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 14 of 17 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by pennylane on 12.10.15 8:51

@BlueBag wrote:
@Verdi wrote:

More to the point, why would Kate McCann select photographs of a secret child to annexe her book?
She didn't.

The McCanns didn't live in a bubble before the disappearance and lots of people knew Madeleine, extended family, family friends, nursery.

This is just like 9/11 "hologram no planes" and "space beams" where people like to get other people running around for whatever purpose... fun, disinfo, smearing by association.

Anyone who has serious questions on forums these days get quickly surrounded by chaff, a lot of it deliberately aimed at making everyone look nuts by association.

Thankfully there are vigilant people here who know the score and know how to think critically.
Totally agree BlueBag x goodpost

pennylane

Posts : 2756
Reputation : 1588
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tinkier on 12.10.15 11:43

@Verdi wrote:
@canada12 wrote:Just to throw some perspective into this, there were discussions many moons ago on the original forums about the possibility of Madeleine having a sister as a result of the IVF. Multiple births are not uncommon with IVF - Sean and Amelie are a prime example -  and there was speculation that she may have been one of two children born to Kate, and that, for whatever reason, the other twin was adopted by someone else, possibly someone well known to the McCanns.

That, at least, would be one explanation for the possibility of a child who resembles Madeleine but who isn't Madeleine, who is present at McCann family gatherings, and whose identity would be kept secret, and for the cooperation of the child's parents.
That is always a possibility (although I don't think it likely)  but why would the child's identity be kept secret?  Adoption is not shameful and certainly not a criminal or even moral offence.

More to the point, why would Kate McCann select photographs of a secret child to annexe her book?
@verdi….take a look at this 12 page thread that was started by TB way back in 2011, a paper written by Q…... https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3889-2-appendices-added-q-wants-to-know-why-none-of-madeleine-s-dna-was-found-in-apt-g5a-long ..Now I am not saying I agree, but…… We all know that GM had links to the government through COMARE. Why would he get involved in something like that? money, maybe, (GM was no more an expert in nuclear matters than you or I ) We all know that human experiments are illegal, but just say they did get involved in something secret that would have given them a huge amount of money. It's not outside the realms of possibilities, especially if they were to get a huge payoff at the end it. Money floats the McCann boat!

ETA…..Two great pioneers for IVF (in Scotland) were a Dr John Mills (now retired) and a Geoff James,  J Mills was based at Ninewells hospital Dundee, where did KM do her medical training, Ninewells Dundee, probably coincidence?
avatar
tinkier

Posts : 239
Reputation : 159
Join date : 2015-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by BlueBag on 12.10.15 12:18

From COMARE to Madeleine is a human experiment as "not outside the realms of possibility"?

Give me a break.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4399
Reputation : 2218
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tinkier on 12.10.15 12:27

@BlueBag wrote:From COMARE to Madeleine is a human experiment as "not outside the realms of possibility"?

Give me a break.
@BlueBag…….GM had a direct link to the government through COMARE that's what I meant. Please be civil if that's in YOUR realm of possibilities. Thank you
avatar
tinkier

Posts : 239
Reputation : 159
Join date : 2015-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Verdi on 12.10.15 12:34

@tinkier wrote:
@Verdi wrote:
@canada12 wrote:Just to throw some perspective into this, there were discussions many moons ago on the original forums about the possibility of Madeleine having a sister as a result of the IVF. Multiple births are not uncommon with IVF - Sean and Amelie are a prime example -  and there was speculation that she may have been one of two children born to Kate, and that, for whatever reason, the other twin was adopted by someone else, possibly someone well known to the McCanns.

That, at least, would be one explanation for the possibility of a child who resembles Madeleine but who isn't Madeleine, who is present at McCann family gatherings, and whose identity would be kept secret, and for the cooperation of the child's parents.
That is always a possibility (although I don't think it likely)  but why would the child's identity be kept secret?  Adoption is not shameful and certainly not a criminal or even moral offence.

More to the point, why would Kate McCann select photographs of a secret child to annexe her book?
@verdi….take a look at this 12 page thread that was started by TB way back in 2011, a paper written by Q…... https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3889-2-appendices-added-q-wants-to-know-why-none-of-madeleine-s-dna-was-found-in-apt-g5a-long ..Now I am not saying I agree, but…… We all know that GM had links to the government through COMARE. Why would he get involved in something like that? money, maybe, (GM was no more an expert in nuclear matters than you or I ) We all know that human experiments are illegal, but just say they did get involved in something secret that would have given them a huge amount of money. It's not outside the realms of possibilities, especially if they were to get a huge payoff at the end it. Money floats the McCann boat!

