Madeleine McCann

[The People's Hero]

Look at the links below. I suggest that the similarity between the Moroccan picture and that of the official Find Madeleine Campaign picture (top left) are a little too similar to discount "doctoring".

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?...mp;postcount=26

That's certainly interesting, I'll admit that.

It obviously proves nothing at all, but it's something to think about.

[Chandler]

That's certainly interesting, I'll admit that.

It obviously proves nothing at all, but it's something to think about.

Who's the idiot now People's Hero? Completely taken in by a photoshop forgery and a particularly bad one at that.

Well spotted 1444ry - your powers of observation partially compensate for your lack of humanity.

Members of this forum might care to visit both the Daily Mail and Evening Standard websites and read the comments sections attached to the numerous stories devoted to this story.

[The People's Hero]

That's certainly interesting, I'll admit that.

It obviously proves nothing at all, but it's something to think about.

Who's the idiot now People's Hero? Completely taken in by a photoshop forgery and a particularly bad one at that.

Well spotted 1444ry - your powers of observation partially compensate for your lack of humanity.

Members of this forum might care to visit both the Daily Mail and Evening Standard websites and read the comments sections attached to the numerous stories devoted to this story.

Even allowing for the 'argumentative license' where facts seem unimportant or irrelevant even in your pursuit of an argument with your hero... how exactly have I been completely taken in by a photoshop forgery.

I said it was interesting. It piqued my interest a little.

To those reading who might be considering who is the idiot here, only one of us has referenced the Daily Mail as a source which should hold any kind of respectability, veracity or integrity in terms of reporting the facts.

If I want to read over zealous, enthusiastic, flawed and illogical arguments based on supposition and idiocy rather than facts, I'll read the digest of Thracian's quotes which Fez has put together and we all have a chuckle at from time to time. I will not be visiting the fu cking Daily Mail website.

Now that's you suitably put in your place, you'll excuse me if I sneer one final time in your general direction and move on.

[Chandler]

If that was your best shot at preserving the last fragments of your intellectual reputation People's Hero then you've missed by a mile because of the motes in your eyes.

There is none so blind as the snob.

And no greater fool either...

[The People's Hero]

If that was your best shot at preserving the last fragments of your intellectual reputation People's Hero then you've missed by a mile because of the motes in your eyes.

There is none so blind as the snob.

And no greater fool either...

If a snob is someone who chooses the sources they quote and trust carefully, selectively and with the benefit of experience then yes, I suppose I am a snob.

If we're using this particular imagery though, in terms of source, argument, cohesion, logic and reason, you're a slob. A slob with a copy of the Daily Mail in one hand and the reins to your high-horse in the other!

[l444ry]

Who's the idiot now People's Hero? Completely taken in by a photoshop forgery and a particularly bad one at that.

Well spotted 1444ry - your powers of observation partially compensate for your lack of humanity.

Members of this forum might care to visit both the Daily Mail and Evening Standard websites and read the comments sections attached to the numerous stories devoted to this story.

I'm glad to see you're not letting your education get in the way of your ignorance.

[Kent Fox]

Everyone on here seems to have ignored the fact that the photo was taken 4 weeks ago.

If..IF..it is Maddie, then trying to trace the convoy of Moroccans from that point is going to prove quite tricky.

I do not think this is a fake photo as the photographer has been interviewed in the Standard tonight. If she has faked it and gets caught, she'll be stoned to death.

I am not convinced it is Maddie though. Blonde / Fair haired children is not an uncommon sight in Morocco.

But it's something positive at last.

[l444ry]

Everyone on here seems to have ignored the fact that the photo was taken 4 weeks ago.

If..IF..it is Maddie, then trying to trace the convoy of Moroccans from that point is going to prove quite tricky.

I do not think this is a fake photo as the photographer has been interviewed in the Standard tonight. If she has faked it and gets caught, she'll be stoned to death.

I am not convinced it is Maddie though. Blonde / Fair haired children is not an uncommon sight in Morocco.

But it's something positive at last.

That was the primary reason for my earlier post. The "photo" was taken well before Clarence Mitchell took over the public relations for the McCann's. And yet we miraculously hear about it only now.

Edited 26 September 2007 by l444ry

[Chandler]

If a snob is someone who chooses the sources they quote and trust carefully, selectively and with the benefit of experience then yes, I suppose I am a snob.

