multiple copies of banner in previous post.

by FH 07.05.12 23:33

I have no idea how multiple copies of the whole banner ended up in my post. I cut and pasted the test about bumped her head and rescuscitation. I must have accidentally cut and pasted the whole banner multiple times. It didn't show up in preview. Apologies all.

by FH 07.05.12 23:41

JD, sorry I haven't really had time to trawl through the official files and I don't really know enough about how hard anyone looked for her DNA. Did they find multiple hits for everyone else and none for her? That would be a bit odd. I thought the blood found at the same point as the cadaver odour had a high % match to her DNA, but wasn't a complete match so they couldn't rule out it being from a sibling. If she was never there, whose cadaver odour was all over the place, or do you think she was never there alive?

by FH 07.05.12 23:50

Being of scottish origin we have a few gingers in the family. As well as my husband , my cousin is ginger. His has only gone brown (not not grey yet) in the last 10 years and he's nearly 70, his daughter on the other hand had bright red - almost copper coloured hair in her teens, but was brown by her mid 20's. I can think of a couple of other ginger haired people who have also turned brown over time. NB I'm not syaing Gerry doesn't dye his hair, but I know from family members that it is possible for it to change over time.

by jd 08.05.12 0:13

Personally ginger or whatever is irrelevant at this point to me, though there is pictures of gerry of having ginger hair but I don't see this having any baring on this scam. They found no DNA of Maddie in PDL, from a girl who had been there all week and all over the place isn't this odd? even more so the father had to go back to the UK to get some. The match was 15 out of 19 and the FSS soon closed down after this. With the dogs Eddie and Keela who are under contract to the FBI and earning £550 plus expenses per day with a 100% success rate in over 200 cases, they found only cadaver and blood on items exclusively only to the mccanns, nobody else but the mccanns. Ignore this at your perile, dogs do not lie and and are trained to do one thing. Of course the mccanns and their cronies are dismissing the dogs except when it comes to suit them in the car park in last weeks press ridicules. You should watch Hi De Ho's video of how these dogs find bodies, cavader and blood, trained to find a body 200 feet under ground and ignoring meat in the exact spot within acres of land. Humans would never have found this body in a million years but the dogs took them straight to it, if you understand a dogs nose and sense of smell this will help understand why they have this skill

One thing tot remember is that the mccanns will always dismiss anything that will prove their story a scam, and like with everything else it is only 'their words' and never from evidence or facts. In 5 whole years there is not one single shred of evidence of an abduction

From all the available evidence I think Maddie died on April 30th/May 1st

by rainbow-fairy 08.05.12 1:31

jd wrote:Personally ginger or whatever is irrelevant at this point to me, though there is pictures of gerry of having ginger hair but I don't see this having any baring on this scam. They found no DNA of Maddie in PDL, from a girl who had been there all week and all over the place isn't this odd? even more so the father had to go back to the UK to get some. The match was 15 out of 19 and the FSS soon closed down after this. With the dogs Eddie and Keela who are under contract to the FBI and earning £550 plus expenses per day with a 100% success rate in over 200 cases, they found only cadaver and blood on items exclusively only to the mccanns, nobody else but the mccanns. Ignore this at your perile, dogs do not lie and and are trained to do one thing. Of course the mccanns and their cronies are dismissing the dogs except when it comes to suit them in the car park in last weeks press ridicules. You should watch Hi De Ho's video of how these dogs find bodies, cadaver and blood, trained to find a body 200 feet under ground and ignoring meat in the exact spot within acres of land. Humans would never have found this body in a million years but the dogs took them straight to it, if you understand a dogs nose and sense of smell this will help understand why they have this skill

One thing tot remember is that the mccanns will always dismiss anything that will prove their story a scam, and like with everything else it is only 'their words' and never from evidence or facts. In 5 whole years there is not one single shred of evidence of an abduction

From all the available evidence I think Maddie died on April 30th/May 1st

Completely totally agree jd Wink

by **tigger** 08.05.12 6:50

This topic got derailed several pages ago - started on photographs and went on to DNA and hair colour.
Long posts tend to do that if they cover several topics, it's hard to keep track.

