Playground Photo

aquila wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:There are obvious cultural differences in this area between the UK and USA as what you describe, MissesWillYa, does not happen here, for example, children being fingerprinted.

I'd have thought finding Madeleine's fingerprints and DNA would have been relatively easy in the aftermath of her disappearance - apparently not. All that mixed up stuff with other siblings, one toothbrush, one hairbrush, pillowcase required from Rothley, no medical records submitted to PJ, Ward of Court issue etc etc.

Those are the things I find remarkable - not the photograph or whether a middle class mother does or doesn't keep a record of their child's height.

I agree with you. I think the other things you mention are much more important - remarkable - than the photo or the actual height.

@TonyBennett "Ah! - but there are several indications that it WAS a genuine photograph taken on Saturday 28 April 2007. The 'why' is fairly obvious.."

Yes, I totally agree - sorry I didn't make myself clear.  The poolside photograph (the alleged last photograph) was claimed by the McCann team to have been taken on the afternoon of 3rd May which is evidently not true and thus leaves the image open to closer scrutiny.  No such claim has been made by the McCann team as to the date and time of the playground photograph so minute analysis of every blade of grass, without reason, is worthless - hence my comment.

The more recent discussion surrounding this particular playground photograph seems to be only concerned with the composition of the image, not the more pertinent issue of when it was taken.

MissesWillYa wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

MissesWillYa wrote:

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.

What percentage of mothers do this?

MissesWillYa wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], mothers know the height of their children to within a couple of centimetres max. Fathers - doubtful!

Really? 

All mothers?

OK.. when did Kate last measure Madeleine?

Pray tell.

"All" mothers? Probably not. There are plenty of mothers who don't pay attention to such things. IMO, that's not the kind of mother Kate has portrayed herself to be, which is why it surprises me.

And you believe Kate because...?

skyrocket wrote:@ Bluebag  lol!

You sound astounded - I suspect you're male, although I'm sure there are plenty of single father's who know the heights of their children. My other half wouldn't have a clue and wouldn't see any point in it!

I do have a clue actually, but anyway...

I'm still waiting to hear what percentage of mothers regularly record the height of their children and how often they do it. 

Otherwise I'm going to have to conclude that once again a moutain is being made out of a molehill.

Actually I don't have a clue why people think Madeleine's size is important here unless they are still trying to prove the picture is photo-shopped.

I find nearly all the alleged family photos from that fateful holiday weird. This one stands out too as being odd. As an astute poster observed up thread, not one of the three young children shown are engaging with the play equipment right behind them. Despite  there being no toys or sand or other obvious play materials the children are ignoring the play equipment and are engaged elsewhere and for no apparent reason.

I do not find Sean's (if indeed it is Sean) delight over the grass convincing. Equally Madeleine (if indeed it is here) is disconnected with everyone else and again her play seems unconvincing. Gerry is horse-playing around but without any apparent engagement with any of the children? I don't buy it....it looks contrived.

There are only two people in the photo who are focusing on anyone else. One is a small girl sitting with her back to the photographer and apparently staring at Gerry. We can't see the expression on her face but it is an odd juxtaposition as usually the adult would be watching or helping a child play rather than the other way round. And again you would expect this child to be having at least some engagement with Sean at the least.

But what stands out even more is that there is an adult male apparently disconnected with the group who is standing right by the play area without a child as far as I can see and who is staring quite fixedly at the photographer. Why include him and why is he there if he is not with a child? Rather extraordinarily he is the only person engaging with the photographer.

Also of note are three other adults to the left. Why not just crop them out of this alleged happy family cameo?

I note that apparently Sky alledge that this photo was taken the afternoon before Madeleine's alleged abduction. 

Is this also what TM claim?

I assume it is an attempt to place Madeleine as alive and well and happily playing with her sibling(is this what Sky claims?) and Father on the Wednesday of that fateful week when in fact other things were happening on Wednesday imp.


This 'photo' proves nothing at all, imo, you can't even see anyone's faces clearly apart from the man standing by the play area. It's yet another of TM's attempt to portray that everything was happy and fine before Madeleine was abducted when that wasn't the case.

