Re: Photographs and memories

by Look4Maddy 14.03.12 8:33

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

Assuming the settings of the photo the picture was taken on 21st of april 2007 at 3pm.

((Please click on the picture to see it fullsize!!))

by Genbug 14.03.12 8:34

Tigger wrote:

It also explains the highlights and lowlights in her hair at times, this is very expensive to do and I've never seen this on a child that age.

Sorry tigger, I know it seems that I am always disagreeing with you, but I completely disagree with that statement. My grandaughter is just coming up to the age that Madeleine was when she disappeared. Her hair looks like she has had hightlights and lowlights in the most expensive salon ever, there must be 20 different shades in it from pure white to dark blonde streaks, pale gold to dark gold streaks, with the base colour being a pale caramel colour in various shades. Just a few hours in the sun can change her hair completely. I'd love to be able to post a picture of her beautiful hair just to prove this, but I have no idea how to blank out her face.

However...I do agree that some of the photos, the colour of her hair seems strange. In some, like the book cover picture she seems to be almost mousy and a solid block of colour with no highlights. In others, like the football shirt picture she appears to be pure pale blonde with no highlights. I can understand a little childs hair highlighting in the sun, but not to that extent - all over in the same shade. Strangely, one of Kate's friends in an early interview said that Madeleine had "white blonde hair". And yet in the majority of pictures she looks quite mousy. All very odd!

by russiandoll 14.03.12 9:48

I want to comment on chins really, the one in the photo you posted Look4 Maddy. What were you trying to point out , something about the hair and head I guess from the nature of recent comments.
What I did notice after reading Tigger's comment about the Rachel cut [ the nicest her Ms Anistons hair ever was btw imo]....this photo shows a child with a distinct Aniston jawline, maybe cute in a child but very unattractive in an adult imo as the jawline instead of being smooth, is interrupted by a very pointed chin. It might make looking at the photos some don't believe are of the real Madeleine interesting, as this is a really distinctive feature.

by Look4Maddy 14.03.12 10:04

russiandoll wrote:I want to comment on chins really, the one in the photo you posted Look4 Maddy. What were you trying to point out , something about the hair and head I guess from the nature of recent comments.
What I did notice after reading Tigger's comment about the Rachel cut [ the nicest her Ms Anistons hair ever was btw imo]....this photo shows a child with a distinct Aniston jawline, maybe cute in a child but very unattractive in an adult imo as the jawline instead of being smooth, is interrupted by a very pointed chin. It might make looking at the photos some don't believe are of the real Madeleine interesting, as this is a really distinctive feature.

Yes I am sorry, Im just trying to show you, that i can't believe that hair is a wig. It looks way to real. My sister has had a few wigs due to alopecia and you can clearly see it from that point of view, and in that picture it is atleast not a wig, seeing aswell the date and time it was taken, it must be close to their trip to Pria da Luz

by rainbow-fairy 14.03.12 11:11

Look4Maddy, please don't think I'm picking on you but I've asked once before for a link for these photo's. You are stating what date and time these pics were taken. But where is the proof?
I could post a picture of an Ewok and say I photographed it on my lawn this morning. Doesn't make it true.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but without a link how can we verify this???

I'd just like to say, if this IS Maddie, taken a week before PdL, then the alleged last pool pic and 'tennis ball' fall into even more doubt. Doesn't look like the same girl at the same stage to me.

by juliet 14.03.12 11:16

I don't think for a minute Madeleine's hair is a wig. The mystery to me is how her hair grew from the short bob seen in the "Christmas 2006" video, to the long hair in the Everton shirt photos. It is NOT possible for hair to grow so quickly.

BTW, very interested, like russiandoll, in the child photographed on Payne's knee. It is assumed it's the elder Tanner child, but is it? And I feel very sorry for this girl, whoever it is. She's being clutched far too tightly by Payne, and is obviously trying to push his hand and arm away. I wonder why whoever took the photo didn't rescue her.

by Look4Maddy 14.03.12 11:32

rainbow-fairy wrote:Look4Maddy, please don't think I'm picking on you but I've asked once before for a link for these photo's. You are stating what date and time these pics were taken. But where is the proof?
I could post a picture of an Ewok and say I photographed it on my lawn this morning. Doesn't make it true.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but without a link how can we verify this???

