Re: What was so special about Burgau?

by Angelique 11.11.13 13:04

sami wrote:
Angelique wrote:
sami wrote:
I hesitate at the two fingers up to the public and the publication of that photograph. It is an horrible image, no taking away from that. I do not think even the McCanns would publish it without good reason. I lean more towards it being a warning to another party. That I would not put past them, they will do anything to save their own skin.

I think tiny tears had a wee crush on Sandra, poor Sandra. She gets under his skin, yet he is almost flirtatious at times, until she gets difficult. How hurtful and unhelpful.

Do SY not have a difficulty with the white stuff, now Portugal is back in the investigation picture or am I being too innocent? Did Portugl get a delivery of white paint also ?
Yes - sorry was not agreeing to the two fingers (not my style actually) just that the McCanns are untouchable and they know it. He may well have been attracted to Sandra but he is such a strange character he still wanted to put her down.
Sorry, no I was not having a go at you, what I was saying was I don't think they are putting two fingers up by publishing it. I just worded it badly, no need for you to apologise, they put more than two fingers up every day

I find Gerrys attitude to women creepy. He is very full of himself but domineering to women. The shy, retiring type, hanging on his every word suits him well. Any female with an opinion or displaying doubt towards him is put down, in a barely controlled almost aggressive manner. Jane Tanner and the way he spoke to her in the mockumentary is an example. We see flashes of it in public, I dread to think of him behind closed doors.

No, sorry, I didn't think you were roses

for you. I just read your remark and realised that bit was in the post. smilie

by Mirage 11.11.13 18:21

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

I know there are heated debates on the 'Last Photo' thread about photo-shopping which I have no expertise in at all, so don't shoot me down. I just want an opinion on the above photo because, to me, the attitude of MM is suggestive of someone lying down. Yet the background looks sound and suggests that is not the case. It's bugged me for a long time.

I will bow to greater expertise, naturally. Thanks.

by Guest 11.11.13 19:56

I know there are heated debates on the 'Last Photo' thread about photo-shopping which I have no expertise in at all, so don't shoot me down. I just want an opinion on the above photo because, to me, the attitude of MM is suggestive of someone lying down. Yet the background looks sound and suggests that is not the case. It's bugged me for a long time. wrote:
I will bow to greater expertise, naturally. Thanks.

Freaky, isn't it. Like a lot of the photos it has been cropped to remove nearly all of the background. Somebody mentioned a larger version - does it exist?

It's not so much M's position that would be weird, but the juxtaposition of her and the taker. I think the McCann's should actually be required to further explain the circumstances behind this photo, and hopefully one day they will be.

I have another question about the "ice cream and lollypop" photo - is there a "larger" (ie. uncropped) version of that too? Why do people assume she is wearing a dress? It looks more like a strappy vest type top to me. Without access to, ahem, the bigger picture, who can say what she is wearing on the lower half of her body?

I find discussing these photos difficult as it takes me to places I don't really want to go. Just knowing that they will inevitably have been locally cached gives me the heebie jeebies as it is.

by kimHager 02.03.14 2:55

Has anyone noticed not just the ice cream photo but a few look like her left arm was photo shopped so... Did she have something wrong or a birth defect on her left arm or hand? The fingers look strange.... Had to be something there and Kate mentioned a sunburn on her arm in one post but it could have possibly looked like Kate's bruised arm?? I wonder....
And the eye shadow pic and the neck bruises... Looks like facial ones too which makes me wonder if they might have been put there AFTER her disappearance or possibly after death because the blue to her right could be an arm... Her head looks odd to me like it was being held up.... Idk most police say it's creepy or disturbing and that's just how it looks to me... All my opinion

by canada12 02.03.14 4:53

Here's another copy of the photo:

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

If you save it to your computer and increase the size, you can see something pink-looking near the top left of the picture, in Madeleine's hair. Is it a hair-thingy? Or are those someone's fingers?

I never looked at the picture that closely before... but suggesting that someone could be holding her head up made me wonder. Is that someone's hand behind her head, holding it up?

by kimHager 02.03.14 5:43

I don't know canada12 but for some reason when I saw the post earlier about the neck bruises I had always thought her face looked bruised and way too pale. Then I looked closer and it did look like bruising on her neck and face and as I'd had nurses training before I thought post Mortem with make up sorry I don't like going there but looking even closer at the Blue thing I thought it's fabric I think it's someones shirt and yes I did wonder if those were fingers in her hair.... Puts a whole other spin on it if it is.... And with slot of people saying it bothered them and made them uncomfortable to me she looks lifeless and my heart aches for her. If not dead then maybe drugged her eyes look so dull... No it just don't look normal at all

by Guest 02.03.14 10:38

That object looks like a bow-shaped plastic hair slide to me.

The photo is horrible though.

by Guest 02.03.14 22:13

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:That object looks like a bow-shaped plastic hair slide to me.

The photo is horrible though.

I hate seeing it. It should come with a warning or something.

