Photographs revisited - questions

Have we established EXACTLY when this make up pic of MBM was released??

Have we established WHO actually released it??

I could be wrong, but on pamalan's site a load of pics were said to be released in May 2011. However the pic in discussion wasn't included.

May 2011 was when Operation Grange started.

If said pic was deliberately released at the same time then could of it been a warning message of some sort??

Andrew77R wrote:Have we established EXACTLY when this make up pic of MBM was released??

Have we established WHO actually released it??

I could be wrong, but on pamalan's site a load of pics were said to be released in May 2011. However the pic in discussion wasn't included.

May 2011 was when Operation Grange started.

If said pic was deliberately released at the same time then could of it been a warning message of some sort??

Pretty sure it was for the 3rd anniversary, so 2010 Andrew, stills from a film shot by Jon Corner to 'commemorate' - will check
Whatever the date believe it was a warning. imo

Deffo high level masonic imagery imo, Like you say if the Mcanns are not worried by these pictures and we have heard nothing to say otherwise then I think you are right.  A warning to anyone even the police that they are in charge, even mocking.What does  that tell us about  those high level elite  people in Government and elsewhere   supporting the Mcanns and running the U.K, Shocking, that is why I cant see this going anywhere too much power on their side .

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Andrew77R wrote:Have we established EXACTLY when this make up pic of MBM was released??

Have we established WHO actually released it??

I could be wrong, but on pamalan's site a load of pics were said to be released in May 2011. However the pic in discussion wasn't included.

May 2011 was when Operation Grange started.

If said pic was deliberately released at the same time then could of it been a warning message of some sort??

Pretty sure it was for the 3rd anniversary, so 2010 Andrew, stills from a film shot by Jon Corner to 'commemorate' - will check
Whatever the date believe it was a warning. imo

Sorry slightly confused...

Are you saying that this pic is actually a still from a video recording..?

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Andrew77R wrote:Have we established EXACTLY when this make up pic of MBM was released??

Have we established WHO actually released it??

I could be wrong, but on pamalan's site a load of pics were said to be released in May 2011. However the pic in discussion wasn't included.

May 2011 was when Operation Grange started.

If said pic was deliberately released at the same time then could of it been a warning message of some sort??

Pretty sure it was for the 3rd anniversary, so 2010 Andrew, stills from a film shot by Jon Corner to 'commemorate' - will check
Whatever the date believe it was a warning. imo

That picture looks like a warning to me too but since the video was produced by Jon Corner and not the McCanns, I wonder if the warning was aimed at the McCanns themselves.

Poe wrote:That picture looks like a warning to me too but since the video was produced by Jon Corner and not the McCanns, I wonder if the warning was aimed at the McCanns themselves.

So IT WAS a video recording then of MBM dolled up in make up???

The picture released was from a still of this recording???

Poe wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Andrew77R wrote:Have we established EXACTLY when this make up pic of MBM was released??

Have we established WHO actually released it??

I could be wrong, but on pamalan's site a load of pics were said to be released in May 2011. However the pic in discussion wasn't included.

May 2011 was when Operation Grange started.

If said pic was deliberately released at the same time then could of it been a warning message of some sort??

Pretty sure it was for the 3rd anniversary, so 2010 Andrew, stills from a film shot by Jon Corner to 'commemorate' - will check
Whatever the date believe it was a warning. imo

That picture looks like a warning to me too but since the video was produced by Jon Corner and not the McCanns, I wonder if the warning was aimed at the McCanns themselves.

What, Jon Corner , a close friend of Mrs McCann and godparent of the twins, said Kate ...is their friend .                all in it together

Andrew77R wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Andrew77R wrote:Have we established EXACTLY when this make up pic of MBM was released??

Have we established WHO actually released it??

I could be wrong, but on pamalan's site a load of pics were said to be released in May 2011. However the pic in discussion wasn't included.

May 2011 was when Operation Grange started.

If said pic was deliberately released at the same time then could of it been a warning message of some sort??

Pretty sure it was for the 3rd anniversary, so 2010 Andrew, stills from a film shot by Jon Corner to 'commemorate' - will check
Whatever the date believe it was a warning. imo

Sorry slightly confused...

