Misty makes shocking claims on the Early Show 2009.10.9. -*video inlcuded*

[Normcar21]

bbm


I dont believe I understand what you mean by the sheep. What does that mean?

tia.

.

Sheep references individuals who "agree" with someone or some group simply because they have demonstrated some form of leadership or power. Case in point would be NG, who is such a powerhouse character and personality that many individuals simply choose to agree with her because they fear her challenge, no matter how subjective and non-lawyerly. If you watch NG on a daily basis, you have seen extremely competent lawyers cringe and cower to her statements, not because they think that she is on the right track, but because she's the boss, and she can shut them down in one second by calling up the producer to shut them down.

Hopefully that helps

 

[KOOL LOOK]

Sheep references individuals who "agree" with someone or some group simply because they have demonstrated some form of leadership or power. Case in point would be NG, who is such a powerhouse character and personality that many individuals simply choose to agree with her because they fear her challenge, no matter how subjective and non-lawyerly. If you watch NG on a daily basis, you have seen extremely competent lawyers cringe and cower to her statements, not because they think that she is on the right track, but because she's the boss, and she can shut them down in one second by calling up the producer to shut them down.

Hopefully that helps

and in my opinion, right after the show with NG told Ron he was a "Liar", he the next day began divorce proceedings. When I watched that show that night, and heard it, I immediately told myself. "Watch, Ron will now seek a divorce from Misty". Shore nuff, the next day the reports and rumors started flying about a divorce.

 

[Normcar21]

and in my opinion, right after the show with NG told Ron he was a "Liar", he the next day began divorce proceedings. When I watched that show that night, and heard it, I immediately told myself. "Watch, Ron will now seek a divorce from Misty". Shore nuff, the next day the reports and rumors started flying about a divorce.

That situation was extremely interesting to me as well. I watched NG play with Ron, calling him a friend and "I know you Ron" sort of thing, just so she could wrap him around her fingers and melt him down. Nancy is wise and crafty, for sure. Well, she kept on keepin' on, melting the boy down until the boy clearly understood that if he was going to keep his HC in the news he was going to have to hang in there with NG.

Clearly NG wanted the boy to leave Misty as she makes that very clear in all of her programs, she believes in the guilt of this young girl.

Misty was asked about the "divorce" thing, and her response was that "Ron wants it so I'll do it". Ron on NG, when asked about how permenant this divorce would be, didn't make any statements about forever, and even implied that once this crap was over he would get back together with Misty.

RC is doing what he believes is necessary to get his daughter back. Sucking up to NG is one of the things he is attempting to do.

IMO

 

[atherella]

IMO, there is no confusion or contradictory information from the article, only from Misty Croslin’s stated unlikely trip to Browning Pearce Elementary School that Monday morning since none of the witnesses reported her or Junior being in the speeding vehicle.

Respectfully snipped & BBM as to the part I'm going to address.

Perhaps no one saw anyone in the car due to the tinted windows on the vehicle?

Santos says Ronald’s tinted windows prevented him from seeing Haleigh or Misty, who claims she walked Haleigh into school before returning home to crash for a couple of hours.

http://www.artharris.com/2009/09/09/exlusive-haleigh-cummings-last-day/

 

[KOOL LOOK]

That situation was extremely interesting to me as well. I watched NG play with Ron, calling him a friend and "I know you Ron" sort of thing, just so she could wrap him around her fingers and melt him down. Nancy is wise and crafty, for sure. Well, she kept on keepin' on, melting the boy down until the boy clearly understood that if he was going to keep his HC in the news he was going to have to hang in there with NG.

Clearly NG wanted the boy to leave Misty as she makes that very clear in all of her programs, she believes in the guilt of this young girl.

Misty was asked about the "divorce" thing, and her response was that "Ron wants it so I'll do it". Ron on NG, when asked about how permenant this divorce would be, didn't make any statements about forever, and even implied that once this crap was over he would get back together with Misty.

