Re: Photographs and memories

by jd 21.12.11 12:58

I think they wanted to send out a picture of the 'family' enjoying themselves...though where is mother kate & Maddie in any pictures from the holiday...there isn't any!

by Guest 21.12.11 13:13

jd wrote:Here are the results from the links

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

The playground photo was on the list of photos the PJ retrieved from the camera. They would have to have photoshopped this one before the holiday. The Donegal one suggests the kids are superimposed on to the background and they have done something with the cousins

Do we trust this program? Because it is telling us madeleine is not fake on the playground photo still she has to left feets or right feets ..If I understood right all original bits are greyed out with this program. And the things pampered with according to this program ( if I have understood it right ) makes no sence, atleast to me...

Im sorry I don't trust this program...

by jd 21.12.11 13:17

I give this app the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, and agree to take the results with caution. I expected the playground photo to be greyed out because this was taken from thew mcscams camera and in the list of photos retrieved from it in the PJ files, so it was on there. The only way this photo could be false is if it was put on the camera before 28th April 2007

To my knowledge and information, the poolside photo was not on the camera as it is not on the list of photos the PJ retrieved from their camera

by **tigger** 21.12.11 13:24

Jean wrote:Uppatoffee, about 99% of the photos issued are doubtful! The two I'm most interested in are:

1) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - supposedly taken in Donegal in April 2007

2) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - the much discussed playground photo

Many thanks in advance for your comments.

Only a couple of photographs come to mind where I think Maddie is as she is:
hanging between the railings of a playground? Looking to her left at camera. It is seen that she is quite ordinary, lovely of course.
riding a tricycle - this is too far away to clearly see her face though
a still from the pink fairy, face all crunched up in a smile - looks peculiar.
I still think the main reason for doctoring the majority of photographs was to make her prettier, the other reason was to put her in places she never visited. Still another reason is to prove the happy family myth. (the weird kitchen photographs, the one with M as a baby where Gerry has been pasted in, and so on..

by Guest 21.12.11 13:31

Just a suggestion, why not try out some other pictures to see how the program performs? I downloaded a windows product but it tells me that even my own pictures were altered when they weren't. It does however clearly mention photoshop in relation to the Donegal & last photo pictures whereas it doesn't on the others. But how do we prove that the media didn't alter any of the pictures before publishing?

by Guest 21.12.11 13:39

jd wrote:I give this app the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, and agree to take the results with caution. I expected the playground photo to be greyed out because this was taken from thew mcscams camera and in the list of photos retrieved from it in the PJ files, so it was on there. The only way this photo could be false is if it was put on the camera before 28th April 2007

To my knowledge and information, the poolside photo was not on the camera as it is not on the list of photos the PJ retrieved from their camera

Even if it was taken from their camera doesnt mean it had to be taken on the holliday ? And how do we know its not in the police files? Most of the pictures are black and we are not able to see whats on them,and lots of them has Madeleine with a question mark on it...

And how do we explain the two left / right feets?

by Guest 21.12.11 13:48

Molly wrote:Just a suggestion, why not try out some other pictures to see how the program performs? I downloaded a windows product but it tells me that even my own pictures were altered when they weren't. It does however clearly mention photoshop in relation to the Donegal & last photo pictures whereas it doesn't on the others. But how do we prove that the media didn't alter any of the pictures before publishing?

Ive tried a similar program before, and I concluded it didnt work proparly. It made pictures look photoshoped if u just had higlighted it , and lots of my original pictures did look tampered with even tough they werent.

I dont know if you have heard about the swedish king case going on, with him pictured on a strip bar 20 years ago. A forum dude from flashback.org manage to determ that the picture is fake and photoshopped..
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (its in Norwegian)

Its guys like this that should have studied those madeleine pictures or other serious companys working with that kind of stuff. Who has the right programs and knowledge about it ..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ( Swedish text)

by jd 21.12.11 13:55

Moa wrote:
jd wrote:I give this app the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, and agree to take the results with caution. I expected the playground photo to be greyed out because this was taken from thew mcscams camera and in the list of photos retrieved from it in the PJ files, so it was on there. The only way this photo could be false is if it was put on the camera before 28th April 2007

To my knowledge and information, the poolside photo was not on the camera as it is not on the list of photos the PJ retrieved from their camera

Even if it was taken from their camera doesnt mean it had to be taken on the holliday ? And how do we know its not in the police files? Most of the pictures are black and we are not able to see whats on them,and lots of them has Madeleine with a question mark on it...