One last point about the blessed hair colour. It is simply of interest because of the psychological aspect, it is unusual for a young man to do this, except when they are in the public eye. How they present themselves is relevant to the case imo.

Imo too, some of the posed photographs of Maddie are in very questionable taste. E.g. if you read some more, you'll find that the blue eyeshadow photo was taken 'after Maddie had raided Kate's make-up box'. Clearly not true, a toddler is not capable of doing it so perfectly.
If you take the trouble to check the double ice cream photo, it is the most obvious of the photoshopped images.
So it's only common sense not to take anything presented by TM as the gospel truth.

Re the book: there is not a single photograph of Maddie on holiday in PdL in the book.

by FH 09.05.12 0:40

tigger wrote: [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
This topic got derailed several pages ago - started on photographs and went on to DNA and hair colour.
Long posts tend to do that if they cover several topics, it's hard to keep track.

One last point about the blessed hair colour. It is simply of interest because of the psychological aspect, it is unusual for a young man to do this, except when they are in the public eye. How they present themselves is relevant to the case imo.

Imo too, some of the posed photographs of Maddie are in very questionable taste. E.g. if you read some more, you'll find that the blue eyeshadow photo was taken 'after Maddie had raided Kate's make-up box'. Clearly not true, a toddler is not capable of doing it so perfectly.
If you take the trouble to check the double ice cream photo, it is the most obvious of the photoshopped images.
So it's only common sense not to take anything presented by TM as the gospel truth.

Re the book: there is not a single photograph of Maddie on holiday in PdL in the book.

While I quite agree that nothing in this case can, or should be taken at face value and I agree that there are some seriously photoshopped images. I have no idea why they have been photoshopped, only the person who photoshopped them knows why. Why do I question things like Gerry "dyes his hair" and "a toddler is not capable of applying makeup so perfectly". Probably because I don't think any of us should make such cut and dried statements. To me the make up doesn't look that well applied - it looks like there is blue eye shadow down one cheek. Plus none of us knew Madeleine and none of us knows what she was capable of and I have known incredibly artistic children who could colour within the lines at 2 and apply make up fairly neatly at 3. Both things I still struggle with. All I'm saying is we don't know who put the make up on Madeleine and although we think it unlikely, we don't know she didn't do it herself and even if someone else did it, it is not abnormal to let your toddler play dress up. Especially when mummy likes to dress up and look nice and boy does Mummy like to dress up and look nice -even when her firstborn is missing. I question those photo's more than the one's of Madeleine. Who, having just had their child "abducted" colour co-ordinates, accessorises and does their hair? Who stands and jokes and laughs a few days after their baby is gone? Those are the photos that make me go WTF.

I would love to read the book, but I refuse to pay money into that fund and I've only found snippets online. Do you know if there is a full transcript anywhere? I do check the charity stores occasionally, but I haven't found a copy yet. WRT no photos of M in the book, I do problem resolution for a living, so the questions I would ask are. What photos of PDL are in the book? What photos of PDL were on the cameras. Were there lots of photos of everyone except Madeleine, or were no photos of anyone in PDL. Is she conspicuous by her absence, or were they so busy having an adult only holiday they didn't take photos of the children?

by FH 09.05.12 1:05

jd wrote:Personally ginger or whatever is irrelevant at this point to me, though there is pictures of gerry of having ginger hair but I don't see this having any baring on this scam. They found no DNA of Maddie in PDL, from a girl who had been there all week and all over the place isn't this odd? even more so the father had to go back to the UK to get some. The match was 15 out of 19 and the FSS soon closed down after this. With the dogs Eddie and Keela who are under contract to the FBI and earning £550 plus expenses per day with a 100% success rate in over 200 cases, they found only cadaver and blood on items exclusively only to the mccanns, nobody else but the mccanns. Ignore this at your perile, dogs do not lie and and are trained to do one thing. Of course the mccanns and their cronies are dismissing the dogs except when it comes to suit them in the car park in last weeks press ridicules. You should watch Hi De Ho's video of how these dogs find bodies, cavader and blood, trained to find a body 200 feet under ground and ignoring meat in the exact spot within acres of land. Humans would never have found this body in a million years but the dogs took them straight to it, if you understand a dogs nose and sense of smell this will help understand why they have this skill

