Re: McCanns Easter break Donegal 2007

by Guest 31.12.12 17:32

I see what you mean.

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

by DIBarlow 31.12.12 17:33

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

The baby photo I mentioned is the first one on this link. All the others are of the McCanns' attempts to show us how important Cuddle Cat was to them and the twins.

The message I get from those CC images is that of a Maddie-substitute, as if they know she's not coming back at all.....

by Nina 31.12.12 17:58

tigger wrote:
Jean wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The baby photo I mentioned is the first one on this link. All the others are of the McCanns' attempts to show us how important Cuddle Cat was to them and the twins.

There is one where they're walking on the beach - one of the photo opportunities - and I swear Kate is hiding her giggling by using CC. Gerry is looking down, also suppressing a smile.

I agree Tigger aaagh

by Nina 31.12.12 18:03

Jean wrote:I see what you mean.

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

You can see their cheeks plumped up and the eyes slit as they do in a big grin, if you make the picture bigger it is even more apparent. They had a lot to grin about though, it was all working out as they wanted. In my opinion of course.

by **tigger** 31.12.12 18:59

DIBarlow wrote:
Jean wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The baby photo I mentioned is the first one on this link. All the others are of the McCanns' attempts to show us how important Cuddle Cat was to them and the twins.

The message I get from those CC images is that of a Maddie-substitute, as if they know she's not coming back at all.....

Ah, but are you aware of the wider agenda? The website set up within two weeks of 3/5 'cuddlecat.co.uk'?
Were you aware that Kate gave some twenty cuddlecats to Metodo3 to pass on to their staff 'for motivation'? (where there are twenty there might as well be 200 plus?)

They were advertising a product. imo this scheme was stopped by Mitchell and co. One website too far, one marketing ploy too :bad:

CC - a prop and a marketing opportunity at the same time.

by Liz Eagles 31.12.12 19:30

tigger wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
Jean wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The baby photo I mentioned is the first one on this link. All the others are of the McCanns' attempts to show us how important Cuddle Cat was to them and the twins.

The message I get from those CC images is that of a Maddie-substitute, as if they know she's not coming back at all.....

Ah, but are you aware of the wider agenda? The website set up within two weeks of 3/5 'cuddlecat.co.uk'?
Were you aware that Kate gave some twenty cuddlecats to Metodo3 to pass on to their staff 'for motivation'? (where there are twenty there might as well be 200 plus?)

They were advertising a product. imo this scheme was stopped by Mitchell and co. One website too far, one marketing ploy too [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

CC - a prop and a marketing opportunity at the same time.

Tigger, let's also look at the colours of the chosen products - CC = pink, wristbands etc = green/yellow. Little princess colours to appeal to one sort of buyer and green/yellow to appeal to the perhaps more catholic supporter. Stick in a photograph of a child in a Liverpool football shirt and every base is covered (well apart from selling stories to The Sun - the newspaper shunned by Liverpool).

Just my opinion.

by Guest 31.12.12 20:07

Nina wrote:
tigger wrote:
Jean wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The baby photo I mentioned is the first one on this link. All the others are of the McCanns' attempts to show us how important Cuddle Cat was to them and the twins.

There is one where they're walking on the beach - one of the photo opportunities - and I swear Kate is hiding her giggling by using CC. Gerry is looking down, also suppressing a smile.

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

***
I've always thought so too. And there are many more of these ... suppressing a smile, I mean.

by Lady-Heather 31.12.12 20:18

Here's another one, at 23-24 seconds: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **tigger** 31.12.12 20:23

Aquila wrote:
Tigger, let's also look at the colours of the chosen products - CC = pink, wristbands etc = green/yellow. Little princess colours to appeal to one sort of buyer and green/yellow to appeal to the perhaps more catholic supporter. Stick in a photograph of a child in a Liverpool football shirt and every base is covered (well apart from selling stories to The Sun - the newspaper shunned by Liverpool).

Just my opinion.
unquote

It's known as 'linking' in marketing terms. Marvellous how they picked it up so quickly.

by Guest 31.12.12 20:25

tigger wrote:Aquila wrote:
Tigger, let's also look at the colours of the chosen products - CC = pink, wristbands etc = green/yellow. Little princess colours to appeal to one sort of buyer and green/yellow to appeal to the perhaps more catholic supporter. Stick in a photograph of a child in a Liverpool football shirt and every base is covered (well apart from selling stories to The Sun - the newspaper shunned by Liverpool).

Just my opinion.
unquote

It's known as 'linking' in marketing terms. Marvellous how they picked it up so quickly.

***
Naturals. Natural talents.

Off I go to find a suitable thread to wish you et al a happy, healthy, wealthy 2013 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **tigger** 01.01.13 9:41

Lance De Boils wrote:There was a very long thread on the MCF called "Dating the Photos". Can someone put it here? Well, not the whole thread, but the most recent compilation of pics on there with attempts at dating them. It's very interesting.

I would love to see such a list. The Donegal photos were available incredibly quickly - I don't think those were on the camera either.

