Well, it's doctored.

by **tigger** 21.09.11 17:44

Tony Bennett wrote:Yes, the bright blue part of the 'ice cream' photo is of interest, is it a blue chair? - but what is clear about the 'ice cream' photo is that Madeleine's hair in that picture is MUCH MUCH longer than in any other picture I have ever seen of her.

Perhaps it was cut soon afterwards?

I think they can still be contemporary, because the shoulder area and the arm seem to be one, then there is that long blonde line of hair. It would be a good way to paste her face onto that. Actually the photoshopping is quite easy to see, because the hand holding the ice cream is at the wrong angle to connect to the upper arm via the elbow. Impossible. That face is shopped in probably and the line of blonde hair that is the edge isn't quite falling the way one would expect. The way the head sits on the neck doesn't ring true either. Even allowing for lens distortion it doesn't really work.

The common factor of the two shiny royal blue bits in these photographs count for a lot IMO.

by **tigger** 21.09.11 17:49

Marian wrote:I think it looks more like a round sweet lollipop in Madeleine's right hand than a spoon or an iced lolly. The unsettling expression on her face is similar to that in the photo taken professionally by Paul Grover where she is lying on the floor. I wonder if this one is also his "masterpiece".

When you blow it up, the flat wooden part of the ice lolly is quite clear. It's not a spoon, icecream has been shopped in to enhance the symbolism. Excuse me, I'm just about to :bad:

by Cheshire Cat 21.09.11 17:58

[quote="Stella"][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I have always thought the blue plastic was a childs spade or an oar for a dingy.

by Guest 21.09.11 20:10

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

by dragonfly 21.09.11 20:56

Dont know if this is already bought up, (admin can you move it if in wrong place ) just saw tony mention longer hair length same as ice cream photo, I did not realise 'two' Everton photos were released , one with what looks like twins in background and another in front of dresser,
With different hair colours, one with a dark ash blonde/light brown, the other with very blonde hair , Does anyone know when either of these photos were taken how long apart ?

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

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

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

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

edit- I can't see pictures, can someone help me put them on thank you

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

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.11 22:15

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

This does look like the pictures were taken at the same location. Apart from the walls, its the blue chairs in the background. the other picture they released (below) also has the blue chair in the background which suggests this was also taken at the same location. If so, it is more than Maddie playing with makeup as her makeup in the picture below is different in my opinion and very heavily photoshopped. Seems they were doing a photoshoot of some sort
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I have looked at these pictures very carefully again. I never thought that this photo might have been photoshopped. But now, looking at this last pic again, I am studying the left hand of Madeleine carefully.

First, her lower arm seems to be coming out from a place much higher than her elbow,

Second, it seems plain to me that her hand seems to be 'cut off' from the rest of her arm - there is a gap of half-an-inch to an inch or so between her left arm and what looks like a completely separated wrist and hand.

Indeed you can even see the pattern of the dress continuing down the gap between the separated wrist and hand and the rest of her arm.

It is really quite eerie when I stop to think about it, because it really does appear to my admittedly non-expert eye that the 'hand plus ice-cream' have indeed been photoshopped in.

Indeed it really seems very obvious now I come to think of it.

If I am right, what were the McCanns thinking of when releasing it?

by **Tony Bennett** 21.09.11 22:18

Cheshire Cat says: [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"I have always thought the blue plastic was a childs spade or an oar for a dingy".

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

REPLY: Agreed that a blue spade or dingy is very possible.

But there is also bright blue in the ice cream photo.

If you then link all the photos with the ochre-coloured stucco of a balcony which also has chairs coloured bright blue, there is at least a possibility that one or both of the photos of Madeleine we are discussing were taken on that very balcony.

by jd 21.09.11 22:30

Tony Bennett wrote:I have looked at these pictures very carefully again. I never thought that this photo might have been photoshopped. But now, looking at this last pic again, I am studying the left hand of Madeleine carefully.

First, her lower arm seems to be coming out from a place much higher than her elbow,

Second, it seems plain to me that her hand seems to be 'cut off' from the rest of her arm - there is a gap of half-an-inch to an inch or so between her left arm and what looks like a completely separated wrist and hand.

