Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: Previous Quick Trip to Luz ... To Take Photos ?
Lot of discussion lately about discrepancies in the photos of Maddie (and twins) released to the public.
Stand out 'non-fits' are the photos of Maddie in blue football-shirt, in which she appears older, more mature expression, longer hair.
People haven't been able to reconcile the football-shirt photos with other photos of Maddie, including the 'red dress' 'main' publicity shot shown endlessly on posters and on tv. Then there are the Donegal photos, taken supposedly at Easter 2007 ... also the playground photos (with play-castle in background) .. the 'opening presents' photos, etc. etc.
All of this has caused people to wonder if Maddie is a clone, a twin or maybe Tanner's or Murat's daughter. Natural to speculate, when photos taken allegedly only a few months apart show Maddie looking far younger or older than the claimed date.
Could the answer be as obvious as the McCanns taking Maddie and the twins to Luz on a previous, undisclosed visit .. for the purpose of taking photos which would later be used in the Missing Madeleine Case ?
A previous and undisclosed visit to Luz would explain why the alleged May 2007 photos of Maddie have her appearing younger (and with much shorter hair) than the blue football-shirt photos which supposedly were taken PRIOR.
If true, it would mean this entire saga is a hoax planned quite some time ago. And would mean the PJ, the Tapaz Crew, Mark Warners, etc. are and were in on it. And would also mean that Tanner's and the 'nanny's' witness-statements are deliberate lies.
It would also explain the McCanns utter inability to convincly play the role of 'grieving parents'.
Most of all, it MAY mean Madeleine is alive and well and has been all the way through.
Joined: 30 May 2007 Posts: 3578 Location: Casa Nostra
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject:
[quote="carlymichelle"]its already 2008 in australia 2.33am tuesday morning aEST i just got home so australia is 10 hours and a year ahead of the uk as of now[/quote]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A very happy New Year, Carlymichelle. Here in Bonnie Scotland we're just getting organised.
Last edited by Primavera on Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
[quote="carlymichelle"]its already 2008 in australia 2.33am tuesday morning aEST i just got home so australia is 10 hours and a year ahead of the uk as of now[/quote] happy new year to you
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: Re: Previous Quick Trip to Luz ... To Take Photos ?
[quote="P20"]Lot of discussion lately about discrepancies in the photos of Maddie (and twins) released to the public.
Stand out 'non-fits' are the photos of Maddie in blue football-shirt, in which she appears older, more mature expression, longer hair.
People haven't been able to reconcile the football-shirt photos with other photos of Maddie, including the 'red dress' 'main' publicity shot shown endlessly on posters and on tv. Then there are the Donegal photos, taken supposedly at Easter 2007 ... also the playground photos (with play-castle in background) .. the 'opening presents' photos, etc. etc.
All of this has caused people to wonder if Maddie is a clone, a twin or maybe Tanner's or Murat's daughter. Natural to speculate, when photos taken allegedly only a few months apart show Maddie looking far younger or older than the claimed date.
Could the answer be as obvious as the McCanns taking Maddie and the twins to Luz on a previous, undisclosed visit .. for the purpose of taking photos which would later be used in the Missing Madeleine Case ?
A previous and undisclosed visit to Luz would explain why the alleged May 2007 photos of Maddie have her appearing younger (and with much shorter hair) than the blue football-shirt photos which supposedly were taken PRIOR.
If true, it would mean this entire saga is a hoax planned quite some time ago. And would mean the PJ, the Tapaz Crew, Mark Warners, etc. are and were in on it. And would also mean that Tanner's and the 'nanny's' witness-statements are deliberate lies.
It would also explain the McCanns utter inability to convincly play the role of 'grieving parents'.