And how do we explain the two left / right feets?

they are clear enough to see what was 'in' the picture, and all the ones given to the media were highlighted

by Guest 21.12.11 14:07

jd wrote:
Moa wrote:
jd wrote:I give this app the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, and agree to take the results with caution. I expected the playground photo to be greyed out because this was taken from thew mcscams camera and in the list of photos retrieved from it in the PJ files, so it was on there. The only way this photo could be false is if it was put on the camera before 28th April 2007

To my knowledge and information, the poolside photo was not on the camera as it is not on the list of photos the PJ retrieved from their camera

Even if it was taken from their camera doesnt mean it had to be taken on the holliday ? And how do we know its not in the police files? Most of the pictures are black and we are not able to see whats on them,and lots of them has Madeleine with a question mark on it...

And how do we explain the two left / right feets?

they are clear enough to see what was 'in' the picture, and all the ones given to the media were highlighted

That do not explain the two left/right feet she has on the picture..Maybe she was born with two right or left feets then lol ...

by jd 21.12.11 14:15

Moa wrote:
That do not explain the two left/right feet she has on the picture..Maybe she was born with two right or left feets then lol ...

I hadn't noticed the 2 left feet! But have noticed how strange and big the hands were/are in many of the pics

by Guest 21.12.11 14:22

jd wrote:
Moa wrote:
That do not explain the two left/right feet she has on the picture..Maybe she was born with two right or left feets then lol ...

I hadn't noticed the 2 left feet! But have noticed how strange and big the hands were/are in many of the pics

I agree, still I think that playground picture and her feet are the one picture we have with an obviouse fail.. I have tried finding another explenation for her feet, but I can't find any.. It so clearly shows both her feets are pointing the same direction...I don't know if anyone else have found a good explenation for this ?

by sijm 21.12.11 15:10

Sorry everyone, I 've only been here a week or two.

Are you saying that most of the pics of Madeleine are not her, I don't understand what is going on with these photographs?

I think the one in the park is a stupid try on, but the others I know little about except the famous last picture by the pool, and with that one I am sure way back about a year or so, I saw this photograph with Gerry (not wearing sun glasses) looking across at Madeleine as if wondering what she was so to amused about.

Strangely I interpreted his fixed look at the Madeleine as not a loving look when looking at one's own child, but maybe another persons child, yet it appears to be Madeleine.

Don't know why I felt like that, but he had a strange puzzled look on his face at the time, you know the kind of look that says,Hmm whats she laughting at?

by **tigger** 21.12.11 17:33

sijm wrote:Sorry everyone, I 've only been here a week or two.

Are you saying that most of the pics of Madeleine are not her, I don't understand what is going on with these photographs?

I think the one in the park is a stupid try on, but the others I know little about except the famous last picture by the pool, and with that one I am sure way back about a year or so, I saw this photograph with Gerry (not wearing sun glasses) looking across at Madeleine as if wondering what she was so to amused about.

Strangely I interpreted his fixed look at the Madeleine as not a loving look when looking at one's own child, but maybe another persons child, yet it appears to be Madeleine.

Don't know why I felt like that, but he had a strange puzzled look on his face at the time, you know the kind of look that says,Hmm whats she laughting at?