Are you saying that this pic is actually a still from a video recording..?

Yep, this one, the 'ice cream' photo and the 'laying next to the skirting board' photo all from the same vid. Haven't seen it so unsure whether they are true 'stills' or photos used in the film?
Poe, you could well be right there!

The Mcanns are O.K  with these pictures otherwise  we would have heard. She already explained or tried to about the picture with lipstick, and was happy with it, so I see no reason why these pictures should be a warning to the Mcanns imo

rainbow-fairy wrote:Yep, this one, the 'ice cream' photo and the 'laying next to the skirting board' photo all from the same vid. Haven't seen it so unsure whether they are true 'stills' or photos used in the film?
Poe, you could well be right there!

Well if it is a still from an actual video recording then that's even weirder and sicker than a photo.

Jon Corner is videoing MBM dolled up in make up, making her tilt her head up, pose and look directly into the camera that is being pushed into her face.

I think you'll find the photos were released by the McCanns as "stills" which were included in a video they made to commemorate an anniversary of Madeleine's "missing" date:

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

Markus 2 wrote:The Mcanns are O.K  with these pictures otherwise  we would have heard. She already explained or tried to about the picture with lipstick, and was happy to with it, so I see no reason why these pictures should be a warning to the Mcanns imo

No i don't think it's a warning to the Mccann's themselves.

More of a warning to emphasise the 'paedophile' link to MBM.

The same 'paedophile link' that IMO leads back to the establishment and why the Mccanns have been protected.

A warning to say 'you keep on protecting us or else'

All IMO of course while i have my morning coffee.

Markus 2 wrote:What, Jon Corner , a close friend of Mrs McCann and godparent of the twins, said Kate ...is their friend . all in it together

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Plus you are relying on Kate telling the truth.

Markus 2 wrote:The Mcanns are O.K  with these pictures otherwise  we would have heard. She already explained or tried to about the picture with lipstick, and was happy with it, so I see no reason why these pictures should be a warning to the Mcanns imo

If the McCanns are not OK with these pictures, how would we know? It's too late. A friend has already put them in the public domain and Jon Corner could be holding back worse images (although I hope to God that the make-up picture is the worst Madeleine had to endure).

Kate's explanation (like so much of what she says) has the ring of damage limitation rather than the truth.

Andrew77R wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Yep, this one, the 'ice cream' photo and the 'laying next to the skirting board' photo all from the same vid. Haven't seen it so unsure whether they are true 'stills' or photos used in the film?
Poe, you could well be right there!

Well if it is a still from an actual video recording then that's even weirder and sicker than a photo.

Jon Corner is videoing MBM dolled up in make up, making her tilt her head up, pose and look directly into the camera that is being pushed into her face.

Sorry Andrew I've caused confusion here and made a hash of explaining - canada12 says it better

I think you'll find the photos were released by the McCanns as "stills" which were included in a video they made to commemorate an anniversary of Madeleine's "missing" date:

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

canada12

Posts: 570
Join date: 2013-10-28

Andrew77R wrote:

Markus 2 wrote:The Mcanns are O.K  with these pictures otherwise  we would have heard. She already explained or tried to about the picture with lipstick, and was happy to with it, so I see no reason why these pictures should be a warning to the Mcanns imo

No i don't think it's a warning to the Mccann's themselves.

More of a warning to emphasise the 'paedophile' link to MBM.

The same 'paedophile link' that IMO leads back to the establishment and why the Mccanns have been protected.

A warning to say 'you keep on protecting us or else'

