The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Photographs revisited - questions

Page 2 of 17 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 03.05.14 22:15

http://home.bt.com/news/uknews/mccanns-mark-madeleine-anniversary-11363898798984

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!
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by sharonl on 03.05.14 22:43

tigger wrote:


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?

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
avatar
sharonl


Posts : 4240
Reputation : 762
Join date : 2009-12-29

http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 03.05.14 23:07

sharonl wrote:
tigger wrote:


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?
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.

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.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 03.05.14 23:17

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epdtWmTWZEU

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by ChippyM on 03.05.14 23:18

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 : 1281
Reputation : 422
Join date : 2013-06-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tigger on 04.05.14 6:59

ChippyM wrote:
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.

If she didn't have a definite coloboma as the parents say, then it was added in many photographs. Adding a bit of eyeliner to emphasise the eyes would be no trouble.

If you can explain that floating hand with the icecream cone?

A lot of photographs can be prettied up with standard software which needs no expert hand. Skin evened out, wrinkles wiped, easy. But the point here is that:
The poses in some photographs are curious ( the inverted floor one, the swimming pool,) these are not snaps taken as and when.
The icecream photo with the 'naughty' look at the photographer and the subliminal message of a lolly and a dripping icecream cone is clearly not a normal snap. That's without even looking at that floating hand.



____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tigger on 09.05.14 12:03

Posting this here as all the work I thought I had yet to do has been done and much better than I could have done it anyway.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t984-the-changing-coloboma-of-madeleine?highlight=coloboma

Imo the case it just as Kate told Piers Morgan in the interview of  12th May 2011:

MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --

MORGAN: Slightly distinctive eye colors and a little fleck.

MORGAN: And do you know if that would be still there if she's now eight years old?

G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.

unquote

Gerry motors in trying to keep the iris defect going at the same time dismissing it as a coloboma. A coloboma is not 'an additional bit of colour'  it is exactly the same colour as the pupil of the eye - i.e. black.  Well, wouldn't want to lose your marvellous marketing ploy would one?

From the Vanity Fair interview September 2007:

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”
unquote

So how come that feature is in so many photographs and in so many different shapes and positions? That alone I find sufficient proof of photoshopping. There is no other way this feature could have been added.

In answer to an earlier question, the eyeliner is also consistently seen in photographs, it is quite possible to add both a coloboma and eyeliner at the same time, although it needs a bit of skill.
It is absolutely not possible for the lower eyelid to look black because of dark eyelashes. I'd find very dark eyelashes unusual when the eyebrows are very blond but I'd have to make a study of it so - the lower eyelid has a thickness of at least one mm, often 1.5 mm. That is a pale edge of skin in essence.
To make eyes look larger this is often coloured white, opening up the eye and making it look much larger. Often seen in film stars and so on.
Colouring it dark makes it look very appealing, expecially with black spiky eyelashes to go with it. It also makes a child look a lot more grown up and that's what strikes me in many Maddie photographs, the little woman effect.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

What I see

Post by FH on 09.05.14 13:41

When I look at that photo , what I see is Madeleine sitting on someone's knee, or standing in front of a sitting  adult  who has their arm under her arm . The adult  is  holding an ice cream for her to eat. Something most parents will have done at some point in time with a small child.  She has something in her mouth which may be a lolly, or maybe a plastic  spoon to eat the ice cream.  Like the little plastic spoons you get with tubs. It is hot and the ice cream is melting rapidly, so probably not taken in the UK :-)

The eye-liner (if not an artifact of the low resolution/blurry image)  is bizarre, but the photo is very grainy and there seems to be a lot of leakage of colour going on, so I would not like to say one way, or the other.

FH

Posts : 119
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Snifferdog on 09.05.14 15:32

I have never seen naturally blonde eyebrows and dark eyelashes together on the same person, ever.

____________________
“‘Conspiracy stuff’ is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.”
– Gore Vidal
avatar
Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2012-05-11
Location : here

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 09.05.14 17:25

@ snifferdog
I have. My sis at young age. Blonde like an angel [then!], dark brown eyes & eyelashes and blonde eyebrows.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by FH on 09.05.14 17:33

If you google it you will find parents out there reporting blond children with blond eyebrows and dark eyelashes. Humans are beautifully  diverse, plus hair changes colour in childhood.

I was making the point that I personally wouldn't like to commit to it being eyeliner, photo shopping or natural eyelash colour based on poor quality photos.

FWIW  I don't think I have ever seen anyone with a coloboma, ever,  but just because I have never seen one it doesn't mean they don't exist.