Most of all, it MAY mean Madeleine is alive and well and has been all the way through.[/quote]
------------------------------------------------
It's the only conclusion I can come to, that it's a hoax. If they killed her there wouldn't be all these campaigns and faces from those in high places. I think the Tshirts were all printed in advance. It would also give a good reason for all the discrepancies in their stories too. It's not a simple abduction as no other child on the universe has had this much attention ever. Meetings with the pope, calls to Gordon B, Tea and biccies at the white house, trips around the world. This HAS to be a hoax. I could go on forever.
Photo no 8 could have been made after photo no 5. The ones with longer hair must have been before they went to Portugal. Maybe, they had Maddie's hair cut shorter just before they went. Otherwise, I find it hard to believe it is the same child.
It's adding too much complication to the story. If this is all a conspiracy that has been hatched, they would want to keep chances of being discovered minimal. Something like that could easily backfire. Such as if somebody from the resort recognised them from their previous visit. Going to all this bother, i'd very much doubt they'd do something so unnecessary (really) which could cause the whole story to crumble. Think "Occam's Razor".
No. 7 supposed to be Christmas 2006 (just over a year ago)? There is another photo in the red-dress sequence (same ... supposedly Christmas 2006) in which Maddie is spooning food to Amelie. In this latter photo, Maddie is seen in profile .. bobbed hair length is apparent. (don't have link to that photo but it's been around in forum recently).
THEN, somewhere in between those red-dress Christmas 2006 photos and the *supposedly* Luz of April-May photos, we're being required to make sense of photo No. 5, for example. Mirameau's link is the first time I've seen a chronology attached to photo No.5. In other threads, it's supposed that photo falls somewhere between Christmas 2006 and the infamous Luz holiday. Check hair length. We're being asked to accept that Maddie's hair grew X-number of inches in matter of what ... 4 months and a bit ?
(incidentally, who is the child in the famous poster-photo .. No. 7 in Mirameau's link? Where are the characteristic 'pouches' beneath the eyes ? Those pouches are visible in virtually every other photo of Maddie? Were they shopped out? Why ... that photo was drilled into everyone's brain relentlessly on tv, in magazines, etc. etc. Yet it doesn't even look like the child in all the other photos. So did they want us to identify the supposedly 'missing Maddie' or not ?)
Photo 15 is claimed as the 'last photo' of Maddie .. they've claimed it was taken on 3 May. Yet in it, she looks younger that the *other* blue football shirt photo (not shown in Mirameau's link, but it's the one in blue football shirt with her hand raised to her hair) which according to the link-chronology was supposedly taken PRIOR to the Christmas 2006 red-dress photos !
In addition, there's speculation (in the 'Blue Shirt Thread') about discrepancy in claimed age within photos of Sean, using his legs as age-indicator.
Most of us have had children and are aware that yes, some photos can make them appear slightly different to usual. However, suspect not many of us have noticed that our children appear several years older (in old photos) than in their current photos. Age and all it involves runs in one direction, for most of us.
Don't feel there's much doubt that Maddie appears considerably older in the hand-raised-blue-football-shirt -photo than she doesmany months later in the alleged 'last photo' by pool with Gerry and Amelie.
So how could this be explained ? Occurred to me that if the McCanns had zipped along to Luz prior to April-May 2007 and snapped some shots of the children to be used in a forthcoming hoax-abduction, it might account for the difficulty people are having now in making sense of the alleged time-line. And might go some way to explaining the strong doubts many have about the reliability of the alleged 'last photo'.
Wouldn't have been difficult to get to Luz prior to April-May 2007 to take photos of the children. Could have been in and out of the place in a couple of hours. Always keeping in mind the 'wrong date' drama on that alleged 'last photo'. Were at pains, weren't they, to advise the public that Kate McCann's camera was an hour late, or whatever. I'm always suspicious of basically trivial detail which is over-explained. Why is always the question. So why the deal about the time on Kate's camera ? Did someone release that photo (including the alleged 'wrong time') revealed a clue which had been overlooked ?
Whatever the case, the claimed sequence of Maddie's photos has more than a few scratching their heads. We all have hair. All know how long it takes to grow. Can see that the red-dress Christmas photos don't appear to jell (hair-length wise) with those supposedly taken in Luz just a few months later.
