Re: What was so special about Burgau?

by Smokeandmirrors 22.09.11 19:01

I reckon it would not be half bad to send a link to this thread or the photos herein with bullet point observations to the review team at NSY. In fact any of the material that seems strange. They can choose to look at it or not, analyse it or dismiss it.

by **tigger** 22.09.11 19:16

Jean wrote: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!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This was the last one I posted on and it got from bad to worse IMO. I lost my temper I'm afraid.
I have not been banned, but wonder, I may well try once more about these photos, after all the people objecting believe in the abduction! Pity, was quite helpful for a while.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.09.11 20:40

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

SNIPPED

Maddie appears to be wearing the same dress in both photos...

SNIPPED

That is a very pertinent observation, I also believe you are 100% right, and I have never come across that observation being made before about these two photos.

The fact that Paul Grover's name is on the top photo is I think significant (there was much discussion about Grover back in 2008 and I shall look up my archive to see what was said about him).

We can now be 100% sure that the hand holding the ice cream has been photoshopped in.

We can I think be 99% to 100% sure that Madeleine is indeed wearing the same dress in both photos.

It is entirely reasonable, then, to propose that both photos were taken by Paul Grover during the same session and that for some reason she has what could I'm afraid be described as a provocative pose in both photos.

I don't think Madeleine was 'captured' on the top photo just as she was happily playing on the floor, I'm afraid it looks like she was asked to be there before that photo was taken.

I agree btw that this looks like an English skirting board, it might (or might not) be the McCanns' own house, there is video footage of the McCanns' home available to view, of course.

Put all of this together and it's very worrying.

What is CERTAIN is this. The McCanns and the whole McCann Team DELIBERATELY circulated, on a video intended to go viral worldwide, a photograph of their missing daughter DELIBERATELY photoshopped to include an arm (possibly not her own) holding an ice cream.

[AND JIM GAMBLE lately the boss of CEOP APPROVED this video and publicly backed it and placed it in a prominent position on CEOP's website].

What is UNCERTAIN is WHY.

by Cheshire Cat 23.09.11 9:54

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

SNIPPED

Maddie appears to be wearing the same dress in both photos...

SNIPPED
That is a very pertinent observation, I also believe you are 100% right, and I have never come across that observation being made before about these two photos.

The fact that Paul Grover's name is on the top photo is I think significant (there was much discussion about Grover back in 2008 and I shall look up my archive to see what was said about him).

We can now be 100% sure that the hand holding the ice cream has been photoshopped in.

We can I think be 99% to 100% sure that Madeleine is indeed wearing the same dress in both photos.

It is entirely reasonable, then, to propose that both photos were taken by Paul Grover during the same session and that for some reason she has what could I'm afraid be described as a provocative pose in both photos.

I don't think Madeleine was 'captured' on the top photo just as she was happily playing on the floor, I'm afraid it looks like she was asked to be there before that photo was taken.

I agree btw that this looks like an English skirting board, it might (or might not) be the McCanns' own house, there is video footage of the McCanns' home available to view, of course.

Put all of this together and it's very worrying.

What is CERTAIN is this. The McCanns and the whole McCann Team DELIBERATELY circulated, on a video intended to go viral worldwide, a photograph of their missing daughter DELIBERATELY photoshopped to include an arm (possibly not her own) holding an ice cream.

[AND JIM GAMBLE lately the boss of CEOP APPROVED this video and publicly backed it and placed it in a prominent position on CEOP's website].

What is UNCERTAIN is WHY.

If you think we bystanders find it repulsive spare a thought for K.Gaspar. Or is that the intention?

Regarding Paul Grover: be cautious as there appear to be two photographers by this name: the one that takes photographs for newspapers and another who works on a much smaller scale taking portraits etc (based in Kent).

by Guest 23.09.11 11:06

It`s slightly off topic in the strictest sense but this does fit in with the general discussion about the nature of the photos.

