Re: The NEW Tennis Balls Photo Thread - 'Photoshopped photo created on 5th May', claims YouTube video

[j.rob]

I only offer this example because there has been speculation in some threads that Madeleine may have had behavioral or developmental issues. In my own experience, both as a parent and as a teacher, some of her behavior does sound a bit concerning, such as the constant screaming and tantrums that her family members have described. But then again, I'm also the older sibling of twins born soon after I was, and I know how difficult it can be for a child in that situation to get the care and attention she needs. Without access to medical records or, IMO, honest witness statements about her personality or behavioral history, it's impossible to know whether she had special needs or not.


--------


I think this is a key issue in this case. I think the arrival of the twins was a disaster for Madeleine. And given that the Mcs seem highly resistant to forking out for child care, Kate I suspect struggled to cope. Could easily have had depression, for instance. In fact isn't there a quote or interview somewhere from a nursery worker in Holland who thought Kate's behaviour was strange?

[MissesWillYa]

I only offer this example because there has been speculation in some threads that Madeleine may have had behavioral or developmental issues. In my own experience, both as a parent and as a teacher, some of her behavior does sound a bit concerning, such as the constant screaming and tantrums that her family members have described. But then again, I'm also the older sibling of twins born soon after I was, and I know how difficult it can be for a child in that situation to get the care and attention she needs. Without access to medical records or, IMO, honest witness statements about her personality or behavioral history, it's impossible to know whether she had special needs or not.


--------


I think this is a key issue in this case. I think the arrival of the twins was a disaster for Madeleine. And given that the Mcs seem highly resistant to forking out for child care, Kate I suspect struggled to cope. Could easily have had depression, for instance. In fact isn't there a quote or interview somewhere from a nursery worker in Holland who thought Kate's behaviour was strange?

I think I have seen a quote to that effect, but I don't remember where.

It actually seemed to me that Madeleine was spending a lot of time in childcare before she disappeared. I thought I'd read in the PJ Files that she attended a nursery for three very long days each week, though her mother only worked outside the home one day each week. I have always wondered whether the twins were home with Kate on those other days or if she had all three in daycare on those days too.

Okay, I found some information in the PJ Files, from teacher Sharon Lewin:

When she was two and a half she joined the group supervised by me, I think it was in 2006, and she remained there for about 6 months. Madeleine attended on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
 
She would be dropped off between 08.00 and 08.30 and would return home at about 17.00.

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

So she was in care three days a week from 8 am to 5 pm. That's a long day for a little one. People do it if they have to, of course, but wasn't Kate on maternity leave for a long time? And only worked the one day when she did go back. It seems like she could have kept her home more. But again, I know that caring for her as well as twins would have been a lot for Kate, and she doesn't seem all that well-equipped for the job, IMO.

[Guest]

No, I do not. But you should know that I DO keep a record of my children's basic stats (height, weight, immunizations) with me at all times. I have it in two places, on my phone and written on a note that I keep in my wallet. My children have been fingerprinted. I take no chances when it comes to the possibility that one of them could go missing. The possibility may be slim, but it does happen and I would want to be prepared.

And all mothers do this?

Nope and I never said they did. I feel like you're putting words in my mouth and I wish you'd stop.

The concerned mothers I know do have records of their kids' growth. Many mothers I know carry this information on them. Most people I know have had their children fingerprinted; it's a free service offered by civic clubs at virtually every large outdoor festival or fair where I live, and it's a simple, quick matter to do it in the police station too. The women I know would actually be very similar to Kate in terms of education, career choice, etc., and usually, you can't get them to stop going on about topics like this. Just one more reason why I'm surprised at the McCanns' choices in this area.

All my children had growth charts , the ones that hang on the wall. We measured then regularly, they were always excited to see who had grown the most.

So did we... my son's one is still on the side of his white wardrobe.

But we didn't measure every day or week or month... we did it randomly when it was a bit of fun and probably 10 times over 7 or 8 years (it gets a bit cluttered otherwise don't ya think).

