Faked Photos

by MOTBO 22.08.11 10:06

Have found a 2003/2004 photo of Madeleine McCann that in my opinion has beed doctored, the photo was in the Sun newspaper of the 13/05/11

The one with uncle Johnny in it, link

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

Note the shadows on the right side of the photo the sun is to Uncle Johnnys left your right, the left side of the photo the sun is to Uncle Johnnys right your left.

Also note Madeleines ,note you can clearly see the lines where the face has been very poorly stuck on.

Why fake a picture so old?????

[img][/img]

by Guest 22.08.11 14:07

I'm not sure if I can see what you mean MOTBO and I presume you're talking about the photo with her grandfather, not her uncle. It's interesting though to see the array of photos; it's hard to be sure that they're all of the same child. Sometimes she looks very like Kate and sometimes she doesn't. I don't think that anything relating to this case is straightforward!

by **tigger** 22.08.11 14:36

MOTBO wrote:Have found a 2003/2004 photo of Madeleine McCann that in my opinion has beed doctored, the photo was in the Sun newspaper of the 13/05/11

The one with uncle Johnny in it, link

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

Note the shadows on the right side of the photo the sun is to Uncle Johnnys left your right, the left side of the photo the sun is to Uncle Johnnys right your left.

Also note Madeleines ,note you can clearly see the lines where the face has been very poorly stuck on.

Why fake a picture so old?????

[img][/img]

We are also treated to one 6 o'clock coloboma, one slightly bled into the eyelash and the others more or less at 7 o'clock.
the photo on the bench and the one with the maniacally grinning G with M on his right, are photos where I think her face looks very lopsided.
Apart from the rather swollen eyes she has in many photos.
The lopsidedness is very marked in these. There's one later one where she's not smiling, about 3.5 - looking sad but also her face looks lopsided again.
In the photograph with uncle - I have no idea how old she is, but again she doesn't look completely 'normal'.
Well, why the photoshopping. Well, the photo in the book, with again the maniac grin of daddy over her head, when M is just a baby, is probably also shopped. He is wearing the same suit and tie he was wearing five years later to court in Lisbon. His right shoulder doesn't seem to be in the right position.
Well, one thing with photoshopping, it's used a lot in porn 'publications'.
Still, most of the stuff they've put out is pretty crummy, see the Everton shirt girl. Another thing I've noticed is a lot of make up. Lipstick and eyeliner mostly. The iconic poster girl also has mascara IMO.

by Newintown 22.08.11 16:14

Marian wrote:I'm not sure if I can see what you mean MOTBO and I presume you're talking about the photo with her grandfather, not her uncle. It's interesting though to see the array of photos; it's hard to be sure that they're all of the same child. Sometimes she looks very like Kate and sometimes she doesn't. I don't think that anything relating to this case is straightforward!

I think I can see what MOTBO means. If you study the photo of M with Grandad, on M the shadows are on the right (her foot, head, under face) but on Grandad his shadows are to his left (head for instance).

I've also just noticed that his left hand looks incomplete as if the outline has been cut around and stuck on. His little finger and finger next to is look like they're been cut into.

by MOTBO 22.08.11 17:03

Newintown wrote:
Marian wrote:I'm not sure if I can see what you mean MOTBO and I presume you're talking about the photo with her grandfather, not her uncle. It's interesting though to see the array of photos; it's hard to be sure that they're all of the same child. Sometimes she looks very like Kate and sometimes she doesn't. I don't think that anything relating to this case is straightforward!

I think I can see what MOTBO means. If you study the photo of M with Grandad, on M the shadows are on the right (her foot, head, under face) but on Grandad his shadows are to his left (head for instance).

I've also just noticed that his left hand looks incomplete as if the outline has been cut around and stuck on. His little finger and finger next to is look like they're been cut into.

