They've done nothing else.

by **tigger** 26.08.11 18:37

Marian wrote:I don't think that the McCanns would have issued both the fake photo and the one which appears to be of Madeleine. Does anyone have any information as to the origin of the fake photo?

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, the photographs just don't add up, age goes up and down like a yo yo, ( see Christmas 2006 and the tennis girl an apparent age difference of at least two years!) and there are quite a few look alikes mixed in. There was Ella, who was at PdL but must also appear in other photos from home? The Naylor child at PdL also may have doubled for Maddie.
An awful lot of photos of the children, but not amongst other children. Were there no get togethers with the Payne's? ROB and Jane Tanner? and their children?
Then we have the Donegal photos, taken just a month before PdL. Maddie looks quite tall and the legs on the twins look skinny and long!
Basically all photographs are suspect, I believe the ones where she has these 'swollen' lower eyelids are genuine. I'm convinced it's part of a condition she had.

The fake photo is a mock up of when she is older, about 8 I suppose.

Starting with the poster photo of the 3/4 may, we've been

by Guest 26.08.11 18:57

tigger wrote:

The fake photo is a mock up of when she is older, about 8 I suppose.

Starting with the poster photo of the 3/4 may, we've been

I am very bad at graphics (my viewer is MS Excel..), I was playing around with ages etc, is the fake photo here?

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

by Guest 26.08.11 19:02

Hello Molly. The photo concerned is not among those you're just posted. It's on page 17 of this topic, posted at 3.27 BST on 23rd August.

by Guest 26.08.11 19:24

Marian wrote:Hello Molly. The photo concerned is not among those you're just posted. It's on page 17 of this topic, posted at 3.27 BST on 23rd August.

Thanks, Marian, apologies for getting lost

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

by **tigger** 26.08.11 20:53

Molly wrote:
Marian wrote:Hello Molly. The photo concerned is not among those you're just posted. It's on page 17 of this topic, posted at 3.27 BST on 23rd August.

Thanks, Marian, apologies for getting lost

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

The last two are the age progression. The first one I absolutely don't think is Maddie at all, even allowing for extra light etc. The smile isn't hers and it seems also a far more confident girl. the one after that, the second one is where I think she looks so sad, on the larger one it is quite clear.
Then number 3 is the very badly photoshopped one, on her left cheek blurring, blurring on the elbow and a ghost line along the left arm, the head cannot quite sit on the neck like that, it should be more to her right. I've got an analysis of an expert somewhere and can try to post that if you like.

by Guest 26.08.11 21:16

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

The last two are the age progression. The first one I absolutely don't think is Maddie at all, even allowing for extra light etc. The smile isn't hers and it seems also a far more confident girl. the one after that, the second one is where I think she looks so sad, on the larger one it is quite clear.
Then number 3 is the very badly photoshopped one, on her left cheek blurring, blurring on the elbow and a ghost line along the left arm, the head cannot quite sit on the neck like that, it should be more to her right. I've got an analysis of an expert somewhere and can try to post that if you like.

I agree Tigger, no 3 seems strange but I don't know a lot about graphics. I put the other images in above, I thought the same thing about no 1, it's not a great shot here but I think it's because it's a different smile, I think it's the very same girl as the ice cream cone girl. It's the tennis Madeleine that puzzles me.

by **tigger** 27.08.11 6:48

A poster on another site wrote this:

1. The shadow is inconsistent. An ambient light as such would not create such a harsh shadow against the wall. Judging by the highlights on her eyes and lips, and top left of her forehead, there is a spotlight in the upper left corner which also doesn't consist with the shadow on the wall. Nor the folds in the shirt. The shadow itself is puzzling. There is a straight shadow all the way down the wall and onto the floor. A shadow would bend at the point of the floor. Also, she is too far away from the wall to be casting such a harsh shadow.

2. Weird hair blurring against the face. No shadow on the hair. Looks like a rubbish cut out job.

3. Shoddy cut out job. Looks like a different background, which the air brusher has forgotten to blur to be consistent with the rest of the background. Looks like the figure has been cut out and placed on that background, but they forgot to erase part of the previous photos' background.

4. This is one for the eagle eyed person. The face, including parts which shouldn't blush such as the forehead, jaw line etc. are a slight shade pinker and darker than the rest of the figure. The figures skin has a yellowish tone to it.

5. Bottom of the hair looks stuck on. Nothing to "meld" the hair and to top together. No shadows, no interaction. The hair falls unnaturally on the shirt. Extra strands look drawn in, such as the strands beneath her fingers.

Conclusion. Shoddy cut and paste job. Unessecary blurring to cover any errors or inconsistencies. Head and/or hair pasted on. Background pasted on to look more child friendly, perhaps?

for the photos you'll have to look on MM under the old topic of 'Maddie wearing old shirt?' page 4 or 5 I think. I still don't know how to paste photos!

by Guest 27.08.11 9:06

Shame there isn't a mysterious wealthy benefactor out there who could fund analysis using facial recognition software. As each person's face has unique characteristics, they use it like finger prints to find each person's, err.. face-print...

I think even for children it should work - even though faces get bigger as they grow, presumably the ratio of nose to face, etc stays the same?

It should be able to say if a particular face is MM or not, but suppose if a photo has the right face on a wrong body it wouldn't help.

by ROSA 28.08.11 4:08

i agree

by **Jill Havern** 28.08.11 8:51

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

by **tigger** 28.08.11 9:37

Stewie wrote:Shame there isn't a mysterious wealthy benefactor out there who could fund analysis using facial recognition software. As each person's face has unique characteristics, they use it like finger prints to find each person's, err.. face-print...

I think even for children it should work - even though faces get bigger as they grow, presumably the ratio of nose to face, etc stays the same?

It should be able to say if a particular face is MM or not, but suppose if a photo has the right face on a wrong body it wouldn't help.

I'm rather hoping that SY has the requisite experts. Highly likely I think. What's more, once you know about the changes, they're actually easy to spot.

by kikoraton 04.09.11 19:03

Years ago, on another forum, there was discussion of photos of MM from an early age, whether they were sexualised images etc etc. There was one photographic studio in particular that I remember. I think it may have produced the photo of Maddie lying horizontal, as shown by the piece of skirting-board behind her. Whether it was from a studio or not, can anyone here recall the name of a famous photographer and/or his studio who was discussed at that time?
Thanks
kiko

by happychick 04.09.11 19:23

kikoraton wrote:Years ago, on another forum, there was discussion of photos of MM from an early age, whether they were sexualised images etc etc. There was one photographic studio in particular that I remember. I think it may have produced the photo of Maddie lying horizontal, as shown by the piece of skirting-board behind her. Whether it was from a studio or not, can anyone here recall the name of a famous photographer and/or his studio who was discussed at that time?
Thanks
kiko

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

Don't know about the photographer though.

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

by Guest 04.09.11 19:57

I'm alarmed to think that a professional photographer took that particular photo of Madeleine! He's Paul Grover according to the links supplied by Happychick.

by kikoraton 04.09.11 20:04

Thanks for answering my question!

by Guest 04.09.11 20:14

Marian wrote:I'm alarmed to think that a professional photographer took that particular photo of Madeleine! He's Paul Grover according to the links supplied by Happychick.

He took this also.

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

by kikoraton 04.09.11 20:40

Any more? How many professional photographers (said to work for the daily telegraph, amongst other assignments no doubt) would take photos like the skirting-board one? Yes, I'm surprised too, but two photos isn't enough to reach any conclusions about Grover. What does it say about the parents, though?

by **tigger** 04.09.11 20:56

happychick wrote:
kikoraton wrote:Years ago, on another forum, there was discussion of photos of MM from an early age, whether they were sexualised images etc etc. There was one photographic studio in particular that I remember. I think it may have produced the photo of Maddie lying horizontal, as shown by the piece of skirting-board behind her. Whether it was from a studio or not, can anyone here recall the name of a famous photographer and/or his studio who was discussed at that time?
Thanks
kiko

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

Don't know about the photographer though.

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

Looking again at this photo, the pose is worse than I thought. She is lying back, leaning on her elbows, I am betting there are a number of other shots of the same pose, not in the public domain. Try the pose for yourself, it's very provocative and totally unnatural for a toddler!.

by Guest 04.09.11 21:31

I don't know if there are any more but I think it would be unusual for a photographer to take just 2 poses. It makes me wonder exactly what interest the photographer and the parents would have in having a 3 year old girl photographed in this way. I think the 4 pictures that were released in 2010 were all very disturbing to the point of making one's blood run cold. I suppose I wonder how many other shots they discarded from the bunch and why the others didn't make the grade. I think anything in isolation is one thing however apart from the photos there is also witness testimony to David Payne's lewd gestures and comments and a statement placing the family at a nudist beach at Zaival.

by kikoraton 05.09.11 10:53

Steady on, Molly. Nudist beaches and campsites in themselves are normally OK. Is there something special about Zaival? I have never seen that statement.

by Guest 05.09.11 11:11

I'm thinking of the formal studio photos that were taken of me many moons ago when my mother could afford them - they certainly bear no resemblance to the style of those taken of Madeleine by Paul Grover, THANK GOODNESS! It would be interesting to know if he took the infamous blue eye shadow photo as well.

by **tigger** 05.09.11 12:38

Jean wrote:I'm thinking of the formal studio photos that were taken of me many moons ago when my mother could afford them - they certainly bear no resemblance to the style of those taken of Madeleine by Paul Grover, THANK GOODNESS! It would be interesting to know if he took the infamous blue eye shadow photo as well.

Entirely my opinion, but I think some of these photographs are released at different times to send a clear message to someone or some people.
This one, which I never liked, now that I know the pose of her entire body, even less. Please try it yourself, it is a pose where you 'present' your body to someone. That is to say, if I had a male visitor who'd be interested in me, if I lay down like that, it would be mostly my fault if he jumped on me. It's a clear 'come and get me' pose. It makes me sick. I've never seen a toddler lie down like that, ever!

by LG78 05.09.11 14:37

Never noticed this before

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

Look on her right side on the belt, there is a picture of madeleiene. Weired place to have missing informasion? And easier to make a shirt and much more visible?

And this

Isnt Amelie wearing the shorts Maddie had on on the famouse Tennis picture?http://www.madeleinemccann.co.uk/media/large/L40.jpg

by kikoraton 05.09.11 14:47

Tigger - we should need to know when the "reclining" photo was taken, and when/by whom released to the public? Similarly the head-back-looking-down-her-nose photo and perhaps the Seven Dwarfs one (if I've got my fairy-tales correct).
LG78 - I suppose it draws the viewer's attention to KM's belt or trousers, which is where she wanted it to be!