HELP WANTED - Two Madeleine photos side by side please

by **Tony Bennett** 20.09.11 19:39

I wonder if GEG or someone else could please post up the following two photos side by side:

1. The controversial 'make-up' photo of Madeleine that the McCanns released in 2010

2. The equally controversial 'last photo' of Madeleine allegedly taken on 3 May 2007 at 2.29pm.

I have been struck by these similarities:

A. Hair bead in both photos.

B. Hair bead in the same place on both photos.

C. Hair style identical on both photos.

D. Hair length identical on both photos.

I wondered if both might have been taken on the same day? - and possibly well before the Praia da Luz holiday in April/May 2007?

Thanks

by Guest 21.09.11 9:57

by Guest 21.09.11 10:10

I personally am not sure that the two photos (vile blue eye shadow and the one by the pool) are of the same child; a common problem with many images supposedly of Madeleine.

by Guest 21.09.11 10:17

Tony, that's the best I could do on the photo front. Also, is this leading to something relating specifically to the apartment in Burgau? If not, I think we should start a more relative thread for this.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.11 10:30

Stella wrote:Tony, that's the best I could do on the photo front.

REPLY: Very good, thank you. I maintain that these photos could have been taken close in time to each other, but perhaps not on the same day, it seems to be a pink silk bow on the top photo and a pinkish bead of some kind on the lower one. The hair styles and length are remarkably close.

Also, is this leading to something relating specifically to the apartment in Burgau?

REPLY: No, however I think ROSA has a good point about the background to the top photo. The ochre-coloured stucco wall behind Madeleine in the top photo does look remarkably similar to the ochre stucco of the Burgau apartment.

If not, I think we should start a more relative thread for this.

by Guest 21.09.11 10:50

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stella wrote:Tony, that's the best I could do on the photo front.

REPLY: Very good, thank you. I maintain that these photos could have been taken close in time to each other, but perhaps not on the same day, it seems to be a pink silk bow on the top photo and a pinkish bead of some kind on the lower one. The hair styles and length are remarkably close.
I have been wondering about that. Most children's hair accessories, like bows and animals are attached to hair bands. When children are trying to remove them from their hair, they almost always end up pulling these things off the hair band altogether. So what we might be seeing is a complete hair accessory in one photo and what is left after the bow has been pulled off in the next. It might also account for the band being lower down the second time. A pink bow, would be attached to a pink hair band !!

Also, is this leading to something relating specifically to the apartment in Burgau?

REPLY: No, however I think ROSA has a good point about the background to the top photo. The ochre-coloured stucco wall behind Madeleine in the top photo does look remarkably similar to the ochre stucco of the Burgau apartment.
Yes I agree, she does have a point there. Just in case they are connected then, it should stay here.

by jd 21.09.11 13:19

ROSA wrote:

This does look like the pictures were taken at the same location. Apart from the walls, its the blue chairs in the background. the other picture they released (below) also has the blue chair in the background which suggests this was also taken at the same location. If so, it is more than Maddie playing with makeup as her makeup in the picture below is different in my opinion and very heavily photoshopped. Seems they were doing a photoshoot of some sort
What was so special about Burgau? - Page 3 Maddieicecreampic

What was so special about Burgau? - Page 3 Maddieicecreampic

by **tigger** 21.09.11 14:16

http://minnea.blogspot.com/2008/07/1st-key-sighting.html

This is a link which may have some relation to this? About the trip to Sagres on the 30th and a car which was traced to Burgau.
Anything about a trip to Sagres on the 30th in the book? And whose car was used?

Tony,
I think you're really on to something. That particular shade of blue for plastic furniture is fairly rare. The right arm of the ice cream girl is that of a woman, reduced of course, it's impossible to have that loose fat on a child's arm. I've looked at this before and the hand too, is too big.
It's not a spoon in her mouth but an ice lolly, so the cone is just extra suggestive imagery. If that was a photoshoot -
What I want to say isn't printable!

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.11 18:20

Yes, the bright blue part of the 'ice cream' photo is of interest, is it a blue chair? - but what is clear about the 'ice cream' photo is that Madeleine's hair in that picture is MUCH MUCH longer than in any other picture I have ever seen of her.

Perhaps it was cut soon afterwards?

by Guest 21.09.11 18:40

I think it looks more like a round sweet lollipop in Madeleine's right hand than a spoon or an iced lolly. The unsettling expression on her face is similar to that in the photo taken professionally by Paul Grover where she is lying on the floor. I wonder if this one is also his "masterpiece".

by **tigger** 21.09.11 18:44

Tony Bennett wrote:Yes, the bright blue part of the 'ice cream' photo is of interest, is it a blue chair? - but what is clear about the 'ice cream' photo is that Madeleine's hair in that picture is MUCH MUCH longer than in any other picture I have ever seen of her.