[Guest]

As I stated before - 114cm tennis photo; 108cm this photo; 97/98cm playhouse photo. 

REPLY: That is a powerful argument that there may be something badly wrong with the 'Tennis balls Photo'. But not with this one. 

The idea that you can get a figure of 114cm (no more no less) from the tennis balls photo is hilarious.

Cameras distort, especially angled photos.

[Guest]

Madeleine is actually 84cm tall in the tennis ball photo.

An example of psuedo-science.

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

[Guest]

Meanwhile... we forget that this is the original photo:

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

How high up was this person who took the photo?

Were they in an Umpire's chair or on a roof?

Standing here maybe, but then there is a fence.

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

Maybe the fence this side is chest height so you could take a picture unobscured, it's a drop down the other side.

Anyway....

114cm no more no less.

Hilarious.

[skyrocket]

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

Don't make the mistake of attributing the 114cm height in the tennis ball photo to me. I had no hand in it.

This was aparently worked out a while ago based on the known diameter of tennis balls.

It has been posted on this thread and elsewhere.

I believe the tennis ball photo is more widely accepted as being faked (it has been stressed on this thread sveral times by others) - particularly with the apparent confusion over who had taken it.

The playhouse height - someone found the make/model and it gave the door height at 1m.

The playground height - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] stood the pink figure up by splitting the image and re-instating the top half vertically on top of the legs. There was a concensus that the resultant figure came upto GM's waist or just above. I then calculated GM's waist height at 108cm (60%) of total height (178cm/5'10"), therefore the figures height.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] believed the playground photo to be taken with a telephoto lens, hence the pink figure appearing larger than it actually was. I disagreed, arguing that the families used compacts with only small zoom capabilities and that there was little size distortion caused 'in camera', and that there would be no point in standing miles away to take it. (I mentioned that I'd had my own professional studio/darkroom in a previous life only to give my observations credibility).

So, take a look back and find the originator and perhaps take it up with them.

[skyrocket]

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

I like the tennis ball tower! Not sure why it stopped at the ankle - peronally I would have included another ball there.

BUT - it just goes to show how different interpretations can be put on things. None of these methods are particularly scientific. Needs looking at properly.

The thing is - visually the tennis photo does look ok to me, although it has been accepted on here as being probably fake. Whereas the playground photo, which I still think looks wrong, has caused a lot of disagreement!

[skyrocket]

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

Final point - as you've pointed out re: the tennis photo, the position of the photographer is a problem. Raises the point that has been made before of where the photo might have been taken. I have also read reference to the court surface not beig the same one as in Luz. I'm sure all this must have been discussed on other threads.

[Guest]

I believe the tennis ball photo is more widely accepted as being faked (it has been stressed on this thread sveral times by others) - particularly with the apparent confusion over who had taken it.

I believe I just figured out where it was taken.

I never saw that discussed before.

I don't see why it is fake.

It was taken high up behind the fence at the PDL tennis courts (see previous picture).

[Guest]

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

I like the tennis ball tower! Not sure why it stopped at the ankle - peronally I would have included another ball there.

That's the middle position of her body, the tennis balls are being held centrally.

But hey... it's all psuedo-BS anyway.

The thing is - visually the tennis photo does look ok to me, although it has been accepted on here as being probably fake. 

Not by me.

In fact I have found a reason to believe it's genuine.

[Guest]

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

Final point - as you've pointed out re: the tennis photo, the position of the photographer is a problem. Raises the point that has been made before of where the photo might have been taken. I have also read reference to the court surface not beig the same one as in Luz. I'm sure all this must have been discussed on other threads.

See previous photo of tennis courts.

It's not a problem if the picture was taken from there.

Madeleine is behind the marked base-line in the full picture and that is the perfect position for a picture from that lofted position.

[skyrocket]

@ BlueBag

Not quite with you.

Do you mean high up on the apartment side of the courts?

If so, she would have to be standing at the far end of the court or the wire fence would obscure and wouldn't the picture then have green foreground/line/red background i.e. the reverse of what the photo shows?

