Re: Playground Photo

by Verdi 09.09.15 19:51

Madeleine McCann was not 4 when she disappeared, she was 3 going on 4. Does the governments officially recommended 'how tall should your child be' guideline, specify height/age ratio according to age by years, months, days and hours?

The subject matter is a photograph, that's all - a photograph. A holiday snapshot that appears to have no relevance to Madeleine's disappearance, unless it can be proved that the date and time have been tampered. As there is nothing to indicate when and why it was taken, there is nothing to indicate that it has been altered or there is anything to suspect it's authenticity.

I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why this particular photograph (the playground) is suspicious to some, I can see nothing to indicate that anything is amiss. I keep seeing denials of suggesting photoshopping and yet the discussion continues to suggest the photograph has been photoshopped. What other explanation can there be for not accepting it for what it is - an ordinary photograph?

Maybe someone should take a trip to PdL Ocean Club and measure the height of the little bushy tree or the play thing and compare it to a 3/4 year old child's height? Good grief!

by **Tony Bennett** 09.09.15 21:03

Verdi wrote:The subject matter is a photograph, that's all - a photograph. A holiday snapshot that appears to have no relevance to Madeleine's disappearance, unless [tampering of some kind] can be proved.

There is nothing to indicate when and why it was taken.

REPLY: Ah! - but there are several indications that it WAS a genuine photograph taken on Saturday 28 April 2007. The 'why' is fairly obvious: holiday snapshots of a family enjoying themselves with their children on the first day of their holiday. We have THREE such photographs, all clearly taken in the Ocean Club playground and all clearly of Madeleine McCann. We also have TWO videos taken on the same day with Madeleine wearing identical or near-identical clothing. The shadow lengths confirm that the main playground photograph was taken on the late afternoon of the Saturday. In addition, and allowing for parallax, all the shadow lengths and shapes are fully consistent with what we see in the rest of the photograph. Finally, all the question marks about Madeleine's height can surely be answered, as a number have suggested, by the supposition that Madeleine was actually more than 90cm at the time. If she were say 95cm at that time, there would be nothing of concern to any paediatrician.

There is nothing to indicate that it has been altered or there is anything to suspect its authenticity.

I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why this particular photograph (the playground) is suspicious to some, I can see nothing to indicate that anything is amiss. I keep seeing denials of suggesting photoshopping and yet the discussion continues to suggest the photograph has been photoshopped. What other explanation can there be for not accepting it for what it is - an ordinary photograph?

REPLY: Those who insisted that their 'eyes' told them that there was 'something wrong' with the photograph have not been back to answer any of my 9 points, nor have they defended their views with anything that amounts to credible evidence. I am sure each of them was venturing an honest and sincerely-held opinion. But we have robust discussions on here precisely to test which opinions are supported by evidence and which are not.

It has been a good, if at times testy, debate.

But as 'Verdi' suggests, I think the debate is now closed.

This was a genuine photograph taken on the afternoon of Saturday 28 April 2007 in the Ocean Club playground.

by MissesWillYa 09.09.15 21:17

Verdi wrote:Madeleine McCann was not 4 when she disappeared, she was 3 going on 4. Does the governments officially recommended 'how tall should your child be' guideline, specify height/age ratio according to age by years, months, days and hours?

Nobody said a thing about months, days or hours. But it is true that Madeleine was only a bit more than a week shy of her fourth birthday. A week's time does not make much difference in a child's growth. For all intents and purposes, it's appropriate to consider her to have been four years old when she disappeared.

The chart is designed for use during a medical appointment to check on the child's growth and well-being. The specific chart in question actually has the growth points demarcated for intervals of six months when the child is between the ages of 2 and 8, the idea being that a medical professional can consult the chart and see where a child's individual growth falls on the chart.

Again, I can't speak for the UK because I don't live there. In the country I live in, which uses the same charts (designed by the World Health Organization with statistical information based on the growth rates of thousands of children), doctors very much do expect to see the child's growth fall somewhere on the chart at the point of each birthday, or in between birthdays at intervals (3 or 6 months) for younger children. At the fourth-birthday checkup, doctors here would compare a child's growth to the four-year mark on a growth chart.

by MissesWillYa 09.09.15 21:21

Tony Bennett wrote: Finally, all the question marks about Madeleine's height can surely be answered, as a number have suggested, by the supposition that Madeleine was actually more than 90cm at the time. If she were say 95cm at that time, there would be nothing of concern to any paediatrician.

