Coloboma - not Madeleine

If this is in the wrong forum many apologies.  Was looking at pics on gmblogs site & came across this



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

Hope that works, can't figure out how to post a pic on here (do I need an image host).


Look at As eye (left one) zoom in, is that a coloboma I can see?

Shhh wrote:If this is in the wrong forum many apologies.  Was looking at pics on gmblogs site & came across this



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

Hope that works, can't figure out how to post a pic on here (do I need an image host).


Look at As eye (left one) zoom in, is that a coloboma I can see?

Looks like it, doesn't it. Though I'd have to compare her left eye to close-ups of her left eye in other photos to say definitely.

That's interesting, it does look like one in her eye,

Mcphotoshopped....... Great marketing ploy.....

A coloboma should be the same colour as the pupil, i.e. black.
The irregularity in the iris here is not black, it is a shade of brown.

Cheers for moving.

Hard to find another pic of A to compare.  I have noticed she also appears to have the neck "ring" of flesh as well.

It's just observations but if true something no one was aware of

Not sure if I can do this correctly - but in this photo Amelie appears to have clear blue eyes.

Maddie and Sean have hazel colour eyes I think?


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

dantezebu wrote:A coloboma should be the same colour as the pupil, i.e. black.
The irregularity in the iris here is not black, it is a shade of brown.

Does it look the same colour as this one.... Can't really tell on my small notepad.

IMO, If they did 'spruce' up the fleck / coloboma for this pic which IIRC was one of the first out in the public domain (might be wrong) then they would have to go back and 'spruce' up all the others too...

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

daffodil wrote:Not sure if I can do this correctly - but in this photo Amelie appears to have clear blue eyes.

Maddie and Sean have hazel colour eyes I think?


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

I can't see it there

Andrew77R wrote:

dantezebu wrote:A coloboma should be the same colour as the pupil, i.e. black.
The irregularity in the iris here is not black, it is a shade of brown.

Does it look the same colour as this one.... Can't really tell on my small notepad.

IMO, If they did 'spruce' up the fleck / coloboma for this pic which IIRC was one of the first out in the public domain (might be wrong) then they would have to go back and 'spruce' up all the others too...

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

One definite characteristic of a coloboma is that it doesn't change.
The shape of the irregularity in this picture is different than in the other picture.
One or both of them have been altered imo.

dantezebu wrote:

Andrew77R wrote:

dantezebu wrote:A coloboma should be the same colour as the pupil, i.e. black.
The irregularity in the iris here is not black, it is a shade of brown.

Does it look the same colour as this one.... Can't really tell on my small notepad.

IMO, If they did 'spruce' up the fleck / coloboma for this pic which IIRC was one of the first out in the public domain (might be wrong) then they would have to go back and 'spruce' up all the others too...

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

One definite characteristic of a coloboma is that it doesn't change.
The shape of the irregularity in this picture is different than in the other picture.
One or both of them have been altered imo.

But the appearance of things in photographs does change. The photo above is taken with a flash quite close to the subject, the irises of the eyes and pupils are not totally solid, so appear different in different lighting. Things do look different in various conditions.

dantezebu wrote:

One definite characteristic of a coloboma is that it doesn't change.
The shape of the irregularity in this picture is different than in the other picture.
One or both of them have been altered imo.

Well if they have altered one then possibly altered them all and possibly made a bit of hash of it too if differences can be easily spotted.....

The photographs are a very weak point in their entire enterprise, imo the eye feature, made  Maddie unique and very findable indeed. My feeling is that the campaign was too successful on the popular (internet and press) front but not so much in shaping their new careers. So it was extended beyond the original plan. Indefinitely.

The coloboma did two things - a good marketing ploy and no need for masses of DNA test on toddlers, no coloboma, no Maddie.

By 2011 they  may have wanted more sightings  and to widen the field of search, so now it became the truth, a small fleck, all little girls were back in the game.

You see, it's all gone wrong, we weren't meant to be here, they weren't meant to be anywhere as pedestrian as Rothley. They should have been  in the press and on TV regularly, not to go over that same boring old story but praised for their efforts to make children safe all over the world.
We should be seeing snaps of Gerry talking to Obama. GM standing for parliament, Kate with nice earrings at a gala receiving a reward, A-list celebrities in the audience...