1. two photographs of M, both considerably younger than 4 yrs. old. 3/5
2. tennis photo (was that on the camera? Don't think so) went with the viral email sent by Philomena.
3. Donegal photos. Belfast Telegraph around 6/7 may in order to be published on 8/5. On camera? Think not.
4. pool photo - around three weeks later. Not on camera.
5. the video of the airport bus came fairly early too.

So most of the early photographs were not on the camera. Bear in mind that a great number of the photographs on the camera were deleted fairly soon after 3/5. The OC representative Wolf... (can't recall the name) did it together with Kate.
The PJ were able to retrieve the deleted photos in black and white.

Curioser and curioser.

by Guest 01.01.13 10:15

@tigger
Alex Woolfall was from the Control Risk Group. He arrived day after, on Friday IIRC

The tennis photo came from Pat Perkins with a begging mail sent round NHS workers.

Two threads did exist on the MCF ; Dating the photos, that thread was closed. Faking the photos was the next attempt.

Happy new year all, the world ouside smells like a huge wet full ashtray laughat

by Snifferdog 01.01.13 13:30

IMO many of the photos of Madeleine have been manipulated including the Donegal one. It looks to me like the heads have all been pasted on the various children whether they belong to Madeleine and cousins or not. Madeleine's neck is way too thin and looks as though it has a chunk missing out on her right side (your left) when blown up. The older cousin looks as though she should be leaning on a wall post or similar, not on a little baby's head. Its Wrong!!! What are the two dark thingys behind the older cousins head to her right (your left) it cannot be her hair as the light would be highlighting it. What are those white lines and very white small oblongs to the left of the boy's leg on the rock?

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

On the photo below the end of Madeleine's nose is chopped off. You can see it clearly if you enlarge the image. For some reason IMO heads were fitted on other bodies, perhaps to create deliberate confusion as to her age in relation to the twins. Why?

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

by Snifferdog 01.01.13 13:42

If heads were placed on other bodies it makes it almost impossible to date the photos. Interesting about the black and white photos though. They are definitely worth closer scrutiny. Perhaps one can get a better idea of how old she should have looked at the time. I am going to look for them again. I have seen them in more than one place with the quality being better in some than others.

by Nina 01.01.13 15:53

Snifferdog wrote:IMO many of the photos of Madeleine have been manipulated including the Donegal one. It looks to me like the heads have all been pasted on the various children whether they belong to Madeleine and cousins or not. Madeleine's neck is way too thin and looks as though it has a chunk missing out on her right side (your left) when blown up. The older cousin looks as though she should be leaning on a wall post or similar, not on a little baby's head. Its Wrong!!! What are the two dark thingys behind the older cousins head to her right (your left) it cannot be her hair as the light would be highlighting it. What are those white lines and very white small oblongs to the left of the boy's leg on the rock?

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

On the photo below the end of Madeleine's nose is chopped off. You can see it clearly if you enlarge the image. For some reason IMO heads were fitted on other bodies, perhaps to create deliberate confusion as to her age in relation to the twins. Why?

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

Hi Snifferdog, happy new year to you. I agree that on magnification Madeleines neck looks very strange, her head is far too big for the thin little neck. I think the two black marks on the older cousins shoulder are either a clump of hair or even a ribbon. The white marks on the boy cousins legs are stripes on his jogger bottoms. I notice that Amelia is wearing some old sandals that were being held by madeleine on the video where they are sat on the bottom step singing if your happy and you know it. Also on 500 magnification there are lots of bits of cotton dangling down from Madeleine's skirt and also Amelia's skirt is very rough edged. Just needed a bit of attention to tidy up but that's what Mums do.
In all honesty the only person that I think is photoshopped in is the head of Madeleine.

by Lance De Boils 01.01.13 15:57

Ok, bear with me folks, this could take some time. I'm going to start a new thread here which I will call "Dating the Photos". It might not appear for a little while...

by Nina 01.01.13 16:28

Lance De Boils wrote:Ok, bear with me folks, this could take some time. I'm going to start a new thread here which I will call "Dating the Photos". It might not appear for a little while...

I am bearing lol!

by sammyc 02.01.13 2:04

Can anyone explain why the cloud above the boys' head is half grey half white? It just seems an odd phenomenon.

by **tigger** 02.01.13 6:53

sammyc wrote:Can anyone explain why the cloud above the boys' head is half grey half white? It just seems an odd phenomenon.

Nothing wrong with the sky imo, but Maddie's head is pasted on so badly that her neck is half the normal width. The head is also slightly too large for the body, which imo is that of a younger girl as it is hardly bigger than Sean.
There's a big gap under Maddie's right ear, her neck starts under the mouth corner, look in the mirror and you'll see that the neckline should run from the corner of the jaw.
As it does in the red-haired boy.

by Snifferdog 02.01.13 18:46

Nina wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:IMO many of the photos of Madeleine have been manipulated including the Donegal one. It looks to me like the heads have all been pasted on the various children whether they belong to Madeleine and cousins or not. Madeleine's neck is way too thin and looks as though it has a chunk missing out on her right side (your left) when blown up. The older cousin looks as though she should be leaning on a wall post or similar, not on a little baby's head. Its Wrong!!! What are the two dark thingys behind the older cousins head to her right (your left) it cannot be her hair as the light would be highlighting it. What are those white lines and very white small oblongs to the left of the boy's leg on the rock?