TM have lied through their teeth, imo, so why would their photos, films or footage be any different? 

What was really going on that Wednesday afternoon? A key time that week methinks. It would be useful to scrutinise the Crèche timetable and other accounts of what was supposedly going on that afternoon in order to find the anomalies. 

The crying incident as reported by neighbour Mrs Fenn which stopped abruptly occurred the previous evening I do believe? This could possibly indicate that something catastrophic had happened the previous evening and by Wednesday a major incident plan (cover up) was underway...

Ideas as always.

@ j.rob  I've only got one thing to say to you (please click on link and endure advert)

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

Health Warning - making comments such as yours has been scientifically proven to cause stress (trust me!)

ps -

Wooooh there!


MODS - there are 3 or 4 posts in the last 14 posts which are entirely about the playground photo - including about 3 from myself and j.robs. Please don't transfer these over.

j.rob:
 
‘But what stands out even more is that there is an adult male apparently disconnected with the group who is standing right by the play area without a child as far as I can see and who is staring quite fixedly at the photographer. Why include him and why is he there if he is not with a child? Rather extraordinarily he is the only person engaging with the photographer.’
 
I have always thought that Raj Balu is basically supervising and looking at his young son playing in or on the slide of the playhouse. I think there is the shadow of someone actually inside which blocks part of the woman sitting further back.

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

I have always thought that Raj Balu is basically supervising and looking at his young son playing in or on the slide of the playhouse. I think there is the shadow of someone actually inside which blocks part of the woman sitting further back.

I don't think that it has been 100% established that bald man is Raj Balu, has it? He seems to be an elusive figure and I can find no photos of him. He works in London as an Immigration Consultant. I know Amaral has commented on it and that he felt it was nothing. Someone posted that TM had made a statement about bald man (something along the of the lines of that he was with the police) but I'm not sure that this statement has been corroborated. If so, it would be very odd. Perhaps one of old GM's misdirects!

There has been much discussion about him as he appears on several news clips in the days immediately after the disappearance - in these he seems at some points to be actually directing the police search, again odd.

I also believe that he is visible in a news clip of GM's statement to the press on the 22 May, long after Raj Balu and his family returned to the UK on 5 May.

Tony Bennett tried to get an interview with him at his home but was unfortunately unable to speak to him (see earlier in this thread). Pity he didn't answer the door instead of his wife(?).

If anyone can find a photo of him it would settle a lot of speculation - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is the one with all the skills in that department, wonder if she can help? Full name Rajinder Raj Singh Balu born 31/3/66. Lives Brentwood. Works for Cooper Tuff Consultants ltd of Romford.

@j.rob - I agree, he is staring straight at the lens/photographer. If you look left a woman holding a child is doing the same in my opinion. Makes me wonder whether the photographer is alone and snapping a shot with an open foreground (i.e. no group infront of the play apparatus).

IMO, many adults when realising they are going to possibly be in shot would naturally look away from the photographer (I would turn my back actually or walk out of shot if possible, although in the womans position she would justly expect the photographer to crop her out as @j.rob pointed out). However, IMO, many adults would fix there gaze on a lone photographer if he/she appeared to be randomly taking photos of a childrens play area.

I was always taught not to stare!

Just some thoughts. Who knows!

Skyrocket:
 
‘I don't think that it has been 100% established that bald man is Raj Balu, has it?’
 
Fair point.
 
Is there anything in this case that’s been 100% established?

@ skyrocket:  "If anyone can find a photo of him it would settle a lot of speculation."

What speculation?  How does the true identity of this man have any bearing on the authenticity of the playground photograph? 

I have n'orrible feeling I'm going to wish I never asked..

@DougD - too true  


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I had a horrible feeling you might ask!!!  


Merely speculation about who he is (re Bald Man thread etc).

I think the interest is increased by the fact that he is seen with the GNR searchers after 3 May. I know others are seen with them like Murat; and Balu's matey Neil Berry, but the bald guy does seem to be directing things at one stage. Might just be that Balu likes to be in charge of things!

