Photographs revisited - questions
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Madeleine Beth McCann :: Photographs of Madeleine McCann's fateful holiday
Page 1 of 15 • Share
Page 1 of 15 • 1, 2, 3 ... 8 ... 15
Photographs revisited - questions
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Observations:
It’s quite clear that the hand holding the ice cream is:
a)rather large and seems to have definite knuckles.
b)has been inserted on top of the original image
c)is not at all connected to the left arm of Maddie - it is in fact impossible to connect that hand to the upper arm, the elbow of the left arm is nowhere near the truncated lower arm.
further:
d)why was the extra, dripping icecream cone added?
e)she is already sucking a lolly - it’s not likely that she’d be using a spoon
f)ice cream has connotations in pictures known as ‘paedo candy’
g)eyeliner is clear to see in this image
h)it seems to be of very low quality, mid range mobile camera?
Observations:
It’s quite clear that the hand holding the ice cream is:
a)rather large and seems to have definite knuckles.
b)has been inserted on top of the original image
c)is not at all connected to the left arm of Maddie - it is in fact impossible to connect that hand to the upper arm, the elbow of the left arm is nowhere near the truncated lower arm.
further:
d)why was the extra, dripping icecream cone added?
e)she is already sucking a lolly - it’s not likely that she’d be using a spoon
f)ice cream has connotations in pictures known as ‘paedo candy’
g)eyeliner is clear to see in this image
h)it seems to be of very low quality, mid range mobile camera?
____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
Who took it?tigger wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Observations:
It’s quite clear that the hand holding the ice cream is:
a)rather large and seems to have definite knuckles.
b)has been inserted on top of the original image
c)is not at all connected to the left arm of Maddie - it is in fact impossible to connect that hand to the upper arm, the elbow of the left arm is nowhere near the truncated lower arm.
further:
d)why was the extra, dripping icecream cone added?
e)she is already sucking a lolly - it’s not likely that she’d be using a spoon
f)ice cream has connotations in pictures known as ‘paedo candy’
g)eyeliner is clear to see in this image
h)it seems to be of very low quality, mid range mobile camera?
At what stage of the investigation was this released?
Doesn't really look anything like the child they are looking for
noddy100- Posts : 701
Activity : 760
Likes received : 39
Join date : 2013-05-17
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This photo was taken within two months of 3/5, I rather think in June 2007 as Gerry mentions this particular T-shirt in his blog and iirc he didn't wear it for long.
It occurs to me:
That a practically comatose blonde girl was available that night
That it would be very hard to determine whether a child of two years three months, or a child of three (as advertised although Maddie was nearly four) is being carried.
Observations:
Why is Amelie always pictured with her hair in bunches and Maddie never?
How long was Amelie's hair on 3/5/07?
How easy would it be to mistake a blond (advertised as blond where Maddie had light brown hair) child of two for one of three?
Imo it's quite possible that it was Amelie who was seen by the Smiths.
This photo was taken within two months of 3/5, I rather think in June 2007 as Gerry mentions this particular T-shirt in his blog and iirc he didn't wear it for long.
It occurs to me:
That a practically comatose blonde girl was available that night
That it would be very hard to determine whether a child of two years three months, or a child of three (as advertised although Maddie was nearly four) is being carried.
Observations:
Why is Amelie always pictured with her hair in bunches and Maddie never?
How long was Amelie's hair on 3/5/07?
How easy would it be to mistake a blond (advertised as blond where Maddie had light brown hair) child of two for one of three?
Imo it's quite possible that it was Amelie who was seen by the Smiths.
____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
- and just for good measure - without comment.
- and just for good measure - without comment.
____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
Milo likes this post
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
Never seen that Ice Cream pic of MBM before. How strange indeed. Absolutely that is not her arm holding the cone. Very strange.
Yes, regards to Amelie. IMO which i mentioned on another thread, i thought it was highly likely that it was a sedated Amelie being carried when spotted by the Smiths.
Surely nobody else would volunteer there daughter for a 'staged abduction'.
Agree, in regards to Amelie again that they changed the hairstyle afterwards to try and distance a resemblance of MBM.
All IMO of course.
