Re: photos

jd16 Wed 8 Feb - 17:06

Thanks for finding this....its interesting

If you look on the released photo at the white hem of Maddies pink dress you can see the arm of Amelie. But in the bedside photo it isn't there. I need to look at it more closely but on first impressions it looks like this photo on the bedside has nobody else in it & the same one used for the powerpoint

btw the video does not work in the UK due to a legal complaint!! WTF!!

**Angelique** Wed 8 Feb - 17:06

Is this what we are discussing?

jd16 Wed 8 Feb - 17:06

taznix wrote:Lol sorry it wasnt a link. I dont know how to do a link.

what page was it on in the mccannfiles?

taznix Wed 8 Feb - 17:13

jd16 wrote:
taznix wrote:Lol sorry it wasnt a link. I dont know how to do a link.

what page was it on in the mccannfiles?

Madeleine 2, 3rd down from the list i think. Quite far down the page.

**dazedandconfused** Wed 8 Feb - 17:26

tigger wrote:
pennylane wrote:I am one who does not believe in all the photo shopping theories surrounding many of Maddie's photos. However, I agree the alleged very last picture of Maddie may well have some manipulative McCann skulduggery behind it!

There are a few curious things about that photo if you blow it up. From Amelie's left sleeve, filled with an arm, it is clear that her top right arm is missing down to the elbow. This is definitely not because the sleeve is so big, it isn't. There is some blurring on that side too. Either Amelie was pasted in or Gerry imo. More likely Gerry, because he does seem to be floating slightly, his sunglasses are reflecting vertical bars which should be the horizontal side of the pool.

A good thing to look out for in photoshopping is that it's easy enough to paste a head on another body, but you can never make that person take part in that photo. I.e. in quite a few Maddie is looking elsewhere whilst all the others are looking at the camera.
Donegal on the rocks, pool photo, Donegal ice-cream etc.
In many - the one above on the MM logo - the head is wrongly positioned on the body. In August/September an expert went over it on this site. Shoddy job if you blow it up. Fixing a head properly on a neck is an art - both in the above photo and the Donegal rock it's easy to see when you blow it up.

Besides, if you want evidence of photoshopping you have Gerry and Kate's word for it: you could hardly see the coloboma - more like a tiny fleck. So every single one with that feature in it has been photoshopped anyway. Thank you TM.

It struck me straight away that Amelie looked to have an arm missing too and I know nothing about photography or photo shopping, so if a layman can sense things are wrong, it must be glaringly obvious to someone who knows about these things.

jay2001 Wed 8 Feb - 17:28

I'm certain that pic with Maddie on her own was used in the church - positive I remember that. But the puzzling thing imo is the fact that it took 3 weeks to be given to the media. That should've been the first photo they reproduced if it really was taken on the date she went 'missing'.

Surely, you'd want to circulate the very latest pic. I nearly said anyone in their right mind would. Speaks volumes. Confusion is good says GM.

jd16 Wed 8 Feb - 17:32

jay2001 wrote:I'm certain that pic with Maddie on her own was used in the church - positive I remember that. But the puzzling thing imo is the fact that it took 3 weeks to be given to the media. That should've been the first photo they reproduced if it really was taken on the date she went 'missing'.

Surely, you'd want to circulate the very latest pic. I nearly said anyone in their right mind would. Speaks volumes. Confusion is good says GM.

Absolutely right

On top of this, if the bedside photo is one taken of Maddie on her own which is very looks like, why did they then use it to photoshop it into the poolside picture?

**kitti** Wed 8 Feb - 17:39

Most off he pics off madeline were taken on the first day and then....nothing.

It's those trousers she wears on the bus....they are short and then when she is standing outside the cottage.....they are way too long.

Guest Wed 8 Feb - 17:46

Yes I've noticed the trousers - of course it's possible there was more than one pair. Here's all the supposed holiday photos for comparison.

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

mossman Wed 8 Feb - 17:57

Angelique wrote:

Is this what we are discussing?

that is the one, thank you very much. i can see they might cut the gerry and amelie out when using the photo as a "good marketing ploy" but odd to frame it and odd to have changed it in portugal.

with regard to the trousers, my own kids have trousers which have legs that will zip off thereby turning them into shorts, they have others which turn them into three quarter length shorts. i have often used them on plane journeys, particularly if we are leaving home in the cold and arriving in the sun. zip off the legs when we arrive and they are in shorts.

is there a possibility she is wearing something like this ?

**kitti** Wed 8 Feb - 19:29

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Yes I've noticed the trousers - of course it's possible there was more than one pair. Here's all the supposed holiday photos for comparison.

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

She has the same top on and the trousers by the cottage look dirty ....it is on the day she arrived....

chrissie1 Wed 8 Feb - 20:30

I think the pants she has on in the playground and the ones she has on the bus are different

**kitti** Wed 8 Feb - 21:25

They are different and she looks taller in the playground pic.

**AnnaEsse** Wed 8 Feb - 22:46

kitti wrote:They are different and she looks taller in the playground pic.

Someone on 3As did a measurement thingy, where he assessed how tall the playground Maddie would have been, if she were to have been standing, and her height was well over the 90cms.

Guest Wed 8 Feb - 23:18

I've seen 114 cms quoted as the estimated height for the girl holding the tennis balls. I can just about believe that she is the same child as the one at the poolside but I don't think there's any possibility that the two photos could have been taken within a day or two of each other.

jd16 Wed 8 Feb - 23:20

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I've seen 114 cms quoted as the estimated height for the girl holding the tennis balls. I can just about believe that she is the same child as the one at the poolside but I don't think there's any possibility that the two photos could have been taken within a day or two of each other.

the body is totally different for starters

Sponsored content