I'd just like to say, if this IS Maddie, taken a week before PdL, then the alleged last pool pic and 'tennis ball' fall into even more doubt. Doesn't look like the same girl at the same stage to me.

I have recieved them from a friend of the McCann's themselfs. They cannot be found online. its not all the pictures, just a few. The belle dress one, Everton one, icecream one, and the one were she's posing on her back. And ofcourse the famous reddress picture. :)

by rainbow-fairy 14.03.12 11:44

Look4Maddy wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:Look4Maddy, please don't think I'm picking on you but I've asked once before for a link for these photo's. You are stating what date and time these pics were taken. But where is the proof?
I could post a picture of an Ewok and say I photographed it on my lawn this morning. Doesn't make it true.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but without a link how can we verify this???

I'd just like to say, if this IS Maddie, taken a week before PdL, then the alleged last pool pic and 'tennis ball' fall into even more doubt. Doesn't look like the same girl at the same stage to me.

I have recieved them from a friend of the McCann's themselfs. They cannot be found online. its not all the pictures, just a few. The belle dress one, Everton one, icecream one, and the one were she's posing on her back. And ofcourse the famous reddress picture. :)

So in that case, we have no way of corroborating them. Frankly, if any member of Team McCann told me I was alive, I'd assume the opposite until I'd checked my own pulse.

You say its a friend of the McCanns. Do you yourself know the McCanns? And what is your take on what happened?
Another thing, the photo's you have mentioned certainly don't all look like the same child at all (especially the Everton ones).
Could you please post all these photo's, INCLUDING the dates you have that allege when they were taken.
Thanks for getting back to me.

by worriedmum 14.03.12 22:57

I was interested to read Look4Maddy's contributions on the subject of photos on this thread.

He/she posted a reply to my thread on the 'Make-up' photo. I asked if anyone who had a laptop with a camera in it could tell me whether they thought it possible that this picture could have been taken this way,( to account for the upward angle of the picture.) Look4Maddy, thank you for your (fairly emphatic )reply that you didn't think so. I still think an adult would have to be very low down to capture the face of a child who is only a metre tall, at this angle? Or is Madeleine standing on something?

Does this mean that you actually know more about this photo please, Look4Maddy?

by Look4Maddy 19.03.12 12:23

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

worriedmum wrote:I was interested to read Look4Maddy's contributions on the subject of photos on this thread.

He/she posted a reply to my thread on the 'Make-up' photo. I asked if anyone who had a laptop with a camera in it could tell me whether they thought it possible that this picture could have been taken this way,( to account for the upward angle of the picture.) Look4Maddy, thank you for your (fairly emphatic )reply that you didn't think so. I still think an adult would have to be very low down to capture the face of a child who is only a metre tall, at this angle? Or is Madeleine standing on something?

Does this mean that you actually know more about this photo please, Look4Maddy?

No I am sorry, I don't know more about the pictures; Ofcourse some of the photos i have, do have camera settings on them and date and times. But the makeup picture doesnt. The laptop should have been very very low, i will try out how the laptop should have been with a little girl i babysit, who's nearly 4years now. Seeing what Angle it must have been taken. You can see a thermostate in the background, so i think she could be sitting on someone's lap or on a table. It even looks like it was taken in portugal seeing the background of the picture. I can't remember their house looking like that..

by Guest 19.03.12 13:16

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

Curious that the picture on the left can be seen in the picture on the right, left hand corner.

Sentence deleted no need for such comments

by bristow 19.03.12 13:22

I think she has her right leg tucked under her and is holding her ankle through her dress.

Good observation of the other photo in that pic though!

by Look4Maddy 19.03.12 13:29

Said to be taken on 10-11-2006 at 13:48 (1:48 PM) taken with Kate's Canon PowerShot A620. You can see the picture there because it was displayed like that on FindMadeleine.com for Christmas... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 19.03.12 13:57

Look4Maddy wrote:Said to be taken on 10-11-2006 at 13:48 (1:48 PM) taken with Kate's Canon PowerShot A620. You can see the picture there because it was displayed like that on FindMadeleine.com for Christmas...

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

Two and a half years old then?

Brown hair, not blonde;
Eyes look made up (eyeshadow)
Coloboma full in place.
Walls beneath the eyes also in place.

Does this look like a smiling child?

by ufercoffy 19.03.12 14:04

I can't see that her eyes look made up in this photo.

by russiandoll 19.03.12 15:54

Portia I am lost for words but will say a few anyway.

