Re: Photographs Revisited - general

by Guest 22.11.17 12:58

Shuttle bus - Faro airport, The Algarve..

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

by NickE 22.11.17 13:59

Verdi wrote:Shuttle bus - Faro airport, The Algarve..

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

Yes,and as we can see there is no simlarities between this bus and the "Cobus" that the McCann's and Payne's are going with in the video.
Rectangular rear window and a small window and a double door besides Gerry at the back of the bus.

by kaz 22.11.17 14:36

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

Does this look like a bereaved couple? Can the McCanns be that heartless or do they really think Madeleine was still alive at this point?

by Guest 22.11.17 15:22

NickE wrote:Yes,and as we can see there is no simlarities between this bus and the "Cobus" that the McCann's and Payne's are going with in the video.

The point being, it's nothing like the bus you used by way of illustration. I don't doubt there are numerous different types of shuttle bus used in aeroports across the world - all depends on the maker.

Just like coaches used in the tourist industry, they differ greatly from one maker to another. Whatever, I can't see it matters much whether the video clip was taken in the UK or portugal.

by Guest 22.11.17 16:15

"Whatever, I can't see it matters much whether the video clip was taken in the UK or portugal."

It doesn't.

The question still remains how did it get into the public domain?

I'm sure Gerry wouldn't have wanted the public to see him effing in front of the children.

by NickE 22.11.17 16:25

Verdi wrote:
NickE wrote:Yes,and as we can see there is no simlarities between this bus and the "Cobus" that the McCann's and Payne's are going with in the video.
The point being, it's nothing like the bus you used by way of illustration. I don't doubt there are numerous different types of shuttle bus used in aeroports across the world - all depends on the maker.

Just like coaches used in the tourist industry, they differ greatly from one maker to another. Whatever, I can't see it matters much whether the video clip was taken in the UK or portugal.

There's tons of photos of the tarmac at Faro airport from different views and angles but you can't see anywhere, that kind of railing that we can in the background in that video, but it can be found at EMA besides the roads where the shuttle buses go.
I think it's very important because there have to be a reason why they mislead Reuters about this.
I refuse to believe it was a missunderstanding, it's Reuters we are talking about, not a random tabloid and the article is still there and have been there for 10 years.

by Guest 22.11.17 21:32

I still can't understand the importance or relevance of this. The video must have been taken by one of the group, whoever took it must have been the one to authorize it's use by the world's media, unless it's being suggested that someone nicked the equipment and sold the content without authority. I don't buy it!

The video clips were also published by Associated Press agency..

Why is the sequence of the videos of any importance? Why is it important how the major UK press agencies got hold of it?

I've listened to the clip a thousand times, I still can't make out what McCann is saying. Even if he did say something to the effect of 'I'm not f'ing here to enjoy myself' - what does that signify? I often hear parents f'ing in front of their kids, not something I agree with but nonetheless it's not unusual.

Turn the television on, it's f'ing every other word. Seems to be an acceptable word in the English language these days.

I digress!

by Phoebe 23.11.17 1:18

When a clearer, brighter version of this airport bus clip is enlarged and viewed it looks (to me) as though Gerry is already speaking even while he is being told to "Cheer up Gerry, we're on holiday". I presume the "F off I'm not here to enjoy myself" is his response to that admonishment but what was he saying before? His mouth is moving and both of the twins have turned their heads in his direction, as does Madeleine (slightly) before he is addressed. Even allowing that there was something off with the sync (why I don't know as Kate's response to "Oh hang on, hang on, I think we're on video" is in perfect sync.) the movements of his mouth suggest something more than this infamous line was said.

by Guest 23.11.17 1:21

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

big grin

by NickE 23.11.17 11:28

Verdi wrote:I still can't understand the importance or relevance of this. The video must have been taken by one of the group, whoever took it must have been the one to authorize it's use by the world's media, unless it's being suggested that someone nicked the equipment and sold the content without authority. I don't buy it!

The video clips were also published by Associated Press agency..

Why is the sequence of the videos of any importance? Why is it important how the major UK press agencies got hold of it?

I've listened to the clip a thousand times, I still can't make out what McCann is saying. Even if he did say something to the effect of 'I'm not f'ing here to enjoy myself' - what does that signify? I often hear parents f'ing in front of their kids, not something I agree with but nonetheless it's not unusual.

Turn the television on, it's f'ing every other word. Seems to be an acceptable word in the English language these days.

I digress!

It doesn't have to be complicated.

