Re: Recap on the Tennis Balls photo

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".

by **PeterMac** 16.03.14 11:55

There is probably no shadow, because there was no sun.
The sun only shone on Saturday (arrivals day)
Sunday, and then Friday onwards.

by Newintown 16.03.14 12:03

PeterMac wrote:There is probably no shadow, because there was no sun.
The sun only shone on Saturday (arrivals day)
Sunday, and then Friday onwards.

I thought there would have been an itsy bitsy shadow, although we don't even know if the photo was taken in Portugal, or if the child was superimposed on a tennis court, where the photographer seemed to be more interested in the colouring of the tennis court than the child.

If Madeleine's face was also superimposed on the photo of another child as people are posting that suggests that the photo wasn't taken in Portugal anyway.

ETA: Looking at the photo again it seems more obvious that a photo of a tennis court was taken, then the child was superimposed on to the tennis court, therefore there would be no shadow.

by **tigger** 20.03.14 9:43

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

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

1. 'normal'
2. transform y axis
3. transform x axis

What is wrong here:
The head is set too far forwards, the 7th vertebra - the connection between the neck and the back is impossible, she'd have to be a hunchback for this pose to be true.
The length of the knee to the ankle bone (tibia) is more than the length of the femur, the hip to knee bone. The femur should be longer and from the angle this photograph is apparently taken (not just from the height of an adult standing on the side but from an elevation in order to take in as much of the tennis court as is visible in the uncropped photo) the lower leg should look a lot shorter. Instead it is clearly longer and that's why my reaction on seeing that photo for the first time was that she looked so 'lanky'. Not at all the compact little body and smooth arms of the pool girl.
But I think this is a composite of Maddy, it was first published iirc by Philomena to go as a 'chain email' round the world. (Surely chain emails are as illegal as chain letters?)
I think on the 8th.

by **tigger** 20.03.14 10:12

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

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

This one is the right way round.

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

The hands cannot be those of a child, the knuckles are very large and however hard she grips the balls, a child of four wouldn't have knuckles that size.
The hand underneath looks strange, a reddish tinge to the fingers as if there is a bruise.
The hand is not blended into the rest of the skin and Maddie's arms have miraculously lost all this sunburn in the pool photo. Allegedly taken a few hours later.

by canada12 20.03.14 10:55

Plus the bottom tennis ball is all wrong. If you look closely you'll see lots of extra yellow underneath where the ball should logically end. For the extra yellow to be there, the ball would have to be larger than the other balls, or oblong in shape.

Here's a closeup to illustrate my point:

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

by Guest 20.03.14 10:58

Possibly that is another ball partially obscured by the one in front?

I do agree that the arms don't look like those of a child. They remind me of that horrible photo with the lolly and ice cream.

by canada12 20.03.14 11:01

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Possibly that is another ball partially obscured by the one in front?

I do agree that the arms don't look like those of a child. They remind me of that horrible photo with the lolly and ice cream.

I don't think there's room in there for a 4th ball, to be honest.

by soundworks 20.03.14 11:49

the ball is correct

it measures the same as the other ball

by canada12 20.03.14 13:52

soundworks wrote:the ball is correct

it measures the same as the other ball

Yes you're right, my mistake. It is an optical illusion and in this case I'll admit I was wrong.

Have we got any explanation for the black vertical line between Madeleine's third and fourth fingers and the somewhat impossible hook and twist in her third finger above the top joint...?

by russiandoll 20.03.14 14:10

canada12 wrote:Plus the bottom tennis ball is all wrong. If you look closely you'll see lots of extra yellow underneath where the ball should logically end. For the extra yellow to be there, the ball would have to be larger than the other balls, or oblong in shape.

Here's a closeup to illustrate my point:

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

this is the same girl's hand ?

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

by canada12 20.03.14 14:30

Difficult to see that they're the same hands, to be honest. The tennis ball left hand is much less chubby and more older-child or even adult looking. The right hand (underneath) looks cobbled together and strangely stretched.

Just for the sake of comparison, the usual diameter of a tennis ball is 6.7 cm (2.63 in.) according to Wikipedia.

If anyone wants to compare that to the average size of a nearly 4-year old's hands, that would be interesting.

by worriedmum 24.03.14 20:12

Is this a photo of Madeleine picking up tennis balls at an adult tennis session or at a children's lesson? Do children learn with conventional tennis balls?

I was looking at the logo on the ball -does xxx mean they are seconds? Does anyone recognise the brand?

by Guest 24.03.14 20:39

worriedmum wrote:Is this a photo of Madeleine picking up tennis balls at an adult tennis session or at a children's lesson? Do children learn with conventional tennis balls?

I was looking at the logo on the ball -does xxx mean they are seconds? Does anyone recognise the brand?

You are right, usually they use sponge balls. Conventional ball are fall too heavy.

by joyce1938 25.03.14 10:49

If my memory serves me ,I am under impression some one said it was at adult match the photo of child with tennis balls in arms was taken,not the kiddies one joyce1938

by Doug D 25.03.14 12:14

Going by KH1, (P.57),
'During Gerry's tennis lesson.........M & E came to adjoining court with their Mini Club for a mini-tennis session........'

'..........At the end of their session, the children had been asked to run around the court and pick up as many balls as they could.....'

So it was the kids balls, whatever they were.