Re: Recap on the Tennis Balls photo

by Curioser 03.12.13 11:43

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:........but, if the mark has been added to the photo, that doesn't prove that Madeleine had the condition.

As I said some photos show it and some don't. It's a mystery (that word again!) why the McCanns did an enormous u-turn in 2011 by saying that they'd never made much of it.

Imo the worst thing about the coloboma is that they were told publicizing would put Madeleine in danger if she was still alive. They did it anyway. That says a lot about them and the situation I reckon.

by Curioser 03.12.13 11:54

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Sharon was reposting someone else's blog. I don't know whether or not she agrees with it.

As for the pool photo, I think it could be genuine as regards the people in it but not that it was taken when it's claimed.

Fair enough. I'm interested why anyone would think it shows two different courts.

by ultimaThule 06.12.13 4:19

Curioser wrote:
sharonl wrote:This is from 2011, it is the first time that I have seen it but I don't know if it has been posted here before.

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

Two Entirely Different Tennis Courts!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
What's this then Gerry... two entirely different tennis courts!

(snip)
They look like the same tennis court to me. I don't see the larger image as gravel, it's just a photo of the same tennis court that is lighter so the colour is lighter. That isn't a grass court. You can clearly see a smooth mark where the court has been finished.

With the greatest respect, can I ask what makes you think they are not the same court?

Click on the link, read the explanation, enlarge the photos, and read the comments.

by Rasputin 06.12.13 8:11

Does anyone know if Center Parks use the Leasuretex surface for their tennis courts ?

by Miraflores 06.12.13 9:51

there was a shower of rain, you can just see the rain watermark just along the white line on the green Leasuretex, which prove's this photo of Madeleine was taken in the UK around April and not Portugal.

This proves nothing at all for me. Does it never rain in April in Portugal?

by sallypelt 06.12.13 10:31

There's also a watermark on the Madeleine tennis court photo on the green Leasuretex edge, which indicates that just priro to the photo being taken there was a shower of rain, you can just see the rain watermark just along the white line on the green Leasuretex, which prove's this photo of Madeleine was taken in the UK aroundApril and not Portugal

I've read all I need to know from that post. NEXT!!!

by Curioser 06.12.13 12:10

ultimaThule wrote:
Curioser wrote:
sharonl wrote:This is from 2011, it is the first time that I have seen it but I don't know if it has been posted here before.

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

Two Entirely Different Tennis Courts!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
What's this then Gerry... two entirely different tennis courts!

(snip)
They look like the same tennis court to me. I don't see the larger image as gravel, it's just a photo of the same tennis court that is lighter so the colour is lighter. That isn't a grass court. You can clearly see a smooth mark where the court has been finished.

With the greatest respect, can I ask what makes you think they are not the same court?
Click on the link, read the explanation, enlarge the photos, and read the comments.

I did. It's ludicrous.

See the photos and judge for yourself, as the court that Gerry is standing next to in the Ocean Club hotel complex the surface is green tarmac with a pink gravel border, the type used in public parks and hotels because it's pretty cheap, whereas the photo inlay of Madeleine standing on the said same tennis court in the Ocean Club hotel complex, the surface is Leisuretex green court and pink border, the type used in professional matchplay leasure centers in the UK.

I could just as easily say "the surface is green moon cheese with a pink marshmallow border". Just because someone claims something doesn't make it true. There is no proof offered at all.

The two photos are different exposures but the relationship between the colours are the same in both photos. If you adjusted the colour in the photo to match up the surround, the green colour would be very similar.

Looks at these two photos of the US Open court. They're not adjusted. I just copied them straight off the net so the variation is in the 'originals'. See how the relationship between the colours in the same although the colours have come out differently? It's to do with light, cameras, digital imaging and perception. This is the same court in two different images. Remind your of anything?

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

by ultimaThule 06.12.13 12:24

It reminds me that the child's head seems strangely out of proportion with its body and, as I believe another member has remarked, I can't recall seeing children wearing that particular style of shorts in recent years.

by Guest 06.12.13 12:35

There are quite some question-marks to be put to the photo. At random order:
1. Who took it?
2. When was it taken?
3. Why does KM write, she looked so lovely in these clothes, whereas quite number of us consider them at best to be hand downs?
4. So, on which camera was the photo? Not on KM's as Woolfall would have definitely identify it as one of the most recent pictures, clearly showing her face [which is what he was looking for and the same argument goes for the pool-picture...]

by **tigger** 06.12.13 12:59

@curioser i'm afraid you've overlooked the adjacent surface and the quality of the tennis court surface.

i'm sure you didn't mean to but afaik the colour rendition of the photographs is not an issue here.

by Curioser 06.12.13 13:06

And that line is not rain imo.

According to the Mark Warner site below, the tennis courts are "hard painted". In other words, they're not grass.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Have you guys investigated how these courts are made? There are different surfaces but this one looks like acrylic. They pour acrylic wet and then smooth it with scraper things. Like this:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This is a curved example but the technique is clear at about 4 min, 38 seconds. When they smooth one layer over another you get a slightly wavy smooth line. It's distinctive.

Believe what you want to believe but it seems like such a waste of energy when a really quick bit of research can clear up a question. Not that this will clear it up for some people but for all you people with open minds, well, check it out.

Perhaps it would be good to concentrate on the issues that have evidence attached, the discrepancies in the depositions, the contradictory timelines, the odd behaviours, the extra miles on the car, the dog evidence. Just my opinion of course. Obviously I understand that everyone has a right to spend time on whatever they wish.

by Curioser 06.12.13 13:13

I think she looks cute in them and the sandals look new. The green that people talk about in her face is the light reflecting off the tennis balls onto her face. Light does that. Her face is hunched down because she is trying to hold on to all those tennis balls under her chin. The body proportions are correct.The photo has not been manipulated imo and she looks about the right age.

There is plenty to question in the case without creating additional mysteries. In my opinion the parents are guilty as sin of a cover-up, if not more. But this photo, this photo is not the problem.

However, we can agree to disagree.

by ultimaThule 06.12.13 13:15

Vison is subjective; people see what they want to see, but those who are educated in the the science of photography are able to see what those who are less informed cannot.

by Curioser 06.12.13 13:25

ultimaThule wrote:Vison is subjective; people see what they want to see, but those who are educated in the the science of photography are able to see what those who are less informed cannot.

Absolutely agree. And I am. And I do.

by Guest 06.12.13 13:39

Not talking photoshop or clothes, may I ask, Curioser: what you think about the origins of this photo? Who took and when? And why it wasn't used to let people know what Madeleine actually looked like THAT week?

by Miraflores 06.12.13 13:41

I don't see how anyone can say on the basis of a not particularly clear photo that they view over the internet that this can't have been taken in Portugal, and to say that it had been raining and therefore it must have been taken in the UK is absurd.

The only photo which we know has definitely been cropped is the 'last photo' where Gerry's elbow and Amelie have been cropped out to show Madeleine on her own.

I agree with the poster who said stick to the known discrepancies, which for me are the jemmied shutters, which weren't and hence Gerry McCann changing his story; calling her Maddie in publicity and then insisting that they never did; the enormous publicity about Madeleine's eye condition which 4 years later we were told they didn't make much of......

by Miraflores 06.12.13 13:43

And why it wasn't used to let people know what Madeleine actually looked like THAT week?

Perhaps because it didn't clearly show the eye defect which they never made much of?

by Curioser 06.12.13 14:00

Châtelaine wrote:Not talking photoshop or clothes, may I ask, Curioser: what you think about the origins of this photo? Who took and when? And why it wasn't used to let people know what Madeleine actually looked like THAT week?

About that I have no clue. There certainly seemed to be different stories about it and we don't have all of the photos from that week to check which makes it impossible to know for sure. It's possible that Kate took it and there are other photos of the scene taken by Jane. Or that Jane took it. I don't have an opinion on that really.

Maybe Gerry and Madeleine were seen by the Smiths and so they thought that younger photos would make it more difficult for them to associate the girl they'd seen with the missing girl. That is if you think it was Gerry, and Madeleine. What do you think about it?

by Doug D 11.03.14 12:35

but this one is in Rothley!

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

(with thanks to HiDeHo FB site)

by Guest 11.03.14 12:38

Is this a very common design for tennis courts in Europe? Certainly interesting if not!

by ultimaThule 11.03.14 12:41

Goodness me, Doug. Could that be Tractorman driving the bulldozer with the intention of leaving no stone unturned when trying to clear his name?

by Guest 11.03.14 12:46

ultimaThule wrote:Goodness me, Doug. Could that be Tractorman driving the bulldozer with the intention of leaving no stone unturned when trying to clear his name?

Would K&G be members of Rothley Tennis Club? It's not far from their home. Open Day 29th March.

by Rasputin 11.03.14 13:06

Excellent discovery Doug, I'm sure there was one poster that could identify the type of court used at the OC, I wonder how that ties in with the construction of this one ?...which appears to being whooshed ,...Gerry did partake in a lot of lessons which would indicate he perhaps plays regularly ?...

by tungsten tel 11.03.14 18:58

ultimaThule wrote:Goodness me, Doug. Could that be Tractorman driving the bulldozer with the intention of leaving no stone unturned when trying to clear his name?

That is VERY VERY FUNNY . high5

by russiandoll 13.03.14 17:37

just a thought, you know.......

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

if this child had been running about, bending down to pick up tennis balls, how was that hat perched on her head like that?

eta : it is large, loose and imo was not worn by a 3 year old but by an older child, as were the clothes. The body is that of an older child imo.

This is a photo -shopped image with Maddie's face replacing that of another child, it is all wrong, the way the head sits on the shoulders.
Everything except the face imo belongs to another child. That hat and the rest of the clothes shout out 1970s to me.