It is really quite eerie when I stop to think about it, because it really does appear to my admittedly non-expert eye that the 'hand plus ice-cream' have indeed been photoshopped in.

Indeed it really seems very obvious now I come to think of it.

If I am right, what were the McCanns thinking of when releasing it?

This is how I have always felt about this photo. Plus it is quite blurry and smacks of a paintbrush being used, especially on the left side and forehead. It looks very much they have tried to blend the colour tone of the skin to match the right side (badly). Ive done this before with pictures in photoshop and recognise the blurriness this more often than not can achieve

What were they thinking of? Pass...The only logical reason would be a coded message to someone like a pedophile

by Gillyspot 21.09.11 23:40

jd wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:I have looked at these pictures very carefully again. I never thought that this photo might have been photoshopped. But now, looking at this last pic again, I am studying the left hand of Madeleine carefully.

First, her lower arm seems to be coming out from a place much higher than her elbow,

Second, it seems plain to me that her hand seems to be 'cut off' from the rest of her arm - there is a gap of half-an-inch to an inch or so between her left arm and what looks like a completely separated wrist and hand.

It is really quite eerie when I stop to think about it, because it really does appear to my admittedly non-expert eye that the 'hand plus ice-cream' have indeed been photoshopped in.

Indeed it really seems very obvious now I come to think of it.

If I am right, what were the McCanns thinking of when releasing it?
This is how I have always felt about this photo. Plus it is quite blurry and smacks of a paintbrush being used, especially on the left side and forehead. It looks very much they have tried to blend the colour tone of the skin to match the right side (badly). Ive done this before with pictures in photoshop and recognise the blurriness this more often than not can achieve

What were they thinking of? Pass.....The only logical reason would be a coded message to someone like a pedophile

Well spotted Tony. Being someone who regularly uses Adobe Photoshop CS (in my work) this is clearly photoshopped and the left arm has been added on from another picture (very poorly as you say) as the positioning and colours are all wrong at the elbow.

Amazing that more care wasn't taken with releasing this photo or do they think we are idiots and uneducated? Agree with JD this photo is one of the more worrying one's released because of its paedophillic sexual connotations. Mind I will say it is only one of several photos that are worrying me.

Makes me beg these questions of the McCanns:

a) Why EVEN take these photographs and then when you have
b) WHY release them to the media as they are clearly inappropriate photographs to share of a much loved toddler.

by **tigger** 22.09.11 7:14

jd wrote:
This is how I have always felt about this photo. Plus it is quite blurry and smacks of a paintbrush being used, especially on the left side and forehead. It looks very much they have tried to blend the colour tone of the skin to match the right side (badly). Ive done this before with pictures in photoshop and recognise the blurriness this more often than not can achieve

What were they thinking of? Pass...The only logical reason would be a coded message to someone like a pedophile

I've wondered about the timing of the release of the blue eyeshadow photo. Early January 2010? A message to a person who was there at the photo shoot? The ice cream photo too, when was that released?
IMO Gerry's blog was mostly to pass on messages, the famous one of the broken fridge which was whooshed within 24 hours. Gerry trying to get his blog deleted from the internet on the grounds of copyright although he might have had a different reason. Quite a few stories in the public domain have as their original source: Gerry. The man on the plane, the lost wallet, the drunk in the road?

Re bad photoshopping which is evident in all sorts of public images - think of the bad work in the famous photo of 7/7 at Luton station. The hopeless fakes of 9/11 and it all started with the Zapruder film when this sort of thing was in its infancy.
The real problem with images is that the brain fills in the gaps. We see with our brain, not our eyes, hence the many conflicting witness statements of an event.

Re the blue in the background: I still think it's the chair because she is standing up and it could easily be the top of a chair over her shoulder, a paddle or a dinghy would be lower down, you'd lean a dinghy sideways and lay a paddle down?

by **tigger** 22.09.11 7:20

dragonfly wrote:Dont know if this is already bought up, (admin can you move it if in wrong place ) just saw tony mention longer hair length same as ice cream photo, I did not realise 'two' Everton photos were released , one with what looks like twins in background and another in front of dresser,
With different hair colours, one with a dark ash blonde/light brown, the other with very blonde hair , Does anyone know when either of these photos were taken how long apart ?

