Re: Photographs and memories

by Daisy 05.01.12 14:09

jd wrote:But there isn't just one sickening photo, there are 3 of them so I don't buy the grandma was deceived story. Its another reactive statement to defend themselves like they always do

That's exactly what I'm getting at JD. What "private family photograph" can be more distasteful and damaging than those 3 shots? I agree, I think they're trying to distance themselves from the blame of releasing those photos by saying Eileen McCann was decieved. They are also muddying the waters again by not saying which photo in particular offended them so much that it had to be mentioned at the Leveson Inquiry. They surely can't be referring to any of these 3 photos because they happily used them in their video appeal.

by Tinkerbell81 07.01.12 11:58

Taken this over here from another thread (sorry for going offtopic on that one)

candyfloss wrote:Already asked and answered here tinkerbell,

Moa wrote:
tumbleweed wrote:Sorry
for going off topic, but have to ask. Moa is that Madeleine in your
icon picture? I've never seen that one! Can you tell me where you got
it? I've been trying to gather all of the pictures of her for facial
comparison, etc.

yes it is her, you can find it on gerrymccannsblog / pamalam site I think..[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Look at her teeth, Maddie has small gaps and a slightly larger on her right side, this girl has a gap in front and no other gaps, so IMO she cant be Maddie!

by Guest 07.01.12 12:04

Tinkerbell, this is also on the "Could something have hapened to Madeleine earlier in the week?" topic. I have doubts that this photo is of Madeleine too.

by Guest 07.01.12 14:37

Tinkerbell81 wrote:Taken this over here from another thread (sorry for going offtopic on that one)

candyfloss wrote:Already asked and answered here tinkerbell,

Moa wrote:
tumbleweed wrote:Sorry
for going off topic, but have to ask. Moa is that Madeleine in your
icon picture? I've never seen that one! Can you tell me where you got
it? I've been trying to gather all of the pictures of her for facial
comparison, etc.

yes it is her, you can find it on gerrymccannsblog / pamalam site I think..[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Look at her teeth, Maddie has small gaps and a slightly larger on her right side, this girl has a gap in front and no other gaps, so IMO she cant be Maddie!

Yes ! I noticed that too !! Her teeth are very different ,perfect on this picture and very different from the book picture. And she was too Young to have started to lose her first teeths.. But according to the parents the kids shared one tooth brush so who knows how good the teeths were..

by finch 07.01.12 14:51

This picture could be of a very young Kate. There is another one somewhere of her with a black hat on. I'll see if I can find it.

by aiyoyo 07.01.12 15:16

Actually I must be the only odd one out.
I don't believe any of the officially released photos was photoshopped.
Too risky and stupid if they did that, and no reason to do that, since there is no relevance to the investigation.

The only Photo I question is the last photo of Maddie by the Pool.
Personally I don't think that is doctored either, but not taken on the 3rd, may have been taken on day of arrival, judging from the clothing.
That had to be produced, and claimed to be taken on the 3rd to influence investigation.

The only reason to lie is to influence the investigation .
Since the rest of the later released photos would do nothing to influence the investigation why photoshop?
They didn't even have to release it if they didn't want to - simple as. Why released photoshopped photos and complicate matters when the release is not mandatory.

It does not make logical sense. hence my belief none of them was photoshopped. Bad taste release - yes, most definitely.

.

by **tigger** 07.01.12 17:12

Well, Alyoyo, I have to disagree, the Everton photo: that is so badly done that it is very easy to see when you blow it up. There's a pixel blur on the elbow and next to the face, a ghostline along the arm and the very obvious position of the head which cannot possibly rest on the neck like that. The same mistake is visible in the Donegal rock photo. It's actually quite tricky to do - a lot of students when drawing the nude, position the head or neck wrongly. If you blow the Everton photo up, the head seems almost to float.
Then there is the glaring mistake in the ice cream photo where the left arm holding the ice cream is at an impossible angle to the elbow and in fact clearly cut off.

There are quite a lot more and in many innocent looking photos she is wearing make up. We women can tell you know. Mostly mascara I think. Eyelashes and eyebrows tend to have the same colour, a toddler with blondish hair and pale eyebrows is highly unlikely to have such very black eyelashes.

by Guest 07.01.12 17:21

I do understand Aiyoyo when you ask why the McCanns would issue suspect photos, particularly ones that have no relevance to the holiday - but then there's very little rhyme or reason to anything that they do.

by jd 07.01.12 17:42

I know, they release pictures of her younger at the time when she is older

by **tigger** 07.01.12 17:51

Jean wrote:I do understand Aiyoyo when you ask why the McCanns would issue suspect photos, particularly ones that have no relevance to the holiday - but then there's very little rhyme or reason to anything that they do.