Copied from photographs revisited: page 4
Posting this here as all the work I thought I had yet to do has been done and much better than I could have done it anyway.

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

Imo the case it just as Kate told Piers Morgan in the interview of  12th May 2011:

MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --

MORGAN: Slightly distinctive eye colors and a little fleck.

MORGAN: And do you know if that would be still there if she's now eight years old?

G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.

unquote

Gerry motors in trying to keep the iris defect going at the same time dismissing it as a coloboma. A coloboma is not 'an additional bit of colour'  it is exactly the same colour as the pupil of the eye - i.e. black.  Well, wouldn't want to lose your marvellous marketing ploy would one?

From the Vanity Fair interview September 2007:

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”
unquote

So how come that feature is in so many photographs and in so many different shapes and positions? That alone I find sufficient proof of photoshopping. There is no other way this feature could have been added.

In answer to an earlier question, the eyeliner is also consistently seen in photographs, it is quite possible to add both a coloboma and eyeliner at the same time, although it needs a bit of skill.
It is absolutely not possible for the lower eyelid to look black because of dark eyelashes. I'd find very dark eyelashes unusual when the eyebrows are very blond but I'd have to make a study of it so - the lower eyelid has a thickness of at least one mm, often 1.5 mm. That is a pale edge of skin in essence.
To make eyes look larger this is often coloured white, opening up the eye and making it look much larger. Often seen in film stars and so on.
Colouring it dark makes it look very appealing, expecially with black spiky eyelashes to go with it. It also makes a child look a lot more grown up and that's what strikes me in many Maddie photographs, the little woman effect.
Unquote

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

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

  Maddie's eyes are enhanced in the iconic photo, making her look even more appealing and vulnerable. You only have to look at the Disney characters she so loved  [ this film was not released until 2010, but shows young Rapunzel as a fair haired green eyed child who was stolen ] to notice the appeal of the Disney female. I wonder who Disney based their young Rapunzel on?

btw the Rapunzel film was called Tangled  [ really!] and here is another Disney female, a little humour this time, guess who this was based on?    

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

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

Admittedly i know next to nothing about coloboma's.

I just wanted to post some pics up to make comparisons. Obviously MBM's above.

The below, randoms who DO HAVE a coloboma.

Looks a big difference to me. 

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

Andrew77R wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Admittedly i know next to nothing about coloboma's.

I just wanted to post some pics up to make comparisons. Obviously MBM's above.

The below, randoms who DO HAVE a coloboma.

Looks a big difference to me. 

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

Thank you Andrew77R.   You have made me think of something that we should have thought about a long time ago.

Maddie's medical records were NOT made available. Her/the McCann family's official 'apparent' doctors claim to have hardly seen the child. Kate and Gerry claim she had no medical problems.

YET, if Gerry and Kate CLAIM that Maddie had a COLOBOMA, the very first thing that would have happened on any of the obligatory child health and development checks would be the observation of an eye defect.

Enclosed below, an extract from a site I picked off the internet (really important parts highlighted in red).

Gerry and Kate MUST have had MEDICAL RECORDS for Maddie's COLOBOMA, if she had had one. If they didn't / don't, then they and the Child Health and Development bodies are guilty of SERIOUS NEGLECT.

Kate and Gerry, insisted that Madeleine had a COLOBOMA, even named so by Gerry in interview, let alone all of the huge billboard signs, LOOK, iconic photo etc.

So, given they touted her COLOBOMA, where are the doctors' reports and the health care visitor records, paying attention to the very probable and potentially serious, visual difficulties that Maddie would encounter,

Cake and Eat it ? Gerry/Kate?

Either a blatant and public fictitious LIE, that Maddie had a COLOBOMA, or ABSOLUTE AND OUTRAGEOUS PARENTAL AND MEDICAL NEGLECT of Madeleine's potentially serious visual problems.