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

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

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

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

edit- I can't see pictures, can someone help me put them on thank you

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

The one with the long blonde hair isn't Maddie, different face, different smile. Both smiles are closed mouth which children hardly even do. It's a grown-up thing. Perhaps they weren't to show their baby teeth? The girl on the left is confident IMO but Maddie's face looks uncertain. This photo is heavily and badly photoshopped. Get the whole image up, enlarge, blur on the elbow, blur on left side of face, ghost line along lower arm and head floating in space, head set too far to the right on the photo (M's left).

by jd 22.09.11 7:23

tigger wrote:
jd wrote:
This is how I have always felt about this photo. Plus it is quite blurry and smacks of a paintbrush being used, especially on the left side and forehead. It looks very much they have tried to blend the colour tone of the skin to match the right side (badly). Ive done this before with pictures in photoshop and recognise the blurriness this more often than not can achieve

What were they thinking of? Pass...The only logical reason would be a coded message to someone like a pedophile

I've wondered about the timing of the release of the blue eyeshadow photo. Early January 2010? A message to a person who was there at the photo shoot? The ice cream photo too, when was that released?
IMO Gerry's blog was mostly to pass on messages, the famous one of the broken fridge which was whooshed within 24 hours. Gerry trying to get his blog deleted from the internet on the grounds of copyright although he might have had a different reason. Quite a few stories in the public domain have as their original source: Gerry. The man on the plane, the lost wallet, the drunk in the road?

Re bad photoshopping which is evident in all sorts of public images - think of the bad work in the famous photo of 7/7 at Luton station. The hopeless fakes of 9/11 and it all started with the Zapruder film when this sort of thing was in its infancy.
The real problem with images is that the brain fills in the gaps. We see with our brain, not our eyes, hence the many conflicting witness statements of an event.

Re the blue in the background: I still think it's the chair because she is standing up and it could easily be the top of a chair over her shoulder, a paddle or a dinghy would be lower down, you'd lean a dinghy sideways and lay a paddle down?

I can't think of any reason other than it being some kind of coded message to someone. Though a possible reason could be to confuse and get the public debating about these pictures to keep the scam story going, these strange pictures certainly opens up a lot to talk about. And they have ingredients of the 2 most debated subjects re this case, pedophiles and photoshopped pictures

I think the blue is the chair and the top of it. The contrast/brightness quality of pictures do change the shade of colours and in this case it looks the same blue to me in reality, even though the pictures themselves show the blue as different

by Guest 22.09.11 7:25

I've been trying to make sense of the background in the ice cream photo. If she's standing up the blue object must be handing on the wall. I was wondering if she is lying down so the surface behind her is floor and the blue object the base of a chair. the ice cream being photoshopped in would then make sense. Though to be honest I can't get my head around all the photoshopping and why it is needed.

Also for the eye shadow picture it was supposedly taken by a visiting beautician, presumably visiting their home, but the wall texture behind her head doesn't look like a domestic house wall to me . Would be interesting to see what the back Walls in the Rothley home look like.

by jd 22.09.11 7:42

Stewie wrote: Though to be honest I can't get my head around all the photoshopping and why it is needed

To confuse everyone into what Maddie really looked like, and to create debates to keep this scam story in the public interest. The more the public are interested/curious/confused and talking about it, the more money they make

And if they used a Maddie lookalike in PDL that week to cover the guests and mark warner employees who saw them that she was there, this only helps confuse them to the little girl they actually saw with them

Also, there are no photos of the Mccanns with Maddie on that week hence the need to photoshop them. There isn not a single one of Kate with Maddie, twins with Maddie, family of all 5 of them. They don't have the material

by **Tony Bennett** 22.09.11 8:15

Stewie wrote:I've been trying to make sense of the background in the ice cream photo. If she's standing up the blue object must be handing on the wall. I was wondering if she is lying down so the surface behind her is floor and the blue object the base of a chair. the ice cream being photoshopped in would then make sense. Though to be honest I can't get my head around all the photoshopping and why it is needed.

