Re: Photographs and memories Part 2

by Guest 28.09.12 8:27

Ribisl wrote:@Moa I don't think the white sandals Amelie is wearing are the same as the ones worn by Madeleine on the tennis court.
I don't understand why she was wearing the pink ones with toes cut out though. We know the MCs weren't well-off but maybe they were more hard up than we imagined. That in turn could explain a whole lot more about the things that happened since Madeleine's disappearance.

I agree, have had a closer look and they look differents. Amelies sandals are closed in the back, and Madeleines is open..
But they do look white and shiny and pretty new..
I agree with the cut off toe sandals, why on earth do that? And what a job cutting it off.. It also looks very poorly..

by jd 28.09.12 16:18

I'm curious to know what is the object on top of Maddies right knee. Looks like a tennis ball or something and very odd. Maddies whole body just looks so out of joint & proportion and nothing like any of the other pictures of her especially the poolside, I don't think I have ever seen such a strange photo of anyone
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **tigger** 28.09.12 16:49

I can only think that's another knee, i.e. a place where a knee was slightly lifted. This is a composite:
Maddie is holding the icecream with only her curved right index finger, leaning it slightly against her other index finger. Between her hands is a tissue and a short white stripe which has nothing to do with clothes or the tissue or the icecream.
The icecream is too short. All the others have longer cones.
The flowers from the skirt/dress are also visible in the crease of the jacket where there should only be grey.
If anything it looks like the body was pasted from the bottom of the jacket upwards, Then the icecream was added. I'd have to have a better look, but this is just off the cuff.

by Nina 28.09.12 16:56

I think that it is a ball placed under her skirt hem whilst she is seated. Madeleine is looking to her right, Sean to his left, not important just a point. Where are the others looking?
I am amazed that there isn't a hint of ice-cream on Madeleine's mouth, whereas Sean looks just as he should, he's enjoying it.

by Guest 28.09.12 17:00

It certainly looks to me as if her fingers aren't touching the cornet at all. Facially I can see very little resemblance between her, the girl by the poolside and the one at the tennis court though maybe if all three were put side by side I might think otherwise.

by Guest 28.09.12 17:41

Look at the reflections in the car. Maybe we can see something there. Is there a better quality of this picture out there or is this the best?

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

by Hummingbird 28.09.12 18:41

Moa wrote:So lets say this one is taken in 2007 ,obviously before May sometime

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

And if this is taken also in 2007 before May,

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

Her hair is different in lenghts..

Anyone any ideas EXACTLY when the picture of the twins in their baby bouncers with MM sat next to them was taken?

How old do you think the twins are in this picture? Over a month old? Over two months old? Or older still?

by **tigger** 28.09.12 18:48

That could be not long before the Mallorca holiday in 2005. When the Paynes often took Maddie off their hands so they could concentrate on the twins.
Twins would be about 4/5 months there I'm guessing.

by **tigger** 28.09.12 18:59

Moa wrote:Look at the reflections in the car. Maybe we can see something there. Is there a better quality of this picture out there or is this the best?

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

I've been blowing it up and it's not very high resolution, but I'm beginning to think there is movement in the skirt, nothing else in the clothes of the children seems to be moving except the skirt and that might account for the bulge. I'm pretty sure that the whole of the top body is pasted on and that's partly why her position looks so strange, forget about the cone, that's definitely added. But the body is OK from where the jacket begins except that a few flowers from the skirt have moved on to the jacket.
There is little or no room left for her lower body from the waist to the hips to sit the way she does.
The upright stance could well be because the original picture showed her standing and holding something else in her hands.

by jd 07.10.12 0:25

Is this really the same child? Both photos taken within a month of each other

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

by Guest 07.10.12 0:44

I think it's possible JD that they are one and the same; the one on the left is a bit blurred which doesn't help. The two that I have the most problems with are the poolside one and the tennis ball girl.

by jd 07.10.12 1:00

Jean wrote:I think it's possible JD that they are one and the same; the one on the left is a bit blurred which doesn't help. The two that I have the most problems with are the poolside one and the tennis ball girl.

To me they look totally different. When I see different pictures of April Jones (and Tia Sharpe) I can see straight away it is the same girl, but these Maddie ones they just do not add up

by **tigger** 07.10.12 7:35

jd wrote:
Jean wrote:I think it's possible JD that they are one and the same; the one on the left is a bit blurred which doesn't help. The two that I have the most problems with are the poolside one and the tennis ball girl.
To me they look totally different. When I see different pictures of April Jones (and Tia Sharpe) I can see straight away it is the same girl, but these Maddie ones they just do not add up

Imo that is Maddie on the left but not close to the time the pool photo was taken. She looks even smaller and that too is supposed to be about a month away from the tennis photo.
But what is abundantly clear to me is that is not a healthy girl. She looks very pale and ill there.

by sami 07.10.12 8:41

Madeleine has the look of a premature baby to me

In the few baby photos I have seen she is tiny (not in a petite girly way) and many of the toddler photographs are of a tiny child also. One of mine was an early baby and up until about three he always seemed too small for his skin. A weird way to explain it, but at nearly three he just grew into himself and caught up. The same for my friends early baby too but her little one was always sickly looking and frail until about 4, even though the child was healthy.

It is hard to describe, the child would not necessarily be small in height for age or anything, just a specific "look" that I see sometimes in children who were early babies.

by badger5149 10.10.12 22:10

sami wrote:Madeleine has the look of a premature baby to me

In the few baby photos I have seen she is tiny (not in a petite girly way) and many of the toddler photographs are of a tiny child also. One of mine was an early baby and up until about three he always seemed too small for his skin. A weird way to explain it, but at nearly three he just grew into himself and caught up. The same for my friends early baby too but her little one was always sickly looking and frail until about 4, even though the child was healthy.

It is hard to describe, the child would not necessarily be small in height for age or anything, just a specific "look" that I see sometimes in children who were early babies.

I recognize a similar look caused by fetal alcohol syndrome. Check out another thread called theory started by me about a week ago.

by jd 11.10.12 1:48

kate mccann was born on the 5th March 1968

This is kate in her early 20's
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is kate mccann around 37 years old
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is kate mccann at 40
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

See any resemblance? Please do not say lighting pray2

If lighting could make you look 15 years younger wouldn't we all be doing the same if it were this simple

by **tigger** 11.10.12 6:43

In the top photo I see a young woman who's got hopes, ambitions, even a certain innocence. Life hasn't treated her badly up to that point. That is my interpretation. The point is: you can't put that look back on your face once you've lost it. It's gone forever. Faces are engraved with emotions and experiences.

The disappointments must have started with the marriage - the pregnancies, the lack of money. Possibly compensated by overuse of alcohol which is also written all over a face.

In the first few months after 3/5/07 Kate looked positively glowing but still older by some ten years than the above picture. Since the whole desired lifestyle crumbled she has aged incredibly. She looks around 50 to me now.

by Miraflores 11.10.12 8:28

Well, I don't see the photo of Madeleine with the birthday cake as being her second birthday whatever the papers said, so that explains a little.

First photo -a happy Kate before a few months of colic from Madeleine, and then a difficult pregnancy could have begun to age her.

by Guest 11.10.12 10:04

jd wrote:kate mccann was born on the 5th March 1968

This is kate in her early 20's
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

***
We all look with different eyes. To me this looks like a pregnant Kate ...

by cath2756 11.10.12 13:48

The photo of the new born Madeleine always jumps out at me each time I see it (and not in a good way). I have enlarged the pic etc. to try to pin down what it is I'm seeing on first impression and I'm still not sure so maybe someone who is good with photographs can take a look. The baby just doesn't look right somehow. I know new born babies sometimes have swelling, mis-shapen heads etc. depending on how the birth went and it may just be that it isn't a particularly clear photo but the baby seems to have a very short forehead, deep skull, swollen eye sockets and a strangely shaped nose. Its more noticible on the colour version of the photo. Again, I am maybe seeing something that isn't there but for my own peace of mind I would really appreciate it if someone could have a look

by **tigger** 11.10.12 15:29

cath2756 wrote:The photo of the new born Madeleine always jumps out at me each time I see it (and not in a good way). I have enlarged the pic etc. to try to pin down what it is I'm seeing on first impression and I'm still not sure so maybe someone who is good with photographs can take a look. The baby just doesn't look right somehow. I know new born babies sometimes have swelling, mis-shapen heads etc. depending on how the birth went and it may just be that it isn't a particularly clear photo but the baby seems to have a very short forehead, deep skull, swollen eye sockets and a strangely shaped nose. Its more noticible on the colour version of the photo. Again, I am maybe seeing something that isn't there but for my own peace of mind I would really appreciate it if someone could have a look

Which photograph is that? Can you point me to it? I only recently worked out how to post them! Or can you describe the photograph?

by cath2756 11.10.12 15:51

tigger wrote:
cath2756 wrote:The photo of the new born Madeleine always jumps out at me each time I see it (and not in a good way). I have enlarged the pic etc. to try to pin down what it is I'm seeing on first impression and I'm still not sure so maybe someone who is good with photographs can take a look. The baby just doesn't look right somehow. I know new born babies sometimes have swelling, mis-shapen heads etc. depending on how the birth went and it may just be that it isn't a particularly clear photo but the baby seems to have a very short forehead, deep skull, swollen eye sockets and a strangely shaped nose. Its more noticible on the colour version of the photo. Again, I am maybe seeing something that isn't there but for my own peace of mind I would really appreciate it if someone could have a look

Which photograph is that? Can you point me to it? I only recently worked out how to post them! Or can you describe the photograph?

Hi Tigger. Nina posted the pic on page 10 of this thread under the title Baby Maddie

by **tigger** 11.10.12 16:01

Here are two screenshot max magnification - it certainly looks strange. The forehead should be more rounded, but strangest imo is the little hand in front of her face. The fingers seem to be splayed, it's just not usual in a baby to cover their face with their hands when they've just been born.

On the other screenshots I must say pretty well everything looks weird, Kate's hands for a start, looks like she's wearing see through mittens.
What is sure that it's a strange first photograph of a baby where you can barely see the baby and Kate looks totally rested en wearing make up.
Most parents take photographs of the baby full face.

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

by **tigger** 11.10.12 16:03

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

Wouldn't do two screenshots in one post. So here's the second.

by cath2756 11.10.12 16:33

tigger wrote:Here are two screenshot max magnification - it certainly looks strange. The forehead should be more rounded, but strangest imo is the little hand in front of her face. The fingers seem to be splayed, it's just not usual in a baby to cover their face with their hands when they've just been born.

On the other screenshots I must say pretty well everything looks weird, Kate's hands for a start, looks like she's wearing see through mittens.
What is sure that it's a strange first photograph of a baby where you can barely see the baby and Kate looks totally rested en wearing make up.
Most parents take photographs of the baby full face.

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

Thanks Tigger - I'm not going crazy then [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]The baby's features just don't look right and, as you say, the fingers are very splayed. Kate is looking very good for a new mum, isn't she

Log in for more topics