Agreed. But 5 cm is actually a fair bit of height in a small child, so it does seem a bit misleading, IMO. If we were looking high and low for a living child, it could make a difference.

by Guest 09.09.15 21:24

"...holiday snapshots of a family enjoying themselves with their children on the first day of their holiday"

We haven't seen one family photograph of that holiday. That's what is odd, and makes the photographs we have seen interesting and perplexing. After all, they were having a lovely holiday until Madeleine was taken, and Madeleine had her best day ever on 3rd May. But no family photographs to capture those moments.

by MissesWillYa 09.09.15 21:29

Ladyinred wrote:"...holiday snapshots of a family enjoying themselves with their children on the first day of their holiday"

We haven't seen one family photograph of that holiday. That's what is odd, and makes the photographs we have seen interesting and perplexing.

Exactly! I'd love to see just one photo of this whole family together on their holiday. Just one! It would make everything else seem a lot more normal.

by Guest 09.09.15 21:34

MissesWillYa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote: Finally, all the question marks about Madeleine's height can surely be answered, as a number have suggested, by the supposition that Madeleine was actually more than 90cm at the time. If she were say 95cm at that time, there would be nothing of concern to any paediatrician.

Agreed. But 5 cm is actually a fair bit of height in a small child, so it does seem a bit misleading, IMO. If we were looking high and low for a living child, it could make a difference.

No it wouldn't.

Nobody is going to be carrying a measuring tape around with them.

Jeeze.

2 inches is neither here nor there.

by MissesWillYa 09.09.15 21:36

BlueBag wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote: Finally, all the question marks about Madeleine's height can surely be answered, as a number have suggested, by the supposition that Madeleine was actually more than 90cm at the time. If she were say 95cm at that time, there would be nothing of concern to any paediatrician.

Agreed. But 5 cm is actually a fair bit of height in a small child, so it does seem a bit misleading, IMO. If we were looking high and low for a living child, it could make a difference.
No it wouldn't.

Nobody is going to be carrying a measuring tape around with them.

Jeeze.

2 inches is neither here nor there.

I disagree. And if my own child suddenly went "missing," I'd disagree even more.

by Guest 09.09.15 21:42

MissesWillYa wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote: Finally, all the question marks about Madeleine's height can surely be answered, as a number have suggested, by the supposition that Madeleine was actually more than 90cm at the time. If she were say 95cm at that time, there would be nothing of concern to any paediatrician.

Agreed. But 5 cm is actually a fair bit of height in a small child, so it does seem a bit misleading, IMO. If we were looking high and low for a living child, it could make a difference.
No it wouldn't.

Nobody is going to be carrying a measuring tape around with them.

Jeeze.

2 inches is neither here nor there.

I disagree. And if my own child suddenly went "missing," I'd disagree even more.

You think people would get out their measuring tapes?

by skyrocket 09.09.15 21:44

I would refer back to the work done by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on this photo.

When I questioned [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] investigation work on this photo @Tony Bennett stated that @Rustjames was held in high regard for their previous investigations and that he totally agreed with @Rustjames' findings i.e. that if the figure in pink was straightened up it would be as tall as GM's waist or possibly 'just above'. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] repeated that they felt their findings were correct. I agreed with both of them.

I then showed that GM's waist must be at about 108cm height. Therefore, the figure in pink would be at least this height in this photo. MBM is stated as being 90cm by both her parents (or 97cm later in the police files). Therefore, it follows that the figure in pink is proportionally too large. As I stated before - 114cm tennis photo; 108cm this photo; 97/98cm playhouse photo.

Now, either [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], myself, and dare I say it, Tony, are all wrong - or we are right. You did make a point of backing up [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]' work Tony.

No-one has come back to contradict my waist height calculations - and as I said, try it yourself. If you are of normal proportion your waist is at more or less 60% of your height (not 50%). For the pink figure to be about 91cm tall, GM would have to be 1.50 tall!

Simple as that, just saying it as it is. There is no need to answer any other points - if the figure reaches GM's waist, the photo is wrong. Can't be a case of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] being right and the photo being right - the 2 are mutually exclusive.

Visually, without all of the above, IMO only, the photo still looks wrong to me. Not asking anyone else to change their views, but please remember it wasn't me who 'stood' the pink figure upright.

Don't ask me what the point would be messing with this photo. I have no idea - as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] says 'interesting and perplexing'.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], mothers know the height of their children to within a couple of centimetres max. Fathers - doubtful!

by Guest 09.09.15 21:50

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], mothers know the height of their children to within a couple of centimetres max. Fathers - doubtful!