Also for the eye shadow picture it was supposedly taken by a visiting beautician...

Was it?

Could you please supply the link for this?

I speculated at the time (as did others) about who took the photo, and I can't remember the McCanns saying it was 'a visiting beautician'.

On the contrary, the story produced around this photo was that 'Madeleine had been playing with Mummy's make-up box'.

We challenged this account on the basis that no 3-year-old child could possibly apply that blue eye shadow so neatly; then there were all those associated questions about who took the photos, why it was taken from such an unusual angle, why Madeleine seemed to be so unhappy in the photo, and perhaps the most puzzling question of all - why the heck did the McCanns ever release it?

by jd 22.09.11 8:44

I remember in one of the topics here from a month or 2 ago, that the Mccanns said it was a beautician. I think this was a reactive statement to no child that age could apply the eyeshadow. I am 99% certain there is a comment from Kate about this somewhere

I have always been baffled as to why they ever released this photo. It does not fit in whatsoever with looking for an abducted child

by Guest 22.09.11 8:55

The comment was that a visiting beautician had applied the make-up not taken the photo. I'll see if I can find it again. It was thought that the quote was in "the truthful book" but apparently it's not. Not surprisingly, neither the beautician nor the photographer seems to be in a hurry to claim the honours for their work. Definitely nothing to be proud about!

P.S. Page 22 of the Photographs and Memories topic has references to a visiting beautician doing the make up but it may be a forum myth as nobody has been able to find it actually in the book.

by russiandoll 22.09.11 9:32

no no no........too perfectly applied.
children playing this game usually feel and look happy..they are playing after all.
girl in photo looks completely expressionless not even unhappy.
the angle and the facial expression make me feel profoundly uncomfortable. any detective properly reviewing this case will surely review everything about it? and follow this up?
background suggests the kind of render on a mediterranean house or apartment to me but it could be white render on a british house.
the whole video of which this photo is a part makes my skin crawl.

by Guest 22.09.11 9:40

News link about the makeup picture
Notis the last comment from Gerry in the article..OMG.. " Restaurant next door..."

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

by Guest 22.09.11 9:42

Russian doll: there's also a topic here about this photo - "60 reasons why the McCanns should never have published THAT photo".

As for the Mirror story (and all the others at the time) I still can't get my head round how the photo was described as if it was just a normal family photo. I dread to think what in these shameful journalists' eyes would qualify as being abnormal.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 22.09.11 10:02

Marian wrote:Russian doll: there's also a topic here about this photo - "60 reasons why the McCanns should never have published THAT photo".

REPLY: Here's the link for that discussion:

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

As for the Mirror story (and all the others at the time) I still can't get my head round how the photo was described as if it was just a normal family photo. I dread to think what in these shameful journalists' eyes would qualify as being abnormal.

REPLY: It's interesting to look back at some of the comments on the above thread, here's what a poster called 'canderel' - almost certainly a McCann-sceptic - wrote about the discussion at the time:

QUOTE

I don't think it's fair to discuss an innocent picture in this way.

Most kids play with make up these days, I did myself thirty years ago.

To be honest I feel more worried about the sick comments on .this photo.

Make up for kids is available in most toy shops under, "creative play", and little girls love it.

My daughter was allowed to play with makeup and hang beads around her neck, complete with clip on earings and bracelets.

Little girls want to copy their mums, feeding their dolls, changing their dolls, pushing their dolls pushchair etc.

Kids want to do many adult things hence the toys such as cooking, sweet shops etc pretending they have their own sweet shop, firemen doctors, nurses and I bet even a few here practiced their abilities as superman, batman , pc plod and such.

If Kate allowed |Madeleine to put makeup on or she raided the makeup bag either way it was a comical photo that would probably have been taken to show the family what she had been up to and get the usual oohs and bless her comments.

For everyone who is commenting about who took the picture, there are working cameras in toy shops for 3 year olds maybe she took it herself, and even if not I can't see the benefits of discussing an innocent photo in such a sexual manner.