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

Coloboma of the iris
Coloboma of the iris is a hole or defect of the iris of the eye. Most colobomas are present since birth (congenital).
Considerations
Coloboma of the iris may look like a black, round hole located in or next to the colored part of the eye (iris). It can look like a black notch of different depths at the edge of the pupil. This gives the pupil an irregular shape. It can also appear as a split in the iris from the pupil to the edge of the iris.
A small coloboma (especially if it is not attached to the pupil) may allow a second image to focus on the back of the eye, causing:
• Blurred vision
• Decreased visual acuity
• Ghost image
The defect may include the retina, choroid, or optic nerve.
Colobomas are generally diagnosed at, or shortly after, birth.
Causes
Coloboma can occur due to:
• Eye surgery
• Inherited conditions
• Trauma to the eye
Most cases of coloboma have no known cause and are not related to other abnormalities. A small percentage of people with coloboma have other inherited developmental problems.
When to Contact a Medical Professional
Contact your health care provider if:
• You notice that your child has what appears to be a hole in the iris or an unusual-shaped pupil.
• Your child's vision becomes blurred or decreased.
Note: It is appropriate to see an ophthalmologist for vision problems. Your primary health care provider may need to help rule out disorders associated with coloboma of the iris.
What to Expect at Your Office Visit
Your health care provider will take a medical history and do an examination.
The patient is usually an infant, and the family history will be most important.
The physical examination will include a detailed eye examination, which may involve:
• Dilated exam
• MRI imaging of the brain and nerves connecting the eye to the brain
After seeing your health care provider:
You may want to add a diagnosis related to a coloboma to your personal medical record.

Someone a long time ago remarked that the round swimming pool at the Ocean Club reminded them of Madeleine's eye, when viewed from the right angle.

What do you think?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Inspiration for Madeleine's coloboma? Or just a neat coincidence.

canada12 wrote:Someone a long time ago remarked that the round swimming pool at the Ocean Club reminded them of Madeleine's eye, when viewed from the right angle.

What do you think?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Inspiration for Madeleine's coloboma? Or just a neat coincidence.

Spooky!

That's what gets me about this case, it is so WEIRD.

While fiddling about on the internet the other day (I googled Madeleine McCann scientific experiment, I think), I came across a nutty reference to Kate McCann and Gaucher's Disease. Tried to look into it, and got nowhere. Either it is nonsense or it has been whooshed.

I also recall a thread - in the mists of time - that said something about a CHARGE syndrome case that sounded very like MBM, father was a Sports Medicine Lecturer. Apparently every reference to it had been removed at some stage.

Gaucher's Disease is interesting, as it has a genetic link to Parkinson's Disease, and is present in a much higher rate in the Ashkenazi Jewish community. Mr Healy? Kate a carrier?

missbeetle wrote:

canada12 wrote:Someone a long time ago remarked that the round swimming pool at the Ocean Club reminded them of Madeleine's eye, when viewed from the right angle.

What do you think?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Inspiration for Madeleine's coloboma? Or just a neat coincidence.

Spooky!

That's what gets me about this case, it is so WEIRD.

While fiddling about on the internet the other day (I googled Madeleine McCann scientific experiment, I think), I came across a nutty reference to Kate McCann and Gaucher's Disease. Tried to look into it, and got nowhere. Either it is nonsense or it has been whooshed.

I also recall a thread - in the mists of time - that said something about a CHARGE syndrome case that sounded very like MBM, father was a Sports Medicine Lecturer. Apparently every reference to it had been removed at some stage.

Gaucher's Disease is interesting, as it has a genetic link to Parkinson's Disease, and is present in a much higher rate in the Ashkenazi Jewish community. Mr Healy? Kate a carrier?

Oh dear, I feel a wind up coming on.

aquila wrote:[
Oh dear, I feel a wind up coming on.

Don't blame me... I only mentioned the swimming pool   

canada12 wrote:

aquila wrote:[
Oh dear, I feel a wind up coming on.

Don't blame me... I only mentioned the swimming pool   

Definitely, but poor a poor attempt.  
The one think you will notice on the images kindly posted by Andrew is that the defect is either pointing directly down, or slightly to the nose.
Coloboma's don't point the other way, ie outwards. 
Madeleines iris defect points outwards. Not a coloboma.
And yes, she would have had multiple hospital attendances in her medical records if she had really had a coloboma and she would have needed to wear sunglasses in the sun. Which she isn't on the "last photo". But daddy is protecting his eyes...

dantezebu wrote:

canada12 wrote:

aquila wrote:[
Oh dear, I feel a wind up coming on.