RC is doing what he believes is necessary to get his daughter back. Sucking up to NG is one of the things he is attempting to do.

IMO

I'm so glad someone else saw this coming like I did. I was wondering if my mind was messin with me. Nancy would not stop, til she bullied Ron into divorcing Misty. I saw it coming for weeks. Good job Nancy Grace. Hope you are right. Because if you are not about Misty, you have broke up a home and marriage, not single handidly, but had a mighty hand in it.

Its one thing to question someone's guilt, to make your point clear, as we have those rights, but to badger and bully a husband against his wife, being their young ages, what trauma and stress was in their daily lives, is wrong. Somethings need to just happen naturally. And this is one of them. No matter what, it should be between this couple only. It will be extremely interesting to see those that have dealt an un-ethical, immoral hand to this whole case what their own lives turn out to be.

 

[Pondering Mind]

Hi Flossie...I still can't find your theory in the tons of 'theory threads' and . was just wondering if you had a chance to look? OR..if you wouldn't mind giving a brief synopsis of what has brought you to this conclusion. (prolly be a whole lot easier than drudging back thru those threads...it made my head hurt , lol. I am truly and sincerly curious. I guess I'm just trying say that I haven't seen ANYTHING to steer me in that direction and I want to know what it is that I'm missing! ...I do...I promise...If you would rather not answer I understand, but pondering minds have to ask, ya know?

I know this is off topic here, perhaps if you choose to answer we should take it to the 'theories thread'? Thanks either way

bumping, hoping Flossie will see and reply in the AM. re:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flossie JMO
Hi there, I think I have posted it all in the theories thread. I believe HaLeigh is alive, and hidden with family and friends

 

[Concerned Papa]

~Respectfully Snipped~

I appreciate consideration of solid evidence, it is my opinion that your offerings are extremely subjective and can be bounced around like a volleyball on Friday night. I apologize if this offends you. Your suggestions do not offend me, I simply don't believe that they hold any credibility. This has nothing to do with personalities or character. I apologize if my viewpoints are not in line with your views and opinions.

Your responses and words which have included accusations of my trying to “manufacture objectivity” and offerings that “can be bounced around like a volleyball on Friday night”, as duplicitous as they may be, are not capable of offending me.

The disingenuous words and statements of Misty Croslin, however, are highly offensive to not only myself but to the law enforcement agencies who have tried to sort through the “convoluted maze” (If I may borrow your expression) of her version of events for the night that Haleigh Cummings disappeared while in her care.

This will be the last post that I make in response to your claim of “Her version of events were clear, distinct, and not contradictory”

Please accept my apologies for linking an article from a 2 time Emmy award winning journalist whose reading made you dizzy in your search for objectivity.

My comment - because this individual won some award makes him or her above reproach? I see, so as long as they have some sort of "title" then they are correct. Thanks for that, I'll remember to let that sort of thing keep me on the right track.

If it is your view that the “right track” is to accept the claim of Misty Croslin as to taking Haleigh to school, and disregard the article of a credentialed journalist and witnesses referenced by him, then so be it. That is not a track that I find reasonable to believe.

I am somewhat puzzled why you can justify using kiddie wheelies as some sort of proof that Misty is a nasty little liar. It is the "wheely puzzle" to me.

Let me attempt to explain your “wheelie puzzle”. Perhaps instead of inserting disparaging words that do not exist in my posts on this matter such as “google search”, “kiddie wheelies”, and “Misty is a nasty little liar”, you should consider the fact that you are working from a flawed premise of Misty being consistent in her statements and versions of events. For example, your explanations of nothing contradictory, inconsistent, or untruthful in the “wheelie” matter have centered around:

~snip~Misty claimed that the kid was "trying" or "attempting."

You even offered the following as an “objective” explanation:

A 3 year old might "attempt" to sing, a 2 year old might "attempt" to climb on a cat. What's the problem?

