Playground Photo

Tony Bennett wrote:
ETA @ Amy Dean    You wrote:   "I've just seen that Easter egg photo of Madeleine for the first time. Can this really be the same child as in the other Donegal photos with her cousins? No wonder that people are suspicious about McCann photos".

REPLY: Who exactly is claiming that that girl in the Donegal photo is Madeleine? It clearly isn't Madeleine. Has someone jumped to the wrong conclusion here?

Amy Dean wrote:Tony, the girl in the Easter egg photo is wearing the same clothes as in the ones with Madeleine's cousins.

I don't know who else she can be.

ryanm wrote:

tigger wrote:

607  MISSING PAGE NUMBER

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Page 608  Family handout photo dated 02/05/2007 of Gerry McCann playing with his children (left to right) Madeleine and Sean (laughing) the day before Madeleine went missing on the evening of May 3.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], perhaps I'm missing something. I understood that the caption that was put on 608 was arising from the Sky news piece in relation this photo and had nothing to do with file content. When you go back to the original PJ file there's no information on where the photo came from, it seems they took all of the PDL photos from T9 and sorted them into 3 groups so it's not clear whose camera they came from and what date it was taken. 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

tinkier wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Juulcy wrote:I am just a humble longtime reader of this forum, but I REALLY wish all this Photoshop talk would stop. It is so far beyond credible, that imo all it does is put the forum in a very far away corner of the internet. It will put of new readers looking for information, and it distracts from the main real issues and questions surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.
The last picture being exempt from this. Imo also not photoshopped, but the date might have been manipulated.

Finally - a voice of reason in this wilderness of make-believe.  This is how myths are created and propagated, someone comes up with a ridiculous claim based on nothing but an over active imagination and a few months down the line it becomes an established fact.

I just hope not too many people are reading this thread, it's not very good for the forum's credibility.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]…..and how many myths have you propagated in your time on this forum?

Hopefully never but if you come across an instance where you think I'm propagating myth,  I would be very grateful if you let me know.  That way I can either explain myself or hold my hands up to being a total tw@, not for the first time if I might say!

Everything you write here and discuss is obviously very credible, and if you don't agree everything is a myth and will put people off from joining or reading this forum.

Thank you for the compliment but I really don't think I'm that important.  However, I don't think exchanging views about such a subject as  photographs, without so much as a scrap of evidence to sustain the argument is particularly productive.  I truly believe it discredits the forums purpose.

How pompous!

Not pompous - what I've said is not as you have portrayed.

I will just slither back into my little hole!!

That's obtuse - I'm sure there's no need, I'm just an ordinary member like yourself.  From recollection I have been on the same wavelength, only not on this subject.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] says:  "Wouldn't it be better if we all just gave our opinions/evidence and let others make up there own minds whether they agree or not?

That's exactly what I'm doing skyrocket!  It's just regrettable that you prefer not to be challenged and that you haven't yet been able to substantiate your opinions with any form of evidence.  From where I'm standing you offer opinion which you adhere to (fair enough) but with no due consideration to valid questions posed or counter argument.

If I agree with Tony Bennett, or anyone else for that matter, it's not a bullying conspiracy as you imply;  it's simply because I agree with certain issues wholeheartedly.  Although I'm quite prepared to listen to other opinions, providing they are within the realms of tangibility.  As I previously said, if you post on an open discussion forum you must expect opposition as well as back slapping.  Just for the record, you have been the target of my posts on this thread and that of the German TV interview, for the simple reason that you are the one that resurrected them, had it been another member my reaction would have been the same.

Those, you will be delighted to hear, are to be my final words on this subject - at least on this thread.

sammi1967 wrote:I don't get involved in the photoshopping side of things but what always stands out to me in photos of Maddie is her clothes. They just don't seem to fit in with the status of doctors. They look ill fitting, old fashioned style and unkempt. The exception being the 'last photo' where they are apparently from Monsoon. A big point of them being from Monsoon was also made in the book I believe. I know children get dirty and untucked and clothes go a bit askew when playing etc. It may be nothing but the dress sense just doesn't seem to fit in with the image and lifestyle they have.

tigger wrote:@ Tony:

Just because I consider the playground photo to be of another child (the two Wendy house ones also but not photoshopped imo) does not mean I believe Maddie wasn't in PdL, or that I doubt the evidence of the cadaver dogs. All it means is that I believe Maddie not to be in those photographs.

REPLY: OK, so to be clear you are saying that all three photographs (playground/Wendy House) are not Madeleine. You are saying that in your opinion the McCanns have published these three photographs KNOWIN G that they are not Madeleine. WOW! That is quite a bold claim! And one I wholly disagree with. But in your earlier post, you didn't just say that the girl in the main playground photo wasn't Madeleine. You suggested it was photoshopped in other ways. You wrote: 

QUOTE: "Maddie wore a wig in many photographs, I can't post photos  here (tried everything!) but will do a blog post on it one day...What I also find strange in the playground photograph is the perspective of the woman seen under the roof of the roundhouse in the distance. She seems far too small for the distance...If the girl in pink would stand up she'd be far too tall. Imo there's something very wrong with this photograph...isn't it more likely that the pink girl has been inserted?

So, again, referring to the playground photo, you say that the McCanns, some time before 9 May, photoshopped ANOTHER girl into the playground photo: 'the pink girl has been inserted'. But in addition, you say that the two Wendy House photos are NOT photoshopped but are definitely not Madeleine. DOUBLE WOW! 

