The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm 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 your username should be different from your email address!

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Photographs revisited - questions

Page 3 of 17 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 12:03

The playground photo to which you refer, Tigger, hasn't come out - unless it's just me which it might well be!

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm

There are certainly a few on that link which don't appear to be of Madeleine.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Clocker on 12.05.14 12:04

tigger wrote:



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 
Is this from the same day?  She seems to be wearing the same clothes but looks only around 2 years of age I think. I think it's probably M on this pic anyway. 

____________________
My opinion only

Clocker

Posts : 87
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 12:37



Yes, i agree when it's enlarged it does rather look like a wig.

I'm no hairdresser, but if it wasn't a wig then to me it looks like there are highlights in... You wouldn't put highlights on an 18 month old baby would you.. Surely not. 




I'm on the fence with this one. IMO it does look a bit like her when enlarged, although doesn't at first glance. However as Tigger rightly pointed out - teeth are different. Strange.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 12:58

Why on earth would put a wig on an 18 month old child? It simply isn't done, I don't think they even make wigs that small, and a child of that age wouldn't keep it on it's head, Sorry but I find this totally unbelievable.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by FH on 12.05.14 13:03

tigger wrote:@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'm not saying it isn't eyeliner, or photoshopping, but out of curiosity I had a look at the photo's on here http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm
I couldn't see a single photo where she has anything other than really dark eyelashes. Especially the photos where she is in relative close up and you can see individual eyelashes. They look really dark. Even in the photos of her as a baby , she has really dark eyelashes. I doubt a baby would sit still to have mascara/eyeliner applied.  Maybe someone has photo shopped all the images, or maybe she just has really dark eyelashes?

FH

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 12.05.14 13:16

FH wrote:
I'm not saying it isn't eyeliner, or photoshopping, but out of curiosity I had a look at the photo's on here http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm
I couldn't see a single photo where she has anything other than really dark eyelashes. Especially the photos where she is in relative close up and you can see individual eyelashes. They look really dark. Even in the photos of her as a baby , she has really dark eyelashes. I doubt a baby would sit still to have mascara/eyeliner applied.  Maybe someone has photo shopped all the images, or maybe she just has really dark eyelashes?

A liberal application of Occam's Razor would suggest that she had really dark eyelashes.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by AndyB on 12.05.14 13:44

candyfloss wrote:Why on earth would put a wig on an 18 month old child?  It simply isn't done, I don't think they even make wigs that small, and a child of that age wouldn't keep it on it's head, Sorry but I find this totally unbelievable.  
Why put make-up on a three year old? That isn't done either (or at least it shouldn't be). Having said that I don't believe its a wig although it is possible to get wigs for very small children:

Littleprincesses wrote:We operate throughout the UK and Ireland, supplying boys and girls from 2 years old

http://www.littleprincesses.org.uk/about-us/information-for-parents/

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 54
Location : Consett, County Durham

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tigger on 12.05.14 14:32

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:The playground photo to which you refer, Tigger, hasn't come out - unless it's just me which it might well be!

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm

There are certainly a few on that link which don't appear to be of Madeleine.

These are the top two in the three which are together - where she's facing left and the bl/white one are from a set of playground pictures, posted some time ago by look4maddie in most pictures taken on the same day topic. They are in high resolution in her posts, have no idea how to do that.

____________________
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 12.05.14 14:48

AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Why on earth would put a wig on an 18 month old child?  It simply isn't done, I don't think they even make wigs that small, and a child of that age wouldn't keep it on it's head, Sorry but I find this totally unbelievable.  
Why put make-up on a three year old? That isn't done either (or at least it shouldn't be). Having said that I don't believe its a wig although it is possible to get wigs for very small children:

Littleprincesses wrote:We operate throughout the UK and Ireland, supplying boys and girls from 2 years old

http://www.littleprincesses.org.uk/about-us/information-for-parents/
Andy,
         It is not so much a question of why put make up on a three year old. They quite happily put it on themselves . As a small child, my  eldest daughter loved playing dress up. She loved anything pink, sparkly, princess like. Loved having her hair done, her nails painted and playing with make up. I don't wear make up , so she was not copying me.  I neither encouraged, or discouraged, as it was who she was. She was an innocent  and it was an innocent game. It was make believe. It was fascinating for me, a tomboy, to watch this complete girlie girl play and I  would not have stopped her. She enjoyed it. It was harmless.   As an adult, she rarely wears make up.  My other daughters were never interested. They probably wear more make up than her now.