Yes thank you its fake

by Newintown 22.08.11 18:54

MOTBO wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Marian wrote:I'm not sure if I can see what you mean MOTBO and I presume you're talking about the photo with her grandfather, not her uncle. It's interesting though to see the array of photos; it's hard to be sure that they're all of the same child. Sometimes she looks very like Kate and sometimes she doesn't. I don't think that anything relating to this case is straightforward!

I think I can see what MOTBO means. If you study the photo of M with Grandad, on M the shadows are on the right (her foot, head, under face) but on Grandad his shadows are to his left (head for instance).

I've also just noticed that his left hand looks incomplete as if the outline has been cut around and stuck on. His little finger and finger next to is look like they're been cut into.

Yes thank you its fake

I've just had a thought as to why Grandad's hand has been photoshopped, I expect he was wearing a ring showing allegiance to some orgnisation or other - Masons / IRA / *Sooty and Sweep Appreciation Society

*Sorry, couldn't resist, showing my age now!!

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

by Gillyspot 22.08.11 20:05

There is no way Madeleine shows any coloboma on this photo. "This photograph of Gerry with Madeleine and the twins in his arms was taken during a family holiday"

by LG78 22.08.11 20:32

Gillyspot wrote:There is no way Madeleine shows any coloboma on this photo. "This photograph of Gerry with Madeleine and the twins in his arms was taken during a family holiday"

I will say you are 99 % Correct on that. Defently NO Fleck or Colomba on that picture. I blown it up in Photoshop so it gets in squares. And no dark squares there. BUT it do look like a little fleck 10/11 o'clock..

But defently no colomba where its suposed to be. See here
[img][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/img]

And the picture with her GRandfather, the picture looks so old... More believeble if it was Kates babyphoto lol..

by **tigger** 22.08.11 20:45

Gillyspot wrote:There is no way Madeleine shows any coloboma on this photo. "This photograph of Gerry with Madeleine and the twins in his arms was taken during a family holiday"

You're right, although I think this little girl doesn't look much like Madeleine. This photograph doesn't look photoshopped at all.
Has anyone noticed the twin's eye colours? Amelie has bright blue eyes with a dark outer rim, Sean's eyes are sort of brownish. Maddie's eyes were blue/green, but don't forget Kate says in the book she was born with 'big brown eyes'. K should get out more, read up on genetics, brown eyes don't turn blue. Vice versa is possible.
The one where Kate is lying down can't be right, if only because she looks about 25 max. I think her age is quite easy to guess from photos and she could be even younger here. So the child she is holding may not be Maddie. But there is the pink hump of Cuddlecat lying there? Or is that part of the blanket?
Cuddlecat being a constant companion of both Maddie and Kate isn't an article of faith with me. Far too clean right from the start.
I read other posts saying it had been bought at the airport just before PdL. Together with the colouring book?
So that photo, charming as it is, doesn't work on many levels.
Has anyone noticed the very grown up photo with the sunglasses on her head and the very clear mascara?
A lot of photographs are just 'off'' - like someone hitting a wrong note.

by littlepixie 22.08.11 20:50

If you look at Kate & Mrs Healy they both have one eye bigger than the other. In some pics it looks as if Madeleine may have inherited this.

Madeleine looks like two different girls to me in some of the pictures.

Just look at the last two pictures in the link. The ones where she is with the twins. The girl in the purple top swinging the toy looks absolutely nothing like the girl who is nibbling the biscuit.