What’s the problem you ask? The problem is that the hypnosis evaluation, of which you seem so staunchly to defend the truthfulness of Misty Croslin, is not the only time she has made statements about Haleigh’s activities that afternoon.

As is typical of much of Misty Croslin’s versions of events that day and evening, she also said:

CROSLIN: The A.C.? You know, I -- my brother was -- the A.C. guy had come and my brother had come, like, you know, 10 minutes after the A.C. guy. And me and my brothers and the kids, my nephews, were out there. You know, the kids were all playing in the front yard. Haleigh was riding her bike, doing wheelies, you know, having fun with my nephews. And the A.C. guy, you know, he was in the house by himself. We didn`t go in the house. You know, I didn`t go in the house with him. I sat on the front porch for a little while and...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0910/01/ng.01.html

In acknowledging your apparent disbelief about journalists and witness statements, perhaps you would like to hear Misty herself saying that Haleigh was DOING wheelies, not attempting to do them?

YouTube - Nancy Grace Investigates 10/1/09 Part 2 Listen at the 55 second mark

Haleigh, a five year old little girl, DOING wheelies on a bicycle with training wheels in a yard with sandy soil and sparse grass IMO is nothing less than a lie told by Misty Croslin in an effort to establish an atmosphere of domestic tranquility in the household with herself being the 17 year old “mommy”.

How does the description of PINK T-SHIRT, AND TAN SHORTS from the Officer's report, in any interpretation of the English language, seem to indicate that her "panties" were "tan" colored? Are you of the opinion that a member of LE did not know the difference between shorts and panties?

My answer – yes

To state that Officer Nelson didn’t know the difference between shorts and panties is an affront to LE in general and this officer of the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office in particular.

Misty herself claimed that H liked to sleep in her shorts, or panties, she didn't like jammies.

Then why did she tell the 911 operator that Haleigh was wearing pajamas when last seen?

The idea that you are referencing descriptions from various individuals about shorts, panties, jammies, or other is to me about as ridiculous as it gets.

I referenced only the words of Misty Croslin, not “various individuals”. To not be truthful and keep the story straight as to what clothes Haleigh was wearing when last seen was detrimental to LE’s search and investigation. Any pretense of truthfulness on her part was rendered "as ridiculous as it gets" when the pink shirt was later found to be in the dirty clothes.

By the way my fellow Web Sleuths member, the “kid” which you referenced as “trying” or “attempting” to do wheelies has a name. It’s Haleigh Cummings. We all owe her at least enough respect to referrer to her by name in these ridiculous back and forths.

 

[Donjeta]

Since Misty didn't even know whether or not Haleigh was wearing a pink Hannah Montana shirt I highly doubt she had any idea what color her panties were.

Or is it just me that doesn't pay that much attention to panties? I don't know what kind of panties any of my children are wearing right now. I know which shirts they have on but panties are beyond me.

 

[Pondering Mind]

Since Misty didn't even know whether or not Haleigh was wearing a pink Hannah Montana shirt I highly doubt she had any idea what color her panties were.

Or is it just me that doesn't pay that much attention to panties? I don't know what kind of panties any of my children are wearing right now. I know which shirts they have on but panties are beyond me.

LOL Donjeta! I don't think it's just you...my children are grown, so trying to remember WAY back, but I don't think I would have known that either. Shirt, yes, cause you would have seen that all day, but panties...nah..I wouldn't have been able to say for sure either.

 

[Normcar21]

Your responses and words which have included accusations of my trying to “manufacture objectivity” and offerings that “can be bounced around like a volleyball on Friday night”, as duplicitous as they may be, are not capable of offending me.

The disingenuous words and statements of Misty Croslin, however, are highly offensive to not only myself but to the law enforcement agencies who have tried to sort through the “convoluted maze” (If I may borrow your expression) of her version of events for the night that Haleigh Cummings disappeared while in her care.