If we're using this particular imagery though, in terms of source, argument, cohesion, logic and reason, you're a slob. A slob with a copy of the Daily Mail in one hand and the reins to your high-horse in the other!

I would advise you to ponder a little before you post PH. By admitting that you are a snob you have conceded that you are a fool.

The highlighted section above unsurprisingly reveals you to be both vain and arrogant. Ostensibly the big surprise (but not to me) is your coyness about the sources you quote and trust. Pray tell us PH what these oracles are?

They wouldn't happen to be, by any remote possibility 'The Grauniad' and er... let me see 'The Indescribably Boring' would they? Those PC rags that have addled the minds of countless waves of second rate social science and humanities graduates with environmentalist bullshit and minorities bollocks?

And which have done more to blacken the McCanns through innuendo and by stirring up class envy than any red top.

Along with most media outsiders your understanding of the industry is unsophisticated. The only profound difference that exists between the (former) broadsheets and the tabloids is targeting. The fact that almost all hacks are constantly toing and froing between them is evidence that distinctions are in the main trivial and stylistic. Naturally the rags don't like to reveal what they all have in common.

Such as their constant need to brainwash the unwary and the gullible and that this desire extends to their coverage of the McCann case.

All that I am about to reveal about this affair are conclusions drawn from the discrepancies and constant recycling in ALL media reporting (got that PH?) of key developments in the McCann case.

When I'm done you won't even eat your chips off 'the sources you quote and trust' again.

[Phube]

On the Radio News that this is NOT Maddie, in fact it is the local Farmer's Daughter!!!

[Phube]

Even better:

Mystery solved!!!

[Father Ted]

[Daggers]

When I'm done you won't even eat your chips off 'the sources you quote and trust' again.

****! And here's us with no clean plates in the house!

Quick, the Wife, do some washing up as Chandler is about to feast our brains with new revelations. Yes, new revelations so startling that even Roald Dahl wouldn't have thought of such a twist.

He's a bright spark is that Chandler and no mistake.

Edited 26 September 2007 by Monsieur Poignards

[l444ry]

****! And here's us with no clean plates in the house!

Quick, the Wife, do some washing up as Chandler is about to feast our brains with new revelations. Yes, new revelations so startling that even Roald Dahl wouldn't have thought of such a twist.

He's a bright spark is that Chandler and no mistake.

What? Chandler? He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends. There's nothing wrong with him that reincarnation won't cure.

[The People's Hero]

When I'm done you won't even eat your chips off 'the sources you quote and trust' again.

The only chip around here is the one on your shoulder, but it's big, I'll give you that.

[l444ry]

A video that deserves to be seen.. The real Madeleine McCann story by Spudgun.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...48&hl=en-GB

[Nationwider]

A video that deserves to be seen.. The real Madeleine McCann story by Spudgun.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...48&hl=en-GB

It takes a spin doctor (Spudgun) to recognise a spin doctor or two I suppose. An extremely flatulent first 6 minutes from the anti-McCann corner, but the last 3 minutes, he/she snapped out of it a bit and crystallised my feelings on the McCanns quite succinctly. Still a tacky production though.

[Jon the Hat]

Who's the idiot now People's Hero? Completely taken in by a photoshop forgery and a particularly bad one at that.

Well spotted 1444ry - your powers of observation partially compensate for your lack of humanity.

Members of this forum might care to visit both the Daily Mail and Evening Standard websites and read the comments sections attached to the numerous stories devoted to this story.

Ahem. Photoshop forgery? Really? Not a picture of a local girl then..

[The People's Hero]

Who'd have thought that it possible for someone to distill so much pure idiocy in to so few, ill-chosen words.

Well done Chandler. You're surpassed what I thought even the second biggest idiot I know possible.

[Kent Fox]

Who'd have thought that it possible for someone to distill so much pure idiocy in to so few, ill-chosen words.

Well done Chandler. You're surpassed what I thought even the second biggest idiot I know possible.

So, who is leading this idiot table, league thingy?

Ultra or Chandler?

[The People's Hero]

So, who is leading this idiot table, league thingy?

Ultra or Chandler?

Ultra is the biggest actual idiot. He has by far more natural idiocy.

Chandler is proof that a little education is a dangerous thing.

[Chandler]

Ahem. Photoshop forgery? Really? Not a picture of a local girl then..