UNQUOTE

by Guest 22.09.11 10:04

Unbelieveable comments.

by Guest 22.09.11 10:13

Yes it's been interesting to read the comments again. I wonder if there's anything at all which would make the devoted McCann fans suddenly realise that all is not well. It wasn't just the blue eye shadow photo by itself but the other two provocative images on the 2010 anniversary video that were so disturbing.

by Guest 22.09.11 10:24

oops - thought I'd read in another topic that a beautician took the picture and the quote was in the book.... haven't got the book myself... so sorry if that's incorrect..

by jd 22.09.11 11:11

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

The top picture was found by ROSA who posted "A strange picture of Madeleine, from Paul Grover . Is this the same Paul Grover from REX FEATURES, "Britain's leading independent photographic press agency and picture library, supplying a daily service of news, celebrity, features, and stock photos to all national newspapers, magazines, TV, web and other media in the UK and in more than 30 countries worldwide"? Or is it just a coincidence? The picture was posted at one of the several sites organized and promoted by a McCann special support group, a secret organization which has members in more than 25 countries. The site was set up on May 9th, just six days after Madeleine McCann disappeared."

Maddie appears to be wearing the same dress in both photos and the white skirting board in the top picture looks very much from an English house. Note also that Paul Grovers name does not appear on the ice cream photo and all photographers put their names on all their photos for copyright etc. Both these pictures look to have been taken at the same shoot and time, though the ice cream one is heavily photoshopped, and looks like they have a taken elements of Maddie from a Paul Grover photoshoot and created this ice cream one.....why???

by **tigger** 22.09.11 13:05

Stewie wrote:oops - thought I'd read in another topic that a beautician took the picture and the quote was in the book.... haven't got the book myself... so sorry if that's incorrect..

My fault I'm afraid, although I'm sure I'm right. When the photo came out Kate said it was taken after Maddie raided her make up box. Well, Kate has never been seen with blue eyeshadow which went out somewhere in the late seventies and no toddler can apply make up like that. Blue eyeshadow is rather tarty!
Then I said the photo was in the book again and this time she said it was done by a visiting beautician. PeterMac rapped me over the knuckles because it isn't in the book. In that case I must have seen it on the internet in one of the articles on the book. I really didn't make it up, Most likely it's DM where I saw it, in May. So it's true, but I've got to find it!

by Guest 22.09.11 13:23

Heaven help us, there's a topic on the Missing Madeleine site at the moment about these photos, particularly the lollipop one; a contributor who called them "provocative" has been criticised - it shows what's in your mind is the gist of the reply.

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

by **tigger** 22.09.11 16:29

Jean wrote:Heaven help us, there's a topic on the Missing Madeleine site at the moment about these photos, particularly the lollipop one; a contributor who called them "provocative" has been criticised - it shows what's in your mind is the gist of the reply.

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

Yes, ghastly exchange. As it happens the people who called me a troll for critisising them as they were finding all sorts of excuses for Gerry. (she was killed by intruder in the 5 mins. that G spoke with JW, Gerry went back in, found her dead, drunk an panicked, ran with the body down PdL, hid her on the beach..).
But the exchange re the photos reminded me. Try and lie in the same position as Maddie - leaning on your elbows and looking up. Any girl or woman doing that say in front of a male person, is basically saying 'come and get me'. It is a very provocative pose, far more so than the photograph shows. It's also a very adult pose. Like those closed adult smiles we see a lot of. Then there is all that make up in so many photographs.
With the blue eyeshadow one, I believe someone analysed it, quite a lot of photoshopping on the neck too.

by Guest 22.09.11 17:35

Thanks for that Tigger. I certainly agree with your views on the implications of the photos but I don't think there's any chance of convincing those on the Missing Madeleine site. I was tempted to join in the debate but I feel that I would have difficulty in being poilite to people who say that there's nothing wrong with the photos and anyone who disagrees is sick. I normally don't have a problem with respecting others' opinions but there are limits!

P.S. I decided to register with the M M site (not to stir up trouble of course) but the message that comes up is "Administrators have forbidden any new members". How strange!

by jd 22.09.11 18:01

If any one cannot see the suggested (sick) implications of these 3 photos..... then to put it politely, they need to wake up & get to grips with reality!