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

On the photo below the end of Madeleine's nose is chopped off. You can see it clearly if you enlarge the image. For some reason IMO heads were fitted on other bodies, perhaps to create deliberate confusion as to her age in relation to the twins. Why?

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

Hi Snifferdog, happy new year to you. I agree that on magnification Madeleines neck looks very strange, her head is far too big for the thin little neck. I think the two black marks on the older cousins shoulder are either a clump of hair or even a ribbon. The white marks on the boy cousins legs are stripes on his jogger bottoms. I notice that Amelia is wearing some old sandals that were being held by madeleine on the video where they are sat on the bottom step singing if your happy and you know it. Also on 500 magnification there are lots of bits of cotton dangling down from Madeleine's skirt and also Amelia's skirt is very rough edged. Just needed a bit of attention to tidy up but that's what Mums do.
In all honesty the only person that I think is photoshopped in is the head of Madeleine.

Hello Nina Wishing you all the best for the new year and may all your dreams come true [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I think there is a misunderstanding as to what I meant re. next to the boy cousin Donegal photo. If you look at the right hand side of the photo between the edge of the photo and perhaps I should have said near his hand you will see what looks like a rock but has unusual markings on it.

by **tigger** 02.01.13 19:41

I see what you mean, it looks almost like a drawing of a bird. In itself nothing weird imo. Seaside, children playing, drawing on a rock or just scratching it.
For me it's just Maddie's head on top of a two and a half year old's body imo. Proportions are different again in the ice cream photo, head is a better size for the body but no way can you hold a full ice cream cone by the tip like that, another paste.

I ran out of excuses for the McCanns when I learned that those pictures appeared on the 8th of May. Two to three days to hurriedly do this? Makes more sense without hurry. (4th was too busy imo, so 5th, 6th most likely to do or have this done? Would have to be at Belfast Telegraph by the 7th to make up the page. imo they were ready earlier).

by Guest 02.01.13 20:06

And yet the pool picture, the very "last" picture, wasn't released until weeks later.

by Guest 02.01.13 20:19

The nannies were shipped out/sent away before a picture of 'Maddie' aged nearly four was made public.
The first pics, handed to the GNR the same night, procured by Gerry McCann depicted a far younger 'Maddie'.
How come none of the nannies commented on that?
See the creche thread, it's another piece of the jig-saw.
IMO

parapono

'what you sow, you'll harvest'

by **tigger** 02.01.13 20:32

Châtelaine wrote:And yet the pool picture, the very "last" picture, wasn't released until weeks later.

I wonder whether the PJ when analysing the deleted photos on the camera asked if there were any of Maddie during the holiday. I understand the tennis photo wasn't on the camera either. I'll have to look it up. I am certain that Amelie was pasted in there and my guess is that the original photo is from an earlier visit to PdL, say September/October 2006, when Maddie would look right for her age and the weather could still be quite hot as is seen in the photograph. Pasting Amelie in at 2 yrs old firmly puts the photograph in the holiday.

So possibly by the 8th to 10th of May the PJ may have wondered about the lack of holiday snaps of the family. Woolfall from Damage Limitation (Control risk Group?) or some such outfit went through the pictures with Kate, discarding many according to Kate. I believe some two or three days after the 3rd.

My guess is that this thorough examination of the camera wasn't expected, hence the elaborate pool photo saga, which even has the right/wrong time on it.
Whoever did it, was adding in a 'clever' time to prove Maddie was alive on the afternoon of the 3rd. But they assumed that there was an hour's difference, which isn't the case. So I think the 2.39 was supposed to prove she was alive at 3.39 in Portugal on the afternoon of the 3rd. The day that Maddie changed clothes rather often.

So the pool photo:
Proved Maddie alive on 3/5 at about 3.39
Proved a good time was had by all.
Proved it was uncommonly warm for early May (slight problem there with the book, where Kate thinks she needed a cardi on top of the dress)
Proved that snapshots of the holiday had been taken.
Proved that it had been taken with the camera which the PJ analysed (although it wasn't on the memory or in the deleted photos - it supports my theory that it was taken some 6 months earlier, stored on computer and then deleted and overwritten by other photographs).

by Guest 02.01.13 20:59

@tigger
I sincerely wish someone, NSY, PJ or one of the journalists that were entitled by Portuguese law to the files, as on that DVD, would look into the "unscrambled" holiday pics.
As they appear on that DVD they are worthless.
There and then the police had no reason to scrutinize them.
Madeleine is on some of those pics.
How I'd love to see them.
In my opinion they could help us, the police (and even the McCanns)
to understand what happened to whom and why!
To anyone concerned, please go and have a look at those pics, now safely shelved in that courthouse in Faro

parapono

'what you sow, you'll harvest'

Log in for more topics