You'll have to get up a lot earlier in the morning to catch me out JH. And that goes for everyone else on here, particularly People's Hero and his stone throwing chav mentors from the sinkiest parts of Braunstone.

That is not to say that your inferred proposition does not merit serious discussion (and because of that I have not included gratuitous insults in the intellectual thrashing that I am about to administer to you). For the more dull witted amongst you JH is suggesting that the picture of the local girl (Bouchra Benaissa) is a genuine image that makes the theory of the photoshop forgery redundant. Hmm...

It's worth noting that the reason why the sceptics rushed to look for the forgers hallmarks all over the now infamous photo was because the child at the heart of the image did bear more than a passing resemblance to Madeleine McCann. And that's just it: she looks more like Madeleine than Bouchra. Consider the evidence:

1) Bouchra has a sallow complexion - the photoshop tot appears to have fair skin

2) Bouchra has thick dark blonde hair - the photoshop tot has fine light blonde hair

3) Bouchra has relatively strong features - the photoshp tot's are elfin.

So, is the central subject in the photo Bouchra (but made to appear more like Madeleine), Madeleine herself (that is a super imposed image of her) or even a different child altogther (both Bouchra and Madeleine have their hair parted on the opposite side - an oversight on the part of the forger or a deliberate mistake?).

And there are more discrepancies:

4) foliage obscures part of the right side of the child's face but this obstacle does not appear to have hindered the progress of her bearer

5) a bough/branch of a roadside tree or shrub not only separates the face of the child from the bearer it also obscures the right side of the childs head and cheek - how is this possible when the child is in the foreground with the flora behind?

6) the child is facing the snapper head on and is looking directly into the camera lens (how convenient!) but the bearer's posture suggests papoose and contents would tilt away from the viewer revealing (at best) only a profile of the child (study Phube's pics on this page)

This picture was supposedly taken from inside a bus. Normally you can tell when a photo has been taken through glass but you can't here. There's no sense of motion either (perhaps the vehicle was stationary?) though the most likely direction from our POV is left to right.

According to an expert interviewed by The Times the picture is very hard to analyse when enlarged because pixellation density is very low (clear enough to 'reveal' Madeleine but fuzzy enough to thwart any inquest).

It's worth noting the timetable of events leading up to these revelations.

On Monday of this week many newspapers ran with Madeleine 'sightings' but not this one. Coincidentally though, all the coverage was devoted to two sightings in Morocco. But they weren't recent - they were first reported on May 9th - and both occured in Marrakesh, one at a cafe and one at a filling station. Of all the possible claimed sightings of Madeleine they could have run with (Belgium, Malta, Malagasy etc etc) why did the media choose to recycle these particular claims (remember in an earlier post where I mentioned that it was the media's tendecy to recycle developments in this case that could be the key to unlocking it)?

You don't think for a moment do you that it was to lend credibility to the dodgy photo when it appeared on the evening of the following day (perish the thought!)?

And then the lid of the story is sensationally blown off the very next afternnon. The remote, mountain dwelling, non TV viewing, non newspaper reading, olive farming Benaissa clan complete with imposter baby Bouchra (variously reported as aged anywhere between 2 and 5) are tracked down by our intrepid hacks within 18 hours. ITN even managed to get some footage of them which it aired in its 10.30pm bulletin on Wednesday which was most revealing.

The clip featured a reporter confronting a woman holding Bouchra (probably Bouchra's mother, Hafida) with what appeared to be a copy of the Daily Mirror. The woman appeared to respond instinctively - she backed off and then turned away. Now I'm not going to pretend that I'm anything but an amateur when it comes to the pseudo science of body language but something clearly was not right here.

Were this family involved in the setting up of this episode? Were they paid to pose for the dodgy photo? Did Clara Torres (the Spanish tourist) really take this snap and if so what is her background and what does she do for a living?

One final observation on this strange chapter in the McCann affair: The Times of the 26.9.07. reported a representative of the police in Morocco as stating that neither the Portuguese nor the British police had EVER been in contact with them regarding Madeleine McCann. Now that isn't just odd - it's alarming.

Even the stone throwing chavs of Braunstone can see that...

Edited 28 September 2007 by Chandler

[Jon the Hat]

That is not to say that your inferred proposition does not merit serious discussion (and because of that I have not included gratuitous insults in the intellectual thrashing that I am about to administer to you).

According to an expert interviewed by The Times the picture is very hard to analyse when enlarged because pixellation density is very low (clear enough to 'reveal' Madeleine but fuzzy enough to thwart any inquest).

