Re: Photographs and memories

by Snifferdog 13.05.12 21:27

Nina wrote:
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.

Hi Nina and Truthwillout
Yes Nina I see what you mean, it is a heart rending photo. I see where you are coming from.
I am new here too Truthwillout. In fact I have never been part of a forum before. Still feeling my way around! Some of the photo shopping not very well done but technology has improved so much over the last few years. Too bad for the mccs though but lucky for us!

by TheTruthWillOut 13.05.12 21:41

Welcome Truthwillout. Gave me scare for a minute with your user name..........Thought I was going mad! big grin

Some of the photos do look dodgy to me but as I'm not a expert I can't be sure, with one exception..........."The last photo"

The reflection in Gerry's sunglasses is impossible IMO. I have Google imaged "Sunglasses reflection photography" and can't find another example of the ~78 degree rotation as seen in Gerry's shades.

by Snifferdog 13.05.12 21:51

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Welcome Truthwillout. Gave me scare for a minute with your user name..........Thought I was going mad! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Some of the photos do look dodgy to me but as I'm not a expert I can't be sure, with one exception..........."The last photo"

The reflection in Gerry's sunglasses is impossible IMO. I have Google imaged "Sunglasses reflection photography" and can't find another example of the ~78 degree rotation as seen in Gerry's shades.
Oops sorry The Truthwillout my mistake, tis Snifferdog here. I forgot to put the "the" in front..... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by TheTruthWillOut 13.05.12 21:57

No apology needed Snifferdog! you were right.

My user name is "TheTruthWillOut" and the new poster is "Truthwillout". I blame Shakespeare. big grin

by Snifferdog 13.05.12 22:13

TheTruthWillOut wrote:No apology needed Snifferdog! you were right.

My user name is "TheTruthWillOut" and the new poster is "Truthwillout". I blame Shakespeare. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Oops now I get it a bit slow today, almost comatose after a very lazy weekend....These photo shopped photos have given me an idea that may or may not lead somewhere, just got to find the article in question to back it up...I shall have to learn to post a link first.... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by TheTruthWillOut 13.05.12 22:28

Snifferdog wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:No apology needed Snifferdog! you were right.

My user name is "TheTruthWillOut" and the new poster is "Truthwillout". I blame Shakespeare. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Oops now I get it a bit slow today, almost comatose after a very lazy weekend....These photo shopped photos have given me an idea that may or may not lead somewhere, just got to find the article in question to back it up...I shall have to learn to post a link first.... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Don't worry about it Snifferdog lol4

I thought for a minute I had been hacked!

To link a website do the following:

1, Open website in new tab
2, Right click mouse in the address bar and left click copy
3, Select the tab for this forum and start a new post as normal and then right click mouse and left click paste in the white text box

Hope that helps!

by Snifferdog 13.05.12 22:57

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:No apology needed Snifferdog! you were right.

My user name is "TheTruthWillOut" and the new poster is "Truthwillout". I blame Shakespeare. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Oops now I get it a bit slow today, almost comatose after a very lazy weekend....These photo shopped photos have given me an idea that may or may not lead somewhere, just got to find the article in question to back it up...I shall have to learn to post a link first.... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Don't worry about it Snifferdog [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I thought for a minute I had been hacked!

To link a website do the following:

1, Open website in new tab
2, Right click mouse in the address bar and left click copy
3, Select the tab for this forum and start a new post as normal and then right click mouse and left click paste in the white text box

Hope that helps!