One thing tot remember is that the mccanns will always dismiss anything that will prove their story a scam, and like with everything else it is only 'their words' and never from evidence or facts. In 5 whole years there is not one single shred of evidence of an abduction

From all the available evidence I think Maddie died on April 30th/May 1st

I totally agree. The dogs are the clincher for me. I have 3 springers. They don't lie. They certainly don't give false positives. If they can't find something, they can't find it simple as that. They don't pretend they found it just to please me. I was just a little confused as to what you thought happened. You seem to indicate that the lack of Madeleine's DNA/photos was significant and I wondered if you were in the camp that thought she was never there in the first place. When you say they didn't find her DNA - are you referring to forensic tests SOCO's, or is it TM couldn't provide DNA. I would have thought her parents would have had something with her DNA on it, hair brush, tissues, drinking straw ... If it is SOCO's I don't know if it is odd that they didn't find any DNA in the apartment (apart from the blood that was a close match) , I haven't read through the forensic evidence. I don't know how hard they looked, what they swabbed, or if they found anyone's DNA, or everyone's DNA apart from Madeleine's. There is no benchmark to measure the lack of DNA against, i.e. whose DNA can we see, whose DNA can't we see that we would expect to see. Was there a clean up that removed her DNA?

I think, if it was her crying on the night of the 1st , then whatever happened , happened sometime shortly after this. Perhaps the crying was because she fell and hurt herself, or perhaps just a little something was administered to help her sleep and it all went horribly wrong.

by Guest 09.05.12 7:56

FH - In the book there are no PDL pictures, and there are twice as many pictures of K and G then there is of Madeleine in the book..

by Guest 09.05.12 11:08

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

by Snifferdog 11.05.12 21:56

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but it looks to me as though Madeleine had been crying in the blue eye shadow pic, which would cause the blue smears on her right cheek. Exactly where tears would course down, next to the fuller cheek pads alongside her nose. I think she is sitting on someones knee and the bright blue area to the right is the shoulder of the person whose lap she is sitting on (see crease on blue shirt). I know this photo has been the topic of much discussion but she looks unusually pale and her eyes look strange to me too - expressionless that is. One has to ask oneself why they published this photograph.

by **tigger** 12.05.12 7:32

Snifferdog wrote:Don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but it looks to me as though Madeleine had been crying in the blue eye shadow pic, which would cause the blue smears on her right cheek. Exactly where tears would course down, next to the fuller cheek pads alongside her nose. I think she is sitting on someones knee and the bright blue area to the right is the shoulder of the person whose lap she is sitting on (see crease on blue shirt). I know this photo has been the topic of much discussion but she looks unusually pale and her eyes look strange to me too - expressionless that is. One has to ask oneself why they published this photograph.

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

On page two of this is a version of the photograph that enlarges to full screen. You'll find you're right.
However, the t-shirt behind her, I'm sure I've once seen more of it. The walls looks very much like the Burgau and in the icecream photo the blue is almost certainly a plastic chair.
Another poster commented on her very large right pupil but it's really both pupils, you can just se the rim of the left pupil. She looks drugged to me.

by **Nina** 12.05.12 8:25

tigger wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:Don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but it looks to me as though Madeleine had been crying in the blue eye shadow pic, which would cause the blue smears on her right cheek. Exactly where tears would course down, next to the fuller cheek pads alongside her nose. I think she is sitting on someones knee and the bright blue area to the right is the shoulder of the person whose lap she is sitting on (see crease on blue shirt). I know this photo has been the topic of much discussion but she looks unusually pale and her eyes look strange to me too - expressionless that is. One has to ask oneself why they published this photograph.