This videoclip was not public before Reuters published it and [size=35]David Payne mentioned it for some reason specifically in his rogatory.[/size]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
This was released just days after "the last photo" and the most likely scenario is that Payne, in consultation with TM, sent it to Reuters for publication. "Look, she was with us all the way, from Saturday to Thursday"

by Guest 23.11.17 12:07

NickE wrote:This was released just days after "the last photo" and the most likely scenario is that Payne, in consultation with TM, sent it to Reuters for publication. "Look, she was with us all the way, from Saturday to Thursday"

Conversely it could mean - 'oh look Madeleine injured her leg when boarding the aircraft, that might explain traces of blood in apartment 5a' or it could just be a heart wrenching image of little Madeleine holding hands with her friend, all excited about her new adventure - before she was abducted. Who knows $i don\'t know$ I don't.

I didn't say it was complicated, the subject is however becoming more and more diluted. What started as a rather extraordinary conspiracy theory is now just a matter of Payne possibly sending Reuters the vido clip, at least that's how I'm reading it - rightly or wrongly.

Jon Corner (of inappropriate video fame) seemed to be in charge of all photographic material, what went where when and to whom, perhaps it was he who distributed the video clip to the world's press agencies. I think that the most likely scenario - of course I could be wrong.

by nglfi 23.11.17 13:54

I agree with Verdi, I can't see how it matters where the clip was taken. I also can't see how we can prove where it was taken anyway. Can we be sure that there were no railings like that at Faro airport back in 2007? Do we have dated photographs from that time to say one way or another? Obviously a lot may have changed in ten years. I don't see how we can tell what sort of a bus they were on either, again the buses used at Faro/EMA today may not be those used in 2007.

by Guest 25.11.17 0:56

Gerry McCann's blog: Day 24 - 27th May 2007 [snipped]..

There have been some requests for more information ‘about Madeleine’ and this section will be updated very soon. We will also be releasing a very short video of Madeleine taken at the Airport on the day we left for Portugal, Saturday 28 April.

This was just prior to the McCann's spiritual visit to the Vatican, as documented by Reuters and Associated Press archives.

My money's on Jon Corner.

by Milo 29.11.17 8:54

MayMuse wrote:From observation, I believe that the make up,photo and the ice lolly photo look about the same time taken purely because her hair looks to be of a similar length,longer than the last photo.
The make up photo does look slightly older and think this is because of the applied "paint" and her gaze which gives me shivers. What is astutely obvious is the lack of joy or excitement in the make up photo which can be seen clearly in the others.
I also have concerns at what appears to be darker bluish purple pigment on her neck and under her eye towards the cheek, is this "bruising" or just "fallout" from the eyeshadow?
The skirting board photo appears a younger, happier Madeleine, but think that her hair looks about the same length as the other photos; the last photo shows a shorter hairstyle.

Three things stand out for me in the make-up photo: First, the perspective of her ears - first impression is that her ears are very low on her head and pointing out rather than down (this has already been pointed observed in another post). Could it be that her head is being propped up from a lying position, something like when a child in a bed is propped for a drink from a cup (not suggesting that Madeleine was being propped up for a drink but certainly propped up for some reasons; Second, the look in her eyes (several people have already mentioned the glazed look). Could it be that the eyes are the black bottomless pits that appear after death? Third, the porcelain appearance of her skin. Could this be rigor mortis? It is indeed a haunting photo of a beautiful little girl.

by Mrs B 29.11.17 11:43

Hummingbird wrote:
Ribisl wrote:
Hummingbird wrote:
sami wrote:
uppatoffee wrote:The cake is a birthday cake for Sean and Amelie's 1st birthday, hence the candle. They were born 1 February 2005. This would make the date of photo around the start of February 2006, so Madeleine, born 12 May 2003, would be coming up for 3. I think this fits with what she looks like in the photo.

But then the clothes that they are wearing and the garden shots do not accord with the start of February ?

uppatoffee I have to agree with that theory BUT then as sami says it really does not fit with the garden shot.

I have just blown this garden photo up and in the background are crocosmia flowers which only flower in SUMMER. They are a LATE summer flowering plant which flower AUG - SEPT!!

So back to the drawing board on the dates for that picture - one question hoe do we know 100% this was taken on the same day as the cake photo? Just because she is wearing the same dress or is there some other evidence that points to it?

The cake is for the twins' christening which must have taken place sometime in the summer.

If this is a christening then firstly I do not believe Kate would be dressed like that and secondly why are they having the celebrations at home - surely 2 Drs would have had this celebration catered?

But lets assume they do have it at home - then I do not believe there would be candles and why would anyone feel the need to put them on there just so MM could blow 2 out? Yes, if she has just witnessed Seam and Amalie blow them out, because it is their B'day cake and wants a go herself, that I can understand but if they were not there in the first place - because you don't have candles at christenings - there would be no need for MM to feel left out!!!!!

I cannot buy that this is a christening cake - sorry just my opinion.