The baby pics do look like the Madeleine we have come to recognise and she was absolutely beautiful.

by LG78 22.08.11 20:54

tigger wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:There is no way Madeleine shows any coloboma on this photo. "This photograph of Gerry with Madeleine and the twins in his arms was taken during a family holiday"

You're right, although I think this little girl doesn't look much like Madeleine. This photograph doesn't look photoshopped at all.
Has anyone noticed the twin's eye colours? Amelie has bright blue eyes with a dark outer rim, Sean's eyes are sort of brownish. Maddie's eyes were blue/green, but don't forget Kate says in the book she was born with 'big brown eyes'. K should get out more, read up on genetics, brown eyes don't turn blue. Vice versa is possible.
The one where Kate is lying down can't be right, if only because she looks about 25 max. I think her age is quite easy to guess from photos and she could be even younger here. So the child she is holding may not be Maddie. But there is the pink hump of Cuddlecat lying there? Or is that part of the blanket?
Cuddlecat being a constant companion of both Maddie and Kate isn't an article of faith with me. Far too clean right from the start.
I read other posts saying it had been bought at the airport just before PdL. Together with the colouring book?
So that photo, charming as it is, doesn't work on many levels.
Has anyone noticed the very grown up photo with the sunglasses on her head and the very clear mascara?
A lot of photographs are just 'off'' - like someone hitting a wrong note.

I agree I mensioned that also, she looks so young on that laying picture, and Maddies eyes are so crystal blue. And also I found this picture, now, compeare that with the picture of her laying. The hair cut, the hair color. Cant be that much time between this picture?

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

by Newintown 22.08.11 21:30

LG78 wrote:
tigger wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:There is no way Madeleine shows any coloboma on this photo. "This photograph of Gerry with Madeleine and the twins in his arms was taken during a family holiday"

You're right, although I think this little girl doesn't look much like Madeleine. This photograph doesn't look photoshopped at all.
Has anyone noticed the twin's eye colours? Amelie has bright blue eyes with a dark outer rim, Sean's eyes are sort of brownish. Maddie's eyes were blue/green, but don't forget Kate says in the book she was born with 'big brown eyes'. K should get out more, read up on genetics, brown eyes don't turn blue. Vice versa is possible.
The one where Kate is lying down can't be right, if only because she looks about 25 max. I think her age is quite easy to guess from photos and she could be even younger here. So the child she is holding may not be Maddie. But there is the pink hump of Cuddlecat lying there? Or is that part of the blanket?
Cuddlecat being a constant companion of both Maddie and Kate isn't an article of faith with me. Far too clean right from the start.
I read other posts saying it had been bought at the airport just before PdL. Together with the colouring book?
So that photo, charming as it is, doesn't work on many levels.
Has anyone noticed the very grown up photo with the sunglasses on her head and the very clear mascara?
A lot of photographs are just 'off'' - like someone hitting a wrong note.

That first photo of K & G looks too modern, it looks as if K has had a makeover for TV or an interview, she looks a completeley different person after Madeleine went missing. Is that really Madeleine they're holding, to me if looks as if the photo was taken about a year ago, Kate looks too "professionally, make up, hair etc" made up. Not too sure what I'm saying here as I've lost the plot and it's nearly 10.00 pm, sorry!

I'm not sure what I'm saying now as I can#t see the photo as I'm typing
I agree I mensioned that also, she looks so young on that laying picture, and Maddies eyes are so crystal blue. And also I found this picture, now, compeare that with the picture of her laying. The hair cut, the hair color. Cant be that much time between this picture?

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

by LG78 22.08.11 21:43

Her teeths are the same it seems in the three pictures side by side.. So dou she looks different I think atleast they are the same girl. My 2 1/2 year old also look "different" in pictures due to hair style, angle and so on...

And for the grandpa picture, The finger could also posilby just be behind the knee , and the shadows looks right. But the picture look old, and I feel that the shoe/shooe in top right maybe looks too big / to close ?

by **tigger** 23.08.11 6:59

[quote="LG78"]

That first photo of K & G looks too modern, it looks as if K has had a makeover for TV or an interview, she looks a completeley different person after Madeleine went missing. Is that really Madeleine they're holding, to me if looks as if the photo was taken about a year ago, Kate looks too "professionally, make up, hair etc" made up. Not too sure what I'm saying here as I've lost the plot and it's nearly 10.00 pm, sorry!