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

On page two of this is a version of the photograph that enlarges to full screen. You'll find you're right.
However, the t-shirt behind her, I'm sure I've once seen more of it. The walls looks very much like the Burgau and in the icecream photo the blue is almost certainly a plastic chair.
Another poster commented on her very large right pupil but it's really both pupils, you can just se the rim of the left pupil. She looks drugged to me.

The very first time that I saw this photograph you could see a necklace around Madeleine's neck and a ribbon in her hair. I have not seen that full picture since.
There is not a hint of a personality in this wee face.

by rainbow-fairy 12.05.12 8:36

tigger wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:Don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but it looks to me as though Madeleine had been crying in the blue eye shadow pic, which would cause the blue smears on her right cheek. Exactly where tears would course down, next to the fuller cheek pads alongside her nose. I think she is sitting on someones knee and the bright blue area to the right is the shoulder of the person whose lap she is sitting on (see crease on blue shirt). I know this photo has been the topic of much discussion but she looks unusually pale and her eyes look strange to me too - expressionless that is. One has to ask oneself why they published this photograph.

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

On page two of this is a version of the photograph that enlarges to full screen. You'll find you're right.
However, the t-shirt behind her, I'm sure I've once seen more of it. The walls looks very much like the Burgau and in the icecream photo the blue is almost certainly a plastic chair.
Another poster commented on her very large right pupil but it's really both pupils, you can just se the rim of the left pupil. She looks drugged to me.

I hope this doesn't sound pernickety, because I agree with what you've written tigger, BUT the poster that commented on the large pupil mentioned Maddie's left pupil. It would be on the right as you look at the photo, though!
The poster's assertion was that the pupil looks 'blown' indicative of a brain injury, also consistent with the 'if she had accidentally got bumped on the head' and 'plenty of doctors who could resuscitate a child' statements...

by **tigger** 12.05.12 8:53

rainbow-fairy wrote:
tigger wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:Don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but it looks to me as though Madeleine had been crying in the blue eye shadow pic, which would cause the blue smears on her right cheek. Exactly where tears would course down, next to the fuller cheek pads alongside her nose. I think she is sitting on someones knee and the bright blue area to the right is the shoulder of the person whose lap she is sitting on (see crease on blue shirt). I know this photo has been the topic of much discussion but she looks unusually pale and her eyes look strange to me too - expressionless that is. One has to ask oneself why they published this photograph.

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

On page two of this is a version of the photograph that enlarges to full screen. You'll find you're right.
However, the t-shirt behind her, I'm sure I've once seen more of it. The walls looks very much like the Burgau and in the icecream photo the blue is almost certainly a plastic chair.
Another poster commented on her very large right pupil but it's really both pupils, you can just se the rim of the left pupil. She looks drugged to me.
I hope this doesn't sound pernickety, because I agree with what you've written tigger, BUT the poster that commented on the large pupil mentioned Maddie's left pupil. It would be on the right as you look at the photo, though!
The poster's assertion was that the pupil looks 'blown' indicative of a brain injury, also consistent with the 'if she had accidentally got bumped on the head' and 'plenty of doctors who could resuscitate a child' statements...

You're right, I just PM'd FH because I couldn't remember which topic he'd mentioned it.
But if you blow up the photograph - you will see it's both pupils. As it happens (or on purpose) the light spot in the right pupil makes it look like the coloboma and a much smaller pupil. But you can trace the dark line of the pupil nearly all the way round and so both pupils are of equal size.
The other poster in the Burgau topic who suggested it was make up from a children's kit - much better excuse than Maddie rummaging in Kate's make up box. Shame she didn't think of that one. Too late now.

by rainbow-fairy 12.05.12 9:30

tigger wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
tigger wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:Don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but it looks to me as though Madeleine had been crying in the blue eye shadow pic, which would cause the blue smears on her right cheek. Exactly where tears would course down, next to the fuller cheek pads alongside her nose. I think she is sitting on someones knee and the bright blue area to the right is the shoulder of the person whose lap she is sitting on (see crease on blue shirt). I know this photo has been the topic of much discussion but she looks unusually pale and her eyes look strange to me too - expressionless that is. One has to ask oneself why they published this photograph.