Perhaps it was cut soon afterwards?

I think they can still be contemporary, because the shoulder area and the arm seem to be one, then there is that long blonde line of hair. It would be a good way to paste her face onto that. Actually the photoshopping is quite easy to see, because the hand holding the ice cream is at the wrong angle to connect to the upper arm via the elbow. Impossible. That face is shopped in probably and the line of blonde hair that is the edge isn't quite falling the way one would expect. The way the head sits on the neck doesn't ring true either. Even allowing for lens distortion it doesn't really work.

The common factor of the two shiny royal blue bits in these photographs count for a lot IMO.

by **tigger** 21.09.11 18:49

Marian wrote:I think it looks more like a round sweet lollipop in Madeleine's right hand than a spoon or an iced lolly. The unsettling expression on her face is similar to that in the photo taken professionally by Paul Grover where she is lying on the floor. I wonder if this one is also his "masterpiece".

When you blow it up, the flat wooden part of the ice lolly is quite clear. It's not a spoon, icecream has been shopped in to enhance the symbolism. Excuse me, I'm just about to :bad:

by Cheshire Cat 21.09.11 18:58

[quote="Stella"] What was so special about Burgau? - Page 3 Mail-1-5-10-mbm

I have always thought the blue plastic was a childs spade or an oar for a dingy.

by Guest 21.09.11 21:10

by dragonfly 21.09.11 21:56

Dont know if this is already bought up, (admin can you move it if in wrong place ) just saw tony mention longer hair length same as ice cream photo, I did not realise 'two' Everton photos were released , one with what looks like twins in background and another in front of dresser,
With different hair colours, one with a dark ash blonde/light brown, the other with very blonde hair , Does anyone know when either of these photos were taken how long apart ?

What was so special about Burgau? - Page 3 1281945&docid=kzIm7tdGWYU6HM&w=180&h=180&ei=tjt6Tqn8IYWVswaAvqC0Dw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1055&vpy=628&dur=7063&hovh=144&hovw=144&tx=82&ty=46&page=1&tbnh=140&tbnw=142&start=0&ndsp=42&ved=1t:429,r:30,s:0

What was so special about Burgau? - Page 3 1281945&docid=kzIm7tdGWYU6HM&w=180&h=180&ei=tjt6Tqn8IYWVswaAvqC0Dw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1055&vpy=628&dur=7063&hovh=144&hovw=144&tx=82&ty=46&page=1&tbnh=140&tbnw=142&start=0&ndsp=42&ved=1t:429,r:30,s:0

blonde hair

http://news.sky.com/home/madeleine/article/1281945

What was so special about Burgau? - Page 3 Agony-McCanns-reveal-details-holiday-Madeleine-vanished

What was so special about Burgau? - Page 3 Agony-McCanns-reveal-details-holiday-Madeleine-vanished

darker hair

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-453948/The-search-Madeleine-week-hope-heartbreak.html

edit- I can't see pictures, can someone help me put them on thank you

What was so special about Burgau? - Page 3 2maddi10

What was so special about Burgau? - Page 3 2maddi10

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.11 23:15

jd wrote:
ROSA wrote:

This does look like the pictures were taken at the same location. Apart from the walls, its the blue chairs in the background. the other picture they released (below) also has the blue chair in the background which suggests this was also taken at the same location. If so, it is more than Maddie playing with makeup as her makeup in the picture below is different in my opinion and very heavily photoshopped. Seems they were doing a photoshoot of some sort

I have looked at these pictures very carefully again. I never thought that this photo might have been photoshopped. But now, looking at this last pic again, I am studying the left hand of Madeleine carefully.

First, her lower arm seems to be coming out from a place much higher than her elbow,

Second, it seems plain to me that her hand seems to be 'cut off' from the rest of her arm - there is a gap of half-an-inch to an inch or so between her left arm and what looks like a completely separated wrist and hand.

Indeed you can even see the pattern of the dress continuing down the gap between the separated wrist and hand and the rest of her arm.

It is really quite eerie when I stop to think about it, because it really does appear to my admittedly non-expert eye that the 'hand plus ice-cream' have indeed been photoshopped in.

Indeed it really seems very obvious now I come to think of it.

If I am right, what were the McCanns thinking of when releasing it?

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.11 23:18

Cheshire Cat says: What was so special about Burgau? - Page 3 Empty

"I have always thought the blue plastic was a childs spade or an oar for a dingy".

What was so special about Burgau? - Page 3 Mail-1-5-10-mbm

REPLY: Agreed that a blue spade or dingy is very possible.

But there is also bright blue in the ice cream photo.