All IMO of course while i have my morning coffee.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I can't remember where it was mooted but the above video was discussed for the following:-
The computer graphic/techniques of broken letters/words seemed very strange, like the word 'information' then all broken up, as being a sign/message to 'people of interest' to destroy any information/images they might have on their computers.
The amount of time focusing on a parcel of wasteland in the video at the beginning (short way in) has WHAT relevance in such a short video ?
Etc.
It's as if it was a subliminal messaging which was a more sophisticated way of getting info out, similar to Gerry's original 'blogging' but which people had started to question, and had therefore been terminated, to be replaced by this?
The hair in the 'skirting board' photo is craftily pulled up over Maddie's left shoulder, very 'lolita' and deliberately placed there. Under gravity it would normally have fallen back to the ground.
I have thick hair, but have never seen hair that thick on a child so young.
I would say from the pudgy, button-nose that Maddie was scarcely 3.
Sorry Mrs. C to quesion all of your years of experience with wigs and hair, but I have never ever seen hair that thick and that long on such a young child.
As I say, my hair is extremely thick, but as a child it was sleek, making two simple plaits without trouble. Now it is so thick, plaiting is not easy.
Sorry, but I don't think natural hair (and Maddie was in other photos very frail and sickly) (even to the extent that on the beach photo, wearing a pink all-in suit, she seems to have a 'canula' fixed into her nose) (for what reason) can jump from very fine and short to really long and abnormally thick in so short a time.
I think it might be possible that her medical records were not released because they might have indicated some more serious underlying condition.
I do wonder if she had needed operations on her scalp/skull which might have needed shaving, and reduced her hair temporarily.  
I do not accept the short, fine, ginger hair underlying the rest of the thick, long voluminous head of hair as being compatible and since the whole photo is set up as eye candy, and is shockingly inappropriate, (a) for a little girl to be posing in such a position (b) even worse, for any photographer to think it appropriate to photograph such, and (c) worst of all, for any parent in the world to make such a photo public, especially when the 'paedophile' card is being played.
These parents ********, it's better not said.

This is a picture of Suri Cruise aged almost four, please note the finer hair at the front hairline.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

@Bobbin,

Yes that video is very interesting. Not seen it before. Certainly looks like there could be a few subliminal messages hidden amongst that. Very odd indeed. One for the super sleuths to digest.

@Rainbowfairy.

Haha - no probs.

MrsC wrote:This is a picture of Suri Cruise aged almost four, please note the finer hair at the front hairline.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thank you MrsC, it's a lovely photo, and lovely strong brown hair.
I am not wishing at all to question your long years of experience, but Maddie's photos show a sequence of short hair styles, and although a 'large and elongated' head-shape, nevertheless, not voluminous hair.
To my mind the little girl's hair above, is not 'voluminous' as in the Maddie blond/skirting board picture.
If this little girl were lying in her bed and her hair was falling downwards, I do not think it would be voluminous as in the skirting board photo.
Even if not a wig in the skirting board photo, then some digital work to 'voluminise' the hair would seem evident. Above the fine ginger fringing, there appears thickness which seems to come from nowhere.
Given that the McCs made such a loud noise about Maddie's 'Coloboma', that so emphatically was, then so suddenly wasn't, the McCs have shown themselves fully capable of photo-shopping (or having it done on their behalf) and of lying outright about it, and I do not have any difficulty contemplating that they can have equally photo-shopped other photos for their own gains or agenda.

Thanks for your reply, bobbin. I'm not wishing to disagree and will not take part in a discussion about hair any more but just to say that it is very easy to achieve a bouncy, voluminous, even bouffant hairstyle with a decent blowdry and a few styling products - even on a very young child.

I'll bow out there.  

bobbin wrote:

Andrew77R wrote:

Markus 2 wrote:The Mcanns are O.K  with these pictures otherwise  we would have heard. She already explained or tried to about the picture with lipstick, and was happy to with it, so I see no reason why these pictures should be a warning to the Mcanns imo

No i don't think it's a warning to the Mccann's themselves.

More of a warning to emphasise the 'paedophile' link to MBM.

The same 'paedophile link' that IMO leads back to the establishment and why the Mccanns have been protected.

A warning to say 'you keep on protecting us or else'

All IMO of course while i have my morning coffee.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I can't remember where it was mooted but the above video was discussed for the following:-
The computer graphic/techniques of broken letters/words seemed very strange, like the word 'information' then all broken up, as being a sign/message to 'people of interest' to destroy any information/images they might have on their computers.
The amount of time focusing on a parcel of wasteland in the video at the beginning (short way in) has WHAT relevance in such a short video ?
Etc.
It's as if it was a subliminal messaging which was a more sophisticated way of getting info out, similar to Gerry's original 'blogging' but which people had started to question, and had therefore been terminated, to be replaced by this?
.

