Re: Video Analysis of Tennis Court photo

by tuom 30.06.12 14:07

tigger wrote:Thank you for that, very interesting. The tennis court photo has a lot of questions for me, not least the height of the girl. As it was estimated by the known diameter of tennis balls which are in the same plane as the body - it makes her at least 114 cm - not allowing for the downward angle.
Her back is too chunky and I find the right hand much too old for a four year old child -knuckles are very large and obvious, not the dimply hands of a toddler.
Her head is just a little too far forward - doesn't sit right imo.
That's just my thoughts.

The one where the photoshopping is easiest to see is the Everton shirt - lots wrong with that and very sloppy photoshopping imo.

IIRC there is a lot of mention of this picture in the bewk , I do not have the book to hand so am open to correction, I think Kate says that after the adults played tennis that the creche played a game with the kids to see who could collect the most tennis balls and that MMC looked so cute that KMC had to run back to the apartment to get her camera to take the photo that is now known all over the world , now I do not see any 3 year old standing still so the pose was done a second time for the photo IMO , KMC gushes in the book about how proud, happy etc to have taken this picture however, I seem to remember there was some confusion as to who actually took the picture !. The clothes in this picture are wrong IMO , those shorts I remember my daughter having those , the white piping is distintive and goes in a "V" shape at the side of the legs , my daughter is 20 . The sandals also are very very old fashioned as are the blue socks , I am well out of kids fashions by now but those clothes are suspect IMO . Now the way MMC is hunched may be due to the fact that she is trying to hold all the balls , however there is something strange about her hands and I have seen that look of her hands in other pictures too , all in my humble opinion ...

For more on this photo [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **tigger** 30.06.12 14:54

I think a lot of the confusion is due to the fact that narcissistic people hardly notice how other people look, otherwise it's pretty near impossible to have publicised the red dress - iconic poster photo and the girl so totally unlike that one on the tennis court within days of each other.

by jd 30.06.12 15:08

tigger wrote: - iconic poster photo and the girl so totally unlike that one on the tennis court within days of each other.

when you have philomena mccann in charge of finding photos back in the UK what do you expect the end result to be! winkwink

by Nina 30.06.12 15:42

And compare the large size of Madeleine's foot to her hands. What a lot of questionable areas yet again.

by uppatoffee 30.06.12 15:46

@ bobbin

You wrote "The most important thing here is that her trousers being that close to the granite worktop would have had to have made a reflection and one cannot argue that if the trousers were further back away from the worktop they could have been too far back to make a reflection."

What I was trying to say is that I believe that Kate is standing too close to the work top for her trousers to be reflected. They are not above the worktop, but level with it. The books you refer to are much higher up than Kate's trousers hence reflected.

I also think that the photos are both Nora. She has just had a drastic haircut by the second photo! I think Nora was born in 1945, so this would seem to fit with that as she would be early 60s.

by rainbow-fairy 30.06.12 16:03

tuom wrote:
tigger wrote:Thank you for that, very interesting. The tennis court photo has a lot of questions for me, not least the height of the girl. As it was estimated by the known diameter of tennis balls which are in the same plane as the body - it makes her at least 114 cm - not allowing for the downward angle.
Her back is too chunky and I find the right hand much too old for a four year old child -knuckles are very large and obvious, not the dimply hands of a toddler.
Her head is just a little too far forward - doesn't sit right imo.
That's just my thoughts.

The one where the photoshopping is easiest to see is the Everton shirt - lots wrong with that and very sloppy photoshopping imo.

