Re: Why have the McCanns lied about Maddie's coloboma for 4 years?

by Guest 22.08.11 11:17

MOTBO wrote:

Ever heard the attraction/distraction method it is very subtle, this instance the eye errors are so designed so you focus on that point (attraction), and fail to look anywhere else(distraction).

Yes and this is why some of us believe that the little girl everyone thought was Madeleine McCann, was in fact another child. Perhaps it is this child that had the coloboma ?

by MOTBO 22.08.11 11:23

Stella wrote:
MOTBO wrote:

Ever heard the attraction/distraction method it is very subtle, this instance the eye errors are so designed so you focus on that point (attraction), and fail to look anywhere else(distraction).

Yes and this is why some of us believe that the little girl everyone thought was Madeleine McCann, was in fact another child. Perhaps it is this child that had the coloboma ?

And dont discount a possible twin or that Madeleine was not Kate's first child.

by **tigger** 22.08.11 13:40

Stella wrote:
MOTBO wrote:

Ever heard the attraction/distraction method it is very subtle, this instance the eye errors are so designed so you focus on that point (attraction), and fail to look anywhere else(distraction).

Yes and this is why some of us believe that the little girl everyone thought was Madeleine McCann, was in fact another child. Perhaps it is this child that had the coloboma ?

I think the iconic poster is Maddie, but heavily photoshopped, even apart from the coloboma, and 18 months younger than when she disappeared.
Eyelashes, enhanced.
Her 'thick' (almost slightly swollen eyes that she has in may photos are her own) eyes tidied up.
Skin completely bleached out, bit of highlight here and there and we've got a girl who looks very appealing but is nothing like our real Maddie.
There are various early photographs in Kate's book where we do get the real Maddie. When she was very young. But.... please let me know what you think, I think that little girl was never quite right or healthy. Where I see the undoctored photos, it would worry me, if I was her mother.
There are a few photographs ( I will try to find them) where I think she looks so sad, IMO there's no way this was a happy girl most of the time.

by MOTBO 22.08.11 17:15

tigger wrote:
Stella wrote:
MOTBO wrote:

Ever heard the attraction/distraction method it is very subtle, this instance the eye errors are so designed so you focus on that point (attraction), and fail to look anywhere else(distraction).

Yes and this is why some of us believe that the little girl everyone thought was Madeleine McCann, was in fact another child. Perhaps it is this child that had the coloboma ?

I think the iconic poster is Maddie, but heavily photoshopped, even apart from the coloboma, and 18 months younger than when she disappeared.
Eyelashes, enhanced.
Her 'thick' (almost slightly swollen eyes that she has in may photos are her own) eyes tidied up.
Skin completely bleached out, bit of highlight here and there and we've got a girl who looks very appealing but is nothing like our real Maddie.
There are various early photographs in Kate's book where we do get the real Maddie. When she was very young. But.... please let me know what you think, I think that little girl was never quite right or healthy. Where I see the undoctored photos, it would worry me, if I was her mother.
There are a few photographs ( I will try to find them) where I think she looks so sad, IMO there's no way this was a happy girl most of the time.

Hi Tigger

Why have the McCanns lied about Maddie's coloboma for 4 years? - Page 2 259100

Why have the McCanns lied about Maddie's coloboma for 4 years? - Page 2 110921

by LG78 22.08.11 18:08

On the picture where she lays cuddeling, she has clear blue eyes.. Why do Kate say green eyes?

by MOTBO 22.08.11 18:23

LG78 wrote:On the picture where she lays cuddeling, she has clear blue eyes.. Why do Kate say green eyes?

have deleted your comment MOTBO because you cannot state that as a fact, because you simply do not know. You may beleive it to be the case, but it is not a proven fact.

by LG78 22.08.11 18:26

MOTBO wrote:
LG78 wrote:On the picture where she lays cuddeling, she has clear blue eyes.. Why do Kate say green eyes?

Comment deleted.