Ah many thanks TheTruthWillOut going to give it a try. This forum is forcing me to learn....I have had a computer phobia for some time after somehow wiping off windows some time back when trying unsuccessfully to remove a virus...my children will never let me forget it heh [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]heh I have been looking at the pics of Madeleine and have definitely seen a resemblance between Robert Murats daughter and Madeleine. Was working till the wee hours doing a manual correction drawing from Madeleines photo and explanations with it but looks like I will not be able to post it as I did not realize I shall not be able to. I will just have to rely on a verbal description with posted pics. Pity as the drawing would be self explanatory.

by Guest 28.05.12 17:52

This picture is from the vid where M is dressed as snowhite I think.
Who is this boy? It do not look like sean and looks to small to be her cousin Greg.. Is this from the Mccanns house? Looks like Kate in the kitchen a little further in the same vid. ( photo taken from the australien vid on the topic with the same name "australien vid)

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

by **Nina** 28.05.12 17:57

Moa wrote:This picture is from the vid where M is dressed as snowhite I think.
Who is this boy? It do not look like sean and looks to small to be her cousin Greg.. Is this from the Mccanns house? Looks like Kate in the kitchen a little further in the same vid. ( photo taken from the australien vid on the topic with the same name "australien vid)

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

This looks like a community centre with all the small tables. It might be the nursery Madeleine went to and he is just another pupil.
I have not seen this video as yet.

by Hummingbird 28.05.12 18:11

Nina wrote:
Moa wrote:This picture is from the vid where M is dressed as snowhite I think.
Who is this boy? It do not look like sean and looks to small to be her cousin Greg.. Is this from the Mccanns house? Looks like Kate in the kitchen a little further in the same vid. ( photo taken from the australien vid on the topic with the same name "australien vid)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This looks like a community centre with all the small tables. It might be the nursery Madeleine went to and he is just another pupil.
I have not seen this video as yet.

yes you beat me to that one I have just watched it again and it does look like a nursery or centre, round tables, grey backed childrens chairs and also a sink over in the corner where the boy is standing, or looks like a sink to me!

by Guest 28.05.12 19:13

Looks like some kind of center. If nursery center is the same as a kindergarden thing, a place where children are looked after, I dont think this is at a nursery. Look at the top right in this pictures, there are two tables seen with only adults around it, atleast two on each table. And to the left you see the white trouser on a woman I assumed was Kate.

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

All this is snapshots taken from the vid I mentioned earlier on this topic. Better to look at the vid to see it more clear.

by jd 30.05.12 0:52

These 2 photos are said to be of Maddie in PDL and on the cameras. The 'girl' in the photo is totally different and never the same one. Her body is so much fuller on the beach photo and most interestingly the hair is a lot shorter

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

This poolside photo was never the last photo as the hair is much longer than on the beach (unless she is wearing a wig). It is impossible to grow from the length on the beach photo to the one by the pool in just a few days

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

by friedtomatoes 30.05.12 1:01

jd that first photo is not from pdl in 2007,it was taken on an earlier holiday in the uk, guernsey iirc, but dont quote me, and madeleine was just two or so

by jd 30.05.12 1:06

I am sure I have seen it on their cameras from 2007, will have a search for it

by friedtomatoes 30.05.12 2:33

jd wrote:I am sure I have seen it on their cameras from 2007, will have a search for it

good luck, its clear to see that first photo is of a v young toddler not a near four year old
jesus is that the time? offskis

by jd 30.05.12 2:55

I think it was a greyscale photo

by Guest 30.05.12 10:11

jd wrote:I think it was a greyscale photo

I think you are wrong on this one JD...

by Guest 30.05.12 13:47

The top photo has been discussed before and, judging by the paunch very common in young toddlers, Madeleine must have been no more than two. The length of her hair also rules out that it could have been taken in 2007. I've never heard anything claiming that it was.

by rainbow-fairy 30.05.12 14:22

Jean wrote:The top photo has been discussed before and, judging by the paunch very common in young toddlers, Madeleine must have been no more than two. The length of her hair also rules out that it could have been taken in 2007. I've never heard anything claiming that it was.