IIRC there is a lot of mention of this picture in the bewk , I do not have the book to hand so am open to correction, I think Kate says that after the adults played tennis that the creche played a game with the kids to see who could collect the most tennis balls and that MMC looked so cute that KMC had to run back to the apartment to get her camera to take the photo that is now known all over the world , now I do not see any 3 year old standing still so the pose was done a second time for the photo IMO , KMC gushes in the book about how proud, happy etc to have taken this picture however, I seem to remember there was some confusion as to who actually took the picture !. The clothes in this picture are wrong IMO , those shorts I remember my daughter having those , the white piping is distintive and goes in a "V" shape at the side of the legs , my daughter is 20 . The sandals also are very very old fashioned as are the blue socks , I am well out of kids fashions by now but those clothes are suspect IMO . Now the way MMC is hunched may be due to the fact that she is trying to hold all the balls , however there is something strange about her hands and I have seen that look of her hands in other pictures too , all in my humble opinion ...

For more on this photo [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

tuom, I totally agree re the fashions. They say about every 20 yrs for a fashion to come around again, I am )as u can see) 38 and wore similar clothes (likely hand-me-down)
I can't put my finger on it, but its all very late 60's/70's - would fit with Kate's age. The odd-thing-out is the hat, but then the head looks photoshopped anyway imho

by russiandoll 30.06.12 16:29

I have a problem with this photo which I have thought for a long time was Maddies head shopped on to a 1970s photo of a girl, it is the arms......Maddie had been photographed before with this demarcation line, very pronounced here, at the wrist. How could the arms have been shopped in?

by uppatoffee 30.06.12 16:34

I think that the court is a more recent type of court, not 60s and 70s as I don't think they had surfaces like that back then.

by Nina 30.06.12 16:36

russiandoll wrote:I have a problem with this photo which I have thought for a long time was Maddies head shopped on to a 1970s photo of a girl, it is the arms......Maddie had been photographed before with this demarcation line, very pronounced here, at the wrist. How could the arms have been shopped in?

When you compare the size of the hands on the tennis picture to those of the birthday cake picture it just doesn't add up it is the same girl.

by bristow 01.07.12 2:38

When you enlarge the 'cake photo' and look at Kates right leg, the check on her trousers at the edge is completely smudged, sloppy photoshop without a doubt imo.

by bobbin 01.07.12 10:05

bristow wrote:When you enlarge the 'cake photo' and look at Kates right leg, the check on her trousers at the edge is completely smudged, sloppy photoshop without a doubt imo.

I've just looked and agree the trouser job is really bad. It made me look again at the T towel which has bugged me. I now realise that the bottom reflection/line is not possible. It is reflecting a fold that isn't there, at least not big enough or overhanging enough to be part of a true reflection. Truly bad work. GCSE level grade F. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by david_uk 03.07.12 10:17

Oh brother!... Is this thread for real!? wtf

by jd 03.09.12 15:39

Why is 'Maddie' not wearing the creche's wristband? Where are all the other kids from the same class? Not even a hint of any

Why is this photo not on their camera? (yet it got to philomena mccann the next day or 2). Why are the photos of Maddie from the holiday either on her own, with gerry and one of the twins....none with kate mccann...none with any other child from creche. It seems she arrived on April 28th then just disappeared........

by Ross 03.09.12 16:04

jd wrote:Why are the photos of Maddie from the holiday either on her own, with gerry and one of the twins....none with kate mccann...none with any other child from creche. It seems she arrived on April 28th then just disappeared........

Why isn't there a single picture of the five of them together? That's what you do on family holidays isn't it? It would be very easily done if you are there with a group of friends and so do not have to ask a passer-by to take one for you.

by **tigger** 11.01.13 9:01

I found this great analysis again and when I enlarge the photo - the ghost of an extra tennisball appeared to my surprise.
I'm pretty sure that another head was pasted onto the body, although it does seem to be the body of Maddie. Possibly the original direction of the head didn't show much of her face. In all the manipulated photos her head is badly positioned, it's the main problem in figure drawing as well.
Anyway here it is: (on the left side of her face, overlapping the cheek)

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

by dentdelion 11.01.13 10:05

Might the yellow on her cheek just be a reflection of the tennis ball she is holding? This would make more for the case of the photo being genuine. It is her size and the odd clothes and sandals that make me query this photo.

by worriedmum 11.01.13 10:27

I wondered if it was a reflection on her face, but it looks a bit like it is over the hair area too.....what is the long white bit in her hair? Background ?

by jozi 11.01.13 10:55

worriedmum wrote:I wondered if it was a reflection on her face, but it looks a bit like it is over the hair area too.....what is the long white bit in her hair? Background ?

