Photographs and memories

Gillyspot wrote: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.]

gillyspot

Just had a thought - maybe Kate said Madeleine was "messing about with the make-up whatever" to cover the fact that it appears the blue eye shadow has been smudged onto her cheek (which is acceptable of a child was messing about - though doesn't explain the later "beautician story") when in fact this is covering up a suggestion of a bruise. But that still doesn't explain why they wanted to publish this photo. Other than the fact that there are so few photos of Madeleine attributed to the holiday.

ETA Also there is the fact that they are not adverse to changing the story which can be covered if anyone questions it because they have already said there is so much information out there who knows what is fact and what isn't. Confusion is good. They can always deny they said something that appears in the papers.

Which begs the question where was the pic taken if not chez mccanns?

So was she messing about her mum's make up during the holiday?

According to the article it says that was taken a week before their holiday, but the background certainly isn't chez mccanns because their Rothley's house exterior is bricks covered.

The background (the wall and blue chair and white table) coincidentally is similar to a hol apt in Brugau owned by Murat's uncle I believe if I read correctly. How odd!

No, I don't think it was Murat's uncle, unless I have missed something. I thought it was an apartment owned by a Cardiff couple, Peter and Margaret ..........can't remember the surname. Should do - used to know them, vaguely.

Quote Angelique:



Just had a thought - maybe Kate said Madeleine was "messing about with the make-up whatever" to cover the fact that it appears the blue eye shadow has been smudged onto her cheek (which is acceptable of a child was messing about - though doesn't explain the later "beautician story") when in fact this is covering up a suggestion of a bruise. But that still doesn't explain why they wanted to publish this photo. Other than the fact that there are so few photos of Madeleine attributed to the holiday. quote

This was 2007, blue eyeshadow had been out for many years, I'm thinking back to the 80's! Blue eyeshadow is however, rather tarty, rather 'Essex'. Nothing will persuade me that Kate had that shade in her make-up box.
Someone else analyzed that photograph ages ago and came up with two large bruises on her neck. The angle is curious, I'd have to experiment with another child and see if I could get that angle , either from above or below. As you can see, the forehead has been very elongated. If this is normal lens distortion, I'd expect to see it on all the edges, so could this have been cropped below the chin?

Gillyspot wrote: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.]

Wherever this photo was taken, there's no getting away from the fact that it's just bizarre on all levels.
Firstly the angle: the only "fun" scenario I can think of that would account for the angle is if she were sitting on an adult's shoulders. But then the blue in the corner, whether it be someone's shoulder or a piece of garden furniture, would surely not be visible if this were the case. So the person taking the photo must be crouched on the ground beneath her, which is odd.
There's no way the make up could have been applied by Madeline herself. i think someone else pointed out on this thread that little girls will head straight for lipstick first and apply it none too expertly. With 3 daughters of my own, I can vouch for this. Mine would raid my make up bag and come out looking something like The Joker! No, that make up has been applied by an adult. Her hair also looks like it has been styled as it looks much neater than we see in other photos. So were the adults dressing her up and parading her for their own amusement? She certainly doesn't look like she's having fun.
If the make up has been photoshopped - why? If to cover bruises - why would they even photograph her with bruises? Surely thsy can't be THAT sick?! There's something off about the position of her ears too, especially her right, on our left.

We know that there is a reason for everything that the McCanns say - I think Kate is quoted somewhere as saying as much. I'm sorry, I can't remember where but I think it was when she was talking of the early days, learninng to deal with the media - so it's fair to assume that every photo they release is for a reason too. So what on earth are they trying to convey with this photo? It surely wouldn't help anyone to identify her as she looks so different to other photos. The mind boggles.

As an aside, I noticed in the Daily Mail link, Gerry up to his usual B.S.ing when talking about what the twins know:

Mr McCann said: ‘Sean talks all the time about finding Maddie and what he will do to the person who stole her.

‘They know they went to sleep and when they woke up she had disappeared. But they still don’t understand that somebody took her.

This obviously doesn't make sense as Gerry totally contradicts himself but if we take his first statement at face value and suppose they're brainwashing the twins and this is really how Sean feels, can you imagine the anger the little boy will be carrying about with him and what will happen if he ever comes to realise that his parents were involved?

You beat me to it Zora ann.....her right ear looks upside down, if you look closely at the inner ear area. They are very low set also suggesting a real tilting back of the head.
It's the eyes I find most disturbing. She looks sedated. And not happy in the slightest, in fact her face to me conveys an impression of nothing, expressionless, a truly disturbing photograph on many levels.