You know what Jean there have been so many photo's 'purporting' to be Maddie I don't even have a clear idea what she looked like ~ unfortunately 'eye shadow' sticks in my head for ALL the wrong reasons Sad

by friedtomatoes 30.05.12 19:26

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Jean wrote:The top photo has been discussed before and, judging by the paunch very common in young toddlers, Madeleine must have been no more than two. The length of her hair also rules out that it could have been taken in 2007. I've never heard anything claiming that it was.
You know what Jean there have been so many photo's 'purporting' to be Maddie I don't even have a clear idea what she looked like ~ unfortunately 'eye shadow' sticks in my head for ALL the wrong reasons

which photo(s) purporting to be madeleine do you think are not her? There was one photo of her in a halloween costume which didnt seem like her but apart from that you can see the connections in all photos

by jd 30.05.12 19:34

Jean wrote:The top photo has been discussed before and, judging by the paunch very common in young toddlers, Madeleine must have been no more than two. The length of her hair also rules out that it could have been taken in 2007. I've never heard anything claiming that it was.

Clearly I must be wrong about the beach photo, but I don't know why I have it in my mind that I have seen the greyscale version before last year, this photo just triggers my memory for some reason. I'll find what it is!

In all the other 2006 photos Maddie has long hair anyway and not this short. But then Maddie looks so different in most of the photos and I never know what she actually looked liked. Tennis girl/poolside is another one of not the same girl

by scotclogs 30.05.12 20:11

ufercoffy wrote:It makes me feel that many things were 'in place' before Madeleine went missing.

It makes me feel that the fate of Madeleine was arranged.

It makes me feel that a whitewash is inevitable.

Yes ufercoffy I am with you 100%, I have thought that for a long time

by Guest 03.06.12 16:56

This picuter are taken the same evening of the room.

At one picture you see the bag inside the cabin on the other you dont, on one picture the right side door is closed and the left open, but there is no bag or ? Is the bag removed at this point already, OR is it just a very small bag? Cant be big if only covering half the cabin. Not even big enough for tennis rackets..Almost like a big toiletbag/map..

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

by russiandoll 03.06.12 17:20

scotclogs wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:It makes me feel that many things were 'in place' before Madeleine went missing.

It makes me feel that the fate of Madeleine was arranged.

It makes me feel that a whitewash is inevitable.

Yes ufercoffy I am with you 100%, I have thought that for a long time

It might have been arranged, but what would be the motive for our government and authorities to make sure that was never discovered?

by friedtomatoes 03.06.12 17:45

Moa the first picture of the wardrobe was taken between 1 and 4am 4th May. The second one showing it empty was taken about 3.30pm 4th May when forensics came in

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

I guess the Mccanns took what was in the wardrobe when they went to the Paynes in early hours but hadnt moved out totally?

by jd 03.06.12 18:00

Its looks half empty at 1am as does the apartment. I suspect they had already moved a lot of stuff out prior to 10pm May 3rd

by Badboys 03.06.12 19:20

russiandoll wrote:
scotclogs wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:It makes me feel that many things were 'in place' before Madeleine went missing.

It makes me feel that the fate of Madeleine was arranged.

It makes me feel that a whitewash is inevitable.

Yes ufercoffy I am with you 100%, I have thought that for a long time

It might have been arranged, but what would be the motive for our government and authorities to make sure that was never discovered?

Perhaps there was something going on

by Genbug 03.06.12 19:31

Badboys wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
scotclogs wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:It makes me feel that many things were 'in place' before Madeleine went missing.

It makes me feel that the fate of Madeleine was arranged.

It makes me feel that a whitewash is inevitable.

Yes ufercoffy I am with you 100%, I have thought that for a long time

It might have been arranged, but what would be the motive for our government and authorities to make sure that was never discovered?

Perhaps there was something going on

Agree Badboys, I think there was something much more going on there that week than just a bunch of people on holiday.

by jd 04.06.12 1:42

There is something which at governmental level they need to keep quiet and covered up. Why else would they get involved, certainly not because of 2 NHS doctors. At that time gordon brown had far more important things to worry about taking over as prime minister which was his lifetime ambition...so why are 2 NHS doctors he didn't know (in public) and their neglect such an important issue? I have always had the feeling that the mccanns were a problem they could do without...and why gerry mccann was always so smug

-------

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

Latest topics