I'm not sure what I'm saying now as I can#t see the photo as I'm typing
I agree I mensioned that also, she looks so young on that laying picture, and Maddies eyes are so crystal blue. And also I found this picture, now, compeare that with the picture of her laying. The hair cut, the hair color. Cant be that much time between this picture?(quote)Int

Perhaps we need a chronological series of photographs of Kate as well as Maddie.
The lying down photo treats us to a 6 o'clock coloboma. Yes, very blue eyes, none of the children's eyes resemble those of Kate much.
I agree, looks like a makeover. Still am convinced that certinly Gerry was pasted in, baby pasted in would make more sense but that would put the date of the photo less than a year ago, going by the hairstyle.
What is it with that maniac grin passing for a smile by Gerry? Perhaps the same coach who taught Gordon Brown to smile had a go at Ger.
Not that that would fool anyone!

by LG78 23.08.11 13:27

Is this Madeleine? [img][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/img]

Found it on here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Couldnt tell if its supposed to be here, or a sighting og someone looking like her ?

by Guest 23.08.11 13:46

The photo is supposed to be of Madeleine but who knows? Never can there have been so much confusion as to what a missing person looks like!

by LG78 23.08.11 13:54

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

1 Pic - Is this the original one or someone photoshoped the fleck away? found it here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Scroll down to the middle of the site, right side.

2 and 3 pic - Big difference on eyecolor and the "colomba"

by LG78 23.08.11 13:54

Marian wrote:The photo is supposed to be of Madeleine but who knows? Never can there have been so much confusion as to what a missing person looks like!

She looks so scared?

by Guest 23.08.11 14:12

I think I'd say more startled than scared, as if someone called her name, making her jump, and then took the photo.

by **tigger** 23.08.11 14:17

Marian wrote:I think I'd say more startled than scared, as if someone called her name, making her jump, and then took the photo.

Could even be Ella. All this confusion with the photographs has served the McCanns well. Even so, I'm hoping this is another glaring inconsistency and that SY will take note. There was quite a resemblance at the time between the two.

by LG78 23.08.11 14:54

Anyone have any poster of Ella?

And the mccanns has lots more photos from the holliday, they are all in the police files, but they are printet so they are to dark to see.
But strange they havent relized more of them to the public or on their site.

by LG78 23.08.11 19:06

Saw this one on youtube, but is that Documentary in whole realy out there?

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

by LG78 01.09.11 9:04

First this picture where Madeleine is a baby .Sitting on Gerrys lap, you clearly see she reach him to his shoulder , and a little above.

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

And on this picture, the famouse poster with a very clearly colomba picture, you clearly see that she sits/lays? on someones lap. i defently see the v neck for tshirt and some man hair sticking up from it. So I guess it is Gerry, but the position of Maddeleine, if shes on his lap, seems like she must almost lay on her stoomack or something?

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

by **tigger** 01.09.11 14:57

LG78 wrote:First this picture where Madeleine is a baby .Sitting on Gerrys lap, you clearly see she reach him to his shoulder , and a little above.

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

And on this picture, the famouse poster with a very clearly colomba picture, you clearly see that she sits/lays? on someones lap. i defently see the v neck for tshirt and some man hair sticking up from it. So I guess it is Gerry, but the position of Maddeleine, if shes on his lap, seems like she must almost lay on her stoomack or something?

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

Once again, this doesn't look like a natural pose. I know I go on about photoshopping, but I've done and do a lot of it, their stuff is easy to spot.
I think the already heavily adjusted photo of Madeleine may simply have been superimposed on a family photo, cut and paste so to speak.
Her face is lit in exactly the same way as on the poster and I'm sure she is sitting, looking up but it's impossible to sit on someone's knee like that.
I'm sure she is not lying down and looking up, that would be a very uncomfortable position if it was possible at all.

I think this was put out to show that the image we now all know to be photoshopped is pasted on a 'normal' family scene. If you can find the christmas 2005 photos, that's when there are others when she looks the same and is wearing that dress.

by **tigger** 01.09.11 15:14

LG78 wrote:Anyone have any poster of Ella?