Thats your oppinion. I want evidence and fact, and not all are photoshopped. If u are so sure, bring evidence, just dont burst out like your BELIEFE and MEANING are the truth...

by LG78 23.08.11 10:44

But family sure did. Look at this chain mail from Phil Mccann, Gerrys brother, scroll down to page 2 and read it!! "havent put too much emphasis on her eye up my ***"
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELINE_1_.pdf

by Guest 23.08.11 10:56

Quote from Tigger
1)In Kate's book she writes about Madeleine's 'big brown eyes' when she was born. Now I don't think that brown eyes turn green or blue, but the other way round is possible in Caucasian babies.

I remember from biology in high school that it is not possible that a child has brown eyes, if both parents have blue eyes. So it would be possible maybe that shecwas born with brown eyes that turned blue later, but really not very likely. Unless the old thing comes up again that Kate and Gerry together were not her biological parents. Ivf with sperm donation?

by LG78 23.08.11 11:33

Juulcy wrote:Quote from Tigger
1)In Kate's book she writes about Madeleine's 'big brown eyes' when she was born. Now I don't think that brown eyes turn green or blue, but the other way round is possible in Caucasian babies.

I remember from biology in high school that it is not possible that a child has brown eyes, if both parents have blue eyes. So it would be possible maybe that shecwas born with brown eyes that turned blue later, but really not very likely. Unless the old thing comes up again that Kate and Gerry together were not her biological parents. Ivf with sperm donation?

Sientist say this :

Brown eye color means that it produces a brown pigment in the iris. Blue eye color means that this pigment is not produced. The pigment does not begin to form until around 4-6 months of age, therefore all children are born with blue eyes.
We know now that there are several possible combinations of genes that "prevents" produkjon of this enzyme, so that parents can have blue eyes but still be the "bearer" of the gene for brown eyes, perhaps from many many generations without turning through.

. An additional gene for green is also postulated, and there are reports of blue eyed parents producing brown eyed children (which the three known genes can't easily explain [mutations, modifier genes that supress brown, and additional brown genes are all potential explanations]).

http://www.athro.com/evo/gen/inherit1.html

Two people with blue eyes, however, can not have children with brown eyes, because blue eyes is recessive. For the allele that gives blue eyes will be reflected in the shape of the eyes are blue colored, can not allele for brown eyes to be present. When the allele for brown eyes of the head is not present, nor can their children inherit the allele for brown eyes from his parents and all children will be blue eyes.

by pauline 23.08.11 12:24

what colour are gerry's eyes?

what colour are kate's eyes?

i remember this eye stuff vaguely from school. Found it fascinating.

by LG78 23.08.11 13:05

pauline wrote:what colour are gerry's eyes?

what colour are kate's eyes?

i remember this eye stuff vaguely from school. Found it fascinating.

They are both blue eyed

by Daisy 23.08.11 14:17

Does anyone here have a copy of the book? The quote about 'big brown eyes' is supposedly from p 26. Does it say 'brown' eyes or: "Our daughter was perfect. A beautiful
round head, no marks, and not at all squashed. Big, big eyes and a
lovely, compact little body. The most wonderful thing I had ever set
eyes on. I loved her instantly."

by Guest 23.08.11 14:22

That sounds much better Daisy, as she has blue eyes.

by **tigger** 23.08.11 14:23

Daisy wrote:Does anyone here have a copy of the book? The quote about 'big brown eyes' is supposedly from p 26. Does it say 'brown' eyes or: "Our daughter was perfect. A beautiful
round head, no marks, and not at all squashed. Big, big eyes and a
lovely, compact little body. The most wonderful thing I had ever set
eyes on. I loved her instantly."

Re: Kate obsessed with beautiful children?
PeterMac on Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:42 pm

p 26 "Our daughter was perfect. A beautiful round head, no marks, and not at all squashed. Big, brown eyes and a lovely, compact little body. The most wonderful thing I had ever set eyes on. I loved her instantly."

p.37 He wasn’t the prettiest, God bless him: he was squashed from the birth and his head was lopsided. But I loved him regardless and I’m glad to say he’s a really handsome chap these days, just gorgeous. Amelie was beautiful from the start - petite with a little rosebud mouth.”

p 129 too infamous to quote here - but again the emphasis on the ‘perfect’ rather than normal.

p 52 Sean and Amelie had always been perfect sleepers

So some perfect children, but Katey is such a perfect mother that she is able to love the one who wasn't. And now he is perfect and gorgeous again, so that's all right then. This is part of the strange Disney world they inhabit. Nothing can just be normal.
In fact we know that Madeleine was not perfect at all. She had a possibly very serious eye condition, which may be a sign of other genetic abnormalities, she screamed with colic for the first four months of her life, she had difficulty sleeping and used to get out of bed and go into the parent's bedroom, hence the need for the 'star chart'.
And when the detectives asked Katey whether she had considered handing Madeleine to a relative to look after, this was not something they just invented. They knew the answer and were asking to see if Katey would tell the truth or lie. In fact she refused to answer.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Hamlet, 3,2,230

_______________________________________________

PeterMac

Posts: 740
Join date: 2010-12-06

by pauline 23.08.11 14:25

just checked p.26 - it is big big eyes.

No mention of brown.

by Daisy 23.08.11 14:28

pauline wrote:just checked p.26 - it is big big eyes.

No mention of brown.

Thank you Pauline.

by LG78 23.08.11 14:52

Daisy wrote:
pauline wrote:just checked p.26 - it is big big eyes.

No mention of brown.

Thank you Pauline.

its so important to get the facts right ! Big differense in saying big eyes and brown eyes..Bu why say big big eyes? That sounds odd. Big blue eyes would been more correct, or big gourgouse eyes, big beautiful eyes etc.. Big big eyes would not have been my choice..

by Guest 23.08.11 14:56

Perhaps it was a typo they never picked up, before it went to print.

by LG78 23.08.11 15:03

Stella wrote:Perhaps it was a typo they never picked up, before it went to print.

Maybe it was..

by **tigger** 23.08.11 17:30

LG78 wrote:
Stella wrote:Perhaps it was a typo they never picked up, before it went to print.

Maybe it was..

As you can see, I quoted from Peter Mac, who was quoting from the book I thought. Has the book gone through another edition? And brown replaced with another big? that would be easier than deleting it perhaps. I'll check in the library in the translated book.Big, big sounds weird!

by **PeterMac** 23.08.11 21:09

Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
In my defence, Your Honours, I should like to observe that since one is not permitted by electronic systems to copy and paste directly from the book in the Kindle form, one is forced to re-type the content, and at that point one's own brain and one's own understanding of the normal rules of grammer, syntax, form and vocabulary, together one's own knowledge of the normal flow of the educated versions of the English language tends to force what appear to be strange constructions - "big, big" - for example, into something more comprehensible.

Try closing your eyes and typing "at random",. and you will find that words appear !

by Guest 24.08.11 19:52

Hi! Okeee... No big brown eyes for Madeleine. But, I recently saw a picture of Sean, who appears to have brown eyes.. His sister has blue. I am no good with the copy and paste stuff, but it is on another recent thread with also a picture of a very young looking Kate with Madeleine.

by **tigger** 24.08.11 20:32

Juulcy wrote:Hi! Okeee... No big brown eyes for Madeleine. But, I recently saw a picture of Sean, who appears to have brown eyes.. His sister has blue. I am no good with the copy and paste stuff, but it is on another recent thread with also a picture of a very young looking Kate with Madeleine.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/49may11/SUN1_13_05_2011.htm

I've seen it too, Sean has brown eyes, Amelie bright blue with a dark rim, Maddie blue or blue/green. Does that still mean they're twins?

by Guest 24.08.11 20:50

hi, they can be twins, but Sean cannot be a biological child of the two blue eyed parents Kate and Gerry.
If Sean's eyes are really brown, and Kate's and Gerry's really blue, you have to conclude that either the sperm or the sperm and the eggs that produced Sean, are not from Gerry and Kate.

If Sean and Amelie are twins, then the same goes for her probably, although Technically you can put back two or more fertilised eggs from different donors in the same womb I suppose.

Sorry that this topic sounds so crude btw. ,

Don't know if it will help in the search for the truth about Madeleine's disapearance, but it might mean that also Madeleine is (partly) created with help fom a donor.