A number of questions arise from this photograph:

Only one with Gerry in it is photoshopped imo
Why weren't there more photos taken of this jolly little interlude? Surely the photograph would have appeared to be a dud the moment it appeared on the LCD screen, nothing to stop the photographer to take another twenty or so. Unless this was a split second in time they felt they had to share with the world?

REPLY: You say the photo is a 'dud'. Why, exactly? It doesn't look like a 'dud' to me at all. It shows three apparently happy, carefree people in a playground: Gerry, Maddie and Sean. What on earth is wrong with that? 

If the girl in pink stands up she will be far too tall. Personally I think Sean is there (where is Amelie?) and Jane Tanner's little girl. Gerry is actually there as well, possibly looking at what Sean is doing.

The girl in the Wendy house may be about 98 cm tall (35 7/8"),

REPLY: No. 98cm is actually 3 ft and 2.6 inches. Exactly what I said before, between about 3ft and 3ft 3 inches - or not much more than half of Gerry's height (5ft 10" or 175 cm).
 
just a little shorter than the known height of this type of Wendy house door, which is 1 meter (36 1/3"). (somebody else worked this out quite some time ago)

Kate gives Maddie's height as 90 cm (35 7/8"),

REPLY: That doesn't mean it was exactly 90cm on Saturday 28 April 2007

the tennis photo imo shows a girl rather taller if one takes into account the known diameter of tennisballs and makes a slight adjustment for the angle, it would be around 114 cm (44 7/8"). The opposite end of the scale for four year olds.

REPLY: Yes, that is a very good observation, but let's keep that in mind for an analysis of the controversial 'Tennis Balls Photo', which is really the one with all the question marks  - and the one where claims of photoshopping DO appear credible

The fact that this episode is in the book is no guarantee of its veracity.  E.g. the book mentions the  purchase of sunglasses as having been purchased on the Thursday, thus it gave us a date post quem for the pool photo.

REPLY: I agree with all of that.

I would also suggest [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] a locked topic with plenty of interesting points on the many photographs. There are also some before and after shots of the Tapas, most of whom do not seem to have aged at all well in just a few years.

REPLY: Unfortunately, your post only addresses points 4, 5, 8 and 9 of my nine points, but not the others. How does your hypotheses that (a) another girl has been photoshopped into the playground photos and (b) the two Wendy House photos are not of Madeleine stand up against the five points listed below: 
 
1. Madeleine's shadow. It fits perfectly with the shadow on Gerry, and with all the other shadows on the photograph.

2. It would be very hard to fake such a shadow on a photograph such as this.

3. The setting for the photograph is exactly in accordance with what we know about the events of that day - arrival on a sunny day in the early/mid-afternoon, quickly go to the apartment, then run down to the playground and let the kids let off steam.

6. If you say this is not Madeleine on this holiday, what about the airport bus video? Was that Madeleine? If yes, was that Madeleine on that holiday, or another?

7. If you say this is not Madeleine on this holiday, what about the 'climbing-the-steps-of-the-plane' video? Was that Madeleine? If yes, was Madeleine on that holiday, or another?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

skyrocket wrote:@ Ladyinred

Happy to - I'm not enjoying this one bit. Hope you will keep a close eye on the proceedings!

One thing, what is pm?

Thanks

skyrocket wrote:@ Ladyinred

Happy to - I'm not enjoying this one bit. Hope you will keep a close eye on the proceedings!

One thing, what is pm?

Thanks

tigger wrote:If  you would kindly take the trouble to quote my words accurately such as: isn't it MORE LIKELY etc. which is not a statement of fact  but a possibility, it would be possible to answer your many  points.

REPLY: Strange, that, because in my last post I quoted every single word in your previous post accurately, before replying to each point. True, you previously said: "But isn't it more likely that the pink girl has been inserted?", but then in a later post you made a clear statement that it was not Madeleine McCann in any of the three photographs.

At 9.55am this morning, you wrote, QUOTE: "All it means is that I believe Maddie not to be in those [three] photographs."


I hope I am not misunderstanding, but your position is exactly this:

1. Playground photo is NOT Madeleine AND has been photoshopped
2. Two Wendy House photos are not photoshopped but are also NOT Madeleine
3. On many photos of Madeleine she is wearing a wig.

I am finding difficulty in understanding what your evidence is for these three beliefs, and I am sure I am far from being the only one.    

That I  am convinced re a wig etc clearly does not apply to this photo as is clear imo when one bothers to read the whole paragraph.

REPLY: You have clearly misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that you were saying Madeleine was wearing a wig in any of the three photographs. Indeed, you are emphatically saying it is NOT Madeleine in any of those three photos.

Any misinterpretations cannot - in my opinion - be put down to my inadequate knowledge of the English language.

I stand by my posts.

RE: the measurements: [SNIPPED]

REPLY: The detail of Gerry's height to the nearest inch and Madeleine's to the nearest centimetre is not really the issue - though if we had accurate measurements it would help us all. What you are saying is that your eyes tell you that the girl in the main 'playground picture' is 'too tall' to be Madeleine. Even if we had the most accurate up-to-date heights at that time for both of them, I am totally unable to agree that she 'looks too tall' to be Maddie in that photo. I gave my reasons before.

I am finding it very revealing that neither you nor any of the other 'pro-photoshopping' posters on this thread has been able (so far) to give a coherent reply to my '9 points'. I have yet to see any pro-photoshopping argument on this thread apart from: My eyes tell me it's been photoshopped'.

That simply isn't good enough evidence.

And I await the 'Madeleine often wore a wig' evidence with interest