Perhaps if any of you have the time you could look at the short "Snow White" video of Madeleine on Youtube. I have always found it somewhat peculiar/unsettling; that may be because there is no sound and it is impossible to tell whether Madeleine is talking rather than making strange faces.

The strangest thing for me is at the end where Madeleine`s profile seems to fade into that of a woman.

I am having real trouble cutting and pasting so if someone could add the link to my post, that would be great!

by Guest 23.09.11 13:29

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

Alison, I think this is the one you mean. It's strange that there's no sound. I wonder if Madeleine was singing. Perhaps a lipreader could help.

by Guest 23.09.11 13:43

Thanks for posting this Jean. It would be useful to have views on whether she might be singing.

The video cuts very quickly to the SKY logo. On other Youtube versions there is a much slower fade out which (as I have said above) appears to change Madeleine`s appearance.

by Guest 23.09.11 14:01

Alison, I've just been looking at loads and cannot find the one where she ages at the end. Can you tell me what the link is called, as all the ones I'm checking for Madeleine McCann Snow White, is not chucking up the one you are referring to.

by Guest 23.09.11 14:02

This one might be better - there are also other images like the eye defect that they never made much of!

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

by Guest 23.09.11 14:09

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

Try this one Stella...........might just be me but she seems to fade out into a much older version ( not just someone a couple of years older). It`s actually just before the last bit where she looks as if she is going over to a table.

by Guest 23.09.11 14:20

There has been a filter placed over that last shot to protect the other children's faces, maybe that has had something to do with altering that last image of her? I don't know !!
Two comments on that footage. It's just a guess, but I think maybe Madeleine was asked how does a train go and she is saying "choo, choo, choo", which is causing a pout. The funny thing is, I don't think that shot is all about Madeleine, but more about Kate's backside in white trousers, in the background. Which is why he swings round at the beginning and stops on the kitchen in the background.
Have you ever seen the film Love Actually? There is someone in this film who was tasked with filming a wedding, but because he was in love with this girl who got married, all the shots were of her and jut her, not of the whole wedding.
I would love to know who took that footage and I'm betting it's not Gerry.

by russiandoll 23.09.11 17:05

I also have been unsettled by that since the first time I saw it. very very strange, she looks very unsure of herself and the biting of the lip and looking up then away seemed off.cant find the word for what that set of images conveyed

by Upsy Daisy 23.09.11 17:07

...but what about the photo with blue eye shadow that may have been taken on that balcony with the blue chairs. Above Madeleine is what looks like either a shelf or a protruding outside lamp. I can't see either on the balcony so what could this be???

by garyp 26.09.11 12:33

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

Try this one Stella...........might just be me but she seems to fade out into a much older version ( not just someone a couple of years older). It`s actually just before the last bit where she looks as if she is going over to a table.

Screenshot of that moment, think it is a trick of the light

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

by garyp 26.09.11 12:37

Better shot of the ice cream pic where you can see the arm of the blue chair and what looks like some sort of soft cover on it maybe?

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

by Guest 26.09.11 12:56

Well done garyp and thanks. thumbup

by **tigger** 26.09.11 14:46

I'm really convinced those two images at least were taken on that balcony. The one on the floor is problaby taken in the UK. The fact that she wears the same dress in the Burgau picture doesn't mean much IMO, the blue chairs are unique to those two photographs. And it's just those two that top my list of paedo candy.

by russiandoll 26.09.11 18:07

I too think there is a strong probability that the blue eyeshadow photo and the ice cream one were taken at the same location[it is these 2 you refer to, tigger?] the angle of that eyeshadow photo really bothers me, she is tilting her head backwards hence the v low set of the [peculiar] ears...but looking down, you can not pose for a photo with your head like that and be relaxed......it is a contrived uncomfortable and not natural position, try tilting your head and looking down like that yourself.
if this is a dress up shot why not have it showing the dress like so many other photos we see of maddie in her play princess outfits. this girl cant be looking at a camera over the balcony her head would be tilted forwards. its all about the facial expression i am trying to find the word to describe it. the child looks drugged to me i wish i could see her eyes more clearly.....but its hard to focus on them will all teh crap [clearly applied by an adult[ on the eyelids.
whatever it makes my skin crawl