Don't blame me... I only mentioned the swimming pool   

Definitely, but poor a poor attempt.  
The one think you will notice on the images kindly posted by Andrew is that the defect is either pointing directly down, or slightly to the nose.
Coloboma's don't point the other way, ie outwards. 
Madeleines iris defect points outwards. Not a coloboma.


And yes, she would have had multiple hospital attendances in her medical records if she had really had a coloboma and she would have needed to wear sunglasses in the sun. Which she isn't on the "last photo". But daddy is protecting his eyes...

The lady I know with one don't wear sunglasses??  Unless it's not a coloboma, with her I have just assumed

tigger wrote:The photographs are a very weak point in their entire enterprise, imo the eye feature, made  Maddie unique and very findable indeed. My feeling is that the campaign was too successful on the popular (internet and press) front but not so much in shaping their new careers. So it was extended beyond the original plan. Indefinitely.

The coloboma did two things - a good marketing ploy and no need for masses of DNA test on toddlers, no coloboma, no Maddie.

By 2011 they  may have wanted more sightings  and to widen the field of search, so now it became the truth, a small fleck, all little girls were back in the game.

You see, it's all gone wrong, we weren't meant to be here, they weren't meant to be anywhere as pedestrian as Rothley. They should have been  in the press and on TV regularly, not to go over that same boring old story but praised for their efforts to make children safe all over the world.
We should be seeing snaps of Gerry talking to Obama. GM standing for parliament, Kate with nice earrings at a gala receiving a reward, A-list celebrities in the audience...

Copied from photographs revisited: page 4
Posting this here as all the work I thought I had yet to do has been done and much better than I could have done it anyway.

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

Imo the case it just as Kate told Piers Morgan in the interview of  12th May 2011:

MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --

MORGAN: Slightly distinctive eye colors and a little fleck.

MORGAN: And do you know if that would be still there if she's now eight years old?

G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.

unquote

Gerry motors in trying to keep the iris defect going at the same time dismissing it as a coloboma. A coloboma is not 'an additional bit of colour'  it is exactly the same colour as the pupil of the eye - i.e. black.  Well, wouldn't want to lose your marvellous marketing ploy would one?

From the Vanity Fair interview September 2007:

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”
unquote

So how come that feature is in so many photographs and in so many different shapes and positions? That alone I find sufficient proof of photoshopping. There is no other way this feature could have been added.

In answer to an earlier question, the eyeliner is also consistently seen in photographs, it is quite possible to add both a coloboma and eyeliner at the same time, although it needs a bit of skill.
It is absolutely not possible for the lower eyelid to look black because of dark eyelashes. I'd find very dark eyelashes unusual when the eyebrows are very blond but I'd have to make a study of it so - the lower eyelid has a thickness of at least one mm, often 1.5 mm. That is a pale edge of skin in essence.
To make eyes look larger this is often coloured white, opening up the eye and making it look much larger. Often seen in film stars and so on.
Colouring it dark makes it look very appealing, expecially with black spiky eyelashes to go with it. It also makes a child look a lot more grown up and that's what strikes me in many Maddie photographs, the little woman effect.
Unquote

Great post Tigger.

I do think she had a coloboma. I do believe it was "accentuated" in some photos.
I absolutely agree with your description of "what should have been".

dantezebu wrote:

canada12 wrote:

aquila wrote:[
Oh dear, I feel a wind up coming on.

Don't blame me... I only mentioned the swimming pool   

Definitely, but poor a poor attempt.  
The one think you will notice on the images kindly posted by Andrew is that the defect is either pointing directly down, or slightly to the nose.
Coloboma's don't point the other way, ie outwards. 
Madeleines iris defect points outwards. Not a coloboma.
And yes, she would have had multiple hospital attendances in her medical records if she had really had a coloboma and she would have needed to wear sunglasses in the sun. Which she isn't on the "last photo". But daddy is protecting his eyes...

Yes, colobomas can point outwards. The effects on visual performance and need for sunglasses is dependent amot on how big the coloboma is. Madeleine had a small one.
IMO it is not really important if she had one or not, either way they lied about it, and that's a huge red flag.

It proves that finding Madeleine was not their priority, likely because they knew she could not be found.

All just my opinion (except the facts about coloboma).