No, I think it could be the fashionable hair beads and Kate mentions taking them out at bedtime.

by worriedmum 11.01.13 12:04

oh I thought it was one bead and isn't it on the other side in the pool photo?

by **tigger** 11.01.13 12:45

worriedmum wrote:oh I thought it was one bead and isn't it on the other side in the pool photo?

I think the head was originally further back, I'd have to experiment. The head is too far forward, which is why the extra tennisball was erased.
If you stood her upright, she'd have a hunch back.
Say that there was an original picture (not taken at PdL but slightly earlier) which didn't show her face clearly. In order to have a picture of her taking part in the holiday it was altered with her face from another picture pasted on. As the original face was further back, the tennis ball had to be removed.

Now I have another problem, because that pink hat is being worn by Amelie in the pool photo. Imo it is Amelie who is pasted into that picture. (lots about that in the photograph topic).

Now we have a new situation:
The tennis photo was most likely never taken at PdL.
But it was (as Garyp pointed out) on the editor's desk on the 6th of May.
The pink hat she is wearing is worn the same day by Amelie in the pool photo.
The pool photo without Amelie probably dates from 2006 (age of Madeleine, extremely hot weather, flowers in bloom).
By adding Amelie at the right age (2 yrs and 2 months) it now purports to be taken in 2007.

On the 4th of May most of the day was taken up with statements and long periods at the police station.
One may check the 5th but imo that photograph was ready 'to go'.
The pool photo wasn't and only appeared 3 weeks after the event after Gerry had been to the UK.

I believe that neither photo was found on the camera.

On the 8th of May we have the Belfast Telegraph publishing two photographs which must have arrived on the editor's desk on the 7th.
Both imo also photoshopped.

The Everton photo wasn't long after that. I'm hoping that Garyp will come back to us. He/she is just what we need!

by **tigger** 12.01.13 9:53

For good measure, HideHo's video on the mini tennis.

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

by jozi 12.01.13 12:54

worriedmum wrote:oh I thought it was one bead and isn't it on the other side in the pool photo?

You could be right worriedmum, I just thought that must have been the beads....will have to check whether one bead or beads and which side it was on ?

by jozi 12.01.13 13:02

jozi wrote:
worriedmum wrote:oh I thought it was one bead and isn't it on the other side in the pool photo?

You could be right worriedmum, I just thought that must have been the beads....will have to check whether one bead or beads and which side it was on ?

Just checked and its the same side and 2 beads but at the front of her head ??? Much further up so it can't be the beads as thought !!!

by worriedmum 06.04.13 15:40

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

This image is from theTelegraph. The white strip is clearer on this, it looks wider than a'hair bead' IMO.Plus, what a funny colour the???? is next to her cheek. I would have expected it to be GREEN if it was backgound, and surely it cannot be her neck?

by **tigger** 06.04.13 16:29

I think (well spotted!) the white strip is the white T-shirt on the left shoulder. However, we still have the ghost tennisball we can see better in this shot.

What I'm looking for is the 7th vertebra - crucial in determining where the neck and head should be. I'm sure it's too far forward, once again the head is pasted on ( imo. in Donegal, in the pool photo and here too) . Now this appears to be the only photo which shows the mark on her leg just below the knee which is part of the full description given to the PJ. This mark is never mentioned again as far as I know.
So wether it's Maddie's body or not, I wouldn't know. I do know the head isn't on right and the original photo had the head in quite a different position for the extra tennisball to be included. click on the picture and you'll get a full screen high res. image.

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