Hi, don't know which picture you mean there. But as for the many many photoshopped pictures,e.g. there are two of the Everton shirt photo. Imo only one is Maddie and her face has been pasted onto another body. Very badly. Positioning of the head is wrong, blurr on various parts. Imo no way is the other one Maddie. Easiest to see the mistakes is the ice-cream photo. She is licking a lolly and holding an ice cream cone. The arm and hand holding the ice-cream belong to someone older, very badly done, the angle of the left arm is impossible and cut off just below the elbow. Then have a look at the kitchen table/birthday cake photo, I still haven't got to the bottom of that! In an awful lot of photographs Maddie has eyeliner on, perhaps also mascara.
The coloboma was photoshopped into all the photographs - no mystery anymore since they admitted it didn't exist in a recent interview. The iconic photograph has a bleached-out face, some work done on the nose and the coloboma put in. Maddie has very thick bags under her eyes in most pictures and imo there was something 'wrong' with her. Don't be fooled by the videos, a kind lens will do wonders.

by jd 21.12.11 17:37

Here is an example of how easy it is to manipulate photos

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

by Angelique 21.12.11 18:07

jd

Thank you for your reply, may give the 'app' a miss though as not sure after everyones thoughts on it.

However, the pool pic you have posted is just what makes me feel the "tennis ball picture" is exactly the same - her face isn't quite right for the body.

by Ross 23.12.11 15:16

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

For any right-minded person this is a very disturbing image. The obvious question is why would anyone release such a sexualised image of a three year old girl? Even more disturbing is the subtler colouration, what appears to be significant bruising to her right cheek and on the left of her throat. This is more apparent in the below image, where I have adjusted the contrast and exposure:

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

OK a child can fall and bruise her cheek, but her throat? Along with that strange expression it looks like a post mortem picture.

by Guest 23.12.11 15:44

Hi Ross & welcome.

You're right, when you look at your second image you can see a very different shade for her cheek, all around her mouth, her neck and her left eye. It's beginning to look as if the eyeshadow was applied later to mask some bruising. I had originally thought that the eyeshadow had been smudged around her face. It's deeply disturbing.

by Nina 23.12.11 19:02

Hello Ross, pleased to meet you.

The first picture, look at the right hand side of her neck, our left. About two thirds of the way down there looks like a join, the outer line isn't one smooth line, there is a step.

I don't think it is postmortem, I think it is the face of a little three year old who isn't at all happy to be playing in Mummy's make up bag.

The second picture is chilling. Has she been hit by a left handed person, whilst been held by the neck with the right hand.

Sorry it all sounds so blunt but there isn't a nicer way to say some things.

by Ross 23.12.11 19:36

Hello Molly and Nina! My impression of the make-up is that it was added to the image after, it doesn't seem to sit quite right on the face although I could be wrong about that. Regarding the anomaly on the side of her neck Nina, I've zoomed right in to pixel level and can't see a join, but it certainly looks like image manipulation, as though a brush wobbled over. Below is the neck at 500%.

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

In the high contrast image, the mark on the throat really looks like an adult thumbprint, there's no doubt about it.

It still leaves the question: why release it? Why put these disturbing and potentially damning elements into the public arena?

by jd 23.12.11 19:51

It still leaves the question: why release it? Why put these disturbing and potentially damning elements into the public arena?

This is what everyone has been asking......Knowing their real strategy is to make money for the fund via libel means (their main income to it), I can only think this was put out there to trap people into making allegations and then....bang! libel!sue!

by Nina 23.12.11 19:56

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

For any right-minded person this is a very disturbing image. The obvious question is why would anyone release such a sexualised image of a three year old girl? Even more disturbing is the subtler colouration, what appears to be significant bruising to her right cheek and on the left of her throat. This is more apparent in the below image, where I have adjusted the contrast and exposure:

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

OK a child can fall and bruise her cheek, but her throat? Along with that strange expression it looks like a post mortem picture.

The first phot, seen it so many times but only just noticed, the eye shadow would normally be on the outer and upper part of the lid, didn't kate say eventually that a visiting beautician had applied it. So why is it on the inner and lower part of her left eye? Is a bruise being covered here or dark skin through illness or stress?

by Guest 23.12.11 20:09

There's some discussion on the picture here too [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Gillyspot 23.12.11 21:45

I agree with Ross the make up photo has been manipulated.

Firstly her neck has been adjusted (in B & W and enlarged it is clearer)

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

Secondly the area around the left hand side has been blurred or something removed as you can see by this version of the pic.

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

All I have done in manipulating the picture is to display it on auto settings as this makes the changes clearer

Also the Daily Mail stated that this pic was taken after Madeleine had been "messing about" with Kate's make up box AT HOME. That pic is NOT taken at Chez McCann
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]