Doesn't she have to be this end of the courts - or the photographer would have to be on the court at the tree end, which wouldn't work either as there is a definite height difference between camera and subject.

Sorry if I've misunderstood.

[Guest]

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

The tennis court is below the level of the grass area.

The fence looks about chest height from this side - or there may not be a fence on the extreme right of the court - hard to tell, steps down?

Madeleine is absolutely standing at the end of a court behind a base-line.

It all fits.

[DaTroof]

I agree with you apart from the height of the fence which is clearly above head height as is normal for nets round tennis courts.

Could the photo have been taken through an open gate in the fence? 

Has anyone tried to reproduce the photo by going to PdL & trying to take same shot?

[Tony Bennett]

Meanwhile... we forget that this is the original photo:

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

How high up was this person who took the photo?

Were they in an Umpire's chair or on a roof?

Standing here maybe, but then there is a fence.

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

Maybe the fence this side is chest height so you could take a picture unobscured, it's a drop down the other side.

Anyway....

114cm no more no less.

Hilarious.

Of course, one of the main questions about the Tennis Balls Photo is WHO TOOK IT?

At least two people claim to have taken it.

There is even a dispute about when it could have been taken.

Then there is the long, elaborate tale by Kate McCann of how enchanting Madeleine looked on the tennis court and how she dashed back to her apartment to get her camera. I didn't find it wholly convincing.

Some have commented on the size of Madeleine's body on the photo and queried whether her head could have been photoshopped on to another girl's body.

IMO these are sufficient concerns to have a robust discussion on the Tennis Balls Photo.


@ Mods

But the main purpose of my post is to ask one of the Mods to move this and the previous 14 posts to the most recent Tennis Balls Photo thread, which is here:

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

This thread is only about the 'Playground Photo'. The last 14 posts really belong on the Tennis Balls thread

[Guest]

I agree with you apart from the height of the fence which is clearly above head height as is normal for nets round tennis courts.

It's not clearly above head height, I think someone could take a photo over that.

Could the photo have been taken through an open gate in the fence? 

But I think that is more likely, there must be steps down there.

Has anyone tried to reproduce the photo by going to PdL & trying to take same shot?

Good question.


Am I the first to ever spot this in 8 years? I find that hard to believe.

[DaTroof]

Are the two courts at different levels? It looks like the one on the right is about a meter higher than the one on the left in the photo that shows both courts. If the path between the courts is at the height of the court on the right that could account for the difference & the photographer could have taken photo through one of the holes in the fence.

[Guest]

Tennis courts from another angle.

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

Yes they are different levels.

We can see the wall and the grass area from where the tennis ball photo was taken.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

Any more doubts about where the picture was taken?

Definitely the lower court over the lower fence.

[Verdi]

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

The tennis court is below the level of the grass area.

The fence looks about chest height from this side - or there may not be a fence on the extreme right of the court - hard to tell, steps down?

Madeleine is absolutely standing at the end of a court behind a base-line.

It all fits.

I don't like the look of that blossoming bush at bottom right, looks contrived to me, like it's been planted - but why is it there, that's what we should be asking.

No shadow in line with the par-a-sol?  Hmmm..  very suspicious.

[Guest]

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

The tennis court is below the level of the grass area.

The fence looks about chest height from this side - or there may not be a fence on the extreme right of the court - hard to tell, steps down?

Madeleine is absolutely standing at the end of a court behind a base-line.

It all fits.

I don't like the look of that blossoming bush at bottom right, looks contrived to me, like it's been planted - but why is it there, that's what we should be asking.

No shadow in line with the par-a-sol?  Hmmm..  very suspicious.

There's a shadow of a dog under the chair. The dog has obviously been removed from the picture.

More McCann games.

[rustyjames]

Agree about the fence - below is a streetview from August 2009.  Not much more than the height of the handrail.

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

Also visible on the playground photos:

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

and here ....

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

[rustyjames]

Standing here maybe, but then there is a fence.

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

Is that photo of the same tennis courts.  All the others have a single fence/gate between the two courts and no floodlights in sight.