Re: REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts

by Guest 31.07.13 23:05

Perhaps the idea was at one time to produce Madeleine in doll form.......like those tacky Franklin Mint dolls of Diana?

I am only half joking.

by Who?What?Where? 31.07.13 23:16

It would be a very good mis-direction from the Truth, to constantly be telling people, that they should be looking for an image of someone, that had never, even been alive. There are limitless posibilities. I just wish that we could get to the Truth.

by listener 31.07.13 23:55

Was thinking that her nose width, bottom lip etc. were different, so measured various parts of the pics - the one on the left is approx 1.2 times bigger than the other - guess that happens when digital images are transferred around.

by BerylJ 01.08.13 10:46

Who?What?Where? wrote:Maybe it is just me, but she look's like a porcelain, or very advanced plastic, doll, in MRNOODLES, side by side photos.

The nostril's do not look real. It might also, be very easy to change the eyes in a doll.

Not a spot of dirt, not a blemish, perfect pristine nostrils.

by **tigger** 01.08.13 10:50

listener wrote:Was thinking that her nose width, bottom lip etc. were different, so measured various parts of the pics - the one on the left is approx 1.2 times bigger than the other - guess that happens when digital images are transferred around.

Her nose was changed on the majority of photographs imo. If you look at the still from the staircase video (with the twins, Maddie running around) in the same gallery from Pamalan of Maddie at the bottom of the stairs, there does seem to be something strange in that area.
She is wearing eye-make up in a large number of photographs too. E.g. Swimming pool, double ice-cream, crimped hair, kitchen photos in red summer dress etc. Don't ask me why, it's beyond me.
I've not seen any close-up photo where the pale rim of the eyelid is visible.
In the one with a blue shawl she looks like a 'little woman' - the full make-up photo is in the same vein. A 'baby woman'. Don't like it at all.
In the pale photograph the nose emerges like a foreign object from the blue/pink 'foam' of the skin treatment.

The photograph with the fluffy hooded jacket, definitely Kate. Are they laughing at us?

This has gone rather off topic, so to get it back: Dr. Roberts is spot on. Whitewash nr. 2 or 3? It's becoming an industry and all this noise and posturing by the masters of spin is no longer just an insult to our intelligence. It takes no account of hard evidence although the likes of us are still a thorn in their side and I'm not even talking about TM.

by MRNOODLES 04.08.13 23:20

Just a follow up post to where the origins of this pic came from.

REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts - Page 3 Maddieohne

According to this site

http://medienschelte.at/2007/page/7/

It was published by AUSTRIA illustrated the Sunday supplement in 2007

by jozi 05.08.13 10:01

Who?What?Where? wrote:It would be a very good mis-direction from the Truth, to constantly be telling people, that they should be looking for an image of someone, that had never, even been alive. There are limitless posibilities. I just wish that we could get to the Truth.

I have thought along this line too.........but why do it ? They have had help from the government from the beginning of Maddie going missing ?

by BerylJ 05.08.13 10:12

MRNOODLES wrote:Just a follow up post to where the origins of this pic came from.

According to this site

http://medienschelte.at/2007/page/7/

It was published by AUSTRIA illustrated the Sunday supplement in 2007

This picture does show a slight difference in shade of colour rather than the dark mark we have become accustomed to seeing. When is this photograph supposed to have been taken? I am looking at Madeleine's teeth, and her teeth in the later pool picture.

by Guest 05.08.13 11:41

Judging by this picture almost certainly taken on the same day with Amelie, it was Christmas 2006.

[url=http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/_m/maddy_ (22).jpg]http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/_m/maddy_%20(22).jpg[/url]

Unfortunately the link isn't working so this is the one for all photos.

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

It's halfway down on the left.

by BerylJ 05.08.13 12:55

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Judging by this picture almost certainly taken on the same day with Amelie, it was Christmas 2006.

[url=http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/_m/maddy_ (22).jpg]http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/_m/maddy_%20(22).jpg[/url]

Unfortunately the link isn't working so this is the one for all photos.

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

It's halfway down on the left.

Thankyou No Fate Worse Than Death some good photographs there for age comparison as well as teeth and hair length and styles.

On some photographs you can see small teeth with many gaps, whilst some show larger more adult teeth with smaller gaps, then again some closed lips smiles which look so unsure to me. The photograph in the football strip look like a much older child than the grinning turned up nosed pool photograph. It is useful to look at the ones that contain the twins for comparison, well apart from the pool picture that has an of age Amelie and an under-age Madeleine in my opinion.

by MissesWillYa 05.08.13 20:16

I'm sorry if this is off-topic for the thread but in looking at that photo link posted by NFWTD, I was taken aback by that photo of Madeleine evidently in a pumpkin Halloween costume. That can't POSSIBLY be the same child we're told to be looking for in the red velvet Christmas dress. Look at the teeth, the pumpkin girl has a mouthful of teeth, not the spread-out little pegs Madeleine has, in the Christmas photo or the "last" photo by the pool. And if this had been the previous Halloween before she disappeared, she was not yet three and a half years old. The Halloween girl looks at least four, maybe five years old! Everything about her is bigger and older than Madeleine would have been at Halloween in 2006. Sorry, I don't mean to derail a conversation but that photo is new to me and it's bewildering! It just can't be right. huh

by worriedmum 05.08.13 20:33

REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts - Page 3 Madeleine_halloween