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

On page two of this is a version of the photograph that enlarges to full screen. You'll find you're right.
However, the t-shirt behind her, I'm sure I've once seen more of it. The walls looks very much like the Burgau and in the icecream photo the blue is almost certainly a plastic chair.
Another poster commented on her very large right pupil but it's really both pupils, you can just se the rim of the left pupil. She looks drugged to me.
I hope this doesn't sound pernickety, because I agree with what you've written tigger, BUT the poster that commented on the large pupil mentioned Maddie's left pupil. It would be on the right as you look at the photo, though!
The poster's assertion was that the pupil looks 'blown' indicative of a brain injury, also consistent with the 'if she had accidentally got bumped on the head' and 'plenty of doctors who could resuscitate a child' statements...
You're right, I just PM'd FH because I couldn't remember which topic he'd mentioned it.
But if you blow up the photograph - you will see it's both pupils. As it happens (or on purpose) the light spot in the right pupil makes it look like the coloboma and a much smaller pupil. But you can trace the dark line of the pupil nearly all the way round and so both pupils are of equal size.
The other poster in the Burgau topic who suggested it was make up from a children's kit - much better excuse than Maddie rummaging in Kate's make up box. Shame she didn't think of that one. Too late now.

Unfortunately I am on blackberry so my screen resolution is too c**p to see anything really of note when zoomed in BUT next time I go to parents I'll go mainline and have a look...

Re the make-up excuse - a three year old shouldn't be rummaging in make-up bags anyway - the contents could be toxic in large amounts!
As for the kiddie make-up kits, hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em... Plenty of time for that as a teenager. I wasn't even really allowed make-up at sixteen! (Dad would look disgusted - wipe that muck off your face kinda thing)

by Snifferdog 12.05.12 10:10

Yes I have looked at the photo now Tigger and agree that the pupils look the same size. The only other reasons for such large pupils would be if the photo were taken in the dark or if Madeleine was very myopic (short-sighted) and needed spectacles.

BTW I am a Snifferdawg who is a keen budding novelist and am currently thinking up a story along the lines of; a family of five who are in financial trouble. They hatch a plan to go on holiday with a powerful group who have certain unspeakable habits. They plan to farm out one of their children, the least loved one, (not sure here, maybe someone can help me with the storyline?) mmmmm lets see they either plan the demise, no I think it was not meant to go so far, but secret photos are taken and then later used to blackmail these powerful people into doing their will. Thereby making lots and lots of dosh. No scrap it, don't think I could ever write a story like that. It's just too disgusting.

by FH 12.05.12 10:52

Snifferdog wrote:Yes I have looked at the photo now Tigger and agree that the pupils look the same size. The only other reasons for such large pupils would be if the photo were taken in the dark or if Madeleine was very myopic (short-sighted) and needed spectacles.

BTW I am a Snifferdawg who is a keen budding novelist and am currently thinking up a story along the lines of; a family of five who are in financial trouble. They hatch a plan to go on holiday with a powerful group who have certain unspeakable habits. They plan to farm out one of their children, the least loved one, (not sure here, maybe someone can help me with the storyline?) mmmmm lets see they either plan the demise, no I think it was not meant to go so far, but secret photos are taken and then later used to blackmail these powerful people into doing their will. Thereby making lots and lots of dosh. No scrap it, don't think I could ever write a story like that. It's just too disgusting.

I'm sure with a few tweaks it could be a top seller - even turned into a long running play - might beat the mousetrap. The public do love a good work of fiction of the detective/mystery genre.

