A VERY QUICK FIRST SCAN OF 'LOOKING FOR MADELEINE'

espeland wrote:Amazon have the paperback now number 33,621 in Books. LOL

PeterMac wrote:

espeland wrote:Amazon have the paperback now number 33,621 in Books. LOL

Is this the hardback from which people have torn the covers off in total frustration ?

jeanmonroe wrote:

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Markus 2 wrote: Talking about photos something of the grotesque in this image imo. Awful image for a book cover when you look closely looks also like head planted on someone with cleavage, apart from the out of place facial expression.

Problem is, if they wanted to put an image of Madeleine herself on the cover then they weren't exactly spoilt for choice, were they? The best one was already spoken for - ideally the McCanns would have come up with another that has never been in the public domain, but does such a thing exist?

They could of used this, April 2014, most updated 'aged progression' one, couldn't they?



If i didn't know better i'd think ALL these book 'writers' want the public to ALWAYS only 'look' for an almost 4 years old, frozen in time, 'missing' child.

Weird, innit?

Tony Bennett wrote:

roy rovers wrote:

[quote from book review of 'Looking for Madeleine' on Amazon'   "Sadly, and inexplicably, Summers has taken recently to becoming an apologist for incredulous 'official' narratives - for writing volumes which reassure the reader that it is safe to overlook the inconvenient, irrepressible, undeniable facts which defy attempts at whitewashing, to disregard them".

Exactly so.

Whatever undeserved credibility these authors once had, they have completely blown it - for life - by publishing this book.

I believe they will both one day bitterly rue the day they took a dishonest shilling to publish such a dishonest book

jeanmonroe wrote:

Woofer wrote:Wonder who commissioned S&S to purify the corruption.

"Did both of you 'ghost write' the Summers and Swan book, Looking for Madeleine?"



"Erm, we're not going to comment on that"

sonic72 wrote:This book is a blatant scam imo. These two authors have now entered themselves into the consiparacy that is Madeleine, and are now viewed with the same little respect as the Mccanns. These two writers have now ruined their reputations by being associated with the mccscum.

Anyone with half a brain can see that they wrote this book with a clear objective, and they are 100% siding with the mccanns and looking at nothing but the mccanns side of the 'story'. 

This has got to be one of the worst pieces of writing I have come across in my time on eath, the book is not even fit to use as fire-starting material!

Nina wrote:Joana Morais on this page re the new book. A must read at what they have done,

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218

Brian Griffin wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

Woofer wrote:Wonder who commissioned S&S to purify the corruption.

"Did both of you 'ghost write' the Summers and Swan book, Looking for Madeleine?"



"Erm, we're not going to comment on that"

That pic of Kate looks so cheeky! She could have done the Cheeky Bingo ads that used to begin and end all the add breaks on the Jezza Kyle show! "Cheeky Bum Bum!"

Kate's kinda foxy.

In my opinion.

Nina wrote:Joana Morais on this page re the new book. A must read at what they have done,

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218

truthfultiger wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

Woofer wrote:Wonder who commissioned S&S to purify the corruption.

"Did both of you 'ghost write' the Summers and Swan book, Looking for Madeleine?"



"Erm, we're not going to comment on that"

That pic of Kate looks so cheeky! She could have done the Cheeky Bingo ads that used to begin and end all the add breaks on the Jezza Kyle show! "Cheeky Bum Bum!"

Kate's kinda foxy.

In my opinion.

Foxy like Knoxy?

Markus 2 wrote:SUMMERS AND SWAN CHANGED THEIR COVER PHOTO

What is that all about?

Nina wrote:Joana Morais on this page re the new book. A must read at what they have done,

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218

Brian Griffin wrote:

Markus 2 wrote:SUMMERS AND SWAN CHANGED THEIR COVER PHOTO

What is that all about?

Nina wrote:Joana Morais on this page re the new book. A must read at what they have done,

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anthony-Summers-Robbyn-Swan/108905915872218

I wish they would use an older picture actually. Milk teeth creep me out for some reason.

Brian Griffin wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Markus 2 wrote: Talking about photos something of the grotesque in this image imo. Awful image for a book cover when you look closely looks also like head planted on someone with cleavage, apart from the out of place facial expression.

Problem is, if they wanted to put an image of Madeleine herself on the cover then they weren't exactly spoilt for choice, were they? The best one was already spoken for - ideally the McCanns would have come up with another that has never been in the public domain, but does such a thing exist?

They could of used this, April 2014, most updated 'aged progression' one, couldn't they?



If i didn't know better i'd think ALL these book 'writers' want the public to ALWAYS only 'look' for an almost 4 years old, frozen in time, 'missing' child.

Weird, innit?

Madeleine the young child has now become an iconic image, instantaneously recognizable, and is therefore the best choice for a book cover for any book about her. Not that the book is about her, but you know what I mean. You would tend to use an image for a biography of a famous person as they looked at their most famous to the eyes of the time you are writing in because you need to create a cover that sells books. If it's David Atemborough, you'd use the picture of him as an elderly man because that's what we remember most on our screens. If it's James Garner, you might use a younger, 'Rockford Files' era image because he looked very different as an old man. I watched a whole film with him in it only to be shocked to see it was James when the end-titles rolled. The age-progressed image is just a possibility, not necessarily truth. That's just a theory, by the way, but I think it might offer an explanation. There's a very good pencil drawing I've seen of Madeleine that would make a nice cover though.


Could the drawing be the one done by HiDeHo's daughter?

http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann

MRNOODLES wrote:Joana Morais - "And? Who cares, that's not the point is it? Don't hide behind what was posted in the media aeons ago, your book is biased but you have a right to be biased if you wish to be, it's your opinion, just don't call it investigative journalism. Now, why did you quote my copyrighted and not for-commercial-use blog without asking for my permission, even though I had clearly refused to answer the really suspicious questions you emailed me and then had the nerve to include quotes lifted from my blog in an insulting chapter titled or reserved for "McCann Haters" an abusive epithet used by the McCanns and their online supporters (real trolls who stalk, harass, send death threats to bloggers like me). A book that is heavily biased, pro McCannish and is clearly an antithesis of my blog's work for the past seven years? Is that how purported "Pulitzer Finalists" act, lift quotes from a blog if the blogger doesn't reply to your queries? Isn't that unethical and unprofessional by any standards of journalism?"

I think that's worth making a few enquiries with a solicitor, Joana.

MRNOODLES wrote:Joana Morais - "And? Who cares, that's not the point is it? Don't hide behind what was posted in the media aeons ago, your book is biased but you have a right to be biased if you wish to be, it's your opinion, just don't call it investigative journalism. Now, why did you quote my copyrighted and not for-commercial-use blog without asking for my permission, even though I had clearly refused to answer the really suspicious questions you emailed me and then had the nerve to include quotes lifted from my blog in an insulting chapter titled or reserved for "McCann Haters" an abusive epithet used by the McCanns and their online supporters (real trolls who stalk, harass, send death threats to bloggers like me). A book that is heavily biased, pro McCannish and is clearly an antithesis of my blog's work for the past seven years? Is that how purported "Pulitzer Finalists" act, lift quotes from a blog if the blogger doesn't reply to your queries? Isn't that unethical and unprofessional by any standards of journalism?"