Photographs revisited - questions

Ladyinred wrote:

Amy Dean wrote:For what it's worth, I don't think those photos are of the same child.

Nor me.  The child on the right resembles Amelie, IMO.

MrsHyde wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

MrsHyde wrote:
So, as much as a nose of a little girl can and will grow, the nose wings do not change their shape, and that shape is different on the two "Maddie" pics I compared here. Another interesting thing is that the nasal root, point where the nose bridge meets the forehead, is considerably higher on the left picture than on the right one, similarily to the nose tip, that is clearly rounded and more defined on the left. So, for me it seems we have here more than one Maddie on these pics.

Same old nonsense.

It's not nonsense. It's human anatomy. And it's weird, so much posts written about the possibility that the pictures, purportedly depicting Maddie, actually show two or more different girls, but an attempt to find the evidence of it is called nonsense .

So, for me it seems we have here more than one Maddie on these pics.

Apart from Kate and Amelie there are also at least two "Maddies", one puffy eyed, with dimples in her cheeks and second one, with big eyes and pointed chin. There might be also another one, pretty big girl, definitely most mature looking of them all with a downturn at the tip of her nose (red jacket photo, for instance).

BlueBag wrote:

So, for me it seems we have here more than one Maddie on these pics.

Apart from Kate and Amelie there are also at least two "Maddies", one puffy eyed, with dimples in her cheeks and second one, with big eyes and pointed chin. There might be also another one, pretty big girl, definitely most mature looking of them all with a downturn at the tip of her nose (red jacket photo, for instance).

Whatever.

I still don't see why it matters that you think some of the pictures of Madeleine bear a resemblance to other close relatives (shock).

They all look like Madeleine at various stages of development. It's that simple.

If you want to make a mountain out of a molehill feel free to waste everyone's time - "they don't look like the same person" is standard fare on conspiracy forums - I'm going back a LONG way - swapped Papal doubles, McCartney... and a million others.   

This case doesn't need multiple layers of theories about McCann games and photoshopped pictures.

There is only one photo that matters.

kaz wrote:Do you people purposely try and misunderstand? Mrs Hyde is saying that the pictures shown as 'Maddie' are in fact sometimes photos of another similar looking child, '' thrown into the mix.'' . I don't think she's actually saying........................although you and Verdi choose to interpret it that way............................that there are several  'clones' of Madeleine all of whom were taken  to PDL and lived at one time or another  in Rothley. I've tried to be as polite as I can but no doubt will get the 'red card.' And I agree with her.

Verdi wrote:

kaz wrote:Do you people purposely try and misunderstand? Mrs Hyde is saying that the pictures shown as 'Maddie' are in fact sometimes photos of another similar looking child, '' thrown into the mix.'' . I don't think she's actually saying........................although you and Verdi choose to interpret it that way............................that there are several  'clones' of Madeleine all of whom were taken  to PDL and lived at one time or another  in Rothley. I've tried to be as polite as I can but no doubt will get the 'red card.' And I agree with her.

For the record kaz, I haven't so far commented on Mrs Hyde's interpretation of various photographs posted up on gerrymccannsblog - frankly I find it so exasperating it's best I keep a low profile.

Still, as you've dragged my name into the foray - I'm still interested and eager to learn what relevance you, or anyone else who finds the subject so fascinating, think this has on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann whilst holidaying in Portugal in April/May 2007.

As I said previously, what earthly reason could the McCanns have to pretend (or whatever word you prefer) another child/ren is their daughter Madeleine?  If I'm right in saying these images are taken from Kate McCann's autobiography 'madeleine', or maybe even press articles, what impact does it have on either the investigation or the McCanns standing - or more to the point the reputation of this forum?  If you, or anyone else,  can provide a rational response as to why you think this issue so important/relevant to the disappearance of MBM then I'm all ears - or eyes - but otherwise I really can't see the point of all this.

sami wrote:IF, as has been stated above, some photos depict "other children", then who owns those other children ?  Surely  other parents are not sitting back allowing their daughters image to be used, or are they in on the cover up too ?  If they are trying to pass Amelie off as Madeleine, would no friend or neighbour or relative notice ?  Even Amelie herself ?

MrsHyde wrote:

Amelie won't go to the media, right? Neither will the family, because, I think for that level of similarity, the other "Maddie" must be related to Madeleine. Now, I don't claim that using the pictures of the other child(ren) is a part of coverup of anything, but at this moment I cannot say for sure what might or might not be relevant to Maddie's missing. Therefore, when I find something weird I point it out, to be inspected and discussed. Because it MAY be relevant and important.

tinkier wrote:

Verdi wrote:

kaz wrote:Do you people purposely try and misunderstand? Mrs Hyde is saying that the pictures shown as 'Maddie' are in fact sometimes photos of another similar looking child, '' thrown into the mix.'' . I don't think she's actually saying........................although you and Verdi choose to interpret it that way............................that there are several  'clones' of Madeleine all of whom were taken  to PDL and lived at one time or another  in Rothley. I've tried to be as polite as I can but no doubt will get the 'red card.' And I agree with her.

For the record kaz, I haven't so far commented on Mrs Hyde's interpretation of various photographs posted up on gerrymccannsblog - frankly I find it so exasperating it's best I keep a low profile.

Still, as you've dragged my name into the foray - I'm still interested and eager to learn what relevance you, or anyone else who finds the subject so fascinating, think this has on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann whilst holidaying in Portugal in April/May 2007.

As I said previously, what earthly reason could the McCanns have to pretend (or whatever word you prefer) another child/ren is their daughter Madeleine?  If I'm right in saying these images are taken from Kate McCann's autobiography 'madeleine', or maybe even press articles, what impact does it have on either the investigation or the McCanns standing - or more to the point the reputation of this forum?  If you, or anyone else,  can provide a rational response as to why you think this issue so important/relevant to the disappearance of MBM then I'm all ears - or eyes - but otherwise I really can't see the point of all this.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]….as someone else has already pointed out on here tonight, but on a different thread…. "Please treat people with the level of courtesy you would want for yourself, united we stand! Unfortunately, no one has all the answers on this case.

canada12 wrote:Just to throw some perspective into this, there were discussions many moons ago on the original forums about the possibility of Madeleine having a sister as a result of the IVF. Multiple births are not uncommon with IVF - Sean and Amelie are a prime example -  and there was speculation that she may have been one of two children born to Kate, and that, for whatever reason, the other twin was adopted by someone else, possibly someone well known to the McCanns.

That, at least, would be one explanation for the possibility of a child who resembles Madeleine but who isn't Madeleine, who is present at McCann family gatherings, and whose identity would be kept secret, and for the cooperation of the child's parents.

kaz wrote:Post deleted. 


Posters, stay on topic and be polite in your exchanges.  Mod.

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:  "All these photos are posted on Pamalam's site - sorry can't upload photos on here using my Mac."

Try a banana - usually does the trick..

Verdi wrote:

More to the point, why would Kate McCann select photographs of a secret child to annexe her book?