And the mccanns has lots more photos from the holliday, they are all in the police files, but they are printet so they are to dark to see.
But strange they havent relized more of them to the public or on their site.

I have seen (don't know where, here or on Steel Magnolias or on MM) two photos of Ella and Maddie side by side. They look very alike.
I think certainly the girl in the middle of three, with the sunglasses on her head, isn't Maddie. Quite a different smile.
There was also another girl - I think the Naylor's girl, same age, called Elisabeth at PdL at the creche.

Actually, if you think about it, it was useful to have the coloboma, because once you'd added that to nearly any photo of a little girl, the public would think it was Maddie.

by LG78 01.09.11 17:08

Tigger says: I think this was put out to show that the image we now all know to be photoshopped is pasted on a 'normal' family scene. If you can find the christmas 2005 photos, that's when there are others when she looks the same and is wearing that dress

Thats even more strange, you say this picture is from christmas? who the hell wears a brown Tshirt on christmas? I mean if she is all dressed up in a red dress I would asume that it is christmaseve..

by LG78 01.09.11 17:15

I found this video [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and seems like you are right Tigger, the dress she wears at christmas 2005. BUT, didnt she disappear in 2007 ? Because when you look at this vid, the twins must be over 1 year here? and in 2007 they where 18 months? Or am I wrong? -because looking at this I would assume they must be close two 3 years in 2007?

( Did not see anyone with a brown tshirt on in that 2005 christmas vid)

by Guest 01.09.11 18:22

LG78 wrote:I found this video [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and seems like you are right Tigger, the dress she wears at christmas 2005. BUT, didnt she disappear in 2007 ? Because when you look at this vid, the twins must be over 1 year here? and in 2007 they where 18 months? Or am I wrong? -because looking at this I would assume they must be close two 3 years in 2007?

( Did not see anyone with a brown tshirt on in that 2005 christmas vid)

They were 27 months old in 2007 according to this..................

[snipped]

Birthday Party For McCann Twins

Feb 1 2008

THE parents of Madeleine McCann are laying on a huge birthday party for their twins tomorrow.

Sean and Amelie turn three today.

Kate and Gerry have planned a party at their home in Rothley, Leicestershire.

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

by **tigger** 01.09.11 20:36

LG78 wrote:I found this video [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and seems like you are right Tigger, the dress she wears at christmas 2005. BUT, didnt she disappear in 2007 ? Because when you look at this vid, the twins must be over 1 year here? and in 2007 they where 18 months? Or am I wrong? -because looking at this I would assume they must be close two 3 years in 2007?

( Did not see anyone with a brown tshirt on in that 2005 christmas vid)

If you google Donegal and Madeleine McCann, you'll get two newspaper cuttings with photographs from april 2007! Maddie looks quite tall and so do the twins. They all seem to have rather long legs, which a month later seem to have shrunk again! There is a thread on this site as well.
The photographs, as you are discovering, are a minefield. It's not credible that Maddie in Donegal is the same age as the girl by the pool a month later where she looks much younger. Or the tennis ball girl, who must be all of 114 cm tall.
The photo of the girl who is just leaving the plastic house in the playground in PdL isn't Maddie IMO. She has no coloboma. Just because we are told little blond girls in pink are Maddie, we don't have to believe the McCanns.

Christmas 2005 the twins were just about 10 months old. I think the clip where she is unwrapping a big parcel must be christmas 2006 as the twins are walking quite well by then?

by Guest 02.09.11 2:07

Here's a link to one Donegal photo:

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

This has been discussed somewhere else though I can't find it now. The way that Madeleine is holding the ice cream is odd. It is perfectly possible to hold something like that with the thumbs supporting it at the back but whether a child could do that I don't know.

One can only wonder why the McCanns did not issue such a recent photo immediately rather than old ones.