by russiandoll 26.09.11 18:12

3 kids sharing a toothbrush aint so unbelievable when you read in Kates book that the morning after arriving they had a quick wash before heading off to breakfast [ if i read they had a shower evening 28th after their journey , before beddie byes i might admit their hygiene is ok .
seriously though........3 kids ,1 toothbrush it's an " insult to our intelligence quite frankly"[ Kates words at the PJ suggestion Maddie might have wandered out of the apartment and off on her own].

by Miraflores 26.09.11 19:25

3 kids ,1 toothbrush

When Kate talks in the Australian interview about the 'toilet, teeth' routine before bed - I could only think that it must have been prolonged if they were waiting to share the one toothbrush!

It's just inconceivable,and I can't believe it - so why was there no toothbrush for Madeleine? Was it just to hide DNA, if so why? Or was the toothbrush contaminated in some way?

by Guest 26.09.11 19:35

Miraflores wrote:
3 kids ,1 toothbrush

When Kate talks in the Australian interview about the 'toilet, teeth' routine before bed - I could only think that it must have been prolonged if they were waiting to share the one toothbrush!

It's just inconceivable,and I can't believe it - so why was there no toothbrush for Madeleine? Was it just to hide DNA, if so why? Or was the toothbrush contaminated in some way?

I don't believe they shared a toothbrush either. Just wondering if drug use can be detected from cells left on a toothbrush?

by dragonfly 26.09.11 19:50

Stewie wrote:
Miraflores wrote:
3 kids ,1 toothbrush

When Kate talks in the Australian interview about the 'toilet, teeth' routine before bed - I could only think that it must have been prolonged if they were waiting to share the one toothbrush!

It's just inconceivable,and I can't believe it - so why was there no toothbrush for Madeleine? Was it just to hide DNA, if so why? Or was the toothbrush contaminated in some way?

I don't believe they shared a toothbrush either. Just wondering if drug use can be detected from cells left on a toothbrush?

I have already said it in another post, I personally find cheap tooth brushes good to clean up with, like cleaning in between tiles and round taps ect , good for removing dirt , dip it in a bit of bleach ,it is a great cleaning tip for intricate places mainly used for when I do a spring cleans works better than a cloth ,

by littlepixie 26.09.11 20:55

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

Alison, I think this is the one you mean. It's strange that there's no sound. I wonder if Madeleine was singing. Perhaps a lipreader could help.

I am not a lip-reader but she seems to be saying alright and ah-choo or hate choo.

by Guest 27.09.11 20:58

this may have already be known but there is a link between Robert Murat and the Solimar apartments, apart from the DNA potentially being his..

The Jacinto e Murat company which his father started built the apartment and there are some rumours that the block is or was managed by their real estate arm..
Looking at their website, it is pretty poor with crude cartoons and is very amateur looking. The links below show their website and the link tothe Solimar apartments on their website.

If you look at the source code for the first link (choose view then source on your browser) there is an interesting keyword in the page which basically means if people search using any of the keywords their site should be returned in the search results.. and one of the keywords is "sex"... not sure how common that is for websites to have in their keywords - I'd expect to find algarve, golf etc but probably not sex.. maybe burgau is special for special kinds of holidays?

"KEYWORDS" CONTENT="Arquitectura, Architecture, Portugal, tourism, Turismo, Vacances, holiday, férias, resort, apartamentos, Algarve, beach, praia, praias, Travel, water, sports, holiday, beach, Architectural projects, Real Estate, paradise, sex, golf "

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

by littlepixie 27.09.11 21:33

I remember that being discussed on 3A. Wasn't there other key words such as "girl" and "boy"? Very strange way of advertising a holiday apartment. I book privately owned apartments and villas every year and I think if one of the key words for the website was sex, I would skim over it and choose another place to stay.

by happychick 27.09.11 21:38

Maybe you wouldn't, though, if you were a swinger smug

by Gillyspot 27.09.11 22:56

littlepixie wrote:I remember that being discussed on 3A. Wasn't there other key words such as "girl" and "boy"? Very strange way of advertising a holiday apartment. I book privately owned apartments and villas every year and I think if one of the key words for the website was sex, I would skim over it and choose another place to stay.