They are arrogant. That's all. It is the way it is because they say so.

by Tinkerbell81 08.01.12 12:40

aiyoyo wrote:Actually I must be the only odd one out.
I don't believe any of the officially released photos was photoshopped.
Too risky and stupid if they did that, and no reason to do that, since there is no relevance to the investigation.

The only reason to lie is to influence the investigation .
Since the rest of the later released photos would do nothing to influence the investigation why photoshop?

To create confusion about what Maddie really looked like, to be able to keep sightings going while at the same time keeping her in the news?

by jd 08.01.12 12:55

Well spotted from Nina clapping1

...the 'blue' on the balcony from the gerry's happy days video taken less than a week after Maddie disappeared, does look to be the same blue from the makeup photo and Burgau. I too have never seen this blue for chairs before except for in this location

Btw just look at gerrys face, does he look like a father whose daughter had been abducted only 3/4 days previous?

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

by Pershing36 08.01.12 13:01

Weird, especially when virtually every picture of her always looks like an entirely different child. I these were not taken in the same week it would suggest to me they had been to that resort before.

by **Jill Havern** 08.01.12 13:02

jd wrote:Btw just look at gerrys face, does he look like a father whose daughter had been abducted only 3/4 days previous?

Especially abducted by a paedophile as they want us to believe bigshock

by Tinkerbell81 08.01.12 13:05

Im going to ~~(waste my time?)~~ look around if the colour is maybe commonly used in Portugal? If its for example a colour regularly used there we could safely say 'its taken in Portugal' but not necessarily there in Burgau. Im keeping options open, and just trying to avoid tunnel vision... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by jd 08.01.12 13:08

Btw the picture of gerry laughing was taken from the apartment upstairs to 5A in OC, which they moved into after May 3rd. I think it could have been the Paynes old apartment which I read a few times but am not 100% sure. It was Portuguese Tv that captured this

by Guest 08.01.12 13:10

jd wrote:Btw the picture of gerry laughing was taken from the apartment upstairs to 5A in OC, which they moved into after May 3rd. I think it could have been the Paynes old apartment which I read a few times but am not 100% sure. It was Portuguese Tv that captured this

The McCann's moved to block 4, apartment G4G afterwards. Not upstairs in block 5.

by aiyoyo 08.01.12 13:18

Tinkerbell81 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Actually I must be the only odd one out.
I don't believe any of the officially released photos was photoshopped.
Too risky and stupid if they did that, and no reason to do that, since there is no relevance to the investigation.

The only reason to lie is to influence the investigation .
Since the rest of the later released photos would do nothing to influence the investigation why photoshop?

To create confusion about what Maddie really looked like, to be able to keep sightings going while at the same time keeping her in the news?

I understand why they release them. At least I believe I do. It is to show that Maddie had happy and fun time and they're one big normal happy family. Or even to create confusion or whatever be the reason, however
I was saying I dont believe they were photoshopped. Why bother to release something they need to photoshop first? Surely there are plenty others to choose from the family albums? To what purpose that serves? The release may be for a purpose, but the photoshop serves what purpose?

To make her looks older, younger, or wearing make up, or enjoying ice cream, generally having fun or whatever, ok so be it - but what is the significant of photoshopped photos to the investigation or to engage the public in their search? None whatsoever, imo.

I cant see a bunch of educated people doing something such as silly as photoshop photos that has no bearing on anything else.
Ok , so maybe it's just me who cant see the significance. I accept that.

by Guest 08.01.12 13:23

jd wrote:Well spotted from Nina ...the 'blue' on the balcony from the gerry's happy days video taken less than a week after Maddie disappeared, does look to be the same blue from the makeup photo and Burgau. I too have never seen this blue for chairs before except for in this location

Btw just look at gerrys face, does he look like a father whose daughter had been abducted only 3/4 days previous?

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

But im very sure the blue is a tshirt on makeup picture not a chair.I do feel that it is not taken in England.

by Pershing36 08.01.12 13:28

If it is a T-shirt then it could be somebody standing behind and slightly to the left of her.

by **Jill Havern** 08.01.12 13:32

Moa wrote:But im very sure the blue is a tshirt on makeup picture not a chair.I do feel that it is not taken in England.