This will be the last post that I make in response to your claim of “Her version of events were clear, distinct, and not contradictory”



If it is your view that the “right track” is to accept the claim of Misty Croslin as to taking Haleigh to school, and disregard the article of a credentialed journalist and witnesses referenced by him, then so be it. That is not a track that I find reasonable to believe.


Let me attempt to explain your “wheelie puzzle”. Perhaps instead of inserting disparaging words that do not exist in my posts on this matter such as “google search”, “kiddie wheelies”, and “Misty is a nasty little liar”, you should consider the fact that you are working from a flawed premise of Misty being consistent in her statements and versions of events. For example, your explanations of nothing contradictory, inconsistent, or untruthful in the “wheelie” matter have centered around:


You even offered the following as an “objective” explanation:



What’s the problem you ask? The problem is that the hypnosis evaluation, of which you seem so staunchly to defend the truthfulness of Misty Croslin, is not the only time she has made statements about Haleigh’s activities that afternoon.

As is typical of much of Misty Croslin’s versions of events that day and evening, she also said:



In acknowledging your apparent disbelief about journalists and witness statements, perhaps you would like to hear Misty herself saying that Haleigh was DOING wheelies, not attempting to do them?

YouTube - Nancy Grace Investigates 10/1/09 Part 2 Listen at the 55 second mark

Haleigh, a five year old little girl, DOING wheelies on a bicycle with training wheels in a yard with sandy soil and sparse grass IMO is nothing less than a lie told by Misty Croslin in an effort to establish an atmosphere of domestic tranquility in the household with herself being the 17 year old “mommy”.



To state that Officer Nelson didn’t know the difference between shorts and panties is an affront to LE in general and this officer of the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office in particular.



Then why did she tell the 911 operator that Haleigh was wearing pajamas when last seen?



I referenced only the words of Misty Croslin, not “various individuals”. To not be truthful and keep the story straight as to what clothes Haleigh was wearing when last seen was detrimental to LE’s search and investigation. Any pretense of truthfulness on her part was rendered "as ridiculous as it gets" when the pink shirt was later found to be in the dirty clothes.

By the way my fellow Web Sleuths member, the “kid” which you referenced as “trying” or “attempting” to do wheelies has a name. It’s Haleigh Cummings. We all owe her at least enough respect to referrer to her by name in these ridiculous back and forths.

You said:
This will be the last post that I make in response to your claim of “Her version of events were clear, distinct, and not contradictory”
I say, fine

My response to your wheely consideration where you "quote" Misty claiming that the little girl was "popping wheelys" rather than "attempting to pop wheelys" is to me asking for her to be so exact in testimony that it is ridiculous. I have no problem understanding that she, under interrogation and bugged by the situation, left out "attemped" from time to time. She responded that "wheelys" were part and portion of the activities, whether she was "attempting" to or "actually popping" is a case in point to your "evidence" that you seem to consider effective and efficient. You seem to me to be trying to suck evidence out of a situation that simply does not call for such jot and tittling.

The "evidence" that you have posted, to date, falls into the same category, whether it relates to the night clothes thing or the wheely thing. If a professional can lay some objectivity to the descriptions of either the wheely thing or the "pj" thing, then I'll bite. Otherwise, it's all subjective fishing.

And that, unfortunately, is how I personally interpret much of your other "credible" evidence. This is not personal, my friend, I simply cannot see any objectivity to your posts, they are all extremely subjective and relate not to one testimony but many, and the idea that eye witness testimony is usually so endlessly contradictory impresses me even moreso that the offerings are subjective and no objectivity exists.

I apologize if that bothers you, I am simply stating my opinion and you may be very correct in your determinations. Unfortunately, subjective views will never become objective until the crime is solved.

Cheers

IMO

 

[PorcineGranny]

Concerned Papa, I thought your post summed up my thinking very well and I'm glad you made that post.

I agree.