I think I may have another explanation for the angle in the eyeshadow photo. My first thought was that she might have taken it herself looking down at the camera. i have many photos of mine taken from interesting angle for just that reason. However, having looked at the Bergau thread, there is a picture of a balcony with a blue chair that looks very like the background in the eyeshadow picture. It looks to me as if the balcony is above ground level. If the photo was indeed taken at bergau then perhaps someone standing in the garden took the photo up through the railings and that's why it is at a strange angle.

by Snifferdog 12.05.12 11:04

Hi FH

That is a good possibility, I wonder how far apart the railings are, otherwise one would have to be standing quite close by for them not to show up. How about a hidden camera somewhere below Madeleine? She is not looking into the camera which is why I doubt it is a self photo done on a computer.

by FH 12.05.12 11:47

Snifferdog wrote:Hi FH

That is a good possibility, I wonder how far apart the railings are, otherwise one would have to be standing quite close by for them not to show up. How about a hidden camera somewhere below Madeleine? She is not looking into the camera which is why I doubt it is a self photo done on a computer.

Someone mentioned that the original photo was bigger - they could see more of her. I don't know if there were obvious railings in that photo.

by **tigger** 12.05.12 11:56

FH wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:Hi FH

That is a good possibility, I wonder how far apart the railings are, otherwise one would have to be standing quite close by for them not to show up. How about a hidden camera somewhere below Madeleine? She is not looking into the camera which is why I doubt it is a self photo done on a computer.

Someone mentioned that the original photo was bigger - they could see more of her. I don't know if there were obvious railings in that photo.

Forgot to say: there is a lot of distortion on this picture, her forehead is very elongated, so the bottom half of the picture should be also distorted. So cropped?

by Snifferdog 12.05.12 13:13

Yes that is true FH. Not sure what would have caused the distortion. Do you mean because of possible photoshopping done to the forehead area? I woefully ignorant re photoshopping and specialized photography only owning a 'mik en druk' point and shoot kind of camera. I do know that cameras do distort by mostly exaggerating the size of what is closest to the camera.

by Ross 12.05.12 13:47

I think it is worth reminding ourselves here that Photoshop is a commercially available, indeed ubiquitous piece of software. A characteristic of this whole affair has been help coming from 'within' i.e. intelligence resources, and you can be sure that they will have far more sophisticated non-commercially available image manipulation software.

A digital image is actually no more than a very big number! Each pixel (and there could be millions of them) has three values (anywhere between 0 and 255 for 8-bit images) for the red, green and blue component. Any one of those numbers can be altered to anything else, and this is how Photoshop et al work, but these changes are detectable. However with more complex and sophisticated algorithms and plenty of processing power these changes could theoretically be impossible to detect. An image of anything could be changed to an image of anything else and there would be no way of knowing.

by **tigger** 12.05.12 14:17

Snifferdog wrote:Yes that is true FH. Not sure what would have caused the distortion. Do you mean because of possible photoshopping done to the forehead area? I woefully ignorant re photoshopping and specialized photography only owning a 'mik en druk' point and shoot kind of camera. I do know that cameras do distort by mostly exaggerating the size of what is closest to the camera.

No, Snifferdog, I was just talking about distortion of the lens. Some lenses have more distortion, such as mobile phones and webcams.
Then most digital cameras have fairly basic lenses. But distortion should be seen all around the image. The camera does lie, depending on the lens.
As Ross said above, photoshopping can be done very professionally, but in this case, most of the manipulated pictures of Maddie are fairly amateur. E.g. where there is blurring to be seen is because the pixel size of the 'correction' is out of sync with the original. The only solution would be to enlarge it and do it pixel by pixel.
If you look at some 9/11 film, the 'blue sky' method is used there- in the case of Obama's birth certificate - one suggestion was that it was the office boy down the corridor who'd done it.
That's what amazes me about this case, it's so 'in your face' that it's instantly detectable, the lies, the videos and the photographs and yet - here they are, teflon coating courtesy of ???

by Ross 12.05.12 14:56

tigger wrote:That's what amazes me about this case, it's so 'in your face' that it's instantly detectable, the lies, the videos and the photographs and yet - here they are, teflon coating courtesy of ???