I particularly enjoyed the way you build yourself up as capable of an intellectual thrashing, only to make a number of points regarding the image then render them meaningless with your reference to the low pixellation density. Sadly you have established yourself as delusional in the past with your tendancy to over-analyse the simplest of things, so carry no credibility here. Surely a man of your brilliance can find somewhere more on his level to discuss these issues...

Edited 28 September 2007 by Jon the Hat

[The Reverend]

You'll have to get up a lot earlier in the morning to catch me out JH. And that goes for everyone else on here, particularly People's Hero and his stone throwing chav mentors from the sinkiest parts of Braunstone.

That is not to say that your inferred proposition does not merit serious discussion (and because of that I have not included gratuitous insults in the intellectual thrashing that I am about to administer to you). For the more dull witted amongst you JH is suggesting that the picture of the local girl (Bouchra Benaissa) is a genuine image that makes the theory of the photoshop forgery redundant. Hmm...

It's worth noting that the reason why the sceptics rushed to look for the forgers hallmarks all over the now infamous photo was because the child at the heart of the image did bear more than a passing resemblance to Madeleine McCann. And that's just it: she looks more like Madeleine than Bouchra. Consider the evidence:

1) Bouchra has a sallow complexion - the photoshop tot appears to have fair skin

2) Bouchra has thick dark blonde hair - the photoshop tot has fine light blonde hair

3) Bouchra has relatively strong features - the photoshp tot's are elfin.

So, is the central subject in the photo Bouchra (but made to appear more like Madeleine), Madeleine herself (that is a super imposed image of her) or even a different child altogther (both Bouchra and Madeleine have their hair parted on the opposite side - an oversight on the part of the forger or a deliberate mistake?).

And there are more discrepancies:

4) foliage obscures part of the right side of the child's face but this obstacle does not appear to have hindered the progress of her bearer

5) a bough/branch of a roadside tree or shrub not only separates the face of the child from the bearer it also obscures the right side of the childs head and cheek - how is this possible when the child is in the foreground with the flora behind?

6) the child is facing the snapper head on and is looking directly into the camera lens (how convenient!) but the bearer's posture suggests papoose and contents would tilt away from the viewer revealing (at best) only a profile of the child (study Phube's pics on this page)

This picture was supposedly taken from inside a bus. Normally you can tell when a photo has been taken through glass but you can't here. There's no sense of motion either (perhaps the vehicle was stationary?) though the most likely direction from our POV is left to right.

According to an expert interviewed by The Times the picture is very hard to analyse when enlarged because pixellation density is very low (clear enough to 'reveal' Madeleine but fuzzy enough to thwart any inquest).

It's worth noting the timetable of events leading up to these revelations.

On Monday of this week many newspapers ran with Madeleine 'sightings' but not this one. Coincidentally though, all the coverage was devoted to two sightings in Morocco. But they weren't recent - they were first reported on May 9th - and both occured in Marrakesh, one at a cafe and one at a filling station. Of all the possible claimed sightings of Madeleine they could have run with (Belgium, Malta, Malagasy etc etc) why did the media choose to recycle these particular claims (remember in an earlier post where I mentioned that it was the media's tendecy to recycle developments in this case that could be the key to unlocking it)?

You don't think for a moment do you that it was to lend credibility to the dodgy photo when it appeared on the evening of the following day (perish the thought!)?

And then the lid of the story is sensationally blown off the very next afternnon. The remote, mountain dwelling, non TV viewing, non newspaper reading, olive farming Benaissa clan complete with imposter baby Bouchra (variously reported as aged anywhere between 2 and 5) are tracked down by our intrepid hacks within 18 hours. ITN even managed to get some footage of them which it aired in its 10.30pm bulletin on Wednesday which was most revealing.

The clip featured a reporter confronting a woman holding Bouchra (probably Bouchra's mother, Hafida) with what appeared to be a copy of the Daily Mirror. The woman appeared to respond instinctively - she backed off and then turned away. Now I'm not going to pretend that I'm anything but an amateur when it comes to the pseudo science of body language but something clearly was not right here.

Were this family involved in the setting up of this episode? Were they paid to pose for the dodgy photo? Did Clara Torres (the Spanish tourist) really take this snap and if so what is her background and what does she do for a living?