 

[TxLady2]

I have to ask a question here. Why would training wheels on a child's bike prevent one from trying to pop wheelies? The training wheels are put on the BACK wheel to keep it from tipping over.... which IMO, would NOT prevent the front wheel from coming up off the ground if the child had enough strength to pull up on the handlebars. Seems to me that it would make it easier, but what do I know? It's been years since I rode a bike or any of my sons rode one.
Even if I've never seen something done, I'm not going to sit here and say it CAN'T be done without some experimentation.
This is not in defense of Misty, I'm just curious as to how some people KNOW that it can't be done.

 

[Donjeta]

Not saying that it couldn't be done but while my kids still needed training wheels they never even tried to pop wheelies because the whole trying to learn how to ride a bike business was enough work.

 

[snookie]

Not saying that it couldn't be done but while my kids still needed training wheels they never even tried to pop wheelies because the whole trying to learn how to ride a bike business was enough work.

I agree. Haleigh's a very tiny girl, weighing less than 40 pounds and only 3 feet tall. About the height of the average 3 year old. Not sure how her little arms would be able to lift up the front of the bike she was on.

Just more of Misty's lies. :liar:

 

[texasmommy39]

The confusion about the school and monday morning is clearly shown by the article that you referenced. Nothing objective could ever be gleaned by that convoluted maze, IMO.

http://www.artharris.com/2009/06/11/...ils/#more-2186

Simply attempting to read it made me dizzy.

You ask how a 5 year old "attempts" to pop a wheely, and that is some sort of incredible thing? A 3 year old might "attempt" to sing, a 2 year old might "attempt" to climb on a cat. What's the problem?

Your "three different versions" of what a child wears to bed you claim to be contradictory:
1. She was wearing her pink Hannah Montana shirt and her underwear.
2. She was in her pajamas.
3. PINK T-SHIRT, AND TAN SHORTS

Okay, now where is the problem? Her "pajamas" according to the messenger was a pink shirt and underwear. And #3 above seems to indicate that her "panties" were "tan" colored.
Where is the confusion, I dare inquire?

You post as some indication of contradiction or lie:

The first time you woke up what time was it?

Three, all I seen was 3, that’s all.

There is a night stand next to the bed and it’s facing towards the back of the room and it’s red, it says it in red and all I remember seeing is 3, that’s all I remember seeing is 3. "

2/10-PCSO Report:

Misty told me she woke up just before 3:00 am to get a drink and she noticed that Haleigh was missing.

All that I see is that the idea of "3" is recalled, not a story. If she was trying to manufacture a "story" she would have a heck of a lot more to say about the "3" deal, IMO.

I won't carry this ridiculousness further. You are trying to manufacture some objectivity and proof of deception from situations and statements that have nothing but subjective hopes and claims that prove absolutely nothing.

IMO

BBM I agree with this point and many others you have shared, thank you.

I keep coming back to what we all have been lead to believe and that is this is a Non Stranger abduction. The part that becomes interesting is was Haleigh awake and went willingly and quietly or was she unconscious/asleep and had no idea who it was that removed her from the MH (the back screen door was propped to navigate through the door with no hindrance IMO ). The only thing that causes me to pause and entertain the thought that HaLeigh was awake and knew her abductor is the kitchen light was used and left on and the CHILD'S FOOTPRINT found along the path (on the scent trail) that the dogs tracked that very morning from the back door. These two known facts could possibly reveal a lot about the circumstances surrounding the abduction and possibly narrow the suspect list of who HaLeigh would go with willingly. Would it be wise or even risked to use the kitchen light with the master bedroom being in such close proximity if the child was asleep and could be or was removed still asleep? I am trying to see the logic behind this one act and rationalize the probability it raises that HaLeigh was awake and possibly knew who she was leaving with.
The single childs foot print that was found could also lend credibility to HaLeigh being awake and walking along beside her abductor or she was carried from the mobile home and then allowed to stand on the ground at that point along the path. It is not a coincident IMO that the scent trail the dogs followed that morning was along this same path that a single child's footprint was found. IMO it is not circumstantial but relevant evidence that collaborates with the Kitchen light being used by the abductor.
If Misty is being truthful about waking, seeing only 3 and finding HaLeigh missing I have to consider what was it that finally woke Misty that morning was it someone leaving with Haleigh through that backdoor? I have surmised that Misty would of expected Ron home about the time she turned on her phone and would have delayed suspecting any foul play suggested by the kitchen light on and the back door (that was always locked) unlocked and open and HaLeigh missing. Did someone else count on this assumption by Misty (to wake and investigate) if they had waited till right before Ron got home to come into the MH and turn on the light and remove HaLeigh?

 

[Pondering Mind]

You know the 'wheelie thingy' doesn't bother me so much, I suppose that it's a possibility that HaLeigh could have been trying to pop wheelies anyway. What bothers me is that Misty gives so few other details about those hours that afternoon/evening/night. We heard about wheelies, making dinner, AC man, the 2 different movies, the pee blanket and prolly a couple others I forgot. And we have heard about those few over and over again, like a script. Even using Misty's timeline there is 4+ hours from the time HaLeigh got home until bedtime....so my question is this: Is that it? That's all the details from that day? ..Usually in the recounting of that length of time, especially when it was the hrs. leading up to the disappearance of a child, you would think one would recall even the most minute details. (or at least I would think so...jmo tho..
Maybe there is much that I have missed, but have we ever heard what they had for dinner, did they talk about school, what she was going to wear the next day, homework? Did they have baths? Did HaLeigh & Jr have any squabbles that evening as most siblings that age do? Just anything else, or was it just a robotic atmosphere? You get the drift, cause I could go on and on.
That's what bothers me the most and gives me the most pause for thought. and why her 'stories' do not ring true to me at all...

 

[texasmommy39]

BBM I agree with this point and many others you have shared, thank you.

I keep coming back to what we all have been lead to believe and that is this is a Non Stranger abduction. The part that becomes interesting is was Haleigh awake and went willingly and quietly or was she unconscious/asleep and had no idea who it was that removed her from the MH (the back screen door was propped to navigate through the door with no hindrance IMO ). The only thing that causes me to pause and entertain the thought that HaLeigh was awake and knew her abductor is the kitchen light was used and left on and the CHILD'S FOOTPRINT found along the path (on the scent trail) that the dogs tracked that very morning from the back door. These two known facts could possibly reveal a lot about the circumstances surrounding the abduction and possibly narrow the suspect list of who HaLeigh would go with willingly. Would it be wise or even risked to use the kitchen light with the master bedroom being in such close proximity if the child was asleep and could be or was removed still asleep? I am trying to see the logic behind this one act and rationalize the probability it raises that HaLeigh was awake and possibly knew who she was leaving with.
The single childs foot print that was found could also lend credibility to HaLeigh being awake and walking along beside her abductor or she was carried from the mobile home and then allowed to stand on the ground at that point along the path. It is not a coincident IMO that the scent trail the dogs followed that morning was along this same path that a single child's footprint was found. IMO it is not circumstantial but relevant evidence that collaborates with the Kitchen light being used by the abductor.
If Misty is being truthful about waking, seeing only 3 and finding HaLeigh missing I have to consider what was it that finally woke Misty that morning was it someone leaving with Haleigh through that backdoor? I have surmised that Misty would of expected Ron home about the time she turned on her phone and would have delayed suspecting any foul play suggested by the kitchen light on and the back door (that was always locked) unlocked and open and HaLeigh missing. Did someone else count on this assumption by Misty (to wake and investigate) if they had waited till right before Ron got home to come into the MH and turn on the light and remove HaLeigh?