Yes of course she looks like a smiling child, because she is. How else would you describe her facial expression?
By posting what you did a little earlier you will be getting us a bad reputation and have people laughing at us when they are not commenting on an unhealthy , grotesque preoccupation with sex in this case.
Maddie in the red dress photo looks as if she is handling the hem of her dress, no way does she look as if she is touching her 129s as you so charmingly put it. And your insinuation that she would have been asked to do so is nothing short of sick. I am quite disgusted with you.

by Guest 19.03.12 16:06

russiandoll wrote: Portia I am lost for words but will say a few anyway.

Yes of course she looks like a smiling child, because she is. How else would you describe her facial expression?
By posting what you did a little earlier you will be getting us a bad reputation and have people laughing at us when they are not commenting on an unhealthy , grotesque preoccupation with sex in this case.
Maddie in the red dress photo looks as if she is handling the hem of her dress, no way does she look as if she is touching her 129s as you so charmingly put it. And your insinuation that she would have been asked to do so is nothing short of sick. I am quite disgusted with you.

Thank you for that post russiandoll. Also for bringing that post to my attention, I had not noticed that comment. The postings are getting far too graphic and will not be tolerated.

by Guest 19.03.12 16:07

Portia wrote:
Look4Maddy wrote:Said to be taken on 10-11-2006 at 13:48 (1:48 PM) taken with Kate's Canon PowerShot A620. You can see the picture there because it was displayed like that on FindMadeleine.com for Christmas...

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

Two and a half years old then?

Brown hair, not blonde;
Eyes look made up (eyeshadow)
Coloboma full in place.
Walls beneath the eyes also in place.

Does this look like a smiling child?

Three and a half.. She was nearly four may 2007, this is taken nov 2006..

by **tigger** 19.03.12 18:28

Moa, especially on the full size version, her eyelashes seem to have mascara on them and like in many other photographs, I see a sort of eyeliner -that is - instead of the thickish edge of the eyelid being pink, it's darkened in quite a few photographs.

by Guest 19.03.12 18:56

tigger wrote:Moa, especially on the full size version, her eyelashes seem to have mascara on them and like in many other photographs, I see a sort of eyeliner -that is - instead of the thickish edge of the eyelid being pink, it's darkened in quite a few photographs.

I havent said anything about her eyelashes, wasn't my quote, I just pointed out she was three and a half in nov 2006, not two and a half.

But I agree that her eyelashes looks very dark, and I see what you mean about eyeliner beeing used.. On the other hand, some children has very dark eyelashes, and also the angel makes them look even darker.. If she has makeup on or not on this particular photo I really dont see it having any relevance to this case.. As I see it this picture looks normal, and she looks happy, nothing wrong with it even if she has mascara on.. On the other hand, the other makeup photo, with blue eye shadow, does not look like a normal photo or like a happy girl.. If she was so happy that day playing with mumys makeup, im sure they would have taken a lot more photos of her then just the one we are shown.. And when we see the one they made public, I wonder what shows on the other ones..Im sure there must be more than one picture taken in that setting.. If I do a photo I usually take a few when first started, and to make sure atleast one turnes out good..

by **tigger** 19.03.12 19:08

Moa wrote:
tigger wrote:Moa, especially on the full size version, her eyelashes seem to have mascara on them and like in many other photographs, I see a sort of eyeliner -that is - instead of the thickish edge of the eyelid being pink, it's darkened in quite a few photographs.

I havent said anything about her eyelashes, wasn't my quote, I just pointed out she was three and a half in nov 2006, not two and a half.

But I agree that her eyelashes looks very dark, and I see what you mean about eyeliner beeing used.. On the other hand, some children has very dark eyelashes, and also the angel makes them look even darker.. If she has makeup on or not on this particular photo I really dont see it having any relevance to this case.. As I see it this picture looks normal, and she looks happy, nothing wrong with it even if she has mascara on.. On the other hand, the other makeup photo, with blue eye shadow, does not look like a normal photo or like a happy girl.. If she was so happy that day playing with mumys makeup, im sure they would have taken a lot more photos of her then just the one we are shown.. And when we see the one they made public, I wonder what shows on the other ones..Im sure there must be more than one picture taken in that setting.. If I do a photo I usually take a few when first started, and to make sure atleast one turnes out good..