If you then link all the photos with the ochre-coloured stucco of a balcony which also has chairs coloured bright blue, there is at least a possibility that one or both of the photos of Madeleine we are discussing were taken on that very balcony.

by jd 21.09.11 23:30

Tony Bennett wrote:I have looked at these pictures very carefully again. I never thought that this photo might have been photoshopped. But now, looking at this last pic again, I am studying the left hand of Madeleine carefully.

First, her lower arm seems to be coming out from a place much higher than her elbow,

Second, it seems plain to me that her hand seems to be 'cut off' from the rest of her arm - there is a gap of half-an-inch to an inch or so between her left arm and what looks like a completely separated wrist and hand.

It is really quite eerie when I stop to think about it, because it really does appear to my admittedly non-expert eye that the 'hand plus ice-cream' have indeed been photoshopped in.

Indeed it really seems very obvious now I come to think of it.

If I am right, what were the McCanns thinking of when releasing it?

This is how I have always felt about this photo. Plus it is quite blurry and smacks of a paintbrush being used, especially on the left side and forehead. It looks very much they have tried to blend the colour tone of the skin to match the right side (badly). Ive done this before with pictures in photoshop and recognise the blurriness this more often than not can achieve

What were they thinking of? Pass...The only logical reason would be a coded message to someone like a pedophile

by Gillyspot 22.09.11 0:40

jd wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:I have looked at these pictures very carefully again. I never thought that this photo might have been photoshopped. But now, looking at this last pic again, I am studying the left hand of Madeleine carefully.

First, her lower arm seems to be coming out from a place much higher than her elbow,

Second, it seems plain to me that her hand seems to be 'cut off' from the rest of her arm - there is a gap of half-an-inch to an inch or so between her left arm and what looks like a completely separated wrist and hand.

It is really quite eerie when I stop to think about it, because it really does appear to my admittedly non-expert eye that the 'hand plus ice-cream' have indeed been photoshopped in.

Indeed it really seems very obvious now I come to think of it.

If I am right, what were the McCanns thinking of when releasing it?
This is how I have always felt about this photo. Plus it is quite blurry and smacks of a paintbrush being used, especially on the left side and forehead. It looks very much they have tried to blend the colour tone of the skin to match the right side (badly). Ive done this before with pictures in photoshop and recognise the blurriness this more often than not can achieve

What were they thinking of? Pass.....The only logical reason would be a coded message to someone like a pedophile

Well spotted Tony. Being someone who regularly uses Adobe Photoshop CS (in my work) this is clearly photoshopped and the left arm has been added on from another picture (very poorly as you say) as the positioning and colours are all wrong at the elbow.

Amazing that more care wasn't taken with releasing this photo or do they think we are idiots and uneducated? Agree with JD this photo is one of the more worrying one's released because of its paedophillic sexual connotations. Mind I will say it is only one of several photos that are worrying me.

Makes me beg these questions of the McCanns:

a) Why EVEN take these photographs and then when you have
b) WHY release them to the media as they are clearly inappropriate photographs to share of a much loved toddler.

by **tigger** 22.09.11 8:14

jd wrote:
This is how I have always felt about this photo. Plus it is quite blurry and smacks of a paintbrush being used, especially on the left side and forehead. It looks very much they have tried to blend the colour tone of the skin to match the right side (badly). Ive done this before with pictures in photoshop and recognise the blurriness this more often than not can achieve

What were they thinking of? Pass...The only logical reason would be a coded message to someone like a pedophile

I've wondered about the timing of the release of the blue eyeshadow photo. Early January 2010? A message to a person who was there at the photo shoot? The ice cream photo too, when was that released?
IMO Gerry's blog was mostly to pass on messages, the famous one of the broken fridge which was whooshed within 24 hours. Gerry trying to get his blog deleted from the internet on the grounds of copyright although he might have had a different reason. Quite a few stories in the public domain have as their original source: Gerry. The man on the plane, the lost wallet, the drunk in the road?

Re bad photoshopping which is evident in all sorts of public images - think of the bad work in the famous photo of 7/7 at Luton station. The hopeless fakes of 9/11 and it all started with the Zapruder film when this sort of thing was in its infancy.
The real problem with images is that the brain fills in the gaps. We see with our brain, not our eyes, hence the many conflicting witness statements of an event.

