Re: Photographs revisited - questions

by pennylane 13.04.16 9:36

joyce1938 wrote:The photo of maddie with family eating something, I did not at first think it was her, but realize now it most probably is her taken from a distance. Her pink hairband is holding all her fringe and hair back, when we are used to seeing her without and and fringe across face. I now feel this is her. joyce1938

Totally agree, that is little Madeleine wearing a headband in the above Donegal pictures!

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

by Verdi 13.04.16 12:52

Tony Bennett wrote:
pendragon2007 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I have made a compilation of 3 photos of Madeleine. Left and middle are from Donegal and one on right from PdLuz. Given the clothing in left and middle photos these look like the same person. Does this help with matching to photo 3? Would be grateful for your views.

@ pendragon 2007

Very good. Well done.

By your simple but effective choice of just three photos, you have proved beyond doubt that Madeleine McCann was indeed in Donegal at Easter 2007.

Your post should kill off once and for all any notion that she wasn't.

Admittedly the photo on the left doesn't look like her at all. But that's just one photo, and sometimes just one random photo does not really give a very accurate impression of someone.

The middle photo makes the whole thing crystal clear - thank you again

Was there really ever any doubt? The one on the left is just a rotten photograph.

The Madeleine photographed at the Ocean Club is the same Madeleine as photographed in Ireland - end of!

by pennylane 13.04.16 13:10

Exactly Verdi, end of! yes

by Verdi 13.04.16 15:28

I can't understand how the subject ever took off - or more to the point why! If it's some convoluted mode of trying to suggest Madeleine never existed or there was more than one Madeleine or a substitute Madeleine was taken on that holiday or Madeleine was the result of some genetic experiment or Madeleine was a clone, then the subject is even more bizarre than I ever imagined.

It's embarrassing to witness.

by Verdi 14.04.16 0:04

At the time of the Portuguese holiday, David Payne's children were three months short of four years and a couple of weeks short of one year. Within the PJ files, it would seem that David Payne for some reason, had his own little niche allocated for his holiday photograph portfolio. The first grayscale image that appears in said files features David Payne snuggling two little girls most likely on his balcony - one girl I assume to be his own three year old but who is the other he's bouncing on his knee? Certainly not his own one year old daughter..

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

by Amy Dean 14.04.16 9:08

Lily was coming up to 3 in 2007. The only child in the party who could be the one in the photo is Jane Tanner's daughter.

This is from David Payne's statement in 2008.

Reply "Err yes Scarlet will be two in May and Lily will be four in August.'

by joyce1938 14.04.16 9:56

I must admit ,there have been times that really dopey things arise from an imagination of what happened ,and as we cant prove it ,it really is not importent.Its seems to have happened ever,is it because some are looking for answers now.? Its been a long time now and the same subjects come back up again.I realize we do have new people from time to time ,and i have no doubt , a lot could be answered by at first ,reading all the files that are obtainable ,the maddie case files . Its got to be very confusing and hard work if new folk are trying so hard . in regards joyce1938

by Verdi 14.04.16 11:59

Amy Dean wrote:Lily was coming up to 3 in 2007. The only child in the party who could be the one in the photo is Jane Tanner's daughter.

This is from David Payne's statement in 2008.

Reply "Err yes Scarlet will be two in May and Lily will be four in August.'

Yes, quite so - I stand corrected yes

! Never was much good at arifmatick.

by skyrocket 15.04.16 8:38

Apologies can't post photos - if anyone would like to oblige with the following 2 it would be very much appreciated - thanks in advance.

Photo 1: GM and kids on holiday? - I would say summer 2005 (A&S born Feb 2005); MBM about 2 1/4years. Note colour of T Shirt and the folds on GM's right shoulder.

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

Photo 2: MBM 'eye shadow' photo - April 2007? Note the blue colour and what looks like a similar fold. MBM possibly sitting on someones knee - I mentioned before how I felt MBM's head may be being held up from behind. I'll also ask now - why are MBM's pupils (clearly visible on magnification) not closed small? Uncomfortable subject.

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

Links have now been corrected - thanks [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for pointing out.

by JRP 15.04.16 8:49

Does anyone else think that the "blue makeup" photo was taken during the Luz holiday?
The official story is it was taken some weeks before. I know many discussions have taken place about this image, but can it be put in the holiday time line?

by skyrocket 15.04.16 9:00

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - as far as I'm aware, the only basis for it being taken in Portugal during the Luz holiday is the fact that it appears to have been taken outdoors and the style of peach stucco wall finish, which is typical of the Med. It is feasible it was taken elsewhere earlier in the month on a warm day. MBM's apparent age would suggest that it is Spring 2007.

by JRP 15.04.16 9:35

skyrocket wrote:Apologies can't post photos - if anyone would like to oblige with the following 2 it would be very much appreciated - thanks in advance.