Apart from that, Happy New Year and Best Wishes to All
Oh, and while we're on the subject ... remember Bagman/Baldie in the background of the photos of Gerry playing with the kids in the park at Luz ?
After the alleged abduction, a man looking *very* similar was photographed in company with police and search-dogs in Luz and surrounds, looking for Maddie (guy looking very similar to Murat .. may have been Murat in fact ... was in some of those photos, just by the way. Been tons of discussion in forum months ago about these issues).
It's been surmised that Bagman/Baldie in the Gerry Playing With Kids photos may be a security guard. And he may. And there he appears again (or his twin, clone) with the police after the alleged abduction. In the photos, he appears very comfortable with the PJ and they with him. We could even be forgiven for suspecting he's plain clothes. In past months, we tried to get a closer look at his footwear, while he was with the PJ and dogs, to see if he was wearing the same sandals visible in the Gerry Playing With Kids in Park photos. Big man, big feet .. difficult to get suitable shoes maybe, so possibility he wore those sandals quite often/most occasions. But we never did get to the bottom of the sandals issue, unfortunately.
Regardless, it's 'interesting' to find Bagman in the background of photos of Gerry and the kids in the park ... and then find same distinctive looking individual (or his lookalike) getting around with the PJ during the search FOR one of those children. There are those who pooh-pooh the Bagman issue or say they are two different men. But there were a lot of us who suspected it was the *same* man. If so, who the hell is he? MI5/6? Bodyguard for the well-connected McCann family? Or 'just' Mark Warner security.
If we go a step further and consider the McCanns zipped into Luz prior to their infamous TapasTour holiday for the purpose of taking photos of Madeleine which may later be used to substantiate the story of A Holiday Gone Wrong ... then we really need to be asking who Bagman/Baldie is and what is his connection to this entire saga -- because he was there in those Gerry and Kids in Park photos. And if it was a secret quick trip to Luz to take photos, then Bagman must have been in on it, even at that point.
And no, 'coincidence' won't win my vote in this one .. basically because my coincidence-meter has been taking too many hits for comfort re: this case ... the last hit being a certain Ruth McCann who (according to Brunty) owns the apartment in which the McCanns just happened to be 'allocated' during their fateful holiday in Luz. Then again, who could trust Brunty after the guff he's tried to shovel in the past. Bait and switch is Their game, so it's very possible Brunty 'exposed' Ruth McCann and even claimed to find her disavowal of connection to the McCanns 'suspicious' ... all so he can announce next week that despite all, Ruth and the McCanns are not and never were 'connected' in any way. All a game to them. They have no god. Their eternity will be cold and dark, quite possibly.
Joined: 30 Nov 2007 Posts: 638 Location: Along the road from Castle Craig
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject:
Someone is two drinks ahead!
The guy in the background at the playground ain't Bagman.
Bagman cuts around with Cleaning Lady.
They are a couple.
The baldie guy is a holidaymaker with two children playing in the playground just out of shot. Many other holidaymakers wasted their holiday time searching for Madeleine. And don't diss the follically challenged.
[quote="Buildafiredontgetcooked"]Someone is two drinks ahead!
The guy in the background at the playground ain't Bagman.
Bagman cuts around with Cleaning Lady.
They are a couple.
The baldie guy is a holidaymaker with two children playing in the playground just out of shot. Many other holidaymakers wasted their holiday time searching for Madeleine. And don't diss the follically challenged.[/quote]
Would appreciate any substantiation you're able to provide when you have a free moment ... would be very interested to see/read it.
Guess you're joking re: 'dissing the follically challenged', but before PC it was perfectly acceptable to describe bald people as bald (as in describing tall people as tall, short people as short, toothless people as gummy, etc. Never have understood why brown people are described as 'black' though. But that's PC for you ....
|
so australia is 10 hours and a year ahead of the uk as of now