Re the blue in the background: I still think it's the chair because she is standing up and it could easily be the top of a chair over her shoulder, a paddle or a dinghy would be lower down, you'd lean a dinghy sideways and lay a paddle down?

by **tigger** 22.09.11 8:20

dragonfly wrote:Dont know if this is already bought up, (admin can you move it if in wrong place ) just saw tony mention longer hair length same as ice cream photo, I did not realise 'two' Everton photos were released , one with what looks like twins in background and another in front of dresser,
With different hair colours, one with a dark ash blonde/light brown, the other with very blonde hair , Does anyone know when either of these photos were taken how long apart ?

blonde hair

http://news.sky.com/home/madeleine/article/1281945

darker hair

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-453948/The-search-Madeleine-week-hope-heartbreak.html

edit- I can't see pictures, can someone help me put them on thank you

The one with the long blonde hair isn't Maddie, different face, different smile. Both smiles are closed mouth which children hardly even do. It's a grown-up thing. Perhaps they weren't to show their baby teeth? The girl on the left is confident IMO but Maddie's face looks uncertain. This photo is heavily and badly photoshopped. Get the whole image up, enlarge, blur on the elbow, blur on left side of face, ghost line along lower arm and head floating in space, head set too far to the right on the photo (M's left).

by jd 22.09.11 8:23

tigger wrote:
jd wrote:
This is how I have always felt about this photo. Plus it is quite blurry and smacks of a paintbrush being used, especially on the left side and forehead. It looks very much they have tried to blend the colour tone of the skin to match the right side (badly). Ive done this before with pictures in photoshop and recognise the blurriness this more often than not can achieve

What were they thinking of? Pass...The only logical reason would be a coded message to someone like a pedophile

I've wondered about the timing of the release of the blue eyeshadow photo. Early January 2010? A message to a person who was there at the photo shoot? The ice cream photo too, when was that released?
IMO Gerry's blog was mostly to pass on messages, the famous one of the broken fridge which was whooshed within 24 hours. Gerry trying to get his blog deleted from the internet on the grounds of copyright although he might have had a different reason. Quite a few stories in the public domain have as their original source: Gerry. The man on the plane, the lost wallet, the drunk in the road?

Re bad photoshopping which is evident in all sorts of public images - think of the bad work in the famous photo of 7/7 at Luton station. The hopeless fakes of 9/11 and it all started with the Zapruder film when this sort of thing was in its infancy.
The real problem with images is that the brain fills in the gaps. We see with our brain, not our eyes, hence the many conflicting witness statements of an event.

Re the blue in the background: I still think it's the chair because she is standing up and it could easily be the top of a chair over her shoulder, a paddle or a dinghy would be lower down, you'd lean a dinghy sideways and lay a paddle down?

I can't think of any reason other than it being some kind of coded message to someone. Though a possible reason could be to confuse and get the public debating about these pictures to keep the scam story going, these strange pictures certainly opens up a lot to talk about. And they have ingredients of the 2 most debated subjects re this case, pedophiles and photoshopped pictures

I think the blue is the chair and the top of it. The contrast/brightness quality of pictures do change the shade of colours and in this case it looks the same blue to me in reality, even though the pictures themselves show the blue as different

by Guest 22.09.11 8:25

I've been trying to make sense of the background in the ice cream photo. If she's standing up the blue object must be handing on the wall. I was wondering if she is lying down so the surface behind her is floor and the blue object the base of a chair. the ice cream being photoshopped in would then make sense. Though to be honest I can't get my head around all the photoshopping and why it is needed.

Also for the eye shadow picture it was supposedly taken by a visiting beautician, presumably visiting their home, but the wall texture behind her head doesn't look like a domestic house wall to me . Would be interesting to see what the back Walls in the Rothley home look like.

by jd 22.09.11 8:42

Stewie wrote: Though to be honest I can't get my head around all the photoshopping and why it is needed

To confuse everyone into what Maddie really looked like, and to create debates to keep this scam story in the public interest. The more the public are interested/curious/confused and talking about it, the more money they make

And if they used a Maddie lookalike in PDL that week to cover the guests and mark warner employees who saw them that she was there, this only helps confuse them to the little girl they actually saw with them

Also, there are no photos of the Mccanns with Maddie on that week hence the need to photoshop them. There isn not a single one of Kate with Maddie, twins with Maddie, family of all 5 of them. They don't have the material

by **Tony Bennett** 22.09.11 9:15

Stewie wrote:I've been trying to make sense of the background in the ice cream photo. If she's standing up the blue object must be handing on the wall. I was wondering if she is lying down so the surface behind her is floor and the blue object the base of a chair. the ice cream being photoshopped in would then make sense. Though to be honest I can't get my head around all the photoshopping and why it is needed.

Also for the eye shadow picture it was supposedly taken by a visiting beautician...

Was it?

Could you please supply the link for this?

I speculated at the time (as did others) about who took the photo, and I can't remember the McCanns saying it was 'a visiting beautician'.

On the contrary, the story produced around this photo was that 'Madeleine had been playing with Mummy's make-up box'.

We challenged this account on the basis that no 3-year-old child could possibly apply that blue eye shadow so neatly; then there were all those associated questions about who took the photos, why it was taken from such an unusual angle, why Madeleine seemed to be so unhappy in the photo, and perhaps the most puzzling question of all - why the heck did the McCanns ever release it?