ETA…..Two great pioneers for IVF (in Scotland) were a Dr John Mills (now retired) and a Geoff James,  J Mills was based at Ninewells hospital Dundee, where did KM do her medical training, Ninewells Dundee, probably coincidence?
Sorry but that's going from the ridculous to completely bonkers -  I can think of only one answer ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhy_EaaP5yM

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6771
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Verdi on 12.10.15 12:37

@BlueBag wrote:
@Verdi wrote:

More to the point, why would Kate McCann select photographs of a secret child to annexe her book?
She didn't.

The McCanns didn't live in a bubble before the disappearance and lots of people knew Madeleine, extended family, family friends, nursery.

This is just like 9/11 "hologram no planes" and "space beams" where people like to get other people running around for whatever purpose... fun, disinfo, smearing by association.

Anyone who has serious questions on forums these days get quickly surrounded by chaff, a lot of it deliberately aimed at making everyone look nuts by association.

Thankfully there are vigilant people here who know the score and know how to think critically.
Precisely - she didn't!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6771
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tinkier on 12.10.15 12:38

@Verdi wrote:
@tinkier wrote:
@Verdi wrote:
@canada12 wrote:Just to throw some perspective into this, there were discussions many moons ago on the original forums about the possibility of Madeleine having a sister as a result of the IVF. Multiple births are not uncommon with IVF - Sean and Amelie are a prime example -  and there was speculation that she may have been one of two children born to Kate, and that, for whatever reason, the other twin was adopted by someone else, possibly someone well known to the McCanns.

That, at least, would be one explanation for the possibility of a child who resembles Madeleine but who isn't Madeleine, who is present at McCann family gatherings, and whose identity would be kept secret, and for the cooperation of the child's parents.
That is always a possibility (although I don't think it likely)  but why would the child's identity be kept secret?  Adoption is not shameful and certainly not a criminal or even moral offence.

More to the point, why would Kate McCann select photographs of a secret child to annexe her book?
@verdi….take a look at this 12 page thread that was started by TB way back in 2011, a paper written by Q…... https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3889-2-appendices-added-q-wants-to-know-why-none-of-madeleine-s-dna-was-found-in-apt-g5a-long ..Now I am not saying I agree, but…… We all know that GM had links to the government through COMARE. Why would he get involved in something like that? money, maybe, (GM was no more an expert in nuclear matters than you or I ) We all know that human experiments are illegal, but just say they did get involved in something secret that would have given them a huge amount of money. It's not outside the realms of possibilities, especially if they were to get a huge payoff at the end it. Money floats the McCann boat!

ETA…..Two great pioneers for IVF (in Scotland) were a Dr John Mills (now retired) and a Geoff James,  J Mills was based at Ninewells hospital Dundee, where did KM do her medical training, Ninewells Dundee, probably coincidence?
Sorry but that's going from the ridculous to completely bonkers -  I can think of only one answer ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhy_EaaP5yM
@verdi…what a hoot!! I nearly fell of my chair!
avatar
tinkier

Posts : 239
Reputation : 159
Join date : 2015-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Verdi on 12.10.15 13:00

@ tinkier wrote:  what a hoot!! I nearly fell of my chair!

Yes, risible when you think about it - ain't it?  You'll need to strap yourself in for this one - think Boris Karloff (or William Henry Pratt if you prefer)..



Ooops sorry - not like that, wrong one.  Try again..



That's more like it!

Still, enough of this levity!  Can you explain why you think Kate McCann and extended family would deliberately draw attention to a child that may or may not exist?  I'm getting rather confused..

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6771
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by BlueBag on 12.10.15 13:04

@tinkier wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:From COMARE to Madeleine is a human experiment as "not outside the realms of possibility"?

Give me a break.
@BlueBag…….GM had a direct link to the government through COMARE that's what I meant. Please be civil if that's in YOUR realm of possibilities. Thank you
I know what COMARE is.

It's an advisory body for the government on the affects of natural and man-made radiation on health.

How you get from that to Madeliene is possibly a human experiment is beyond me.

Please use critical thinking in YOUR realm of possibilities.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4399
Reputation : 2218
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tinkier on 12.10.15 13:11

@Verdi wrote:@ tinkier wrote:  what a hoot!! I nearly fell of my chair!

Yes, risible when you think about it - ain't it?  You'll need to strap yourself in for this one - think Boris Karloff (or William Henry Pratt if you prefer)..



Ooops sorry - not like that, wrong one.  Try again..



That's more like it!

Still, enough of this levity!  Can you explain why you think Kate McCann and extended family would deliberately draw attention to a child that may or may not exist?  I'm getting rather confused..
@verdi..…strange how further up the thread you had this to say re IVF .. That is always a possibility (although I don't think it likely). ??
Your wit @verdi... lets just say it's maybe not one of your best attributes big grin
avatar
tinkier

Posts : 239
Reputation : 159
Join date : 2015-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tinkier on 12.10.15 13:14

@BlueBag wrote:
@tinkier wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:From COMARE to Madeleine is a human experiment as "not outside the realms of possibility"?

Give me a break.
@BlueBag…….GM had a direct link to the government through COMARE that's what I meant. Please be civil if that's in YOUR realm of possibilities. Thank you
I know what COMARE is.

It's an advisory body for the government on the affects of natural and man-made radiation on health.

How you get from that to Madeliene is possibly a human experiment is beyond me.

Please use critical thinking in YOUR realm of possibilities.
@BlueBag…did you actually read all the thread…https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3889-2-appendices-added-q-wants-to-know-why-none-of-madeleine-s-dna-was-found-in-apt-g5a-long
avatar
tinkier

Posts : 239
Reputation : 159
Join date : 2015-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by BlueBag on 12.10.15 13:48

@tinkier wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@tinkier wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:From COMARE to Madeleine is a human experiment as "not outside the realms of possibility"?

Give me a break.
@BlueBag…….GM had a direct link to the government through COMARE that's what I meant. Please be civil if that's in YOUR realm of possibilities. Thank you
I know what COMARE is.

It's an advisory body for the government on the affects of natural and man-made radiation on health.

How you get from that to Madeliene is possibly a human experiment is beyond me.

Please use critical thinking in YOUR realm of possibilities.
@BlueBag…did you actually read all the thread…https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3889-2-appendices-added-q-wants-to-know-why-none-of-madeleine-s-dna-was-found-in-apt-g5a-long
Because the flat had been thoroughly cleaned?

Is a much simpler explanation than a government ADVISORY body on the effects of radiation on health producing illegal experimental children which has to be covered up.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4399
Reputation : 2218
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tinkier on 12.10.15 13:58

@BlueBag wrote:
@tinkier wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@tinkier wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:From COMARE to Madeleine is a human experiment as "not outside the realms of possibility"?

Give me a break.
@BlueBag…….GM had a direct link to the government through COMARE that's what I meant. Please be civil if that's in YOUR realm of possibilities. Thank you
I know what COMARE is.

It's an advisory body for the government on the affects of natural and man-made radiation on health.

How you get from that to Madeliene is possibly a human experiment is beyond me.

Please use critical thinking in YOUR realm of possibilities.
@BlueBag…did you actually read all the thread…https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3889-2-appendices-added-q-wants-to-know-why-none-of-madeleine-s-dna-was-found-in-apt-g5a-long
Because the flat had been thoroughly cleaned?

Is a much simpler explanation than a government ADVISORY body on the effects of radiation on health producing illegal experimental children which has to be covered up.
@BlueBag……your last comment, I have never said such thing. You seem to see what you want to see, not what is actually said!
avatar
tinkier

Posts : 239
Reputation : 159
Join date : 2015-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by BlueBag on 12.10.15 14:56

@tinkier wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@tinkier wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:
@tinkier wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:From COMARE to Madeleine is a human experiment as "not outside the realms of possibility"?

Give me a break.
@BlueBag…….GM had a direct link to the government through COMARE that's what I meant. Please be civil if that's in YOUR realm of possibilities. Thank you
I know what COMARE is.

It's an advisory body for the government on the affects of natural and man-made radiation on health.

How you get from that to Madeliene is possibly a human experiment is beyond me.

Please use critical thinking in YOUR realm of possibilities.
@BlueBag…did you actually read all the thread…https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3889-2-appendices-added-q-wants-to-know-why-none-of-madeleine-s-dna-was-found-in-apt-g5a-long
Because the flat had been thoroughly cleaned?

Is a much simpler explanation than a government ADVISORY body on the effects of radiation on health producing illegal experimental children which has to be covered up.
@BlueBag……your last comment, I have never said such thing. You seem to see what you want to see, not what is actually said!

"Why would he get involved in something like that? money, maybe, (GM was no more an expert in nuclear matters than you or I ) We all know that human experiments are illegal, but just say they did get involved in something secret that would have given them a huge amount of money. It's not outside the realms of possibilities, especially if they were to get a huge payoff at the end it. Money floats the McCann boat!"


Who was this human experiment supposedly on?
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4399
Reputation : 2218
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Verdi on 12.10.15 15:45

@tinkier wrote:  strange how further up the thread you had this to say re IVF .. That is always a possibility (although I don't think it likely). ??


Guilty as charged - indeed I did write those words but if you refer back to the post which was replying to @canada, you will see that my comment related only to the possibility of MBM having a twin who may have been adopted - although I don't think it likely for reasons explained and more !!


You however digress, if read in context my comments become perfectly clear.  I'm still eager to learn how all this talk about photograph comparison reflects on the investigation into the disappearance of MBM.  Following your line of thinking, do you honestly think (for example) that one of the IVF children was a mutation, an unfortunate product of an experiment, only to be taken to Portugal when nearly four years old to be permanently disposed of in order to destroy evidence of experimentation on humans?  That's roughly how I'm reading the joint efforts on this thread of late - give or take a little poetic licence.



Geeez - give me strength.  In the words of John McEnroe (to be said with appropriate twang) 'you cannot be serious'!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6771
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tinkier on 12.10.15 16:45

@tinkier wrote:
@Verdi wrote:
@canada12 wrote:Just to throw some perspective into this, there were discussions many moons ago on the original forums about the possibility of Madeleine having a sister as a result of the IVF. Multiple births are not uncommon with IVF - Sean and Amelie are a prime example -  and there was speculation that she may have been one of two children born to Kate, and that, for whatever reason, the other twin was adopted by someone else, possibly someone well known to the McCanns.

That, at least, would be one explanation for the possibility of a child who resembles Madeleine but who isn't Madeleine, who is present at McCann family gatherings, and whose identity would be kept secret, and for the cooperation of the child's parents.
That is always a possibility (although I don't think it likely)  but why would the child's identity be kept secret?  Adoption is not shameful and certainly not a criminal or even moral offence.

More to the point, why would Kate McCann select photographs of a secret child to annexe her book?
@verdi….take a look at this 12 page thread that was started by TB way back in 2011, a paper written by Q…... https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3889-2-appendices-added-q-wants-to-know-why-none-of-madeleine-s-dna-was-found-in-apt-g5a-long ..Now I am not saying I agree, but…… We all know that GM had links to the government through COMARE. Why would he get involved in something like that? money, maybe, (GM was no more an expert in nuclear matters than you or I ) We all know that human experiments are illegal, but just say they did get involved in something secret that would have given them a huge amount of money. It's not outside the realms of possibilities, especially if they were to get a huge payoff at the end it. Money floats the McCann boat!

ETA…..Two great pioneers for IVF (in Scotland) were a Dr John Mills (now retired) and a Geoff James,  J Mills was based at Ninewells hospital Dundee, where did KM do her medical training, Ninewells Dundee, probably coincidence?
@verdi @BlueBag…..I did not write the paper (that accolade goes to Q) and I certainly did not post the original link either. I posted the link here today, as I thought it might further the conversation regarding IVF/CLONING! I also said at the start quote "I am not saying I agree, but…." My mind is open to all possibilities in this case and I certainly wouldn't be labeling someone as a "loony" for having the courage to bring it up for discussion either. The words of @Bluebag  GIVE ME A BREAK!

ETA You never know what might be going on behind closed doors  www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/gn301/Supplements/HumanCloning.html
avatar
tinkier

Posts : 239
Reputation : 159
Join date : 2015-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by MrsHyde on 12.10.15 17:59

As for why the McCanns would publish the pictures of the other children, resembling Maddie, I would see here two reasons. First, very simple, there is not enough sweet and heart tugging shots of real Maddie to use for the PR purposes and keep the donations flowing in. And the extended family as we could see is also pretty... um, unconventional, so the lack of protest on their behalf wouldn't be surprising, at least for me.

The second reason is more important: to confuse potential witnesses. With different "Maddies", younger and older, bigger and smaller, higher and taller, having slightly differing faces, the people who really saw Madeleine in Portugal may get their heads spinning. How can they be sure that this little blond girl they saw was Maddie? Maybe it wasn't her, after all?

I'll give you an example. In June a toddler's body was found on the shore of Deer Island in Boston. As the remains were in the early stages of decomp, the facial reconstruction was required and done by a forensic artist, for the purpose of identification. When the girl was finally identified after almost three months (her name was Bella Bond), it came out that some people had recognised her in the reconstruction portrait on the posters, but they were afraid to go to the police. Why? They were unsure if it was really Bella, because the portrait, althought resembled her quite closely, was slightly off in some details that might be even called minute. It might work similarily with witnesses in Maddie's case - because the girl they saw was looking similar, but not the same as on some pics. Isn't it the same purpose that the one behind picking for the forst published photo of Madeleine the one on which she was much younger than her real age when she went missing?
avatar
MrsHyde

Posts : 18
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2015-10-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Verdi on 12.10.15 20:18

@tinkier wrote:  GIVE ME A BREAK

With absolute pleasure tinkier, with absolute pleasure.

BTW ..  Brilliant avatar - very appropriate!



Posters - stay on topic and stop bickering, otherwise posts will be deleted.  Final warning!  Mod.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6771
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tinkier on 12.10.15 20:23

Post deleted.  Mod.
avatar
tinkier

Posts : 239
Reputation : 159
Join date : 2015-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tinkier on 12.10.15 20:34

Post deleted.  Mod.
avatar
tinkier

Posts : 239
Reputation : 159
Join date : 2015-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Verdi on 12.10.15 22:34

@MrsHyde wrote:As for why the McCanns would publish the pictures of the other children, resembling Maddie, I would see here two reasons. First, very simple, there is not enough sweet and heart tugging shots of real Maddie to use for the PR purposes and keep the donations flowing in. And the extended family as we could see is also pretty... um, unconventional, so the lack of protest on their behalf wouldn't be surprising, at least for me.

If I'm correct in assuming that the photographs being used for comparison lifted from gerrymccannsblog, were annexed to KM's autobiography 'madeleine', the book was published in May 2011, fours years after MBM's disappearance so I venture to suggest that donations had already dried up long before.  In addition, the photographs wouldn't have been seen save for the books publication, if the Find Madeleine Fund benefited from publishing the photographs it would have been by book sales - how else could anyone see the photographs prior to buying the book?  Besides, the majority of photographs under scrutiny aren't even happy family scenarios - au contraire!

The second reason is more important: to confuse potential witnesses. With different "Maddies", younger and older, bigger and smaller, higher and taller, having slightly differing faces, the people who really saw Madeleine in Portugal may get their heads spinning. How can they be sure that this little blond girl they saw was Maddie? Maybe it wasn't her, after all?

That was already accomplished when the McCanns or their elected representative handed an out-dated photograph to the PJ to use as the official Portuguese 'missing' public notice.

I'll give you an example. In June a toddler's body was found on the shore of Deer Island in Boston. As the remains were in the early stages of decomp, the facial reconstruction was required and done by a forensic artist, for the purpose of identification. When the girl was finally identified after almost three months (her name was Bella Bond), it came out that some people had recognised her in the reconstruction portrait on the posters, but they were afraid to go to the police. Why? They were unsure if it was really Bella, because the portrait, althought resembled her quite closely, was slightly off in some details that might be even called minute. It might work similarily with witnesses in Maddie's case - because the girl they saw was looking similar, but not the same as on some pics. Isn't it the same purpose that the one behind picking for the forst published photo of Madeleine the one on which she was much younger than her real age when she went missing?

With respect, I think your example is a little off-piste!  Firstly, when talking of a little child that has reportedly disappeared off the face of the earth, to suggest that people are afraid to go to the police in case of mistaken identity, is IMO a trifle unrealistic.  It's not feasible to expect members of the public to positively identify a total stranger in the flesh with only a photograph to guide them but that little obstacle doesn't prevent sightings from being reported.  You can see some zelebrity's mug shot in the tabloid every day but if you bumped into same person in the street I bet you wouldn't recognize the person Just check out the PJ files and see how many sightings were reported - that's without all the information collected by the CEOP and other UK agents that may or may not have been forwarded to the PJ - but that's another issue.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6771
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by MrsHyde on 12.10.15 22:52

@Verdi wrote:
]With respect, I think your example is a little off-piste!  Firstly, when talking of a little child that has reportedly disappeared off the face of the earth, to suggest that people are afraid to go to the police in case of mistaken identity, is IMO a trifle unrealistic.

It's not unrealistic. It's a fact. 

It's not feasible to expect members of the public to positively identify a total stranger in the flesh with only a photograph to guide them

I've seen many Does identified with only a post mortem photograph, by total strangers. I've seen living Does id'ed this way. Criminals recognised, missing persons spotted, and on, and on. Of course there is always a slew of fake sightings,but the real ones also are present.

but that little obstacle doesn't prevent sightings from being reported.  You can see some zelebrity's mug shot in the tabloid every day but if you bumped into same person in the street I bet you wouldn't recognize the person Just check out the PJ files and see how many sightings were reported - that's without all the information collected by the CEOP and other UK agents that may or may not have been forwarded to the PJ - but that's another issue.

I've followed more than one case (Bella from Boston included) where people who recognised the missing person from the pic, were afraid to call the police, because they weren't sure of their recognition. They were afraid of the trouble they could the person in question if they were wrong, or hampering the investigation, by sending a tip, that ultimately would lead to nowhere. It does happen pretty often,.
avatar
MrsHyde

Posts : 18
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2015-10-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by BlueBag on 13.10.15 9:48

@tinkier wrote:

ETA You never know what might be going on behind closed doors  www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/gn301/Supplements/HumanCloning.html
So you do think that Madeleine may have been a human experiment.

So anyway... what is the link between COMARE - a government ADVISORY body on the effects of radiation on health - and human cloning experiments on middle class english children?

I'll tell you... NONE (except in your imagination).

Nada, zilch.

This theory has as much credibility as my "aliens did it" theory.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4399
Reputation : 2218
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by BlueBag on 13.10.15 9:55

"Posters - stay on topic and stop bickering, otherwise posts will be deleted.  Final warning!  Mod."
I think exotic theories should pass a smell test.

There's nothing wrong with critical thinking.

Otherwise we end up like the David Icke forum with all of the gravitas that site exudes.


 
BlueBag - nothing wrong with critical thinking, agree.  Persistent rude and aggressive remarks towards other posters, despite requests to stop, are unacceptable on this forum.  Mod.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4399
Reputation : 2218
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Verdi on 13.10.15 15:59

@MrsHyde wrote:
@Verdi wrote:
]With respect, I think your example is a little off-piste!  Firstly, when talking of a little child that has reportedly disappeared off the face of the earth, to suggest that people are afraid to go to the police in case of mistaken identity, is IMO a trifle unrealistic.

It's not unrealistic. It's a fact. 

It's not feasible to expect members of the public to positively identify a total stranger in the flesh with only a photograph to guide them

I've seen many Does identified with only a post mortem photograph, by total strangers. I've seen living Does id'ed this way. Criminals recognised, missing persons spotted, and on, and on. Of course there is always a slew of fake sightings,but the real ones also are present.

but that little obstacle doesn't prevent sightings from being reported.  You can see some zelebrity's mug shot in the tabloid every day but if you bumped into same person in the street I bet you wouldn't recognize the person Just check out the PJ files and see how many sightings were reported - that's without all the information collected by the CEOP and other UK agents that may or may not have been forwarded to the PJ - but that's another issue.

I've followed more than one case (Bella from Boston included) where people who recognised the missing person from the pic, were afraid to call the police, because they weren't sure of their recognition. They were afraid of the trouble they could the person in question if they were wrong, or hampering the investigation, by sending a tip, that ultimately would lead to nowhere. It does happen pretty often,.
Having never been privy to the minutiae of any criminal investigation or the aftermath thereof, I'll have to take your word for it.  I would have thought that reported sightings in any missing persons case involving the police, would be taken seriously (within reason of course) - out of the many that must be reported there is every chance that one might hit the target, so to speak.  I remain unconvinced but as it's not really the topic under discussion I'll butt out.

BTW - I know it's off topic but how do you manage to pluck particular words from another post and re-post in the form of a quotation?  I've been around here for a while and still can't work it out but here you are, a member for but a few days and you've already sussed out posting technique.  Can you or some other forum savvy please explain - it makes more sense to me to only re-post the bit relevant to the reply.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6771
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 14 of 17 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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