FH

Posts : 119
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by comperedna on 09.05.14 17:42

The lady who cuts my hair has a coloboma. Fortunately it is not the kind associated with visual defects or other complications. It is decidedly NOT a fleck on the iris or any kind of change in colour to the iris of the eye. It is JET BLACK, like the pupil, showing the dark interior of the eye. It is an extension of that pupil, and is a small gap in the iris. It is congenital and it does not, and cannot, alter or change throughout life. It is impossible to mistake one for the other. Either she had a coloboma or she didn't. Gerry as a medic must know this.

comperedna

Posts : 699
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2012-10-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tigger on 09.05.14 17:44

FH wrote:If you google it you will find parents out there reporting blond children with blond eyebrows and dark eyelashes. Humans are beautifully  diverse, plus hair changes colour in childhood.

I was making the point that I personally wouldn't like to commit to it being eyeliner, photo shopping or natural eyelash colour based on poor quality photos.

FWIW  I don't think I have ever seen anyone with a coloboma, ever,  but just because I have never seen one it doesn't mean they don't exist.

A) I did not say that blond eyebrows and dark lashes are not possible

B) nobody here has stated colobomas don't exist - in fact as far as it relates to Maddie her parents are on record as saying she did not have one. i gave the reference which you can find on mccannfiles.com

C) poor quality photo the icecream photo may be, but it's glaringly obvious that the hand with the icecream is added and does not belong in the original shot. If you can't see it, I can't help you.

D) the eyeliner can be observed in high quality photos - those taken by a professional. I did not base my observations on one low quality photo.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by FH on 09.05.14 18:37

tigger wrote:
FH wrote:If you google it you will find parents out there reporting blond children with blond eyebrows and dark eyelashes. Humans are beautifully  diverse, plus hair changes colour in childhood.

I was making the point that I personally wouldn't like to commit to it being eyeliner, photo shopping or natural eyelash colour based on poor quality photos.

FWIW  I don't think I have ever seen anyone with a coloboma, ever,  but just because I have never seen one it doesn't mean they don't exist.

A) I did not say that blond eyebrows and dark lashes are not possible

B) nobody here has stated colobomas don't exist - in fact as far as it relates to Maddie her parents are on record as saying she did not have one. i gave the reference which you can find on mccannfiles.com

C) poor quality photo the icecream photo may be, but it's glaringly obvious that the hand with the icecream is added and does not belong in the original shot. If you can't see it, I can't help you.

D) the eyeliner can be observed in high quality photos - those taken by a professional. I did not base my observations on one low quality photo.


Tigger my response was not directed at you. Nor was it a personal attack on your opinion, although from your response it looks as if you felt it was. It was directed at snifferdog who was commenting that he/she had never seen dark eyelashes and blond eyebrows on the same person before.

The point I was making (when I mentioned the coloboma ) was that just because someone has never seen something doesn't mean it doesn't/can't exist.
I like to be open minded.  If someone tells me dark eyelashes and light eyebrows don't exist together,  I will question it.

This thread is about the ice cream photo and it is a really poor quality photo, at least on my display  and I  don't think it "glaringly obvious"  that  the hand is photo shopped any more than I can tell it is eyeliner and I wasn't asking for your help to see it. I was just expressing my opinion about this photo. You think the hand  is photo shopped. I think the quality is so poor and grainy and there is so much colour bleed everywhere  that I can't tell. To me it looks like poor quality photo,  maybe taken on a phone of a cheeky wee girl enjoying an ice cream someone is holding for her. I'm afraid I can't read any more into it than that. I don't see the subliminal messages you see.

FH

Posts : 119
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by canada12 on 09.05.14 18:54

FH wrote:
This thread is about the ice cream photo and it is a really poor quality photo, at least on my display  and I  don't think it "glaringly obvious"  that  the hand is photo shopped any more than I can tell it is eyeliner and I wasn't asking for your help to see it. I was just expressing my opinion about this photo. You think the hand  is photo shopped. I think the quality is so poor and grainy and there is so much colour bleed everywhere  that I can't tell. To me it looks like poor quality photo,  maybe taken on a phone of a cheeky wee girl enjoying an ice cream someone is holding for her. I'm afraid I can't read any more into it than that. I don't see the subliminal messages you see.


Here is the photo in question:

You can clearly see that there's no way the arm connects to the elbow at all. The elbow would be well below where the arm is located on the horizontal plane.

canada12

Posts : 1461
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2013-10-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by FH on 09.05.14 19:43

What I see is an adults arm underneath Madeleine's arm , between her arm and her body . It is how I would hold an ice cream for a child sitting on my knee and have done many times .  The dark area at the RHS  of the ice cream holding wrist,  that you think looks like a gap, looks to me like  either shadow , or the end of a sleeve on the arm where the wrist goes between her body and  her arm . The pattern on the dress seems to bleed everywhere, as do a lot of the colours.  There are no defined edges. it is all very blurred.