Quite apart from anything else, the McCanns should be taken to task about the exact circumstances surrounding the taking of this photo. It's just palpably not right.

by Guest 02.03.14 22:18

I'm still amazed that the CEOP "viral video" of a couple of years ago contained nothing BUT a selection of the most questionable photos of Madeleine ...

by Guest 02.03.14 22:22

Do you mean this weird anniversary video from 2010?

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

Talk about extracting the urine.......

by worriedmum 02.03.14 22:32

Could the picture have been taken from a balcony below Madeleine- rather like the one shown above?

by Hicks 02.03.14 22:41

canada12 wrote:Here's another copy of the photo:

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

If you save it to your computer and increase the size, you can see something pink-looking near the top left of the picture, in Madeleine's hair. Is it a hair-thingy? Or are those someone's fingers?

I never looked at the picture that closely before... but suggesting that someone could be holding her head up made me wonder. Is that someone's hand behind her head, holding it up?

The blue in the background looks to me like the shoulder of someone who's arm is holding Madeleine's head in a raised position with their hand at the back of her head.

I wonder who has a blue top like that?

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

by Hicks 02.03.14 22:53

Hicks wrote:
canada12 wrote:Here's another copy of the photo:

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

If you save it to your computer and increase the size, you can see something pink-looking near the top left of the picture, in Madeleine's hair. Is it a hair-thingy? Or are those someone's fingers?

I never looked at the picture that closely before... but suggesting that someone could be holding her head up made me wonder. Is that someone's hand behind her head, holding it up?
The blue in the background looks to me like the shoulder of someone who's arm is holding Madeleine's head in a raised position with their hand at the back of her head.

I wonder who has a blue top like that?

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

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

by coati mundi 02.03.14 22:57

However this picture was taken and whoever was present, this is a really creepy way to present a 3 year old.

What on earth is it supposed to represent and who put it into public view?

Quite shocking (and it takes a lot to shock me)

by Hicks 02.03.14 23:03

coati mundi wrote:However this picture was taken and whoever was present, this is a really creepy way to present a 3 year old.

What on earth is it supposed to represent and who put it into public view?

Quite shocking (and it takes a lot to shock me)

It is very disturbing. You can clearly see old tear stains either side of her face that would imply Madeleine had previously cried for a lengthy time, in order to leave traces like that.
There is blue marks/bruises on her cheek and neck, below her lips. Her eyes appear lifeless.
In my opinion this photo was taken after death.

by Guest 02.03.14 23:20

Angelique wrote:Not sure if it has been said already but I think both the "balcony picture" and the "ice-cream picture" are taken in the same place. Or, Madeleine has been photoshopped into a picture of the balcony.

The blue and white in the top left hand corner on the ice-cream picture could be the chair and the edge of the white table.

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

Hicks: the blue object might be a plastic chair.

by Guest 02.03.14 23:28

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Do you mean this weird anniversary video from 2010?

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

Talk about extracting the urine.......

***
Thanks for posting NFWTD. I obviously mixed-up [senior moment ... ] the CEOP viral video [A Minute for Madeleine 2009] and the McC one 2010 you posted above. Either way: sad

by kimHager 03.03.14 1:21

Hicks I'm with you on this I believe she wasn't alive when this picture was taken I pray I'm wrong but everyone can feel something isn't right... It's creepy... It's not pleasant. I too believe her head is being held up... Maybe a sick little last hurah from those responsible for her " disappearance "

by worriedmum 03.03.14 8:52

Can anyone else see a wavy line on the neck where the top half , which looks orangey, merges with the bottom half, which looks paler to me ? The top half finishes level with the odd 'kink' in the neck on the left hand side as you look at it...

by Guest 03.03.14 9:37

Is the eyeshadow photo among those in Kate's office?

by Hicks 03.03.14 9:44

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Angelique wrote:Not sure if it has been said already but I think both the "balcony picture" and the "ice-cream picture" are taken in the same place. Or, Madeleine has been photoshopped into a picture of the balcony.

The blue and white in the top left hand corner on the ice-cream picture could be the chair and the edge of the white table.

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

Hicks: the blue object might be a plastic chair.

NFWD, I 'm referring to the blue in the make up photo. I agree that the blue in the ice cream pic looks like a chair in the background. To me it does looks plastic whereas in the make up photo the blue has slight folds almost like the top of a t-shirt.

by Guest 03.03.14 10:02

Hicks wrote:
NFWD, I 'm referring to the blue in the make up photo. I agree that the blue in the ice cream pic looks like a chair in the background. To me it does looks plastic whereas in the make up photo the blue has slight folds almost like the top of a t-shirt.

I can see what people are saying - somebody is standing behind here, to her left as she is positioned, and their arm goes up behind her completely hidden from view, with just fingertips visible on the right side of her head, holding it upright.

I've had to steel myself a bit to make this post, but I have wondered before if some of the parties out there were engaged in the making of a "snuff" film, the production of which was supposed to confer some advantage upon them, or gain them access to some kind of premier league of the well connected and protected. Horrible, horrible thoughts I know, but ones which I have been unable to completely dismiss.

