Playground Photo

ultimaThule wrote:Thank you very much, Nereid.

The palm tree in the pool photo is losing its bark at the bottom which rules it out as a candidate for the current photo which is under scrutiny. 

Fwiw, as far as I recall, all of the palms within the walled/fenced off area are well-established but of differening girths.

If that is a wall rather than a fence to the west of the pool area, and if the wall is painted white, your dot could represent the spot where the child was allegedly standing when the photo was taken.

If, as I suspect,  there was no child, the shot would have been of the bottom of a palm tree set on a raised area edged with pink/ochre colour bricks/stones with a white wall in the back ground and the scene was magnified at the time the shot was taken or blown up thereafter.

Nereid wrote:The coloured pic is a cropped version of one that exists in black and white (part of the set that went off to Hamsphire constabulary). So I doubt that one has been tampered with.

The Snapper wrote:So in the playground photo we have two suns and shadows where they shouldn't be

In this one

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

we have one sun, but it's in the wrong place in the sky (north) and it's a sun that just picks out people's hair and doesn't leave shadows

juliet wrote:This is off topic but is linked to the general mystery about almost all McCann photos. The pic of a skinny young Kate with her friend (Nicky?). If someone could put the photo up it is obvious Kate's face has been pasted on another child's head. But WHY???

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:

juliet wrote:This is off topic but is linked to the general mystery about almost all McCann photos. The pic of a skinny young Kate with her friend (Nicky?). If someone could put the photo up it is obvious Kate's face has been pasted on another child's head. But WHY???

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

This is the one - it certainly looks strange when you enlarge the photo but what would be the point of tampering with it I don't know.

Perhaps we just expect there to be something wrong in view of all the later photos which definitely are odd.

The Snapper wrote:

Nereid wrote:The coloured pic is a cropped version of one that exists in black and white (part of the set that went off to Hamsphire constabulary). So I doubt that one has been tampered with.

Yes Nereid, there isn't enough visual information to take this forward, it may well be fine, the shining hair may just be a trick of the light but it was worth analysing.
But in the playground photo the inconsistencies are there for all to see, so who put them in, and why? As I said earlier, it appears to be an attempt by somebody to create a scene at approx 6pm on May 2 (though it fails because of the shadow errors). Maddie was signed out of the creche at 5.30pm.
The book records May 2 thus:
Wednesday, 2 May 2007 ..... Gerry and I picked up the children, had lunch in the apartment and then took them to the play area for an hour before walking them to their clubs. The tennis group lessons were rescheduled for the afternoon: Gerry’s group first, followed by mine. After that it was the usual routine: tea with the children, playtime, bathtime, milk, stories, kids’ bedtime, get ready.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
My first reaction to that (which I've never seen before just this moment BTW) is that it's not the head that's wrong but the "hang" of the arms. I'd put good money on that being a boy's body.

Why in the blue hell anybody would do that? Search me....  

candyfloss wrote:Admin has informed me that The Snapper is OvertheHill who was banned already.  Obviously here to disrupt, certainly not being honest by coming back in another guise, but unfortunately for people who are trying this tactic it won't work!!

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Admin has informed me that The Snapper is OvertheHill who was banned already.  Obviously here to disrupt, certainly not being honest by coming back in another guise, but unfortunately for people who are trying this tactic it won't work!!

That's genuinely surprised me - I didn't agree with everything he said as the Snapper (as opposed to not agreeing with anything he said as Over The Hill!) but he seemed on the level. Didn't they both briefly coexist too?

candyfloss wrote:

No, TheSnapper only joined 4 days ago, after OTH was banned.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

No, TheSnapper only joined 4 days ago, after OTH was banned.

Wow. I need to get a grip on the passage of time!

Nereid wrote:

The Snapper wrote:

Nereid wrote:The coloured pic is a cropped version of one that exists in black and white (part of the set that went off to Hamsphire constabulary). So I doubt that one has been tampered with.

Yes Nereid, there isn't enough visual information to take this forward, it may well be fine, the shining hair may just be a trick of the light but it was worth analysing.
But in the playground photo the inconsistencies are there for all to see, so who put them in, and why? As I said earlier, it appears to be an attempt by somebody to create a scene at approx 6pm on May 2 (though it fails because of the shadow errors). Maddie was signed out of the creche at 5.30pm.
The book records May 2 thus:
Wednesday, 2 May 2007 ..... Gerry and I picked up the children, had lunch in the apartment and then took them to the play area for an hour before walking them to their clubs. The tennis group lessons were rescheduled for the afternoon: Gerry’s group first, followed by mine. After that it was the usual routine: tea with the children, playtime, bathtime, milk, stories, kids’ bedtime, get ready.

snipped

I also suspected the snapper... came in too quick, too steering, usual format...
However, these people in their enthusiasm do bring our focus onto things that we might have otherwise not correlated.
Kate's statement above does not correspond with 'Mrs. Boyd's' happy memories as she re-told in the something or other magazine article.
How does Kate lounge on a sun-lounger when the child's clothing represents cold-weather clothing. It had rained in the morning, tennis had been cancelled. The weather was not sunny.
Mrs. Boyd does not mention the presence of the twins, nor of Gerry except for his coming back and putting his arm around Kate, still no mention of Gerry re-appearing with the twins, Kate implying the twins were there, i.e. the children at the play area for an hour.
Nor does Kate talk about Maddie playing football for an hour with this woman's son.
Since this Boyd flourish was one of the frail indicators of 'Maddie's presence' as PdL at some point during the week, it seems to self-eliminate.
So, where is there any 'definite', provable proof of Maddie being any where, at any specific time, at PdL.
Possibly, if the little girl is Maddie, then the cropped photo of her and Payne's daughter (background the wide palm tree) from the Black and Whites sent to Hampshire, could be kosher.
This could just as well have been taken at the beginning of the week, on arrival, seeing as though the little girl is wearing what she was wearing on the plane steps and bus, but Maddie's trousers seem to have ben changed for longer warmer ones versus the cotton looking ones on the bus.
But the playground photo, with its inconsistent shadows, which was apparently not on the B & W, looks as though Payne's daughter, Sean and Maddie have been added in to give the appearance of a happy family gathering.
Nothing substantial here, just a query, where is Amelie, beside mummy ? out of the family photo whilst she takes the picture, just like the pool photo where Sean must have been ? with mummy ? and outside the family photo.
The family compositions seem wrong to me.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Admin has informed me that The Snapper is OvertheHill who was banned already.  Obviously here to disrupt, certainly not being honest by coming back in another guise, but unfortunately for people who are trying this tactic it won't work!!

That's genuinely surprised me - I didn't agree with everything he said as the Snapper (as opposed to not agreeing with anything he said as Over The Hill!) but he seemed on the level. Didn't they both briefly coexist too?

Ladyinred wrote:Are the disruptors who post here maliciously or because they have nothing else to do?  Tony Bennett had smelt a rat, IMO.

aquila wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:Are the disruptors who post here maliciously or because they have nothing else to do?  Tony Bennett had smelt a rat, IMO.

There are a few disruptors here imo. One in particular I can think of spends hours of the day/evening/weekend posting with a cheeky chappy style whilst carefully and skilfully - give credit where it's due - manipulating topics. I have to admit I find this person amusing but it's only because I can see what they are doing - it's like having a naughty pet.