This is what's done isn't it tigg? There are levels it seems. The 'some of the people all of the time' level will just swallow any old rubbish, if someone 'on the telly' says it it is accepted unquestioningly. Even when it is, as you say, right 'in your face'. But by making it obvious they know that there will be a level of the audience will see that it is fakery, and as far as I can tell this is done deliberately. They want a certain percentage to know. As to why this is case, well that's a whole story in itself.

by Snifferdog 12.05.12 16:41

tigger wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:Yes that is true FH. Not sure what would have caused the distortion. Do you mean because of possible photoshopping done to the forehead area? I woefully ignorant re photoshopping and specialized photography only owning a 'mik en druk' point and shoot kind of camera. I do know that cameras do distort by mostly exaggerating the size of what is closest to the camera.

No, Snifferdog, I was just talking about distortion of the lens. Some lenses have more distortion, such as mobile phones and webcams.
Then most digital cameras have fairly basic lenses. But distortion should be seen all around the image. The camera does lie, depending on the lens.
As Ross said above, photoshopping can be done very professionally, but in this case, most of the manipulated pictures of Maddie are fairly amateur. E.g. where there is blurring to be seen is because the pixel size of the 'correction' is out of sync with the original. The only solution would be to enlarge it and do it pixel by pixel.
If you look at some 9/11 film, the 'blue sky' method is used there- in the case of Obama's birth certificate - one suggestion was that it was the office boy down the corridor who'd done it.
That's what amazes me about this case, it's so 'in your face' that it's instantly detectable, the lies, the videos and the photographs and yet - here they are, teflon coating courtesy of ???

Ok Tigger I see. I wonder kind of lens could have produced it. Unfortunately cannot experiment myself to try and find out. I wonder if a hidden camera would have this effect, being very tiny but needing to be very powerful at the same time to ensure a really good photograph of everyone snapped in it plus good enough when blown up and trimmed?

by **Nina** 12.05.12 16:58

I just wonder why a photograph from a strange angle of a miserable phased out small child wearing makeup and necklace was taken in the first place.

by Snifferdog 12.05.12 17:03

Nina wrote:I just wonder why a photograph from a strange angle of a miserable phased out small child wearing makeup and necklace was taken in the first place.

To be used as blackmail perhaps? We do not know what and who has possibly been cropped out of this photo. Published perhaps as a reminder to targeted individual(s)?

by **Nina** 12.05.12 17:20

Snifferdog wrote:
Nina wrote:I just wonder why a photograph from a strange angle of a miserable phased out small child wearing makeup and necklace was taken in the first place.
To be used as blackmail perhaps? We do not know what and who has possibly been cropped out of this photo. Published perhaps as a reminder to targeted individual(s)?

Hi Snifferdog, that photograph grieves me it reminds me of theNSPCC advert for donations where a child is stood in a cot and crying. Pictures of innocents that are heart rending.

by Truthwillout 13.05.12 20:41

Wow, I've just managed to read the whole thread, lots of theories.

This is my first post, so please be gentle big grin

Going back to the photo's being photoshopped, we've got the photoshop program on our PC & i persuaded my hubby to 'shop' some images of my 2 daughters, just swapping the heads/faces over etc, in a few seconds It's very easy to manipulate a picture, so that a normal (untrained eye) wouldn't notice, although because i knew what had been changed i could quite clearly see the problems. On the other hand my brother in law Is a graphic designer working with the program everyday, he did the same with the photo's of my daughters & it's near on impossible to tell that the photo's have been messed with. Also within another design programme he uses (not sure of the name)you can also take all layers of the picture back, so in theory you should end up with what the original picture looked like, i've asked him if he can try & do that with a few of the suspect Madeleine pics, although i'm not sure if you may need the original pic to do this, anyhow he'll let me know.
So to cut a long story a bit shorter i've emailed him the suspect pics of Madeleine just to get his point of view, as although i think i can see that the images have been tampered with in the back of my mind i'm thinking that maybe i'm only seeing this because of what i've read (if that makes any sense!)