Sorry Moa, it wasn't a criticism - e.g. in the swimming pool photos, the double ice-cream photo and lots of others, definitely mascara and possibly liner. So I pointed this one out because I think it's the same thing again.

by Guest 19.03.12 20:09

tigger wrote:
Moa wrote:
tigger wrote:Moa, especially on the full size version, her eyelashes seem to have mascara on them and like in many other photographs, I see a sort of eyeliner -that is - instead of the thickish edge of the eyelid being pink, it's darkened in quite a few photographs.

I havent said anything about her eyelashes, wasn't my quote, I just pointed out she was three and a half in nov 2006, not two and a half.

But I agree that her eyelashes looks very dark, and I see what you mean about eyeliner beeing used.. On the other hand, some children has very dark eyelashes, and also the angel makes them look even darker.. If she has makeup on or not on this particular photo I really dont see it having any relevance to this case.. As I see it this picture looks normal, and she looks happy, nothing wrong with it even if she has mascara on.. On the other hand, the other makeup photo, with blue eye shadow, does not look like a normal photo or like a happy girl.. If she was so happy that day playing with mumys makeup, im sure they would have taken a lot more photos of her then just the one we are shown.. And when we see the one they made public, I wonder what shows on the other ones..Im sure there must be more than one picture taken in that setting.. If I do a photo I usually take a few when first started, and to make sure atleast one turnes out good..

Sorry Moa, it wasn't a criticism - e.g. in the swimming pool photos, the double ice-cream photo and lots of others, definitely mascara and possibly liner. So I pointed this one out because I think it's the same thing again.

I didnt take it as criticism, I just read it wrong :) But yes I do see your point..Is there any photos where we can clearly see she is not wearing mascare , to compare with those you mention above ?

by bristow 19.03.12 20:59

My daughter used to have very blonde hair and thick long black lashes that made her look like she was wearing mascara and eyeliner, people always commented.

Now she is nearly 20 her hair has darkened considerably but she still has the dark lashes, so I do think that we have to be careful about thinking Madeleine has makeup on, apart from the obvious blue eyeshadow photograph, which is very creepy.

by Ribisl 19.03.12 22:59

On the other hand, the other makeup photo, with blue eye shadow, does not look like a normal photo or like a happy girl.. If she was so happy that day playing with mumys makeup, im sure they would have taken a lot more photos of her then just the one we are shown.. And when we see the one they made public, I wonder what shows on the other ones..Im sure there must be more than one picture taken in that setting.. If I do a photo I usually take a few when first started, and to make sure atleast one turnes out good..

Moa - I think that's a very good point. It is curious that there is only one picture of her published from that day when she's made up and presumably dressed up too judging by the golden beads you can see around her neck. Why just take one photo of her in such an unnatural position?

Tigger - sorry I keep disagreeing with you but I personally don't see any make-up on M in the red dress. Blonds can look much darker in certain light and I think her smile is totally genuine.

by **tigger** 20.03.12 5:48

Ribisl wrote:
On the other hand, the other makeup photo, with blue eye shadow, does not look like a normal photo or like a happy girl.. If she was so happy that day playing with mumys makeup, im sure they would have taken a lot more photos of her then just the one we are shown.. And when we see the one they made public, I wonder what shows on the other ones..Im sure there must be more than one picture taken in that setting.. If I do a photo I usually take a few when first started, and to make sure atleast one turnes out good..

Moa - I think that's a very good point. It is curious that there is only one picture of her published from that day when she's made up and presumably dressed up too judging by the golden beads you can see around her neck. Why just take one photo of her in such an unnatural position?

Tigger - sorry I keep disagreeing with you but I personally don't see any make-up on M in the red dress. Blonds can look much darker in certain light and I think her smile is totally genuine.

Why be sorry to disagree? That's what we're here for, discussion and different opinions. It's just that a woman is more likely to spot such things than a man I think. Compare those eyelashes with the one where she looks down and has that multi coloured hair, it's on Look4Maddy's topic photographs all on the same day.
The eyelashes there are twice as thick and black as the ones in this red dress. In a lot of other snaps they are too 'spiky' to be natural and that dark line around her eyes is very easy to see in the ice-cream photo.
Yes - you are right, her smile is genuine there, see how much more natural it is than all those more adult 'closed smiles?'