Really?

All mothers?

OK.. when did Kate last measure Madeleine?

Pray tell.

by MissesWillYa 09.09.15 21:50

BlueBag wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote: Finally, all the question marks about Madeleine's height can surely be answered, as a number have suggested, by the supposition that Madeleine was actually more than 90cm at the time. If she were say 95cm at that time, there would be nothing of concern to any paediatrician.

Agreed. But 5 cm is actually a fair bit of height in a small child, so it does seem a bit misleading, IMO. If we were looking high and low for a living child, it could make a difference.
No it wouldn't.

Nobody is going to be carrying a measuring tape around with them.

Jeeze.

2 inches is neither here nor there.

I disagree. And if my own child suddenly went "missing," I'd disagree even more.

You think people would get out their measuring tapes?

No, I do not. But you should know that I DO keep a record of my children's basic stats (height, weight, immunizations) with me at all times. I have it in two places, on my phone and written on a note that I keep in my wallet. My children have been fingerprinted. I take no chances when it comes to the possibility that one of them could go missing. The possibility may be slim, but it does happen and I would want to be prepared.

To the best of my ability, I would give the most accurate, up to date information about my child, including photographs, so that my "missing" child could be located. I know that someone will say that the McCann's acted to the best of their abilities, and that the height they reported is close enough. I simply can't agree. I don't think these two well-educated doctors acted to their best of their abilities. I don't think that the vague descriptions they gave for their missing daughter were close enough, or even descriptive enough. I find that extremely fishy. You don't have to find it fishy, that is perfectly okay with me. But as a mother, I can't wrap my mind around most of what went on in this case.

by Guest 09.09.15 21:55

MissesWillYa wrote:

No, I do not. But you should know that I DO keep a record of my children's basic stats (height, weight, immunizations) with me at all times. I have it in two places, on my phone and written on a note that I keep in my wallet. My children have been fingerprinted. I take no chances when it comes to the possibility that one of them could go missing. The possibility may be slim, but it does happen and I would want to be prepared.

And all mothers do this?

by MissesWillYa 09.09.15 21:55

BlueBag wrote:
skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], mothers know the height of their children to within a couple of centimetres max. Fathers - doubtful!
Really?

All mothers?

OK.. when did Kate last measure Madeleine?

Pray tell.

"All" mothers? Probably not. There are plenty of mothers who don't pay attention to such things. IMO, that's not the kind of mother Kate has portrayed herself to be, which is why it surprises me.

by MissesWillYa 09.09.15 22:00

BlueBag wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:

No, I do not. But you should know that I DO keep a record of my children's basic stats (height, weight, immunizations) with me at all times. I have it in two places, on my phone and written on a note that I keep in my wallet. My children have been fingerprinted. I take no chances when it comes to the possibility that one of them could go missing. The possibility may be slim, but it does happen and I would want to be prepared.
And all mothers do this?

Nope and I never said they did. I feel like you're putting words in my mouth and I wish you'd stop.

The concerned mothers I know do have records of their kids' growth. Many mothers I know carry this information on them. Most people I know have had their children fingerprinted; it's a free service offered by civic clubs at virtually every large outdoor festival or fair where I live, and it's a simple, quick matter to do it in the police station too. The women I know would actually be very similar to Kate in terms of education, career choice, etc., and usually, you can't get them to stop going on about topics like this. Just one more reason why I'm surprised at the McCanns' choices in this area.

by worriedmum 09.09.15 22:03

The parent who goes clothes-shopping will know if their child fits age-sized clothes.

Madeleine's clothes look too big for her on several photographs. Could this be that some-one bought age-sized clothes for her and in fact Madeleine was small for her age?

by MissesWillYa 09.09.15 22:04

worriedmum wrote:The parent who goes clothes-shopping will know if their child fits age-sized clothes.

Madeleine's clothes look too big for her on several photographs. Could this be that some-one bought age-sized clothes for her and in fact Madeleine was small for her age?

That's what I've always thought. I've also wondered if she wore hand-me-downs from an older friend or relative and they started using them before the clothes actually fit. Nothing wrong with that, IMO, but it does seem like her clothes were too large for her, I definitely agree.

by Guest 09.09.15 22:07

There are obvious cultural differences in this area between the UK and USA as what you describe, MissesWillYa @ 9.50 pm, does not happen here, for example, children being fingerprinted.

by skyrocket 09.09.15 22:08

@ Bluebag

lol!