I'm one of the people who believed Gerry's blog had a lot of hidden messages in it, disguised as typo's and sometimes strange sentence structure and grammar, and particular use of words. I think these were entirely deliberate and not accidental.

Agree with you regarding the video - lots of visual emphasis on "www" and "internet" ..
I'm drawn in two directions - either this video was released with the McCanns' express cooperation and it was aimed at others out there... or Jon Corner released it without their permission, as a warning to them, and once it was out there, it was too late to retract it.

Very interesting suppositions.

All IMO.

canada12 wrote:

I'm one of the people who believed Gerry's blog had a lot of hidden messages in it, disguised as typo's and sometimes strange sentence structure and grammar, and particular use of words. I think these were entirely deliberate and not accidental.

Agree with you regarding the video - lots of visual emphasis on "www" and "internet" ..
I'm drawn in two directions - either this video was released with the McCanns' express cooperation and it was aimed at others out there... or Jon Corner released it without their permission, as a warning to them, and once it was out there, it was too late to retract it.

Very interesting suppositions.

All IMO.

Never saw any of Gerry's original blogs. Have they all been completely whooshed now?

Lots of www's, @'s, then jumbled up letters that spell out information. Then we see the 3 worst pictures of MBM. I think that is telling in itself.

Also, little shots of Gerry's computer. Send/recieve button. Addresses button. 

I'm no Sherlock but i do think they are warning people that they have information. Information about Paedophilia links. 

If we go down, your coming down too. So you better make sure we are protected at all costs.

IMO anyway or have i been watching to many conspiracy films.

Andrew77R wrote:

canada12 wrote:

I'm one of the people who believed Gerry's blog had a lot of hidden messages in it, disguised as typo's and sometimes strange sentence structure and grammar, and particular use of words. I think these were entirely deliberate and not accidental.

Agree with you regarding the video - lots of visual emphasis on "www" and "internet" ..
I'm drawn in two directions - either this video was released with the McCanns' express cooperation and it was aimed at others out there... or Jon Corner released it without their permission, as a warning to them, and once it was out there, it was too late to retract it.

Very interesting suppositions.

All IMO.

Never saw any of Gerry's original blogs. Have they all been completely whooshed now?

Lots of www's, @'s, then jumbled up letters that spell out information. Then we see the 3 worst pictures of MBM. I think that is telling in itself.

Also, little shots of Gerry's computer. Send/recieve button. Addresses button. 

I'm no Sherlock but i do think they are warning people that they have information. Information about Paedophilia links. 

If we go down, your coming down too. So you better make sure we are protected at all costs.

IMO anyway or have i been watching to many conspiracy films.

You can read all of Gerry's blogs here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think I agree with you about the message conveyed by the video.

tigger wrote:
As for your later post rebutting The IVF/ leukaemia link:

According to a study conducted at the Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health in France, children born to mothers who use fertility drugs to induce ovulation are more than twice as likely to develop leukemia during their childhoods than other children.

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

The above link is from another member here who has researched the subject.

I was going to apologise for getting my facts wrong but:

The research, which looked at the mothers of 764 French children diagnosed with acute leukemia and 1,681 without the disease, did not find an increased risk with in vitro fertilization (IVF) or artificial insemination

It's fertility drugs not IVF, something like Clomid?

Dee Coy wrote:

Crumbs. Never given much credence to the 'wig' suggestions (although I do believe there's a strong possibility Madeleine was suffering from a (degenerative?) illness, but that photo looks very much as if a wig of dense blonde hair has slipped backwards to reveal new growth falling forward with that gingery wispy tinge you see on very young babies with their first hairgrowth.

She looks very young too. More a nearly three-year-old than nearly four.

I suggested exact same thing about that picture on a Facebook page once & got ridiculed

Andrew77R wrote:

Poe wrote:That picture looks like a warning to me too but since the video was produced by Jon Corner and not the McCanns, I wonder if the warning was aimed at the McCanns themselves.

So IT WAS a video recording then of MBM dolled up in make up???

The picture released was from a still of this recording???

They are from a video montage of photos