Re: Recap on the Tennis Balls photo

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 link.]
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.

by Guest 13.03.14 18:17

I suppose that the hat could have been put back on properly to take the photo.

There is another photo with Amelie wearing the same or identical pair of shorts so they aren't a relic from the 70s.

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

How I hate to see the poor little mite being paraded with Cuddle Cat!

by **Nina** 13.03.14 20:19

russiandoll wrote: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.

And just look at those little sandals and socks, not a speck of dirt or colour from the tennis court, no red, no green dye. It is almost as though she has floated over the court.

by Stay Free 14.03.14 20:18

Russiandoll i totally agree that is the body of an older child yes

This may be my eyes not getting any younger but the neck in relation to the face always looks odd to me.
new

by bobbin 14.03.14 20:27

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I suppose that the hat could have been put back on properly to take the photo.

There is another photo with Amelie wearing the same or identical pair of shorts so they aren't a relic from the 70s.

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

How I hate to see the poor little mite being paraded with Cuddle Cat!

Re the shorts, I think it was tigger who noticed that the legs of the shorts don't tally with the legs themselves. The left leg looks to be not inside the shorts leg.

Clearly the head is in such a position on the neck that it's impossible to see how that position could be adopted. The shorts seen later on Amelie are possibly shopped onto this photo which with its long legs looks more like a Kate as young girl photo.

To my mind, the body could be Kate's and the head of Maddie pasted on badly and the shorts of Amelie also pasted on badly. IMO

by bodiddly 15.03.14 23:23

The socks and what appears to be an almost hump on her back are the only things I can see that look odd here. To me anyway. I only just noticed her back. I have been scrutinising. Can anyone else see it?

by canada12 16.03.14 0:00

bodiddly wrote:The socks and what appears to be an almost hump on her back are the only things I can see that look odd here. To me anyway. I only just noticed her back. I have been scrutinising. Can anyone else see it?

The head belongs to "Madeleine", the arms, hands and legs belong to an older child, and the body (t shirt and shorts) belongs to a very young child, possibly a toddler Amelie's age.

Her back doesn't look like it has a hump in it if you imagine a two-year-old standing still with her head straight and her arms lowered. It just looks like a chubby toddler's back.

But I agree, it looks particularly peculiar in the context of this photo, where nothing really matches up properly.

by Mirage 16.03.14 0:09

canada12 wrote:
bodiddly wrote:The socks and what appears to be an almost hump on her back are the only things I can see that look odd here. To me anyway. I only just noticed her back. I have been scrutinising. Can anyone else see it?

The head belongs to "Madeleine", the arms, hands and legs belong to an older child, and the body (t shirt and shorts) belongs to a very young child, possibly a toddler Amelie's age.

Her back doesn't look like it has a hump in it if you imagine a two-year-old standing still with her head straight and her arms lowered. It just looks like a chubby toddler's back.

You got it in err about six Canada 12. I sometimes wonder if those two get a kick out of attempting to dupe the public. They really do think they're smart don't they? Gawd, when I listen to them I wonder how the hell they made it into medical school. Any of them. Dire dire dire.

by Rasputin 16.03.14 8:49

This picture to me appears to have been cropped , there is little to go by identifying the location other than to say its a tennis court . Rothley tennis club had a court of similar colour / construction as did Queninborough tennis club ( both ran by GSM leisure)...did the mcanns visit either club prior to the Portugal holiday ? , I noticed on the Queninborough tennis club website they have connection with a company called " ClubMark " ...any possible link ?...

by canada12 16.03.14 11:24

Here's the uncropped version. I haven't seen any other versions that show more of the court.

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

by Newintown 16.03.14 11:45

canada12 wrote:Here's the uncropped version. I haven't seen any other versions that show more of the court.

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

It seems to be a very strange photo to take when most of it is taken up by the tennis court, as if to print in the viewers mind that it was actually taken on a tennis court, now who would do that?? Why not just a nice photo of your daughter holding tennis balls not have most of the pic of a tennis court.

Also there is not a hint of a shadow under the child who is supposed to be Madeleine, again very strange. It seems as if the person who manipulated the photo forget about shadows in the rush to get the photo put "out there".