Does anyone know where this was taken?it reminds me of the USA- the weather looks fine too

by MissesWillYa 05.08.13 20:43

Thank you for posting the photo, worriedmum. I didn't know how to do it. I agree that it looks like it may have been taken in the US (that's where I am; Halloween is still relatively mild weather for most parts of the country). It's just not right...the mouth and teeth are different, the eye shape is different (even scrunched-up like that they don't seem right) and she's so TALL for a child who is supposed to be young, especially given that when she disappeared, we're supposed to believe she was only 90 cm tall. The Halloween girl is WAY more than 90 cm tall and that was supposed to be 6+ months before Madeleine's disappearance! spin

by Guest 05.08.13 23:52

Another picture of Kate ... ?
Just saying, not saying ,,,

by russiandoll 06.08.13 0:23

the teeth look very different to what we see on other Maddie photos.

never thought of Maddie as the image of her mother, more of a mix, but if that is Maddie at Halloween, remarkably like Kate at her first communion and

here

REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts - Page 3 Mccann-murder-marathon

REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts - Page 3 Mccann-murder-marathon

by MissesWillYa 06.08.13 4:00

Hmm...interesting! The Halloween costume seems modern for someone Kate's age, but maybe the face was superimposed. The mouth/teeth do seem to fit, though. Very strange.

by Nereid 06.08.13 13:47

MissesWillYa wrote:Hmm...interesting! The Halloween costume seems modern for someone Kate's age, but maybe the face was superimposed. The mouth/teeth do seem to fit, though. Very strange.

Just as a comparison I put two smiling pics of Madeleine together.

REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts - Page 3 <a href=

REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts - Page 3 Madele10

" />

The Halloween pic is taken from a different angle. The face looks the same imo, but the teeth in the Halloween pic seem to have been enhanced. Also the mouth shape looks different, more square, but that could be because of the different angle / the smile being bigger.
It could be a very low resolution shot, so it didn't pick up as much detail. However, I think the gaps between the teeth would still be showing.

by MissesWillYa 06.08.13 14:52

Nereid wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:Hmm...interesting! The Halloween costume seems modern for someone Kate's age, but maybe the face was superimposed. The mouth/teeth do seem to fit, though. Very strange.

Just as a comparison I put two smiling pics of Madeleine together.

" />

The Halloween pic is taken from a different angle. The face looks the same imo, but the teeth in the Halloween pic seem to have been enhanced. Also the mouth shape looks different, more square, but that could be because of the different angle / the smile being bigger.
It could be a very low resolution shot, so it didn't pick up as much detail. However, I think the gaps between the teeth would still be showing.

I agree that these two photos look similar. But I've always thought that photo on the left seemed a little weird too. I don't know, it just seems like the difference between photos are too great. When I look at photos of my own children, there's never this much variation.

by whmon 06.08.13 14:58

I just wanted to say that I own a Children's Day Nursery. We have a Halloween party every year. Seven or Eight years ago there were lots of little pumpkins at the party, it was a very popular outfit that year and I'm pretty sure it was the same outfit as in the photo. In other words I don't think the photo is of Kate.

by russiandoll 06.08.13 15:03

The chin is similar on both photos and Maddie's chin is very distinctive on the iconic red dress photo, she does not have a smooth jawline. It is slight but there, a definite little dip in the chin area.
It is the teeth which pose the problem for me, the Halloween photo seems to show no gaps whereas later ones do have gaps. Am not a dentist, so maybe nothing in this, but the teeth appear very different.

by Miraflores 06.08.13 19:34

We hardly celebrated Halloween in this country when Kate was a girl, so I don't think it can be her. I agree, the teeth are a problem, but as someone said, it's a poor resolution photo, so I don't think we can really tell.

by margaret 06.08.13 20:05

Nereid wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:Hmm...interesting! The Halloween costume seems modern for someone Kate's age, but maybe the face was superimposed. The mouth/teeth do seem to fit, though. Very strange.

Just as a comparison I put two smiling pics of Madeleine together.

" />

The Halloween pic is taken from a different angle. The face looks the same imo, but the teeth in the Halloween pic seem to have been enhanced. Also the mouth shape looks different, more square, but that could be because of the different angle / the smile being bigger.
It could be a very low resolution shot, so it didn't pick up as much detail. However, I think the gaps between the teeth would still be showing.

I've just covered maddies hair up on the left hand photo and the photos look the same girl, l think the hair is a distraction as it doesn't appear in the right hand photo so it's harder to compare.

by Casey5 06.08.13 20:37

Maybe Madeleine has fake teeth in her mouth in the Halloween costume picture. They're very common, you can buy them anywhere and they do make you look as if you have a mouth full of teeth and then some.

Log in for more topics