Yes, it's extremely disturbing. I've often wondered if their use of sedation was for more sinister reasons than ensuring they'd sleep. It doesn't bear thinking about.

I'm totally puzzled by the ears. They just don't seem to fit. Was her head tilted further back in the original photo? Was someone propping her head up from behind? I just don't understand why they'd have to manipulate a photo for release anyway. Since they appear to have had plenty photos and considering how much she apparently enjoyed being photographed, according to her mother, they must have had plenty of others which would have been far more suitable.

I don't think we'll ever have the answer to this particular mystery. Poor Madeleine

I stumbled over this picture saying it is Madeleine, Amelie and Sean.. is it amelie? (down left corner)

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

I expect this has been asked before: do we know that it was the McCanns who released this photo to PA (Press Association)? Could it have been somebody else?
If the McCanns, then it confirms that they are totally immoral and sick That should surprise nobody.
But if someone else? As part of the same game? Or to blackmail the McCanns?

Moa wrote:I stumbled over this picture saying it is Madeleine, Amelie and Sean.. is it amelie? (down left corner)

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

Moa, I have seen that photo before (bottom left) and it definitely isn't Madeleine or Amelie. I think it is some poor innocent allowed by her parents to do a sponsored walk or something similar to raise funds to "look for Madeleine".

zora-ann wrote:
Mr McCann said: ‘Sean talks all the time about finding Maddie and what he will do to the person who stole her.

‘They know they went to sleep and when they woke up she had disappeared. But they still don’t understand that somebody took her.

This again is forensic lingo.
2-year old do not know "they went to sleep and woke up" to find their sister gone.

All they know is Maddie is no longer around. At that age, they wont associate it to anything whether it be their waking or sleeping state, or why and when she disappeared.
They are too young to process that in their mind as to the why and where forth and so on.
They are simple minded at that age. All they know is Maddie is no longer there. I dont think they understand disappeared or taken.

So is Gerry saying they "put" the twins to sleep and that much is clear to him.

aiyoyo wrote:

zora-ann wrote:
Mr McCann said: ‘Sean talks all the time about finding Maddie and what he will do to the person who stole her.

‘They know they went to sleep and when they woke up she had disappeared. But they still don’t understand that somebody took her.

This again is forensic lingo.
2-year old do not know "they went to sleep and woke up" to find their sister gone.

All they know is Maddie is no longer around. At that age, they wont associate it to anything whether it be their waking or sleeping state, or why and when she disappeared.
They are too young to process that in their mind as to the why and where forth and so on.
They are simple minded at that age. All they know is Maddie is no longer there. I dont think they understand disappeared or taken.

So is Gerry saying they "put" the twins to sleep and that much is clear to him.

Very early on, during an interview, Kate was asked if the twins missed Maddie. She answered that they never had much to do with her. I will try to find that quote, posted some three or four months ago.

kikoraton wrote:I expect this has been asked before: do we know that it was the McCanns who released this photo to PA (Press Association)? Could it have been somebody else?
If the McCanns, then it confirms that they are totally immoral and sick That should surprise nobody.
But if someone else? As part of the same game? Or to blackmail the McCanns?

I thought I read somewhere the mccanns defended their action over that photo release so inclined to believe it was them who had released it. If it wasnt them why didnt they object to it? Who could have got hold of that photo from their family album?

All three unsettling photos were included in the 3rd anniversary video issued by the McCanns.

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

russiandoll wrote:You beat me to it Zora ann.....her right ear looks upside down, if you look closely at the inner ear area. They are very low set also suggesting a real tilting back of the head.
It's the eyes I find most disturbing. She looks sedated. And not happy in the slightest, in fact her face to me conveys an impression of nothing, expressionless, a truly disturbing photograph on many levels.

I agree RussianDoll about her eyes, they are without spirit, not the eyes of a little girl playing in Mum's make up bag. Please also look at her lips. Thin and dry, those lips are not a happy three year olds lips imo.

Nina wrote:

russiandoll wrote:You beat me to it Zora ann.....her right ear looks upside down, if you look closely at the inner ear area. They are very low set also suggesting a real tilting back of the head.
It's the eyes I find most disturbing. She looks sedated. And not happy in the slightest, in fact her face to me conveys an impression of nothing, expressionless, a truly disturbing photograph on many levels.

I agree RussianDoll about her eyes, they are without spirit, not the eyes of a little girl playing in Mum's make up bag. Please also look at her lips. Thin and dry, those lips are not a happy three year olds lips imo.