Yes, regards to Amelie. IMO which i mentioned on another thread, i thought it was highly likely that it was a sedated Amelie being carried when spotted by the Smiths.
Surely nobody else would volunteer there daughter for a 'staged abduction'.
Agree, in regards to Amelie again that they changed the hairstyle afterwards to try and distance a resemblance of MBM.
All IMO of course.
Guest- Guest
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
very possible actuallytigger wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This photo was taken within two months of 3/5, I rather think in June 2007 as Gerry mentions this particular T-shirt in his blog and iirc he didn't wear it for long.
It occurs to me:
That a practically comatose blonde girl was available that night
That it would be very hard to determine whether a child of two years three months, or a child of three (as advertised although Maddie was nearly four) is being carried.
Observations:
Why is Amelie always pictured with her hair in bunches and Maddie never?
How long was Amelie's hair on 3/5/07?
How easy would it be to mistake a blond (advertised as blond where Maddie had light brown hair) child of two for one of three?
Imo it's quite possible that it was Amelie who was seen by the Smiths.
noddy100- Posts : 701
Activity : 760
Likes received : 39
Join date : 2013-05-17
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There is a photo about a third of the way down on the right which is supposedly of Madeleine with her hair in bunches but it doesn't look like her to me.
There is a photo about a third of the way down on the right which is supposedly of Madeleine with her hair in bunches but it doesn't look like her to me.
Guest- Guest
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There is a photo about a third of the way down on the right which is supposedly of Madeleine with her hair in bunches but it doesn't look like her to me.
Your right - IMO as well it doesn't look like her.
Guest- Guest
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I don't think this picture looks anything like her either....
I don't think this picture looks anything like her either....
Guest- Guest
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
I wouldn't be surprised if the one in red is Kate as a child.
Guest- Guest
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if the one in red is Kate as a child.
I don.t think either of those are Maddie. I will post some more next week to show a few that definitely aren't her and it's easily proved by comparing the teeth alone. Imo there are quite a few well known photographs which are not Maddie. The enormous difference (the smile alone makes it clear imo) between the two Everton shirt pictures for anstance.
____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
I have lots of photos of my children and grandchildren which when they came out somehow 'didn't look like them'. That's how photographs are sometimes. I think if you are speculating that a picture is NOT of who it purports to be of you do have to be looking at things like a gap in between the front teeth, an obvious coloboma or not, or something else measurable, or very definite.
comperedna- Posts : 709
Activity : 781
Likes received : 56
Join date : 2012-10-29
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
A lot of these concerns could be aided by the more recent advanced types of facial recognition software.
comperedna- Posts : 709
Activity : 781
Likes received : 56
Join date : 2012-10-29
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
Changes in shape of face and head or a child as they grow make comparisons of pictures supposedly of the same child at different ages particularly problematic. All young creatures have cute forshortened faces which lengthen and extend as the jaw and other features extend and develop. It is tiny baby teeth till 5 or 6.
comperedna- Posts : 709
Activity : 781
Likes received : 56
Join date : 2012-10-29
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
To me , it appears to be a photo designed to be attractive to a paedophile. It is not a picture of a little girl enjoying an ice-cream at the sea-side - caught on camera for the family album. It looks heavily stagednoddy100 wrote:Who took it?tigger wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Observations:
It’s quite clear that the hand holding the ice cream is:
a)rather large and seems to have definite knuckles.
b)has been inserted on top of the original image
c)is not at all connected to the left arm of Maddie - it is in fact impossible to connect that hand to the upper arm, the elbow of the left arm is nowhere near the truncated lower arm.
further:
d)why was the extra, dripping icecream cone added?
e)she is already sucking a lolly - it’s not likely that she’d be using a spoon
f)ice cream has connotations in pictures known as ‘paedo candy’
g)eyeliner is clear to see in this image
h)it seems to be of very low quality, mid range mobile camera?
At what stage of the investigation was this released?
Doesn't really look anything like the child they are looking for
and the girl is wearing eye-liner. Of course, it may well be a photo that has been posed for in order to have in Mc Cann's family album... but I would consider that extremely odd and naive. At first glance it simply looks very suggestive and something I would tear up immediately if I were her mother. Extraordinary and absurd.
HelenMeg- Posts : 1782
Activity : 2081
Likes received : 213
Join date : 2014-01-08
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
If I were the police I'd want to know who took it and under what circumstances.. did her mother actually approve this photo? Did her father? Was it taken by other people without her family knowing?
What on earth is the background and why was it released?
What on earth is the background and why was it released?
HelenMeg- Posts : 1782
Activity : 2081
Likes received : 213
Join date : 2014-01-08
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
I'm pretty sure the ice cream photo was in the video released by Jon Corner. That video also had the Snowhite clip in it iirc.
Perhaps someone can find it, would have been released fairly early.
Perhaps someone can find it, would have been released fairly early.
____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
IMO - these 3 pictures are very disturbing of a 3 year old girl. Just not right at all. Again IMO.
IMO - these 3 pictures are very disturbing of a 3 year old girl. Just not right at all. Again IMO.
Guest- Guest
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
tigger wrote:I'm pretty sure the ice cream photo was in the viral video released by Jon Corner. That video also had the Snowhite clip in it iirc.
Perhaps someone can find it, would have been released fairly early.
The ice cream photo was included in the 2010 appeal video, as well as the skirting board photo and the make-up photo:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Close-up stills from the video:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
She's wearing the same dress in both pictures, so probably taken in the same setting.
Could the eyeliner be photoshopped in?
Nereid- Posts : 308
Activity : 327
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-05-28
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
@nereid.
I've wondered that as well but if it's photoshopped it's done very well and most of the other photoshopping is very ham-fisted.
The eyeliner is in so many photographs, I find it puzzling.
But it could have been added at the same time as the coloboma when that was pasted in. It would surely be very difficult to apply eyeliner on the inside lids of a child?
I've wondered that as well but if it's photoshopped it's done very well and most of the other photoshopping is very ham-fisted.
The eyeliner is in so many photographs, I find it puzzling.
But it could have been added at the same time as the coloboma when that was pasted in. It would surely be very difficult to apply eyeliner on the inside lids of a child?
____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
I must say I have small tot in our family, that definatly does not use eyeliner, yet her dark lashes do look like eyeliner in photos. I don't think we can be certain of this. joyce1938
joyce1938- Posts : 890
Activity : 1013
Likes received : 124
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 86
Location : england
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
tigger: what's the official line on the coloboma? Does MBM have one or not? I'm slightly confused about this.
ETA, just read some older threads; it seems she now has a speckle instead.
ETA, just read some older threads; it seems she now has a speckle instead.
Guest- Guest
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
Ladyinred wrote:tigger: what's the official line on the coloboma? Does MBM have one or not? I'm slightly confused about this.
ETA, just read some older threads; it seems she now has a speckle instead.
Since we were informed in the Morgan interview of 2011 that it's just a fleck which you can see only when you're very close the coloboma is off the menu.
They've been very careful not to call it a coloboma. I have my own ideas about it, it was certainly a good marketing ploy but perhaps it wasn't expected to go on for quite so many years.
So don't ask me why it still appears in age advanced photos.
Lots of believers still it seems.
____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
comperedna wrote:Changes in shape of face and head or a child as they grow make comparisons of pictures supposedly of the same child at different ages particularly problematic. All young creatures have cute forshortened faces which lengthen and extend as the jaw and other features extend and develop. It is tiny baby teeth till 5 or 6.
Comparing the various photos in the link posted by NFWTD, do you have any views on why some of the images show Maddie to have a very puffy face, particularly around the eyes? The more provocative photos almost blot out the form of her eyelids whereas other photos show different features.
Guest- Guest
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
Wouldn't the fact that they're now stating she didn't have a coloboma count as "hindering the search for Madeleine"?
After all, the world was asked to look for a 3-4 year old with a distinctive eye marking. If it now turns out that she didn't have a distinctive eye marking, isn't that misleading?
How can they accuse GA of hindering the search when they hindered it themselves?
After all, the world was asked to look for a 3-4 year old with a distinctive eye marking. If it now turns out that she didn't have a distinctive eye marking, isn't that misleading?
How can they accuse GA of hindering the search when they hindered it themselves?
canada12- Posts : 1461
Activity : 1698
Likes received : 211
Join date : 2013-10-28
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Interesting that this report starts off with the three most unsettling and inappropriate photos of Madeleine. Sometimes I think that the media is trying to get the other side of the story across.
You can't expect accuracy as well though - Madeleine would it says now be nine years old!
Interesting that this report starts off with the three most unsettling and inappropriate photos of Madeleine. Sometimes I think that the media is trying to get the other side of the story across.
You can't expect accuracy as well though - Madeleine would it says now be nine years old!
Guest- Guest
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
tigger wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Observations:
It’s quite clear that the hand holding the ice cream is:
a)rather large and seems to have definite knuckles.
b)has been inserted on top of the original image
c)is not at all connected to the left arm of Maddie - it is in fact impossible to connect that hand to the upper arm, the elbow of the left arm is nowhere near the truncated lower arm.
further:
d)why was the extra, dripping icecream cone added?
e)she is already sucking a lolly - it’s not likely that she’d be using a spoon
f)ice cream has connotations in pictures known as ‘paedo candy’
g)eyeliner is clear to see in this image
h)it seems to be of very low quality, mid range mobile camera?
Just when you think that nothing further could shock you in this case, you read this post. You are absolutely right, the hand holding the ice cream has been slotted into this picture. This is not a picture that I had attached any importance too with regards Madeleines' disappearance so I had never looked at it closely before.
It has definitely been manipulated but not for any obvious reason to do with this case. I am afraid to ask why?
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
That picture is truly shocking and disturbing. It's very obvious what the picture is implying. It would be interesting to know how and who put in the public domain for all to see. Surely Mr and Mrs wouldn't of done.sharonl wrote:tigger wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Observations:
It’s quite clear that the hand holding the ice cream is:
a)rather large and seems to have definite knuckles.
b)has been inserted on top of the original image
c)is not at all connected to the left arm of Maddie - it is in fact impossible to connect that hand to the upper arm, the elbow of the left arm is nowhere near the truncated lower arm.
further:
d)why was the extra, dripping icecream cone added?
e)she is already sucking a lolly - it’s not likely that she’d be using a spoon
f)ice cream has connotations in pictures known as ‘paedo candy’
g)eyeliner is clear to see in this image
h)it seems to be of very low quality, mid range mobile camera?
Just when you think that nothing further could shock you in this case, you read this post. You are absolutely right, the hand holding the ice cream has been slotted into this picture. This is not a picture that I had attached any importance too with regards Madeleines' disappearance so I had never looked at it closely before.
It has definitely been manipulated but not for any obvious reason to do with this case. I am afraid to ask why?
When you see a pic like that, put together with the Gasper statements, Yvonne Martin's observation about Payne, Gerry's deleted cats file etc etc then it all links to the dreaded and sickening 'P' word.
IMO there has to be a link between the 'P' word and all the government assistance, help, cover up etc etc.
Guest- Guest
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
The three most inappropriate photos are in the official video issued by the McCanns for the 3rd anniversary in 2010 so there is no doubt that they knew of them being published; an in-joke on their part I think.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Guest- Guest
Re: Photographs revisited - questions
joyce1938 wrote:I must say I have small tot in our family ,that definatly does not use eyeliner ,yet her dark lashes do look like eyeliner in photos ,I don't think we can be certain of this . joyce1938
I don't think it's anything that's been photoshopped in either. these are low resolution photos that have likely been compressed and resized numerous times when saved, dark areas such as the eyelashes will not show much variation in shade and give the impression of a solid line or area when there wasn't necessarily one.
i'm really not a fan of analysing such images from the web, even experts analysing original, better quality photos have a hard time proving things from them. The poses in some of the photos are definitely odd though.
ChippyM- Posts : 1334
Activity : 1817
Likes received : 467
Join date : 2013-06-15
Page 1 of 15 • 1, 2, 3 ... 8 ... 15
Similar topics
» Photographs Revisited - general
» Questions and photographs
» Photographs
» Photographs and memories
» Photographs and memories 2
» Questions and photographs
» Photographs
» Photographs and memories
» Photographs and memories 2
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Madeleine Beth McCann :: Photographs of Madeleine McCann's fateful holiday
Page 1 of 15
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum