Photographs revisited - questions

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.

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?

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

Give me a break.

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?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]….take a look at this 12 page thread that was started by TB way back in 2011, a paper written by Q…... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ..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?

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.

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?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]….take a look at this 12 page thread that was started by TB way back in 2011, a paper written by Q…... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ..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 ..

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

tinkier wrote:

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

Give me a break.

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

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)..

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

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

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

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..

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.

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

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.

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]…did you actually read all the thread…[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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.

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]…did you actually read all the thread…[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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.

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.

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]…did you actually read all the thread…[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]……your last comment, I have never said such thing. You seem to see what you want to see, not what is actually said!

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?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]….take a look at this 12 page thread that was started by TB way back in 2011, a paper written by Q…... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ..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?

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.

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 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.

tinkier wrote:

ETA You never know what might be going on behind closed doors  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]cals.ncsu.edu/course/gn301/Supplements/HumanCloning.html

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

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,.