FH

Posts : 119
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 10.05.14 22:35

Just seen this pic of a young MBM which i have not seen before. Maybe 2 yrs of age at a guess.

Lipstick and looks like eyeliner on as well.

Not right. Disturbing. Poor girl. 

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by russiandoll on 10.05.14 22:46

Such a lovely photograph.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tigger on 11.05.14 5:32

Andrew77R wrote:Just seen this pic of a young MBM which i have not seen before. Maybe 2 yrs of age at a guess.

Lipstick and looks like eyeliner on as well.

Not right. Disturbing. Poor girl. 


That's one of the 'little woman' poses I was talking about. The gesture of holding the scarf is imo very 'grown up. '

The other things in some photos that bother me:

The closed smile - not a natural thing with toddlers when they smile -
The hand gestures - e.g. brushing hair away from the face whilst smiling with closed lips (Everton photo)

The crimped hair photo I find very strange, little woman again and when did that happen? When she borrowed Kate's crimping iron? Just as she raided Kate's make- up box and ended up with perfectly applied make-up?


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by ChippyM on 11.05.14 12:55

tigger wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
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.

If she didn't have a definite coloboma as the parents say, then it was added in many photographs. Adding a bit of eyeliner to emphasise the eyes would be no trouble.

If you can explain that floating hand with the icecream cone?

A lot of photographs can be prettied up with standard software which needs no expert hand. Skin evened out, wrinkles wiped, easy. But the point here is that:
The poses in some photographs are  curious ( the inverted floor one, the swimming pool,) these are not snaps taken as and when.
The icecream photo with the 'naughty' look at the photographer and the subliminal message of  a lolly and a dripping icecream cone is clearly not a normal  snap. That's without even looking at that floating hand.



   I would emphasise again, most of these photos floating around the web have been saved, resized, at various resolutions etc many times since whereever they came from originally. With that you get distortion of what was not a particularly high resolution photo in the first place. Areas that were a little bit out of focus or dark lose more and more detail, the pixels making up that area have less variation in tone and appear to clump together. It doesn't mean the photo has been purposefully altered.

 The coloboma again, could lose prominance in certain photos due to lighting, after saving and resizing, again you have dark areas that may look prominent in some photos and not others. Yes it would be easy to add eyeliner in photoshop but it doesn't mean that's what happened.

   I don't see a 'floating hand' either. Again you have a poor quality photo where probably due to saving, compression and resizing the already dark and out of focus area where you get the crease of the elbow looks even more blurry.

 I've never deisagreed that some of the poses in the pictures seem dodgy, on that we agree.

ChippyM

Posts : 1281
Reputation : 422
Join date : 2013-06-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Shhh on 11.05.14 20:50

GM saying it's just a bit of extra colour now instead of coloboma.  Does he think we are idiots?  I had my youngest checked when he was about a year because I could see something, it was just an extra bit of colour like G would like us to now believe.  It never showed in photos so explain how maddies did mr mccann?

I also know someone with a genuine coloboma and it stands out.

Shhh

Posts : 198
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-03-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by ChippyM on 11.05.14 22:01

Shhh wrote:GM saying it's just a bit of extra colour now instead of coloboma.  Does he think we are idiots?  I had my youngest checked when he was about a year because I could see something, it was just an extra bit of colour like G would like us to now believe.  It never showed in photos so explain how maddies did mr mccann?

I also know someone with a genuine coloboma and it stands out.

Did they downplay the coloboma after they went against the advice not to show it in posters? If that's true it's damage control from them IMO.

ChippyM

Posts : 1281
Reputation : 422
Join date : 2013-06-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 11.05.14 22:05

Yes, the first time they said they'd "never made much of it" was in an interview with Piers Morgan in 2011.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tigger on 12.05.14 11:33





I am sure that this isn't Madeleine, there is another photograph of this child as well, with Gerry giving her a ride on his back.

Quite a different set of teeth for a start, different smile and so on. Confusion is good.  nah 

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tigger on 12.05.14 11:40



In this still from a set of Christmas photographs - Christmas 2005 I'd think -  it seems quite clear to me that she's wearing a wig.

In this photograph - especially seems to me she is wearing another wig which doesn't fit as well. Imo the wig slipped in the one with the profile, and in the other photo the size of her head can only be explained this way. Otherwise she'd have had hydrocephalus or a similar defect, which I don't believe is the case at all. A wig explain a lot of the problems in various photographs, the extreme neatness of her hair for one.

Probably taken in a playground and guessing here as to the year and time, can't have been too cold judging by the clothes so May/June 2006?



____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 17 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum