Re: Photographs and memories Part 2

by jd 25.09.12 10:41

sami wrote:Jd the hammock photo is interesting, in particular your reference to the child being the same boy as in the Sun photograph of Kate and child. I commented before in relation to the Sun photo, I found it strange the child is wearing blue. Unusual to use blue for a small girl of that age. Is the girl walking away from the hammock Amelie by any chance ? The girl in the photo looks to have a mark on her lip, as did Amelie. Perhaps its my computer/eyes.

These ones really interested me. Who is the boy in the hammock? where he is? Its certainly not Sean, and the face of kate in the Sun headline is the same age as the ones of Maddie taken when she was born. Compare the face of younger kate mccann in the Sun headline/Maddie born to the kate mccann blowing the candles out. It begs the question why is she seemingly cuddling what only looks like a boy in the Sun headline? (and who look like he was in the hammock) Its the first time its made me think maybe the mccanns had a boy before Maddie was born?

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

Maybe this is why the mccanns got a CATS number, just a thought

by jd 25.09.12 10:43

How do you explain this?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Hummingbird 25.09.12 11:04

jd wrote:How do you explain this?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Don't know tbh jd!! The boy on the sofa looks like he has a slimmer face to the boy walking with GM!! All very odd!!

Also the little girl being held on Grannys lap looks more like the scowling girl in the hammock picture than MM does!

I totally agree that the first Xmas pictures are very odd the hair is different, unless it was a practice run as who has sellotape out on Xmas morning? All the wrapping is done by then!!

by Guest 25.09.12 11:18

Hummingbird wrote:
jd wrote:How do you explain this?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Don't know tbh jd!! The boy on the sofa looks like he has a slimmer face to the boy walking with GM!! All very odd!!

Also the little girl being held on Grannys lap looks more like the scowling girl in the hammock picture than MM does!

I totally agree that the first Xmas pictures are very odd the hair is different, unless it was a practice run as who has sellotape out on Xmas morning? All the wrapping is done by then!!

Its defently not 2 years between these pictures, as the twins where born in 2005 I guess?

I guess its taken close up to their travel to PDL..

But still, kids grow fast in that age, but if its only 4 -5 months between this photo I guess he would not have grown out of the clothes.

by Hummingbird 25.09.12 11:32

Moa wrote:
Hummingbird wrote:
jd wrote:How do you explain this?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Don't know tbh jd!! The boy on the sofa looks like he has a slimmer face to the boy walking with GM!! All very odd!!

Also the little girl being held on Grannys lap looks more like the scowling girl in the hammock picture than MM does!

I totally agree that the first Xmas pictures are very odd the hair is different, unless it was a practice run as who has sellotape out on Xmas morning? All the wrapping is done by then!!

Its defently not 2 years between these pictures, as the twins where born in 2005 I guess?

I guess its taken close up to their travel to PDL..

But still, kids grow fast in that age, but if its only 4 -5 months between this photo I guess he would not have grown out of the clothes.

I agree there is not 2 years difference here BUT if you are to believe that this is JUST prior to the pdl holiday then look at MM and compare her with the tennis photo!!!!

by Guest 25.09.12 12:23

Hummingbird wrote:
Moa wrote:
Hummingbird wrote:
jd wrote:How do you explain this?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Don't know tbh jd!! The boy on the sofa looks like he has a slimmer face to the boy walking with GM!! All very odd!!

Also the little girl being held on Grannys lap looks more like the scowling girl in the hammock picture than MM does!

I totally agree that the first Xmas pictures are very odd the hair is different, unless it was a practice run as who has sellotape out on Xmas morning? All the wrapping is done by then!!

Its defently not 2 years between these pictures, as the twins where born in 2005 I guess?

I guess its taken close up to their travel to PDL..

But still, kids grow fast in that age, but if its only 4 -5 months between this photo I guess he would not have grown out of the clothes.

I agree there is not 2 years difference here BUT if you are to believe that this is JUST prior to the pdl holiday then look at MM and compare her with the tennis photo!!!!

None of the pictures are compareble to the Tennis pic photo ..imo...

But her hair looks like the same length.. Would be interresting to know when this picture was taken, the one from the sofa...

I think the picture of K and M when she is riding the horse, that looks nothing like the M we have been presented with IMHO...

Also quriouse about the vid picture where it looks like to Madeleines and one Amelie... The last picture in the row JD posted..

by Guest 25.09.12 12:33

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..

by joyce1938 25.09.12 14:41

I think some have reffered to this cake as maybe a christening cake for the twins ,having pink and blue icing on it ,doesnt seem like a cake for maddie?the correct date of said christening maybe hard to calculate? joyce1938

by sami 25.09.12 15:36

joyce1938 wrote:I think some have reffered to this cake as maybe a christening cake for the twins ,having pink and blue icing on it ,doesnt seem like a cake for maddie?the correct date of said christening maybe hard to calculate? joyce1938

The usual timeframe for Catholics would be up to about three months of age, to have their child christened. This is not a rule and means nothing in this case of course, but it is a guideline.

However, they had Madeleine christened, we saw a photo and she was small, not more than three months I think, so I cannot see why they would change that for the twins ? This would bring us to end of May / or June sort of timeframe for the christening. Just in my opinion of course.

by Miraflores 25.09.12 18:49

A christening in May would fit in with the clothes they are wearing and the greenery in the garden - especially if it was warm that year.

by Guest 25.09.12 18:53

Going by the three months guideline that would have been in May 2005 and Madeleine only just 2. I don't think she could possibly have been that young in the photos.

by sami 25.09.12 19:06

Jean wrote:Going by the three months guideline that would have been in May 2005 and Madeleine only just 2. I don't think she could possibly have been that young in the photos.

She looks a lot bigger in the photo yes. It could be anytime that year from say May to September, using the weather as a guideline. Otherwise it is into the following year when the twins were a year plus old and Madeleine turning three. That seems more likely in terms of her age in the photo. That would make it 2006 so ? No law against that, but I'm only suggesting because they had Madeleine christened early, people would usually do the same for siblings.

The other odd thing though is you don't normally put candles on a christening cake, I have never ever seen them. Only thing I can think of that would account for that would be something that was done just for Madeleine. Cake equals candles for little ones, they love blowing them out.

There was a reference from the Paynes at one time that they used to meet up for the childrens birthdays. Is it possible there was a get together and the cake was for another child altogether ? Odd the aunt would be there, is there a cousin or relative that fits the bill ?

by uppatoffee 25.09.12 19:23

The cake is a birthday cake for Sean and Amelie's 1st birthday, hence the candle. They were born 1 February 2005. This would make the date of photo around the start of February 2006, so Madeleine, born 12 May 2003, would be coming up for 3. I think this fits with what she looks like in the photo.

by sami 25.09.12 20:05

uppatoffee wrote:The cake is a birthday cake for Sean and Amelie's 1st birthday, hence the candle. They were born 1 February 2005. This would make the date of photo around the start of February 2006, so Madeleine, born 12 May 2003, would be coming up for 3. I think this fits with what she looks like in the photo.

But then the clothes that they are wearing and the garden shots do not accord with the start of February ?

by uppatoffee 25.09.12 20:34

Unless there is any historic weather data I guess it is hard to tell. I have often found February to be relatively mild and for my own daughter to enjoy dressing up like a princess regardless of the weather.

The cake is definitely for Sean and Amelie. Someone posted a high res version of this photo about a year ago and it the writing on it was very clear. There is blue and pink icing looking like ribbons entwined round the side of the cake and it said Amelie and Sean on the top.

by bobbin 25.09.12 21:41

uppatoffee wrote:Unless there is any historic weather data I guess it is hard to tell. I have often found February to be relatively mild and for my own daughter to enjoy dressing up like a princess regardless of the weather.

The cake is definitely for Sean and Amelie. Someone posted a high res version of this photo about a year ago and it the writing on it was very clear. There is blue and pink icing looking like ribbons entwined round the side of the cake and it said Amelie and Sean on the top.

Without the photos to hand, my memory, in previous discussions is that the greenery is deciduous bushes etc. and they could not have come into leaf in February. Leaves start coming out not before end of March.

by Guest 25.09.12 23:20

uppatoffee wrote:Unless there is any historic weather data I guess it is hard to tell. I have often found February to be relatively mild and for my own daughter to enjoy dressing up like a princess regardless of the weather.

The cake is definitely for Sean and Amelie. Someone posted a high res version of this photo about a year ago and it the writing on it was very clear. There is blue and pink icing looking like ribbons entwined round the side of the cake and it said Amelie and Sean on the top.

That is correct, the cake has their name on it, Sean and Amalie.
I looked on it before, will look again tomorrow when I'm on my computer.. It must be the twins birthday, not sure if it's their first or second one...

by jd 26.09.12 1:11

It seems this photo was reported on 5th August 2007 in a Daily Mail "exclusive" (just before Eddie and Keela went in). The caption under the photo says 'Celebrating Maddies 2nd Birthday, kate with Aunt Nora'...I guess that this should be taken with a pinch of salt knowing how the media have been falsely reporting the mccanns in recent times.

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

Now it seems very interesting kate quotes "I thought we were going to have a boy just based on instinct.....". That hammock photo and the Sun headline photo is really intriguing now

What did happen to that boy in the hammock? Who the heck is he? Is this why they withheld medical records and have suspicious Maddie birth certificates. What was the CATS registration related to, it will be related to something even if jim gamble deleted it off the system. Its there for a reason no matter what anyone says, what is the reason for it?

I put the questions out there and it may mean nothing but then it just might....This is what they are covering up

by Hummingbird 26.09.12 9:32

sami wrote:
uppatoffee wrote:The cake is a birthday cake for Sean and Amelie's 1st birthday, hence the candle. They were born 1 February 2005. This would make the date of photo around the start of February 2006, so Madeleine, born 12 May 2003, would be coming up for 3. I think this fits with what she looks like in the photo.

But then the clothes that they are wearing and the garden shots do not accord with the start of February ?

uppatoffee I have to agree with that theory BUT then as sami says it really does not fit with the garden shot.

I have just blown this garden photo up and in the background are crocosmia flowers which only flower in SUMMER. They are a LATE summer flowering plant which flower AUG - SEPT!!

So back to the drawing board on the dates for that picture - one question hoe do we know 100% this was taken on the same day as the cake photo? Just because she is wearing the same dress or is there some other evidence that points to it?

by Ribisl 26.09.12 9:44

Hummingbird wrote:
sami wrote:
uppatoffee wrote:The cake is a birthday cake for Sean and Amelie's 1st birthday, hence the candle. They were born 1 February 2005. This would make the date of photo around the start of February 2006, so Madeleine, born 12 May 2003, would be coming up for 3. I think this fits with what she looks like in the photo.

But then the clothes that they are wearing and the garden shots do not accord with the start of February ?

uppatoffee I have to agree with that theory BUT then as sami says it really does not fit with the garden shot.

I have just blown this garden photo up and in the background are crocosmia flowers which only flower in SUMMER. They are a LATE summer flowering plant which flower AUG - SEPT!!

So back to the drawing board on the dates for that picture - one question hoe do we know 100% this was taken on the same day as the cake photo? Just because she is wearing the same dress or is there some other evidence that points to it?

The cake is for the twins' christening which must have taken place sometime in the summer.

by Guest 26.09.12 10:44

Ribisl wrote:
Hummingbird wrote:
sami wrote:
uppatoffee wrote:The cake is a birthday cake for Sean and Amelie's 1st birthday, hence the candle. They were born 1 February 2005. This would make the date of photo around the start of February 2006, so Madeleine, born 12 May 2003, would be coming up for 3. I think this fits with what she looks like in the photo.

But then the clothes that they are wearing and the garden shots do not accord with the start of February ?

uppatoffee I have to agree with that theory BUT then as sami says it really does not fit with the garden shot.

I have just blown this garden photo up and in the background are crocosmia flowers which only flower in SUMMER. They are a LATE summer flowering plant which flower AUG - SEPT!!

So back to the drawing board on the dates for that picture - one question hoe do we know 100% this was taken on the same day as the cake photo? Just because she is wearing the same dress or is there some other evidence that points to it?

The cake is for the twins' christening which must have taken place sometime in the summer.

BTW, was Maddie christened, and do we have any evidence (pictures) of that?

by sami 26.09.12 11:13

@ portia - yes i have a memory of a reference to it, i had a photo in mind and checked it but she is not wearing a robe in it.

by Guest 26.09.12 11:25

It definitely was NOT February 2006:

February 2006

The averaging period used for the following assessment was 1961-1990.
UK overview

Mean temperatures ranging from below average across south-west England to above average across Scotland. Rainfall well below average across Northern Ireland, with parts of south-east England and East Anglia, experiencing above average rainfall.

Grantown-on-Spey recorded a temperature of -12.2°C and Aviemore -11.6 °C, both on 1st February. Twenty-four hour maximum temperature at Leek was -2.3 °C on 1st. Hastings recorded 31.2 mm of rain in the 24 hours ending 1800 on 20th.
England and Wales diary of highlights

Temperatures close to average, but the coldest February since 1996.

1st to 7th It was a dry start to the month as high pressure remained dominant across England and Wales. It was cold with freezing fog patches in many places and snow grains reported from southern England and East Anglia. Leek in Staffordshire remained below freezing all day on the 1st, recording a 24-hour maximum of -2.3 °C.

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

by sami 26.09.12 11:30

The quote below is from the Liverpool Echo. There are quite a few references in other articles also to Fr Paul Seddon, having being the Priest who married Kate and Gerry and subsequently baptised Madeleine.

Vigil marks a month since Maddie's disappearance

Jun 4, 2007

ABOUT 500 people gathered in the Merseyside church where Madeleine McCann was baptised for a prayer vigil last night.

by Guest 26.09.12 12:02

Marian wrote:
tigger wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I'll check the larger photo again. Definitely the same age those two. But now I see a line in the neck of the poolside one which imo shouldn't be there. Because of that, the head makes a lot more sense if it's not on the body, there are a lot of mistakes in the neck area in many of the photoshopped pictures. The poolside one has poor little Amelie missing her upper arm, Gerry floating slightly and a flower in the background that blooms in June/July.

Tigger, if you mean the line to the left of Madeleine's chin in the pool photo, I agree that it looks strange as does the neck in both photos. She looks so pale at the pool, in marked contrast to Gerry who, judging by the sweat and sun tan, appears to be somewhere else all together. It's been confirmed elsewhere that the weather in May 2007 wasn't particularly good.

Someone else commented that the pool girl and tennis ball girl don't appear to be the same. I used to think that but, having seen the two photos together, I think they are but definitely not taken with a day or two of each other. There was an early report that Kate felt safe in PDL because she'd been there before. It may of course have been an error but if not, I think it's possible that the pool photo was taken the previous summer. That still doesn't explain why Madeleine looks so pale though!

Picture on the left: face looks left, neck points straight ahead. Head floats in the air, also see marked chin. Ergo: head shopped in?

Log in for more topics