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

I thought it was a tshirt too....Gerry does wear a lot of blue tshirts.

He looks high on something in this photo.

by Guest 08.01.12 14:00

Pershing36 wrote:If it is a T-shirt then it could be somebody standing behind and slightly to the left of her.

I think someone sits behind her..that person is maybe "helping" tilting her head back...

by Guest 08.01.12 14:03

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
Moa wrote:But im very sure the blue is a tshirt on makeup picture not a chair.I do feel that it is not taken in England.

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

I thought it was a tshirt too....Gerry does wear a lot of blue tshirts.

He looks high on something in this photo.

Sure Looks high on something..

Is it true that gerry were involved in a pedhoring in 2002 ? (sorry for going ot )

by **tigger** 08.01.12 14:15

Pershing36 wrote:Weird, especially when virtually every picture of her always looks like an entirely different child. I these were not taken in the same week it would suggest to me they had been to that resort before.

That's what I think is the simplest solution. In the pool photo she looks about 3 to 3 and a bit, which would be right for a late holiday in 2006.
Could be that Amelie is photoshopped in that one because she is the one missing part of her upper arm and her age is about right for 2007.

Many pictures are of a different child. Don't forget that most people don't realise we see with our brains. We see a collection of shapes and the brain fills it in for us. What you see isn't 'scanned' pixel by pixel every time you look at something.
A short list of 'not Maddies':
The girl with the frizzed hair (smile is all wrong)
The girl with the sunglasses on top of her head
The very blond girl in the Everton shirt (the other one has Maddie's head pasted on)
Smiles are very individual, so the shape of the mouth when smiling is quite a giveaway. It's because you use the same muscles always, don't suddenly decide to activate other muscles for a smile.

by Pershing36 08.01.12 14:26

How are we too know which one is the real one?

by **tigger** 08.01.12 15:50

Each new photo released will have a price tag for copyright, I think this was the case right from the beginning. TM had some very astute marketing pros onside, so to speak.
I don't know what they'd charge for a video?

by juliet 08.01.12 17:01

Some of the photos, notably the skirting board and bath ones, are marked Paul Grover, as if he has the copyright.

He says he got them from Grandma McCann's album, with permission.

It's hard to believe the McCanns would let Paul Grover make any money out of pictures, when it could be theirs...so why do they let him have his name on them?

by anil39200 08.01.12 17:11

aiyoyo wrote:
Tinkerbell81 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Actually I must be the only odd one out.
I don't believe any of the officially released photos was photoshopped.
Too risky and stupid if they did that, and no reason to do that, since there is no relevance to the investigation.

The only reason to lie is to influence the investigation .
Since the rest of the later released photos would do nothing to influence the investigation why photoshop?

To create confusion about what Maddie really looked like, to be able to keep sightings going while at the same time keeping her in the news?

I understand why they release them. At least I believe I do. It is to show that Maddie had happy and fun time and they're one big normal happy family. Or even to create confusion or whatever be the reason, however
I was saying I dont believe they were photoshopped. Why bother to release something they need to photoshop first? Surely there are plenty others to choose from the family albums? To what purpose that serves? The release may be for a purpose, but the photoshop serves what purpose?

To make her looks older, younger, or wearing make up, or enjoying ice cream, generally having fun or whatever, ok so be it - but what is the significant of photoshopped photos to the investigation or to engage the public in their search? None whatsoever, imo.

I cant see a bunch of educated people doing something such as silly as photoshop photos that has no bearing on anything else.
Ok , so maybe it's just me who cant see the significance. I accept that.

We shouldn't mistake intelligence as gained through medical degrees with common sense and deviance from normal behaviour. Unfortunately, intelligence can also mean cunning and slyness. which seem to be in quite large measure in this situation the participants find themselves in1

by jd 08.01.12 17:14

tigger wrote:Each new photo released will have a price tag for copyright, I think this was the case right from the beginning. TM had some very astute marketing pros onside, so to speak.
I don't know what they'd charge for a video?

Are you saying that they got paid for every photo they released? That they are making money on photos of their daughter, this can't be true. It will be utterly sick if it was

by anil39200 08.01.12 17:21

jd wrote:
tigger wrote:Each new photo released will have a price tag for copyright, I think this was the case right from the beginning. TM had some very astute marketing pros onside, so to speak.
I don't know what they'd charge for a video?

Are you saying that they got paid for every photo they released? That they are making money on photos of their daughter, this can't be true. It will be utterly sick if it was

every opportunity is a good marketing ploy