BBM
Who would HaLeigh leave with quietly and willingly?
Misty of course is at the Top of many lists, but, I would argue that assumption and ask that we go thru the list of all that has motive again and further discuss the ability needed to commit the crime. The resources that it would take to hide HaLeigh alive within a community (or be taken from) without HaLeigh being recognized or questioned because of her sudden appearance in the lives of the adult(s) that have HaLeigh.

 

[kiki the parrot]

IMO the "wheelie" claims are yet another example of embellishment and extraneous info (TMI) offered up by fabricating details so farfetched as to make no sense ("looking under beds" eg). Personally I find the entire notion of Haleigh popping "wheelies" on a bicycle w training wheels preposterous. This disbelief isn't based upon merely the age factor. More importantly, the inexperienced rider w a beginning skill or ability level to require training wheels lacks the proficiency to even attempt such a stunt (as donjeta points out, this child at this level is just trying to hold on and stay upright).

Furthermore it seems a physical impossibility. As inept w physics terminology as I am, as a mother of four (and grandmother) even I understand one is exclusive of the other. My youngest daughter is Haleigh's age and I just removed her training wheels last year. And I can assure you training wheels make any wheelies (or attempt at wheelies) impossible. By creating a wide triangular base in the rear, the additional two side-mounted wheels alongside the rear wheel stabilize the rear to such a degree that even if a child possessed sufficient strength (which as snookie says would be considerable), the solid distribution of weight in the rear would prevent the rocking or tilting backwards necessary to raise front end of the bicycle off the ground even slightly. The reason being a "wheelie" (or even the "attempted wheelie" lol) entails shifting and balancing a rider's weight onto the rear wheel(s) only... which simply isn't possible if rear weight is triangulated between three wheels. It's challenging enough tho not impossible for stunt riders to achieve this on a 3-wheeler (tricycle effect) wherein weight, when shifted rearward, is divided equally between the two rear wheels. But w three rear wheels--two of which are training wheels designed specifically to prevent this very sort of instability--it ain't gonna happen. JMO

arrot:

 

[azwriter]

IMO the "wheelie" claims are yet another example of embellishment and extraneous info (TMI) offered up by fabricating details so farfetched as to make no sense ("looking under beds" eg). Personally I find the entire notion of Haleigh popping "wheelies" on a bicycle w training wheels preposterous. This disbelief isn't based upon merely the age factor. More importantly, the inexperienced rider w a beginning skill or ability level to require training wheels lacks the proficiency to even attempt such a stunt (as donjeta points out, this child at this level is just trying to hold on and stay upright).

Furthermore it seems a physical impossibility. As inept w physics terminology as I am, as a mother of four (and grandmother) even I understand one is exclusive of the other. My youngest daughter is Haleigh's age and I just removed her training wheels last year. And I can assure you training wheels make any wheelies (or attempt at wheelies) impossible. By creating a wide triangular base in the rear, the additional two side-mounted wheels alongside the rear wheel stabilize the rear to such a degree that even if a child possessed sufficient strength (which as snookie says would be considerable), the solid distribution of weight in the rear would prevent the rocking or tilting backwards necessary to raise front end of the bicycle off the ground even slightly. The reason being a "wheelie" (or even the "attempted wheelie" lol) entails shifting and balancing a rider's weight onto the rear wheel(s) only... which simply isn't possible if rear weight is triangulated between three wheels. It's challenging enough tho not impossible for stunt riders to achieve this on a 3-wheeler (tricycle effect) wherein weight, when shifted rearward, is divided equally between the two rear wheels. But w three rear wheels--two of which are training wheels designed specifically to prevent this very sort of instability--it ain't gonna happen. JMO

arrot:

kiki, your description of the bike with training wheels makes it very clear to me that it would be difficult to try popping a "wheelie." I suppose the training wheels on the back would keep the back of the bike steady as well as not allow the front wheel to flip up unless it is attempted by a very strong and bigger child. Thanks for the image you created.

 

[Whisperer]

More of Misty's delusions. She has quite an animated world where she lives.