You sound astounded - I suspect you're male, although I'm sure there are plenty of single father's who know the heights of their children. My other half wouldn't have a clue and wouldn't see any point in it!

by **Tony Bennett** 09.09.15 22:10

skyrocket wrote:I would refer back to the work done by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on this photo.

REPLY: Who said he could see nothing wrong with it.

I then showed that GM's waist must be at about 108cm height.

REPLY: I don't necessarily agree, but it matters not a lot (see below).

Therefore, the figure in pink would be at least this height in this photo. MBM is stated as being 90cm by both her parents (or 97cm later in the police files).

REPLY: So there we have it. Exactly as I and others have been saying all along. Madeleine was 97cm - about 3' 3". So we can now forget all that stuff about percentiles and paediatricians.

Therefore, it follows that the figure in pink is proportionally too large.

REPLY: You are forgetting two very important things that 'rustyjames' mentioned before. He said that (A) the camera had quite a powerful zoom lens and (B) Madeleine is in front of Gerry McCann. Put those two things together and of course Madeleine looks bigger by comparison!

As I stated before - 114cm tennis photo; 108cm this photo; 97/98cm playhouse photo.

REPLY: That is a powerful argument that there may be something badly wrong with the 'Tennis balls Photo'. But not with this one.

Visually...IMO only, the photo still looks wrong to me.

REPLY: It doesn't look like anything will change your perception. And by now it's clear that you cannot answer my 'Nine points', or you would have done so.

Don't ask me what the point would be messing with this photo. I have no idea.

REPLY: Then you should have. If your assertion still is: 'There is something wrong with this photo', i.e. it has somehow been tampered with - then you should also have a motive in mind? What is it? What could it be? We have two videos of Madeleine travelling to the holiday. We have two stills of Madeleine by the Wendy House. What, pray, would be the point of tampering just with this one? It makes no sense whatsoever.

by MissesWillYa 09.09.15 22:11

Ladyinred wrote:There are obvious cultural differences in this area between the UK and USA as what you describe, MissesWillYa, does not happen here, for example, children being fingerprinted.

Totally understandable. I'm not saying anyone should have their child fingerprinted, especially if it's not done where they live.

by tinkier 09.09.15 22:11

MissesWillYa wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:

No, I do not. But you should know that I DO keep a record of my children's basic stats (height, weight, immunizations) with me at all times. I have it in two places, on my phone and written on a note that I keep in my wallet. My children have been fingerprinted. I take no chances when it comes to the possibility that one of them could go missing. The possibility may be slim, but it does happen and I would want to be prepared.
And all mothers do this?

Nope and I never said they did. I feel like you're putting words in my mouth and I wish you'd stop.

The concerned mothers I know do have records of their kids' growth. Many mothers I know carry this information on them. Most people I know have had their children fingerprinted; it's a free service offered by civic clubs at virtually every large outdoor festival or fair where I live, and it's a simple, quick matter to do it in the police station too. The women I know would actually be very similar to Kate in terms of education, career choice, etc., and usually, you can't get them to stop going on about topics like this. Just one more reason why I'm surprised at the McCanns' choices in this area.

All my children had growth charts , the ones that hang on the wall. We measured then regularly, they were always excited to see who had grown the most.

by Liz Eagles 09.09.15 22:13

Ladyinred wrote:There are obvious cultural differences in this area between the UK and USA as what you describe, MissesWillYa, does not happen here, for example, children being fingerprinted.

I'd have thought finding Madeleine's fingerprints and DNA would have been relatively easy in the aftermath of her disappearance - apparently not. All that mixed up stuff with other siblings, one toothbrush, one hairbrush, pillowcase required from Rothley, no medical records submitted to PJ, Ward of Court issue etc etc.

Those are the things I find remarkable - not the photograph or whether a middle class mother does or doesn't keep a record of their child's height.

by skyrocket 09.09.15 22:14

@ Tony Bennett

I think I'll leave it there - we're going round in circles. We'll agree to disagree!

by MissesWillYa 09.09.15 22:14

Tony Bennett wrote: REPLY: So there we have it. Exactly as I and others have been saying all along. Madeleine was 97cm - about 3' 3". So we can now forget all that stuff about percentiles and paediatricians.

We can "forget" it, I guess. But it still bothers me and raises questions in my mind about their intentions, I can't help it.