Re: Playground Photo

by rustyjames 08.09.15 14:08

Thanks Tony, though in the spirit of neutrality you mention I must say I don't consider myself to be an expert, just a hobbyist; my professional expertise is in IT which probably explains why I'm drawn to discussions that can be discussed based on facts and physics etc.

by whodunit 08.09.15 16:12

Amy Dean 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.

I said when the egg roll photo was first presented here on the forum that it strikes me as odd that MBM is wearing the same clothing as the other Donegal photos that were taken with the twins and the cousins but all of the other children are wearing different clothing. I'm sure there is a logical explanation for that but what is it? A different day? Then why wasn't M allowed fresh, clean clothes? Changed for the egg roll? Again, why wasn't M allowed fresh clothing?

by Amy Dean 08.09.15 16:55

I suppose it's because the face of the girl in the Easter egg photo isn't particularly clear that she doesn't look like the same child in the officially released Donegal photos.

Strange about her being the only one wearing the same clothes though.

by skyrocket 08.09.15 17:38

@ Rustyjames - absolutely no disrespect intended. I hope I made that clear before I was chastised (yet again - yawn).

You say your examination was subjective and therefore clearly not a forensic one. Hope others are taking note of that point. I agree with you - your examination looks fine to me as well. Therefore we are both agreeing (with others) that the pink figure would be up to at least GM's waist if standing up straight. Hence my post on waist heights earlier today - the pink figure would be at least 108cm tall and would have to duck coming out of the playhouse. I've noticed a complete lack of response to that point. Interesting.

Also, the shadow may well be from the tree - I'd be happier if it were, but I have doubts. The edge of the shadow is a smooth line, the edge of the tree shadow has far more indentations (IMO). May also not be the photographer.

@ Verdi

Generally all people want are snapshots to keep or share, not a professional photographers ideology of the perfect picture. What you see is what you get, not necessarily a true depiction of the scene captured at the time the photograph was taken.

Completely agree with you - but I'm sure you also agree with me that when you use a compact camera to take a snapshot it is with the complete certainty that all of the subject matter will remain in relative proportion. What a crazy world we would be living in if subject matter grew and shrank randomly with the press of the shutter.

Ps - your dig wasn't wasted - I got it! big grin

See you've made me smile again!

I hasten to add, I'd like nothing more than to know definitely one way or the other about all the photos - it doesn't bother me which way the argument goes. I am not pushing for photoshopping - don't know nearly enough about it other than it it's best to avoid showing feet when you photoshop a person. All I was doing when I first commented was pointing out that this photo looked odd and interesting to ME! Still does actually.

by bodiddly 08.09.15 18:16

Some are asking why Amelie may be wearing different trousers than on the airport bus, if the pics were the same day. This little girl is two. Probably in nappies. Nappies leak through. Anyone who had ever had a child this young and younger surely knows you can change them every 5 mins. It really is not some great mystery and basically can be ruled out quickly with common sense. As can many of these photo forged or shopped claims. We don't even need them. Wr have enough without them.

by whodunit 08.09.15 18:28

bodiddly wrote:Some are asking why Amelie may be wearing different trousers than on the airport bus, if the pics were the same day. This little girl is two. Probably in nappies. Nappies leak through. Anyone who had ever had a child this young and younger surely knows you can change them every 5 mins. It really is not some great mystery and basically can be ruled out quickly with common sense. As can many of these photo forged or shopped claims. We don't even need them. Wr have enough without them.

I see your point and I agree with it but I'm not talking about those photos. I'm talking about the ones from Donegal. ALL of the children except Madeleine-- including a cousin who is at least 12---have on different clothes. I'm open to a reasonable explanation because I can't think of one except that it may indicate that MBM was woefully neglected. She either wore the same clothing two [or more for all we know] days running or she was ignored when the other children were put into fresh clothing for the Easter egg roll.

by bodiddly 08.09.15 18:36

Why neglected? Maybe MM herself liked those clothes and chose to wear them as much as possible. Children around that age can be picky with clothes. My daughter would have a fav dress at this age and all hell would break loose if she couldn't wear it. Maybe they were washed and dried for her the night before. Like I had to do with that damn dress sometimes.
Maybe there is something suspect about it. Maybe maybe maybe.

by bodiddly 08.09.15 18:44

Ps We already have neglect by the parents own admission, if we choose to believe their story. So the same clothes V leaving them alone, is not really a ring a ding.

by whodunit 08.09.15 18:46

bodiddly wrote:Why neglected? Maybe MM herself liked those clothes and chose to wear them as much as possible. Children around that age can be picky with clothes. My daughter would have a fav dress at this age and all hell would break loose if she couldn't wear it. Maybe they were washed and dried for her the night before. Like I had to do with that damn dress sometimes.
Maybe there is something suspect about it. Maybe maybe maybe.

