Re: What was so special about Burgau?

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:

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?

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/GERRY_MCCANN.htm.

by Hicks 02.03.14 22:53

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

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?

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/GERRY_MCCANN.htm.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/bm/21.jpg.

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.

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?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epdtWmTWZEU

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.

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.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id324.html

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.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id324.html

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:

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.

by Guest 04.03.14 9:59

The blue make up photo is really disturbing whichever way you look at it. I have a three year old and no, there is no way a three year old would have the dexterity to apply make up like that.

But seeing as all the other photos seem to be photoshopped is there any reason why this one should be taken at face value? There does appear to be an anomolies on the lower neck - a definite kink which could be a sign of photoshopping. I am not an expert but I am assuming that the blue eye shadow and the apparent mottling/bruising could all have been photoshopped into an innocuous image.

It is such appalling bad taste under the circumstances that there has to be a reason for it - a warning maybe?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 04.03.14 10:06

BlackCatBoogie wrote:The blue make up photo is really disturbing whichever way you look at it. I have a three year old and no, there is no way a three year old would have the dexterity to apply make up like that.

But seeing as all the other photos seem to be photoshopped is there any reason why this one should be taken at face value? There does appear to be an anomolies on the lower neck - a definite kink which could be a sign of photoshopping. I am not an expert but I am assuming that the blue eye shadow and the apparent mottling/bruising could all have been photoshopped into an innocuous image.

It is such appalling bad taste under the circumstances that there has to be a reason for it - a warning maybe?

I don't see any evidence of photoshopping in any Madeleine photographs, except for the tennis photo which I am certain is digitally manipulated - by a complete amateur. I have a fair amount of experience in this area, and studied digital compression techniques such as MPEG encoding as part of my degree.

I am very aware that this isn't a popular view here, but I have my opinion and I feel my experience gives it some credibility. :)

by whmon 04.03.14 10:12

What is your opinion on the ice cream photo Whatliesbehindthesofa?

by Hicks 04.03.14 10:19

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:The blue make up photo is really disturbing whichever way you look at it. I have a three year old and no, there is no way a three year old would have the dexterity to apply make up like that.

But seeing as all the other photos seem to be photoshopped is there any reason why this one should be taken at face value? There does appear to be an anomolies on the lower neck - a definite kink which could be a sign of photoshopping. I am not an expert but I am assuming that the blue eye shadow and the apparent mottling/bruising could all have been photoshopped into an innocuous image.

It is such appalling bad taste under the circumstances that there has to be a reason for it - a warning maybe?

I don't see any evidence of photoshopping in any Madeleine photographs, except for the tennis photo which I am certain is digitally manipulated - by a complete amateur. I have a fair amount of experience in this area, and studied digital compression techniques such as MPEG encoding as part of my degree.

I am very aware that this isn't a popular view here, but I have my opinion and I feel my experience gives it some credibility. :)

Thanks for sharing your knowledge. If we then accept that the make up photo has not been doctored in any way then it makes the photo even more chilling.
What do you make of the apparent blue bruising? Also what about the angle of the photographer?

by Guest 04.03.14 10:27

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:The blue make up photo is really disturbing whichever way you look at it. I have a three year old and no, there is no way a three year old would have the dexterity to apply make up like that.

But seeing as all the other photos seem to be photoshopped is there any reason why this one should be taken at face value? There does appear to be an anomolies on the lower neck - a definite kink which could be a sign of photoshopping. I am not an expert but I am assuming that the blue eye shadow and the apparent mottling/bruising could all have been photoshopped into an innocuous image.

It is such appalling bad taste under the circumstances that there has to be a reason for it - a warning maybe?

I don't see any evidence of photoshopping in any Madeleine photographs, except for the tennis photo which I am certain is digitally manipulated - by a complete amateur. I have a fair amount of experience in this area, and studied digital compression techniques such as MPEG encoding as part of my degree.

I am very aware that this isn't a popular view here, but I have my opinion and I feel my experience gives it some credibility. :)

WLBTS - just lost my reply so will duplicate - sorry if appears twice.

Thanks for your opinion WLBTS - I have no expertise in this matter so of course consider what others with more experience are saying. What I am referring to is a slight kink half way down MBM's neck on her right hand side - this looks like some sort of digital manipulation to me, but of course could be nothing. Also there is a fold in her neck on the same side just above the necklace that doesn't look right - young children don't tend to have folds like that - their skin is smooth.

I don't want to turn this into a photoshopping thread so will leave it there.

I am aware that I am still clutching at straws that this isn't a real photo and isn't really the evil that it suggests pray2

ETA: someone mentioned that in the make-up photo MBM's appear a lot darker and not the hazel colour that was represented earlier - in all of the batch of the three images further up the thread then her eyes do appear darker, especially in the ice-cream photo. Whether this is due to photo-shopping, the light or just a natural colour change, I dunno.

Log in for more topics