Just be nice to be able to file it away i.e. have him identified, IMO.

 i follow the forum most days, and what intrigues me about the play park photo is the shadows that are cast. The question being as you are looking at the photo straight on all the shadows are running at aproximately 45 degrees. Gerrys legs, the couples frame even Madeleines shadow which seems a bit odd. Why is there no shadow of the twins?. I don't know anything about the time of day or the height of the sun etc. IMO it seems a bit strange.

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


I did wonder about that one - if we're assuming everything is OK with the photo, the lack of shadows may be down to the fact that Sean (left) and Lily (right - actually the Payne's eldest daughter rather than Amelie McCann) are small objects and the sun is reasonably high in the sky. In other words their short shadows might actually be obscured by their bodies. I would have expected to have seen a small amount of shadow visible but it's difficult to be sure.

There is another shadow to look at though (I feel the wrath about to descend on me for saying this) - back right corner tree. There seems a distinct tree trunk shadow going up the wall of the building which doesn't seem to line up with others.

skyrocket wrote:There is another shadow to look at though (I feel the wrath about to descend on me for saying this) - back right corner tree. There seems a distinct tree trunk shadow going up the wall of the building which doesn't seem to line up with others.

Did you miss the camera/shadow examples in this thread yesterday?

Round and round we go.

Beniyork wrote: I follow the forum most days,

REPLY: You are very welcome, hallo. We know there are thousands of readers who visit here every day and never post, so it's nice to hear from one of them.
 
and what intrigues me about the play park photo is the shadows that are cast. The question being as you are looking at the photo straight on all the shadows are running at aproximately 45 degrees. Gerry's legs, the couples frame even Madeleine's shadow which seems a bit odd. Why is there no shadow of the twins? I don't know anything about the time of day or the height of the sun etc. IMO it seems a bit strange.

REPLY: These are understandable points to raise. I think I have a complete answer to your query, so please see below.

I will begin by quoting from 'skyrocket's post which certainly speaks sense on one major point, thus:

QUOTE skyrocket:  "I did wonder about that one - if we're assuming everything is OK with the photo, the lack of shadows may be down to the fact that Sean (left) and Lily (right - actually the Payne's eldest daughter rather than Amelie McCann) are small objects and the sun is reasonably high in the sky. In other words their short shadows might actually be obscured by their bodies£".

REPLY: Assume we are looking north on the photo (which in fact we are). The sun is approximately in the south-west, as it would be at about 4pm to 5pm that time of year in Portugal. That produces the shadows you see running from left to right, and much much longer than e.g. we see on the 'Last Photo'. 'skyrocket' is 100% right in his/her assumption; most of the shadows of Sean and Lily Payne ('skyrocket' is also right about this being Lily not Amelie) would be hidden, as s/he says.

QUOTE skyrocket again: "I would have expected to have seen a small amount of shadow visible but it's difficult to be sure".

REPLY: 'skyrocket' has missed THREE separate shadows produced by Sean and Lily, as follows:

1. A small shadow produced by Sean's right arm (to his left)

2. A larger shadow produced by Sean's left arm (again to his left)

3. A small bit of shadow clearly produced by Lily's left elbow (roughly below it).

All these three shadows are absolutely consistent with where the sun is and consistent with the other shadows (see below) - and it would be absolutely impossible to fake the position of these shadows. These three shadows that I've identified are more clear proofs that this photo is a genuine photo. 

QUOTE 'skyrocket' once again: "There is another shadow to look at though (I feel the wrath about to descend on me for saying this) - back right corner tree. There seems a distinct tree trunk shadow going up the wall of the building which doesn't seem to line up with others".

REPLY: 'Blue Bag' (and myself) have clearly answered this point, already, up the thread. Because of the phenomenon of 'parallax', shadows tend to converge, they do not stay parallel to each other  - in this case they tend to converge towards the top of the photo. If you can look at the two examples up the thread that Blue Bag provided, that should explain the apparent 'problem' of the tree shadow.

I really hope this provides a complete answer to you. Those who have posted here with various suspicions about this photo are no doubt well-meaning, but honestly this thread is taking valuable time and effort away from much, much more important issues in this case.