Paedophiles may be attracted to small girls in make up, or small boys with no make up, or babies playing naked in the sea, or fully clothed children in a nursery. Why should any of that stop an innocent child having a great time playing?  Children stop being innocent if you put notions in their heads about bad men, so we never did , we just watched over them carefully. As all  parents should.

The pink sparkly phase passed and turned to grunge, then indie, then goth, then hippy, then smart.

FH

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by AndyB on 12.05.14 15:10

FH wrote:
AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Why on earth would put a wig on an 18 month old child?  It simply isn't done, I don't think they even make wigs that small, and a child of that age wouldn't keep it on it's head, Sorry but I find this totally unbelievable.  
Why put make-up on a three year old? That isn't done either (or at least it shouldn't be). Having said that I don't believe its a wig although it is possible to get wigs for very small children:

Littleprincesses wrote:We operate throughout the UK and Ireland, supplying boys and girls from 2 years old

http://www.littleprincesses.org.uk/about-us/information-for-parents/
Andy,
         It is not so much a question of why put make up on a three year old. They quite happily put it on themselves . As a small child, my  eldest daughter loved playing dress up. She loved anything pink, sparkly, princess like. Loved having her hair done, her nails painted and playing with make up. I don't wear make up , so she was not copying me.  I neither encouraged, or discouraged, as it was who she was. She was an innocent  and it was an innocent game. It was make believe. It was fascinating for me, a tomboy, to watch this complete girlie girl play and I  would not have stopped her. She enjoyed it. It was harmless.   As an adult, she rarely wears make up.  My other daughters were never interested. They probably wear more make up than her now.

Paedophiles may be attracted to small girls in make up, or small boys with no make up, or babies playing naked in the sea, or fully clothed children in a nursery. Why should any of that stop an innocent child having a great time playing?  Children stop being innocent if you put notions in their heads about bad men, so we never did , we just watched over them carefully. As all  parents should.

The pink sparkly phase passed and turned to grunge, then indie, then goth, then hippy, then smart.
I'm not a parent so I don't know but the photo of Madeleine with the make-up on has always struck me as wrong in that it sexualises her a little. Given your experiences with your daughter, do you find that picture innocent?

The point I was trying to make is that, just because the idea that she's wearing a wig in the photo under discussion maybe unconscionable to some, that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 54
Location : Consett, County Durham

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 15:40

@FH,

I have a little boy so can't really comment on the whole daughter / make up thing.

IMO. The below pic is just wrong (and there are a few others too).

There is a big difference from 'playing' with make up to somebody else carefully applying it, forcefully posing for the camera and then taking close up photographs.

Snipped from your comment:


 Loved having her hair done, her nails painted and playing with make up. I don't wear make up , so she was not copying me.  I neither encouraged, or discouraged, as it was who she was.



I'm sure lots of little girls like having there nails done and playing with make up etc. 

However correct me if i am wrong or speaking out of turn, but i'm sure you wouldn't spend time carefully applying make up to your 3 year old daughter, make her pose and then rush off to get a camera before she smudges it so you could take some up close pictures for the family album.... 

IMO it just seems all wrong. That with the Gaspers = disturbing and shocking. 



avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by worriedmum on 12.05.14 15:43

It's the lack of expression and the weird angle from which the pictures has been taken which unsettles me.

If Madeleine was 90cm tall when she disappeared, where was the photographer positioned?
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1825
Reputation : 424
Join date : 2012-01-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 16:00

Andrew77R wrote:...
There is a big difference from 'playing' with make up to somebody else carefully applying it, forcefully posing for the camera and then taking close up photographs.



...if girls of this age are "playing" with make up...they look like clowns!!!! The make up would be everywhere in the face!!!!
The eyeshadow is applied carefully - where it is supposed to be - IMO!
Therefore the circumstances under this photo has been taken must have been "strange"!!
...and she doesn´t look happy - playing with make up is normally great fun for girls!
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 16:17

If MBM was messing about with the make up / lipstick (as i'm sure KM said she was..?), then she would look more like this:



In regard to the angle of the MBM pic. I'm not sure.... Could she by lying down??
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 16:22

Andrew77R wrote:If MBM was messing about with the make up / lipstick (as i'm sure KM said she was..?), then she would look more like this:



In regard to the angle of the MBM pic. I'm not sure.... Could she by lying down??
..this is exactly what I´m talking about...
I guess she is sitting on of the blue plastic chairs
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 16:27

...by the way, is there any information WHY and WHEN she was in Burgau?
..couldn´t find any information!
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 16:30

worriedmum wrote:It's the lack of expression and the weird angle from which the pictures has been taken which unsettles me.

