Re: Photographs and memories

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 link.]

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 link.]

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 link.]

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

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!

by LG78 05.09.11 14:52

And this must be taken same one as the head back picture [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **tigger** 05.09.11 16:42

kikoraton wrote: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!

Actually, getting a timeline on the photographs might be quite interesting. If there are photographs like this, I'm sure there will be more. I've only been posting for a few months, so not really up to speed.
But I would need a very large piece of paper and list all the timelines alongside each other. I'd love to do that!
I understand that you favour the 28th/29th for Maddie's demise. Even that is a short timescale for the planning. I favour Dr. Ludke's analysis, I'll post a link if you like.

Which one is the Seven Dwarfs one?

by Guest 05.09.11 18:09

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

Lol, I was having a bad day yesterday. In my defence I had been reading through the World Report Agency Intelligence report on the Madeleine case. It sort of put me over the edge. Not sure if anyone has read them or what anyone thinks, here is the link:

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

Here is the link for Zaival

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

by **tigger** 05.09.11 18:37

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

Lol, I was having a bad day yesterday. In my defence I had been reading through the World Report Agency Intelligence report on the Madeleine case. It sort of put me over the edge. Not sure if anyone has read them or what anyone thinks, here is the link:

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

Here is the link for Zaival

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

Molly, don't believe it! The whole Belgian paedophile ring thing abducting Maddie to order is rubbish. As I recall, it was to get a blond girl around 4 yrs. old? Belgium and Holland, Germany and Scandinavia for that matter are awash with blonde toddlers. Why on earth do something so risky?
the Dutroix case was about older girls for a start and they took children from the Eastern European countries, which is still, unfortunately, much easier.
All of that was and is part of the scam. Perhaps we need a timeline to see when the various paedo theories were fielded by the McCs.
Dutroix should have been hanged. It's a good example, because he had enormous protection as well, the whisper was that a judge was in on his escape. In that case the police didn't do very well either.

We're pretty well all agreed that there was no abduction, so Maddie didn't leave the flat alive. Poor girl.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Fund had to close down and the rest of the money could be used to help misused children?

And don't worry about nudist beaches, most peaceful places on earth, full of floppy people.

by Guest 05.09.11 19:02

Slightly off topic but the Zaival sighting is supposed to have occurred over the Easter holidays ( which were in early April) so the sighting appears to have been of another family rather than the Mccanns. This is stated on the original thread but thought it might be worth mentioning here too.

by **kikoraton** 05.09.11 19:17

I like the "floppy people" bit! Or rather, perhaps I'd rather not think about it!!
Yes, I'd like to see the Dr Ludke link, pse. I know he talked a lot of sense.
I wrote "perhaps the Seven Dwarfs" meaning it in two senses. One, I'm not sure about my memory of the fairy tale, being rather old, and Two - more importantly - I remain to be convinced that the much-used photo of Madeleine looking apprehensive in a pale-blue party dress was unpleasant or just normal.
In other words, on the subject of photos of Maddie, are there any other really dubious ones, or was the lying-back-by-the-skirting-board by Paul Grover (a respected professional photographer) a one-off?

ETA: a poster on another forum did a very complete bringing-together of all photos of Maddie, but I'm sorry, I can't recall who or where. Anyone else?

by Tinkerbell81 05.09.11 19:55

DId a search but cant find them, what is/are the "donegal" photos? Just the one Kate put in her book of Maddie with the ice cream?

by **tigger** 05.09.11 20:37

Tinkerbell81 wrote:DId a search but cant find them, what is/are the "donegal" photos? Just the one Kate put in her book of Maddie with the ice cream?

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

If you enlarge the photo you'll get a better look. Maddie seems awfully tall, even sitting down.

by **tigger** 05.09.11 20:56

kikoraton wrote:I like the "floppy people" bit! Or rather, perhaps I'd rather not think about it!!
Yes, I'd like to see the Dr Ludke link, pse. I know he talked a lot of sense.
I wrote "perhaps the Seven Dwarfs" meaning it in two senses. One, I'm not sure about my memory of the fairy tale, being rather old, and Two - more importantly - I remain to be convinced that the much-used photo of Madeleine looking apprehensive in a pale-blue party dress was unpleasant or just normal.
In other words, on the subject of photos of Maddie, are there any other really dubious ones, or was the lying-back-by-the-skirting-board by Paul Grover (a respected professional photographer) a one-off?

ETA: a poster on another forum did a very complete bringing-together of all photos of Maddie, but I'm sorry, I can't recall who or where. Anyone else?

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

This is the link to Ludke.

Re the photos, yes, certainly the blue eyeshadow. Doubly suspicious since the original explanation from Kate was that Maddie had raided her make up box. That didn't wash with the public, in her book she's got it again but this time it was the result of a visiting professional beautician.
Why Kate? One or both of those statements are untrue? I think that one was published jan 2010.
Quite a lot of photos show eye liner certainly. The iconic poster is nothing but paedo candy, the parted lips, the enhanced eyes or possibly real mascara, the completely bleached-out skin, Maddie had thick walls under her eyes in a lot of 'normal' photos.
The girl in blue is a still from a video. She doesn't look too apprehensive to me. Compare that to the pink fairy one, could be two different girls. The girl in blue is shot in very flattering light, the pink fairy not.
One of the worst, heavily photoshopped ones is the ice cream one. I think we discussed it on this thread. Fake and suggestive.
Then the one with ice cream around her mouth I'm not too happy about either.

by **tigger** 06.09.11 7:51

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

A never before seen photo from the book.
Whenever I see Gerry doing 'the smile', I have to wonder if he's been to the same charm academy as Gordon Brown.

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

by **PeterMac** 06.09.11 9:11

tigger wrote:
Re the photos, yes, certainly the blue eyeshadow. Doubly suspicious since the original explanation from Kate was that Maddie had raided her make up box. That didn't wash with the public, in her book she's got it again but this time it was the result of a visiting professional beautician.

before this becomes a forum myth
The book does not contain the photo of Madeleine wearing the blue eye make-up.
And...I can find no reference to it, either in the hard copy or though searching the Kindle version. If it is there can someone give a page number.