Who in their right minds would release photos such as those on this thread to the press? I can barely bring myself to look at them.

by joyce1938 03.03.14 10:15

I cant see fingers ,I do feel its a plastic hairslide used by many tots I just can not see anyone revealing photo of a child that no longer lives ,makes no sense joyce1938

by Hicks 03.03.14 17:28

It suddenly occurred to me -at work- that it makes no logical sense for the McCann's to take such a photo and then release it into the public domain when they are trying very hard to convince us that Madeleine is alive. As I have said it's my opinion that Madeleine sadly looks to be deceased.

It would make absolute sense if the '****ing ****ards' ( whoever they may be) took the photo.
Was it a warning, a threat of what would be exposed if the McCann's failed to keep their part of the agreement and pay up? or maybe a warning not to expose these people and their criminality.
I should be interested to know the date they released the photo and the date the fund was set up.

I can go for the accident theory (though I don't personally believe it was )but KM words cannot be ignored....' they've taken her' then there are witnesses who state that KM was shouting..' THE F****ING B****ARDS HAVE TAKEN HER'.

We really need to know who these FB's are.

by sami 03.03.14 17:37

Hicks wrote:
I should be interested to know the date they released the photo and the date the fund was set up.

It was reported the photo was released to co-incide with the third anniversary, so early May 2010.

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

by Hicks 03.03.14 17:42

sami wrote:
Hicks wrote:
I should be interested to know the date they released the photo and the date the fund was set up.

It was reported the photo was released to co-incide with the third anniversary, so early May 2010.

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

Hi thanks just found it myself.

by Guest 03.03.14 17:43

Hicks wrote:It suddenly occurred to me -at work- that it makes no logical sense for the McCann's to take such a photo and then release it into the public domain when they are trying very hard to convince us that Madeleine is alive. As I have said it's my opinion that Madeleine sadly looks to be deceased.

It would make absolute sense if the '****ing ****ards' ( whoever they may be) took the photo.
Was it a warning, a threat of what would be exposed if the McCann's failed to keep their part of the agreement and pay up? or maybe a warning not to expose these people and their criminality.
I should be interested to know the date they released the photo and the date the fund was set up.

I can go for the accident theory (though I don't personally believe it was )but KM words cannot be ignored....' they've taken her' then there are witnesses who state that KM was shouting..' THE F****ING B****ARDS HAVE TAKEN HER'.

We really need to know who these FB's are.

FWIW I agree Hicks and there is also an account (I believe in the PJ files somewhere - I will search it out) that a witness identified GM several days after the abduction speaking to someone on a mobile phone asking them not to harm Madeleine.

Also the strange behaviour after the 'abduction', the bruises on KM, and Murat's curious phrase about '...the biggest cock-up...'

To me it seems as if the Mccanns were involved in a pre-planned abduction but something went wrong - either she was over sedated or maybe she was abducted by the wrong person in a a double-bluff maybe. Could have been all part of a buisiness deal, criminality bribes, or who knows what.

Difficult to fit it all together as we don't have all the information.

All in my own opinion, nothing stated as fact.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 03.03.14 17:52

That photo - while instinctively disturbing - looks like a photo of a very much alive (and upset) girl to me. She doesn't look like she is lying down, her hair is hanging down towards the floor. I suppose someone will just tell me that the hair is photo-shopped.

ETA - a reminder that stating that something is 'your opinion' doesn't make it any less libellous - it's entirely redundant.

by Guest 03.03.14 18:20

canada12 wrote:Here's another copy of the photo:

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

If you save it to your computer and increase the size, you can see something pink-looking near the top left of the picture, in Madeleine's hair. Is it a hair-thingy? Or are those someone's fingers?

I never looked at the picture that closely before... but suggesting that someone could be holding her head up made me wonder. Is that someone's hand behind her head, holding it up?

This photo has always bothered me so much. To see Maddie in that stance is so very unsettling. I used to think it unsettling just because she was wearing make up and because it didn't seem right to have a little girl wearing make up like that. Now, though, I can see it differently I think because I am actually trying to analyse it. Her cheeks are slimmer as though she has lost the natural plumpness of a healthy little girl, and she is pale. Her cheeks also seem to have fallen back. As someone who enjoys portraiture as a hobby -not as a trained artist, I do now wonder if in this photo she was lying down and the eyes were photoshopped in. If you half shut your eyes as you look at the photo, it takes on a new perspective imo and assuming that her eyes were closed when it was taken, it seems to be a photo of a lying down child, at best asleep...Poor little thing. Just my opinion. I respect the views of others on here who may not see it in the same way though.

by Hicks 03.03.14 18:25

Just looked up the details concerning the release of this disturbing photo. It appears that the McCann's friend- Jon Corner- make a video featuring the photo. Jon Corner the film maker.

Lets remind ourselves what this man had to say about Madeleine, a four year old child.

" So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I would have to say charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd-- so god forgive me--maybe that's part of the problem. That special quality. Some bastard picked up on that".

Now what is Corner really saying here? What does he want us to believe?

I am now wondering if this pic was manipulated to convey the idea that Madeleine could look older and therefore would attract the attention of paedophiles.
A ploy to deflect away the true cause of Madeleine's demise.

If true it's quite a despicable act, to sully the memory of an innocent child. It make me feel nauseous to think about it.

Latest topics