Respectable doctors (not just the McCanns) travelling with their small children would surely have more on their mind than swinging. Mind none of them seemed to interested in enjoying their holiday actually "with" their children. Amazingly I have been away quite a few times (where there were creche facilities) and I have never once left my children there (it is there holiday too and I wanted to enjoy their enjoyment). Kate only worked 1.5 days a week (Madeleine was in childcare 3 full days in Rothley) and I worked full time (kids had to be in full time childcare as I was at work - dropped them off on the way to work and picked them up on the way back). Thus I never had any "Me" time except when family or friends babysat for me on the odd (very rare) evening whilst at home and yet I still wanted to be with my kids all throughout my holidays. Does that me me or Kate strange?

by Guest 28.09.11 10:09

Stewie wrote:this may have already be known but there is a link between Robert Murat and the Solimar apartments, apart from the DNA potentially being his..

The Jacinto e Murat company which his father started built the apartment and there are some rumours that the block is or was managed by their real estate arm..
Looking at their website, it is pretty poor with crude cartoons and is very amateur looking. The links below show their website and the link tothe Solimar apartments on their website.

If you look at the source code for the first link (choose view then source on your browser) there is an interesting keyword in the page which basically means if people search using any of the keywords their site should be returned in the search results.. and one of the keywords is "sex"... not sure how common that is for websites to have in their keywords - I'd expect to find algarve, golf etc but probably not sex.. maybe burgau is special for special kinds of holidays?

"KEYWORDS" CONTENT="Arquitectura, Architecture, Portugal, tourism, Turismo, Vacances, holiday, férias, resort, apartamentos, Algarve, beach, praia, praias, Travel, water, sports, holiday, beach, Architectural projects, Real Estate, paradise, sex, golf "

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

I've been looking for that info for the last year. I too remember this and thought at the time it could be very relevant.

by Guest 28.09.11 10:16

Gillyspot wrote:
littlepixie wrote:I remember that being discussed on 3A. Wasn't there other key words such as "girl" and "boy"? Very strange way of advertising a holiday apartment. I book privately owned apartments and villas every year and I think if one of the key words for the website was sex, I would skim over it and choose another place to stay.

Respectable doctors (not just the McCanns) travelling with their small children would surely have more on their mind than swinging. Mind none of them seemed to interested in enjoying their holiday actually "with" their children. Amazingly I have been away quite a few times (where there were creche facilities) and I have never once left my children there (it is there holiday too and I wanted to enjoy their enjoyment). Kate only worked 1.5 days a week (Madeleine was in childcare 3 full days in Rothley) and I worked full time (kids had to be in full time childcare as I was at work - dropped them off on the way to work and picked them up on the way back). Thus I never had any "Me" time except when family or friends babysat for me on the odd (very rare) evening whilst at home and yet I still wanted to be with my kids all throughout my holidays. Does that me me or Kate strange?

That makes Kate strange. I do the same as you, and on holidays I wouldnt leave the kids alone for a second. After all the holiday is for me to see the joy in the kids.. The holidays are more for the kids than for me I feel.. I would never deared to leave them alone in a holiday appartment to go dine... I mean who really does that except the Mccanns and their friends? I do find it hard to believe that they found it just as safe as their own backyard. It would not be normal to feel that in a forent country in a place you never been before..?? No matter how family friendly the place would be...

by Gillyspot 28.09.11 13:11

[quote="MoaNo matter how family friendly the place would be...[/quote]

Kate & Gerry's idea of "family friendly" is one that has FREE babysitting facilities so they can dump the kids. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]