According to Chloe Corner Madeleine wore a Snow White outfit for the twins' Christening, so I doubt this is from the Christening.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Topics merged. Mod

by skyrocket 01.12.17 8:57

It's that line on the right which is quite compelling - I agree, worth a closer look.

Slightly OT - has anyone an opionion on the black outlines and vertical lines at the edges of the iris in Madeleine's eyes? Also, to get the term right, the lacrimal caruncle (small PINK nodule) at the inside corners of each of her eyes are clearly black, and a similar black triangle appears at the outer corner of each of her eyes. I've said before, in strong outdoor lighting, her pupils should be pin prick.

Here's a quickly found example of over exposure (indoors with strong lighting):

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

The blonde model is wearing mascara, and there is a little shadow to the outside corner of her right eye, but the small pupils are clear and there is little evidence of any black lines. Notice also the relative size of the coloured iris (which always remains constant) to the white of the eye.

__________________________________________________________________

Topics merged.

Mod

by worriedmum 10.12.17 22:26

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

Just looking at these images again . Is that a bag on the patio?

by worriedmum 10.12.17 22:30

Is that Gerry McCann's reflection? With a child?[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by MayMuse 10.12.17 22:57

worriedmum wrote:Is that Gerry McCann's reflection? With a child?[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

To the left of the photo a side view by the palm tree?

by JRP 10.12.17 23:15

worriedmum wrote:Is that Gerry McCann's reflection? With a child?[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I does look like him, almost profile view. Not sure if it's a child, but there is a head of a shorter person obscuring part of his face, possibly a woman?

by MayMuse 11.12.17 0:07

Is this definitely on the Paynes balcony in PDL?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Topics merged.

Mod

by MayMuse 25.02.18 17:29

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

Who is the guy with the glasses?

Post moved. Mod

by xsherrie 18.04.18 23:03

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

Not sure if this is the right topic to post new found pictures but, I recently found new photos... In the back of the last photo, its Madeleine, Gerry, I am unsure who the girl in front is. Sadly it has a watermark on it btw.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Topics merged.

Thank you for your contribution xsherrie.

These photographs have been uploaded on the forum in the past. The provenance is questionable now as it was then, so is the reason why they were brought to CMOMM in the first place, without narrative.

Mod

by kaz 14.08.18 14:57

I'm a bit confused with the photograph showing Madeleine and the twins. Where did those Pair of hands come from around Amelie ? Are my eyes deceiving me?

by Guest 14.08.18 15:30

Hope you don't mind kaz, I've moved your post here from the Professional Blog forum, in case members wish to discuss generally.

I think this might answer your question..

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

by kaz 14.08.18 15:38

Thank you for that Verdi. Sometimes I think I'm trying too hard and failing miserably.

by orvar 19.08.18 11:00

Hello,

Having just read the article about the last photo [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I kept coming back to a really obvious question about verification of it...

If there really is a question mark over the day/time the photo was taken, why not simply contact other people who were there at the time and compare the photos they took? With similar time stamps, wouldn't they at least confirm the shadows, sun angle, cloud cover and maybe even indicate wind speed?

Have I missed the point or wouldn't this be an obvious method instead of trying to analyse a single photo?

Cheers

by **sharonl** 19.08.18 12:19

If we had a list of holiday makers and their contact details, independent of the McCanns and their friends, who were in PDL at the time, that may be possible if they were willing to provide their photographs.

What other people did you have in mind?

The groups holiday snaps for the entire week would be a good thing but there is no chance of getting these.

by orvar 19.08.18 12:54

sharonl wrote: If we had a list of holiday makers and their contact details, independent of the McCanns and their friends, who were in PDL at the time, that may be possible if they were willing to provide their photographs.

What other people did you have in mind?

The groups holiday snaps for the entire week would be a good thing but there is no chance of getting these.

That's pretty much what I was thinking in terms of who might had a photographic record of the day. I did wonder if the authorities had any issues with the picture and timeline for it and whether they'd done exactly this to confirm or deny it. I'm guessing not from what I've read so far.

by **sharonl** 19.08.18 13:31

orvar wrote:
sharonl wrote: If we had a list of holiday makers and their contact details, independent of the McCanns and their friends, who were in PDL at the time, that may be possible if they were willing to provide their photographs.

What other people did you have in mind?

The groups holiday snaps for the entire week would be a good thing but there is no chance of getting these.
That's pretty much what I was thinking in terms of who might had a photographic record of the day. I did wonder if the authorities had any issues with the picture and timeline for it and whether they'd done exactly this to confirm or deny it. I'm guessing not from what I've read so far.

There was an initial query regarding the timestamp on that photograph. I haven't seen that recently but there should be a link somewhere