If Madeleine was 90cm tall when she disappeared, where was the photographer positioned?

I would cheerfully throw away the key on the basis of that photo alone.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by bobbin on 12.05.14 16:33

Andrew77R wrote:If MBM was messing about with the make up / lipstick (as i'm sure KM said she was..?), then she would look more like this:



In regard to the angle of the MBM pic. I'm not sure.... Could she by lying down??

I hate to say it, and it's my opinion only, but with a wall behind her, the tilt of her head could be one, held up, or just supported backwards on her neck, for a last photo.
I do not like the pallour in her skin colour, it looks drained.
It makes my whole body shudder each time I see this photo, and her eyes, to me, look 'gone'.
Whichever way anyone may interpret this photo, Madeleine is NOT having fun.
It is the saddest picture of all that we have seen purporting to be little Madeleine Beth McCann.  sad 
My interpretation is only in my opinion.

bobbin

Posts : 2051
Reputation : 141
Join date : 2011-12-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tigger on 12.05.14 16:37

The above photo illustrates exactly what I mean about the eyes: apart from the clown make up - thanks for that.

If you enlarge the eyes you can seen the pale inner rim of the  lower eyelid, this is often completely black in Maddie's photos.
This girl has dark lashes, yet the  rim of the eyelid is clear to see.

To add:  I'm sure about the wig for a number of reasons and they're not  'bad' reasons at all. I think it was to do with her health. For the moment I'll leave this - pure supposition - aside...

As for the use of make up, either on Maddie herself or - more likely - added to the photos, as well as smoothing out the distinctive eyebags, it's imo all part of the same thing: making her look pretty and not necessarily with paedo intentions although a number of them are posed  in a very suggestive manner.
The ice cream photo is imo pure 'paedo' candy, I feel sure of it.
The 'perfect' make up photo is quite another matter though - it's dreadful on a number of levels, the pose - as you say - being one.

____________________
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 Guest on 12.05.14 16:37

...first of all I´ve to excuse my bad english as I am no native speaker!!!

There must have been at least 2 occasions when she has been to Burgau.
If you take a look at the "ice cream photo" - she is wearing a top.
On the "eyeshadow Photo) she is wearing a t-shirt as you can see a little part of it on her left shoulder
(where the golden necklace is to be seen)!

WHY?????
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 16:38

Helene1 wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:...
There is a big difference from 'playing' with make up to somebody else carefully applying it, forcefully posing for the camera and then taking close up photographs.



...if girls of this age are "playing" with make up...they look like clowns!!!! The make up would be everywhere in the face!!!!
The eyeshadow is applied carefully - where it is supposed to be - IMO!
Therefore the circumstances under this photo has been taken must have been "strange"!!
...and she doesn´t look happy - playing with make up is normally great fun for girls!

... and notice the necklace.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by FH on 12.05.14 16:44

AndyB wrote:
FH wrote:
AndyB wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Why on earth would put a wig on an 18 month old child?  It simply isn't done, I don't think they even make wigs that small, and a child of that age wouldn't keep it on it's head, Sorry but I find this totally unbelievable.  
Why put make-up on a three year old? That isn't done either (or at least it shouldn't be). Having said that I don't believe its a wig although it is possible to get wigs for very small children:

Littleprincesses wrote:We operate throughout the UK and Ireland, supplying boys and girls from 2 years old

http://www.littleprincesses.org.uk/about-us/information-for-parents/
Andy,
         It is not so much a question of why put make up on a three year old. They quite happily put it on themselves . As a small child, my  eldest daughter loved playing dress up. She loved anything pink, sparkly, princess like. Loved having her hair done, her nails painted and playing with make up. I don't wear make up , so she was not copying me.  I neither encouraged, or discouraged, as it was who she was. She was an innocent  and it was an innocent game. It was make believe. It was fascinating for me, a tomboy, to watch this complete girlie girl play and I  would not have stopped her. She enjoyed it. It was harmless.   As an adult, she rarely wears make up.  My other daughters were never interested. They probably wear more make up than her now.

Paedophiles may be attracted to small girls in make up, or small boys with no make up, or babies playing naked in the sea, or fully clothed children in a nursery. Why should any of that stop an innocent child having a great time playing?  Children stop being innocent if you put notions in their heads about bad men, so we never did , we just watched over them carefully. As all  parents should.