Photo 1: GM and kids on holiday? - I would say summer 2005 (A&S born Feb 2005); MBM about 2 1/4years. Note colour of T Shirt and the folds on GM's right shoulder.

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

Photo 2: MBM 'eye shadow' photo - April 2007? Note the blue colour and what looks like a similar fold. MBM possibly sitting on someones knee - I mentioned before how I felt MBM's head may be being held up from behind. I'll also ask now - why are MBM's pupils (clearly visible on magnification) not closed small? Uncomfortable subject.

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

What does pupils not closed small mean? Does it indicate a state of health?

by pendragon2007 15.04.16 9:40

Skyrocket - tried to post your photos but both links go to different versions of same photo - will try again later if you change appropriate link. The Gerry on holiday with kids is the wrong link

by skyrocket 15.04.16 9:53

@pendragon 2007 - ooops, thanks for pointing that out. Now corrected.

by pendragon2007 15.04.16 9:59

for skyrocket Post of the photos:-

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

by skyrocket 15.04.16 10:04

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - normally outdoors in bright conditions (not necessarily sun out) the pupils (black inner circles) are at their smallest. The iris controls the amount of light getting into the eye and keeps it at an optimum level for vision - closing the pupil in light conditions and gradually opening it to its widest in the dark.

Dilated pupils in normal outdoor light conditions (or even indoor brightly lit conditions) is abnormal. The normal response if your pupils are wide in normal daylight (anyone had dilating eyedrops at the opticians will know) is to shade or cover your eyes, as it causes discomfort. See:

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

Easy to check this out looking in a mirror - close your eyes for a bit or turn the light off (you've got to look quickly as the iris responds quite quickly).

The above sounds slightly patronising - not intended, just thought better to put it simply.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - just seen the photos, cheers for that (got a Mac, which is great but it doesn't like posting photos on here for some reason!).

by JRP 15.04.16 10:22

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] thanks for the link, I understand the question now in the terms you asked.

by Guest 28.04.16 22:34

April28th wrote:
Also, adding to my point about the height of Madeleine in relation to L Payne:

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

Madeleine is actually TALLER than L, who can quite obviously reach the veranda door handle, which we were assured by Kate was impossible.

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

Conclusion - Madeleine could reach the door handle in 5A easily, which supports the idea that TM were swinging wildly for the fences to make sure everyone bought the abduction theory in the beginning.

I'm having trouble finding Kate's exact quote on this. I feel as though it were a throwaway comment in a documentary but I don't have the heart to sit through hours of that voice. Anyone here able to remember where Kate 'rubbished' the idea that Madeleine could reach the patio/veranda door handle?

by **sharonl** 22.05.16 9:03

Bumping this this thread because I am curious about these two photographs. I don't think that they have been tampered with but given the McCanns association with Everton I wondered whether these photos were placed in the media purely as an advert for Everton. If that was the case, are they genuine or has the shirt been photo-shopped onto her?

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

by Doug D 22.05.16 9:20

I've always suspected they were released as part of the 'good marketing ploy', mirroring the poor Soham girls photos in United shirts.

by canada12 22.05.16 9:25

sharonl wrote:Bumping this this thread because I am curious about these two photographs. I don't think that they have been tampered with but given the McCanns association with Everton I wondered whether these photos were placed in the media purely as an advert for Everton. If that was the case, are they genuine or has the shirt been photo-shopped onto her?

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

If you look at a larger version of the second photo, and look at Madeleine's right shoulder (as she faces us), up near the neckline of the jersey, under her hair, you can see a distinctly different patch of fabric that is a different shade of blue, as well as a different texture.

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

Either there was a patch job done on the original jersey, or a patch job done on the digital image.

by Doug D 22.05.16 9:43

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

I think you'll find it's just this shirt canada12.

by canada12 22.05.16 9:51

Doug D wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I think you'll find it's just this shirt canada12.

Nope. Madeleine's shirt is missing the seam that runs down from the neckline along the arm. Plus her shirt is short-sleeved - it's not the same shirt at all.

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

by skyrocket 22.05.16 9:54

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I've posted this on another thread but no idea where - look at MBM's height in the kitchen shot. We are told she was 90cm but the average worktop height is 90-91cm. If the camera lens is level with her head, she looks about 97cm. If the camera is above her level she would actually be taller than that. Remember the playhouse shot where her head is the height of the door - 98/99cm? was it?

by BarryTheHatchet 22.05.16 10:24

IMO these have been released to appeal to Everton supporters, in the same way that the green and gold colour scheme was designed to appeal to Glasgow Celtic supporters. At the very beginning, Kate said that the green and gold were the "colours of Portugal" but that story soon changed when somebody pointed out that the "colours of Portugal" are actually green and red. Suddenly the yellow colour stood for "hope". Load of bullsh*t, the lot of it, it's corporate marketing in it's most base and crude form.
BTW I think the bottom picture is authentic but the top one is Maddie's head on another child's body. The angle of the head to the neck is all wrong.

Log in for more topics