Why neglected? Not based on this one photo but on practically every photo of MBM. She nearly always looked ill-kempt. Clothes too big. Hair not brushed etc. I have a daughter and two granddaughters so I understand how they can form attachments to certain outfits. But as a parent/grandparent you just don't allow them to wear clothes when the clothes start looking slovenly which these do in the easter roll photo.

by bodiddly 08.09.15 18:52

Well I disagree with your version of how she looks. Maybe your dinky female family members don't play in dirt or roll on the floor or slide down slides or fall over. She looks like an almost 4 year old girl dressed in the kind of clothes a four year old would be dressed in. It is picking for pickings sake and makes us look gaga IMO.

by whodunit 08.09.15 19:10

bodiddly wrote:Well I disagree with your version of how she looks. Maybe your dinky female family members don't play in dirt or roll on the floor or slide down slides or fall over. She looks like an almost 4 year old girl dressed in the kind of clothes a four year old would be dressed in. It is picking for pickings sake and makes us look gaga IMO.

My 'dinky female family members' ?? Wow, that's going a ~~bit~~ extremely over board over a disagreement about clothing, don't you think? Perhaps you should stop and think a minute about which behavior makes a board look gaga.

by bodiddly 08.09.15 19:15

Sorry is Small family members ok? I was merely referring to children in general. "dinky" is my
[size=48]term for them. I will not apologise any further for my own terms for things. Anyway my point has been made. I now bow out.[/size]

by Verdi 08.09.15 19:30

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

D'you know, your latest avatar is a dead ringer for my late great grandfather - and late great grandmother for that matter.

Not off topic, just another example of how a photograph can be incorrectly interpreted. At least I don't think it's either one of them - or is it - oh dear!

byebye

by skyrocket 08.09.15 20:17

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

lol! big grin

I'm sure we're going to grow on each other. Do me a favour, give me a head start next time I post something you disagree with!

@ Tony Bennett - ditto above! I respect the stance you've taken over the MBM affair. yes

by Guest 08.09.15 20:22

Back to the topic, please, posters.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.09.15 21:21

bodiddly wrote: She looks like an almost 4 year old girl dressed in the kind of clothes a four year old would be dressed in.

A voice of reason - and of relevant experience. thumbsup

I for one have appreciated your contributions, @ bodiddly.

She was dressed for the playground, not for a party or a church service

by tinkier 08.09.15 23:43

Tony Bennett wrote:
bodiddly wrote: She looks like an almost 4 year old girl dressed in the kind of clothes a four year old would be dressed in.
A voice of reason - and of relevant experience.

I for one have appreciated your contributions, @ bodiddly.

She was dressed for the playground, not for a party or a church service

TB…. The clothes in the playground picture were never the issue, which was pointed out to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] further back the thread, which he/she chose to ignore. None of my children would have been dressed for an arranged outing with others, in clothes they had been wearing the previous day, regardless how much they liked them. But then again, maybe some would class me as being over fussy taking pride in the way my children, all 4 of them were turned out!

by whodunit 09.09.15 0:02

tinkier wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
bodiddly wrote: She looks like an almost 4 year old girl dressed in the kind of clothes a four year old would be dressed in.
A voice of reason - and of relevant experience.

I for one have appreciated your contributions, @ bodiddly.

She was dressed for the playground, not for a party or a church service
TB…. The clothes in the playground picture were never the issue, which was pointed out to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] further back the thread, which he/she chose to ignore. None of my children would have been dressed for an arranged outing with others, in clothes they had been wearing the previous day, regardless how much they liked them. But then again, maybe some would class me as being over fussy taking pride in the way my children, all 4 of them were turned out!

Thank you for this. Exactly.

I've already said I do not know why she's wearing the same clothing in both photos but I am open to a reasonable explanation. It just strikes me as strange.

by ROSA 09.09.15 0:22

Tony Bennett thanks for the reply to my question.

by ROSA 09.09.15 0:56

Gerry McCann´s first witness statement makes Madeleine 90cm tall.

In Kate McCann’s witness statement, she makes Madeleine 90cm tall. Gonçalo Amaral says in his book the description of Madeleine McCann that was circulated described her as having blonde hair, blue-green eyes, approximately 90cm tall, nearly 4 years old, dressed in white and pink pyjamas.

Everyone was looking for a girl 90cm tall.

However, the initial description of the pyjamas was circulated incorrectly, so Portuguese police bought an identical outfit from M&S, for a girl aged 2 to 3 (rather than 3 to 4 or 4 to 5). Madeleine should have been outgrowing her pyjamas. After being photographed for public consumption, the pyjamas were sent to a forensic lab so the lab would have a matching sample should the need arise. The letter accompanying the pyjamas notes the size of girl these pyjamas are intended for – 97cm.