@ Tony Bennett

You have no idea whether I had missed the 3 small shadows or not?
Not good form to second guess. Please don't state as fact things you do not know.

Re: convergence - yes shadows converge towards a horizon.

@Tony Bennett



'Blue Bag' (and myself) have clearly answered this point, already, up the thread. Because of the phenomenon of 'parallax', shadows tend to converge, they do not stay parallel to each other  - in this case they tend to converge towards the top of the photo. 


OK. Take a look at man in red jersey's shadow and the woman's shadow next to him - they converge within a distance of within, I would say, being generous, 2 metres infront of them. Bare in mind we've got short shadows here. The convergence is within the shadow length. Shouldn't be.

@Tony Bennett


Those who have posted here with various suspicions about this photo are no doubt well-meaning, but honestly this thread is taking valuable time and effort away from much, much more important issues in this case.

Now come on mods you're going to have to give me leeway with this one - it's no good letting people dish it if we can't respond in a similar vane. None specific; no expletives.



How about we tally up all the 'well-meaning' but obviously mentally impaired camp and the 'head patting' obviously high IQ camp and see which has the biggest roll call on the subject of this photo looking dodgy?

Whose time and effort? I'm not complaining, doubt whether others are - why would anyone post here if they they didn't have the time? No ones holding a gun to their heads.

skyrocket wrote:OK. Take a look at man in red jersey's shadow and the woman's shadow next to him - they converge within a distance of within, I would say, being generous, 2 metres infront of them. Bare in mind we've got short shadows here. The convergence is within the shadow length. Shouldn't be.

Jeeze.

It also depends on terrain... does the ground dip or slope. 

Lots of things affect shadows in pictures.

Why.. just WHY.... would that photo-shop this picture.

Tony is right, the photo-shop BS is a massive waste of time.

BlueBag wrote:

skyrocket wrote:There is another shadow to look at though (I feel the wrath about to descend on me for saying this) - back right corner tree. There seems a distinct tree trunk shadow going up the wall of the building which doesn't seem to line up with others.

Did you miss the camera/shadow examples in this thread yesterday?

Round and round we go.

This thread is becoming more ridiculous by the day, if it wasn't so exaspreating it would be hilarious.

BTW:  I thought that mysterious shadow, without source, was a ferret..

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


I did wonder about that one - if we're assuming everything is OK with the photo, the lack of shadows may be down to the fact that Sean (left) and Lily (right - actually the Payne's eldest daughter rather than Amelie McCann) are small objects and the sun is reasonably high in the sky. In other words their short shadows might actually be obscured by their bodies. I would have expected to have seen a small amount of shadow visible but it's difficult to be sure.

There is another shadow to look at though (I feel the wrath about to descend on me for saying this) - back right corner tree. There seems a distinct tree trunk shadow going up the wall of the building which doesn't seem to line up with others.

Fear not, my wrath is not about to decend on you.  I'm beginning to think you are a wind-up so I will depart from this thread once and for all - or at least until someone has something of value to say that might pursuade me that this photograph is anything but genuine.

Shadows and terrain.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The girl on the right is very slightly taller than the girl next to her.

But her shadow is shorter.

How can this be explained?

I know... PHOTO-SHOP.

Posters - please be civil and stay on topic!

Ooooooh! [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - that's not fair, you got in with that before I replied!!!! But thanks for coming in when you did. I'm sure certain types of comment put new posters off from even joining in.

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

I've shown how convergence actually gives more credence to the dodgy photo argument.

We get it, shadows are not always where you expect them BUT they do follow the laws of physics. In this photo, should two shadows converge within 2 metres - personally I don't think so.

AGAIN, for the umteenth time, who knows if this photo has definitely been tampered with/created - I don't, you don't. Simple as that. Let's respect each others opinions - we don't have to agree.

Am I allowed that one mods!? Go on let me, I get enough flak! I'll follow it with .

skyrocket wrote:@ Tony Bennett

You have no idea whether I had missed the 3 small shadows or not?

I apologise to you for this one.

It was in fact Beniyork, not yourself, who said s/he could see no shadows emanating from Sean and Lily.

I made a simple mistake.

Sorry!