The pink sparkly phase passed and turned to grunge, then indie, then goth, then hippy, then smart.
I'm not a parent so I don't know but the photo of Madeleine with the make-up on has always struck me as wrong in that it sexualises her a little. Given your experiences with your daughter, do you find that picture innocent?

The point I was trying to make is that, just because the idea that she's wearing a wig in the photo under discussion maybe unconscionable to some, that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.

I have many pictures of my girls (and their little friends)  that I'm sure would  look equally suggestible to some people,  but that are perfectly innocent. Dressed in sparkly dresses with make up on, wearing feather boas, flouncing around.  The Disney shop used to sell all sorts of marvellous dressing up accessories including make up sets,  wings, tiara's,  cinderella wigs, pocahontas wigs...... The wigs  were very poor quality and obviously wigs. We had them all - mainly as birthday/xmas presents from family and friends. There is a huge market for these items because little girls love dressing up.

I don't think she is wearing a wig, but only because  I think it is unlikely she would wear one continuously , they are generally very hot and make your head itch A LOT. Not many small children would put up with that. Some might, so it  could be.  If she is wearing a wig, maybe she had alopaecia. There could be a perfectly innocent explanation.

I also don't think (as has been suggested) she has highlights.  Hair colour changes as children  age and also varies with the season. Lots of children have natural highlights in their hair, especially when young. My middle daughter , naturally dark, as a child would go almost white blonde on top if we went abroad on holiday and she was in the sun/pool a lot.   Look at the variation in hair colour next time you are in a shopping centre. Or on the beach in a sunny resort.  Even from photo to photo it can vary depending upon the light, colour balance etc.

I definitely have photos of my lot eating ice cream with it dripping everywhere.  I don't think it has to be a lolly in her mouth. Maybe it is, or maybe it is a little plastic ice cream spoon. Maybe the ice cream belongs to the adult person holding it. Maybe it is a  photo set up for paedophiles to relish.  I wasn't there so I wouldn't like to say.

I find the one with the blue eyeshadow very  bizarre, but  mainly because of the angle. There was a suggestion that it was taken by someone standing in the garden  looking up at her on a balcony? She looks tired and pale.  You may think eye shadow  sexualises her, but small children  would be totally unaware of that concept because they are not sexual beings and should have no knowledge of such things. They don't wear make up to sexually attract people. They wear it because it is fun.  So they can look like a princess. She is wearing what looks like a cinderella dress and matching eye shadow. She probably thought she was looking gorgeous.

Static pictures are always difficult to interpret without the context. Videos are so much easier.  If someone had found footage of her on some kiddie porn website, then that would be definitive proof of a paedophile connection. I am not aware of anyone selling that type of story to the media. In fact the MSM have published all sorts of cr*p over the years, so I'm surprised that type of story hasn't surfaced.   As far as I'm aware paedophiles REALLY  like to swap images. If the reports in the newspapers are to be believed, the ones they catch often have thousands of pictures on their laptops.  You would have thought something might have come to light over the last 7 years.

In my opinion the parents  are guilty , but of what I'm not sure. Maybe neglect and covering up an accident, maybe sedation, maybe  much, much worse.  I just can't make as big a leap of imagination as some people can, over what seem fairly normal pictures of a little girl, doing what little girls do.

FH

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 16:47

Imo Madeleine is lying down in this photograph. She looks, again, only imo, like a child who is about to fall asleep.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 16:48

tigger wrote:The above photo illustrates exactly what I mean about the eyes: apart from the clown make up - thanks for that.

If you enlarge the eyes you can seen the pale inner rim of the  lower eyelid, this is often completely black in Maddie's photos.
This girl has dark lashes, yet the  rim of the eyelid is clearl to see.

To add:  I'm sure about the wig for a number of reasons and curiosly they're not  'bad' reasons at all. I think it was to do with her health. For the moment I'll leave this - pure supposition - aside...

As for the use of make up, either on Maddie herself or - more likely - added to the photos, as well as smoothing out the distinctive eyebags, it's imo all part of the same thing: making her look pretty and not necessarily with paedo intentions.
The 'perfect' make up photo is quite another matter though.
Tigger, bit confused. The above photo with the clown make up is not of MBM.

It's just a random from google images, as i wanted to highlight what a 3 year old would surely look like if they raided mum's make up box and got the lippy out....  As KM i believe said.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by 1soapy on 12.05.14 16:50

FH (quoting KM?)

"...we just watched over them carefully. As all  parents should."


?????

1soapy

Posts : 126
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-04-28

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 17 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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