Even without the makeup the picture would be disturbing because of the look in her eyes..

Im 99 % sure the blue behind her is from a mans tshirt, as I once saw the whole picture where you can easily se that it is someone behind her. Could it be possible that that person are tilting her head back by grabing her by the hair or neck from behind? The pose is just so un natural, but if someone is sitting behind her tiliting it backwards the pose would look like that I think..

With the make up removed.....

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

Moa wrote: Im 99 % sure the blue behind her is from a mans tshirt, as I once saw the whole picture where you can easily se that it is someone behind her. Could it be possible that that person are tilting her head back by grabing her by the hair or neck from behind? The pose is just so un natural, but if someone is sitting behind her tiliting it backwards the pose would look like that I think..

I think you are right, it is a mans blue tshirt behind her

jd wrote:

Moa wrote: Im 99 % sure the blue behind her is from a mans tshirt, as I once saw the whole picture where you can easily se that it is someone behind her. Could it be possible that that person are tilting her head back by grabing her by the hair or neck from behind? The pose is just so un natural, but if someone is sitting behind her tiliting it backwards the pose would look like that I think..

I think you are right, it is a mans blue tshirt behind her

It's often good to be proved wrong as I am now. I'd completely forgotten that I saw a lengthy thread on this somewhere over a year ago. There was indeed a suggestion of a t-shirt and therefore of an adult behind her, possibly pulling her head back. Even so, the photographer needed to be almost lying down to get this angle, otherwise you'd not see the neck like this from above.
Actually, that just makes it worse, two adults participating. It must have cropped mostly below, judging by the distortion of the forehead. Close quarters 28 mm? something like that.

tigger wrote:

jd wrote:

Moa wrote: Im 99 % sure the blue behind her is from a mans tshirt, as I once saw the whole picture where you can easily se that it is someone behind her. Could it be possible that that person are tilting her head back by grabing her by the hair or neck from behind? The pose is just so un natural, but if someone is sitting behind her tiliting it backwards the pose would look like that I think..

I think you are right, it is a mans blue tshirt behind her

It's often good to be proved wrong as I am now. I'd completely forgotten that I saw a lengthy thread on this somewhere over a year ago. There was indeed a suggestion of a t-shirt and therefore of an adult behind her, possibly pulling her head back. Even so, the photographer needed to be almost lying down to get this angle, otherwise you'd not see the neck like this from above.
Actually, that just makes it worse, two adults participating. It must have cropped mostly below, judging by the distortion of the forehead. Close quarters 28 mm? something like that.

I was waiting for a reply from you Tigger .. And im glad you remember reading about it beeing a tshirt. I tried to fint the whole picture and cant find it anywhere, Im almost sure I saw it on the pamalam site that sadly shut down resently...
Can everybody help look out for the whole makeup picture ? Im so very sure that it shows no doubt it is a man sitting there. I remember I was surprised by that at the time I saw it..

And yes someone had to be lying down or sit on their knees in front of her .. Very strange thing.. And two adults involved in taking that picture.. And if it is also taken at the balcony in bergeu.. I shiver by the thoughts of what really happened there..
I do not understand why they relised that picture at all.. What where they thinking ? Desperatly needing attention maybe...

Marian wrote:All three unsettling photos were included in the 3rd anniversary video issued by the McCanns.

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

Looks like a lot of comments have been removed from under that clip. The last two make no sense.

Watching the video with the pictures of Madeleine, I became curious about the 'location' shot at 0.28.

When compiling videos, particularly short ones, every 'visual' needs to have some significance.

Why use up precious video time with a random shot of the countryside...Is it possible it holds some significance? (I have used it in one of my videos just in case!) [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I wonder if the countryside photo is somewhere along the Vascão river region? Though under the sign Luz sign this looks to be the same area

It looks to me that a lot of the footage in this video was from the day trip to Huelva in August 2007

I cannot describe the sick way those 3 photos are edited together and the panning around Maddie on her back. Why are they doing this

jd wrote:I wonder if the countryside photo is somewhere along the Vascão river region? Though under the sign Luz sign this looks to be the same area

It looks to me that a lot of the footage in this video was from the day trip to Huelva in August 2007

I cannot describe the sick way those 3 photos are edited together and the panning around Maddie on her back. Why are they doing this

JD [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] would please post the shot for anyone like me who cannot access videos?

Nina, the three photos are the same as those in the top left hand side of the portal page - excluding the one in the pool and the one in the red dress.

I agree with JD that the panning effect is horrible - it's more appropriate for images of glamour models.