So it’s back to the RCPCH charts to find out how tall a UK girl should be on her 4^th birthday.

If Madeleine was tiny enough to be at the height doctor’s would have been concerned about her medical condition, she would have been about 91.5cm, and that is close enough to 90 to not split hairs, except that is so small that medical alarm bells start ringing.

by Guest 09.09.15 8:35

ROSA wrote:If Madeleine was tiny enough to be at the height doctor’s would have been concerned about her medical condition, she would have been about 91.5cm, and that is close enough to 90 to not split hairs, except that is so small that medical alarm bells start ringing.

No it isn't.

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

90cm is the low end of the normal growth spread for a 4 year old.

by MissesWillYa 09.09.15 16:02

BlueBag wrote:
ROSA wrote:If Madeleine was tiny enough to be at the height doctor’s would have been concerned about her medical condition, she would have been about 91.5cm, and that is close enough to 90 to not split hairs, except that is so small that medical alarm bells start ringing.
No it isn't.

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

90cm is the low end of the normal growth spread for a 4 year old.

Looking at this chart, a 4-year-old girl who is 90 cm tall is below the 0.4th percentile. I don't know what it's like in the UK because I don't live there, but where I come from, a pediatrician would be quite concerned about a child who doesn't even place on the growth charts. Tests would be conducted, nutritionists consulted, in-depth family health histories would be examined, etc.

by Guest 09.09.15 16:55

MissesWillYa wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
ROSA wrote:If Madeleine was tiny enough to be at the height doctor’s would have been concerned about her medical condition, she would have been about 91.5cm, and that is close enough to 90 to not split hairs, except that is so small that medical alarm bells start ringing.
No it isn't.

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

90cm is the low end of the normal growth spread for a 4 year old.

Looking at this chart, a 4-year-old girl who is 90 cm tall is below the 0.4th percentile. I don't know what it's like in the UK because I don't live there, but where I come from, a pediatrician would be quite concerned about a child who doesn't even place on the growth charts. Tests would be conducted, nutritionists consulted, in-depth family health histories would be examined, etc.

She's on the percentile.

And she was probably bigger than 90cm... likely that's just the last measurement Gerry and Kate remember from last time she was measured.

She was a small 4 year old.. it happens... my nephew was small... he's not now.

I don't get what the big deal is here... is someone still banging on about photo-shopped?

by MissesWillYa 09.09.15 17:08

BlueBag wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
ROSA wrote:If Madeleine was tiny enough to be at the height doctor’s would have been concerned about her medical condition, she would have been about 91.5cm, and that is close enough to 90 to not split hairs, except that is so small that medical alarm bells start ringing.
No it isn't.

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

90cm is the low end of the normal growth spread for a 4 year old.

Looking at this chart, a 4-year-old girl who is 90 cm tall is below the 0.4th percentile. I don't know what it's like in the UK because I don't live there, but where I come from, a pediatrician would be quite concerned about a child who doesn't even place on the growth charts. Tests would be conducted, nutritionists consulted, in-depth family health histories would be examined, etc.
She's on the percentile.

And she was probably bigger than 90cm... likely that's just the last measurement Gerry and Kate remember from last time she was measured.

She was a small 4 year old.. it happens... my nephew was small... he's not now.

I don't get what the big deal is here... is someone still banging on about photo-shopped?

I said nothing about Photoshop. Please don't drag me into that debate.

The girls' 2-18 chart is cut off in my view. There's a break in the line which makes it difficult for me to see, but on my computer screen, the chart is showing a girl of four placing beneath the 0.4 percentile line. IMO, whether she is on or off the chart is not really that important. Everyone has to chart somewhere. For me as a parent, and I know for my children's doctor, a child at the very bottom of the chart would warrant extra monitoring. I happen to have one child who has consistently fallen very low in the growth charts, so I know of what I speak. She is healthy and doing fine, but we do keep an eye on her growth and have been asked to make dietary modifications at times.

Madeleine may have been perfectly healthy at her small size. I certainly hope that was the case. But I can't agree that nobody anywhere would ever raise an eyebrow at her size if she really was this small. In my own experience, it would have been noticed and there would have been at least some discussion about it. Furthermore, I find it surprising that two parents who are also doctors would be foggy enough about their own child's growth that they'd report an old measurement when she went missing. Sorry, but I do find that odd. My own kids' heights and weights are clear in my mind at all times, within a very small margin of error.

by tinkier 09.09.15 17:13

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]…. I don't get what the big deal is here... is someone still banging on about photo-shopped? …...eh nope, not me! nah