inanimate objects for abnormally long periods of time.
Let’s move on to the second experiment
Experiment 2 - Reflexes
For this experiment all you need a friend with a lighter.
You simply stick one of your fingers out and your friend moves the flame towards the tip of your finger.
The idea obviously is NOT for you to get burned, but to verify that, as expected, you’ll withdraw your hand in a sudden and involuntary motion, as a reflex to a violent stimulus.
The key word here is “involuntary”. It’s an unavoidable reflex.
In Wikipedia you find two interrelated topics about this: “withdrawal reflex” and “pain withdrawal reflex”.
About the “withdrawal reflex” it says the following:
“The withdrawal reflex (...) is a spinal reflex intended to protect the body from damaging stimuli. (…) When a person touches a hot object and withdraws their hand from it without thinking about it…”
About the “pain withdrawal reflex”, the following:
"The pain withdrawal reflex is an involuntary action in which the body reacts to pain by trying to move itself away from the source of the pain, to reduce or even eliminate that pain.
There are various kinds of involuntary reactions, or responses, to different stimuli. The flame experiment is but an example.
The one we intend to focus on today is what may be called as the ”looking back reflex”. It's those times when you feel someone is looking at you and you instinctively respond, even if for just a glance, by looking back at the person that’s looking at you.
It’s something we all do in crowded places, a non-aggressive attitude that it’s done to acknowledge that we’ve been looked at or, when we're the ones initiating it, to gather a situation awareness of both our surroundings as well as of those surrounding us.
There are those unpleasant occasions when a stranger “stares us down”. This is quite aggressive and pretends to be domineering. The smartest thing to do in such situations is to avoid looking back.
What is important to retain and understand is that independent of if you’re reacting to someone who has just looked at you for an instant or to someone who is aggressively staring, the feeling of a stranger’s eyes on you is something that doesn’t go unnoticed.
It’s almost a physical thing, if it’s not indeed so. How many times have we turned our heads just because we had a feeling that someone was looking at us? We've all done that.
Another natural involuntary reflex is to react to movement. We naturally follow with our eyes anything that moves anywhere near and around us. It’s a natural defensive mechanism whereby we unconsciously evaluate the need, or not, to react to this new stimulus. It's something that we do, again, without thinking.
If we're to join the fact of somebody moving towards or near us with the fact that same person is looking at us, it’s almost impossible NOT to instinctively look back at that person.
So the second decomposition of Pimpleman’s “staring obsessively” statement is: he also has this uncommon capability of observing fixedly inanimate objects without deviating his eyes from his objective regardless of whatever may be happening around him.
I don’t think there’s a Yoga Master in the world that can match Pimpleman when it comes to concentration and self-alienation from surrounding reality.
But do notice that I just used the expression “almost impossible not to instinctively look”, didn’t I?. The word “almost” is of capital importance.
Let me repeat what Wikipedia says: “Although this is a reflex, there are two interesting aspects: (1) the body can be trained to over-ride that reflex; and (2) an unconscious body (or even drunk or drugged bodies) will not exhibit the reflex.”
It doesn’t take much training to “avoid looking”, does it? It’s a physical voluntary action by which you force your eyes to continue looking somewhere, contradicting the natural instinct of looking where you don’t want to look.
It’s like grabbing an nonexistent cylinder through which you’re looking at a certain moment, and reaching for every possible available spanners, nuts and screws, and tightly bolt the "thing" into place so it can't possibly budge even an inch.
It’s very uncomfortable situation and is one that you just want to get out of as quickly as possible.
But to pretend not see somebody it’s absolutely necessary that there’s a somebody that you don't want to see and that you pretend not to see. There’s no element of surprise.
The surprise may have happened when you first saw the undesired person and that you quickly looked away from before s/he was able to see you. But you looked. You saw him. You know the person is there. The element of surprise made you look and the fact that you're no longer surprised has allowed you to "avoid looking".
There’s no reason for Pimpleman to avoid looking at any of the three witnesses. He supposedly doesn’t know any of them. They appear before him surprisingly and he certainly is not trying to go unnoticed to anyone.
But the fact is that in five times out of five he doesn’t look back at any of the three witnesses, does he? We have written confirmation of that from two of those witnesses, TS and Derek Flack, in the PJ Files.
On Wednesday 2007/05/09, TS has this to say about her first sighting of Pimpleman: “...the man didn't see the deponent, because he was staring at the balcony” and about the second time “... and saw the man, this time in front of the 'Ocean Club's' reception, once more looking at Madeleine's house in an ostensive manner (...) That as she was walking up she walked right in front of the man, and observed him directly, an action that he did not retaliate, because he never looked at the deponent.”
On Saturday 2007/05/06, Derek Flack says the following “Therefore, refers having realized that the individual above referenced observed fixedly the area in question, being very concentrated on his objective, to the point of not even having detected the presence of the herein deponent.”
It's absolutely clear what has happened between Pimpleman and with these two people. But this only accounts for two of the total of three witnesses and for three of five sightings.
What about JW and her two sightings?
Well we don’t have anything about JW and her sightings in the PJ Files, do we? We’ll speak about that in a later post, but for now all we have is what we can see in the Mockumentary in which both her sightings were reconstructed in detail.
I’ll start with the second one, because the all the relevant information is in the first.
In the second, as can be seen, JW looks at Pimpleman, and Pimpleman remains looking elsewhere. So we’re to assume that much like it happened with TS and Derek Flack, Pimpleman didn’t see “the deponent” also this time.
But let’s look at the reconstruction of JW's first sighting. First we have to thank Edgar and his board to understand where it happened:
I can’t see any connection between this man, where he was seen, what he was doing and Maddie’s alleged abduction.
In fact, one of the biggest Mockumentary’s mysteries is where exactly is Pimpleman fixing his observation during JW's first sighting:
He's just looking down a deserted street, but he's certainly observing fixedly something as the sequence shows:
He doesn’t for one second move his eyesight from wherever he’s looking at, which is extraordinary, to say the least.
But if you look attentively at the sequence, maybe the solution to the mysteries of this character will unfold before your eyes.
Below, Pimpleman as he appears in all the photos of the sequence above:
As you can see, he’s as inanimate as any switched off TV set or apartment building. A woman and a child pass by him on a deserted street and he doesn’t move a facial muscle, much less a neck one to move his head. He just keeps on looking at... nowhere.
Completely and totally alienated from reality around him, isn’t he?
I have an explanation as to why: autism!
Pimpleman is autistic! That would explain why he doesn’t look at JW twice, doesn't look the exact same amount of times at TS, and doesn't look at Derek Flack although this man passes no further than a foot right in front of him. By the way, as it happens with JW on her first sighting, with Derek Flack, Pimpleman also stares pointlessly, but obsessively at an empty street...