One final observation on this strange chapter in the McCann affair: The Times of the 26.9.07. reported a representative of the police in Morocco as stating that neither the Portuguese nor the British police had EVER been in contact with them regarding Madeleine McCann. Now that isn't just odd - it's alarming.

Even the stone throwing chavs of Braunstone can see that...

Hmmmm intriguing indeed.

I dont know what to make of all this tbh.

[Alexikokopops]

You'll have to get up a lot earlier in the morning to catch me out JH. And that goes for everyone else on here, particularly People's Hero and his stone throwing chav mentors from the sinkiest parts of Braunstone.

That is not to say that your inferred proposition does not merit serious discussion (and because of that I have not included gratuitous insults in the intellectual thrashing that I am about to administer to you). For the more dull witted amongst you JH is suggesting that the picture of the local girl (Bouchra Benaissa) is a genuine image that makes the theory of the photoshop forgery redundant. Hmm...

It's worth noting that the reason why the sceptics rushed to look for the forgers hallmarks all over the now infamous photo was because the child at the heart of the image did bear more than a passing resemblance to Madeleine McCann. And that's just it: she looks more like Madeleine than Bouchra. Consider the evidence:

1) Bouchra has a sallow complexion - the photoshop tot appears to have fair skin

2) Bouchra has thick dark blonde hair - the photoshop tot has fine light blonde hair

3) Bouchra has relatively strong features - the photoshp tot's are elfin.

So, is the central subject in the photo Bouchra (but made to appear more like Madeleine), Madeleine herself (that is a super imposed image of her) or even a different child altogther (both Bouchra and Madeleine have their hair parted on the opposite side - an oversight on the part of the forger or a deliberate mistake?).

And there are more discrepancies:

4) foliage obscures part of the right side of the child's face but this obstacle does not appear to have hindered the progress of her bearer

5) a bough/branch of a roadside tree or shrub not only separates the face of the child from the bearer it also obscures the right side of the childs head and cheek - how is this possible when the child is in the foreground with the flora behind?

6) the child is facing the snapper head on and is looking directly into the camera lens (how convenient!) but the bearer's posture suggests papoose and contents would tilt away from the viewer revealing (at best) only a profile of the child (study Phube's pics on this page)

This picture was supposedly taken from inside a bus. Normally you can tell when a photo has been taken through glass but you can't here. There's no sense of motion either (perhaps the vehicle was stationary?) though the most likely direction from our POV is left to right.

According to an expert interviewed by The Times the picture is very hard to analyse when enlarged because pixellation density is very low (clear enough to 'reveal' Madeleine but fuzzy enough to thwart any inquest).

It's worth noting the timetable of events leading up to these revelations.

On Monday of this week many newspapers ran with Madeleine 'sightings' but not this one. Coincidentally though, all the coverage was devoted to two sightings in Morocco. But they weren't recent - they were first reported on May 9th - and both occured in Marrakesh, one at a cafe and one at a filling station. Of all the possible claimed sightings of Madeleine they could have run with (Belgium, Malta, Malagasy etc etc) why did the media choose to recycle these particular claims (remember in an earlier post where I mentioned that it was the media's tendecy to recycle developments in this case that could be the key to unlocking it)?

You don't think for a moment do you that it was to lend credibility to the dodgy photo when it appeared on the evening of the following day (perish the thought!)?

And then the lid of the story is sensationally blown off the very next afternnon. The remote, mountain dwelling, non TV viewing, non newspaper reading, olive farming Benaissa clan complete with imposter baby Bouchra (variously reported as aged anywhere between 2 and 5) are tracked down by our intrepid hacks within 18 hours. ITN even managed to get some footage of them which it aired in its 10.30pm bulletin on Wednesday which was most revealing.

The clip featured a reporter confronting a woman holding Bouchra (probably Bouchra's mother, Hafida) with what appeared to be a copy of the Daily Mirror. The woman appeared to respond instinctively - she backed off and then turned away. Now I'm not going to pretend that I'm anything but an amateur when it comes to the pseudo science of body language but something clearly was not right here.

Were this family involved in the setting up of this episode? Were they paid to pose for the dodgy photo? Did Clara Torres (the Spanish tourist) really take this snap and if so what is her background and what does she do for a living?

One final observation on this strange chapter in the McCann affair: The Times of the 26.9.07. reported a representative of the police in Morocco as stating that neither the Portuguese nor the British police had EVER been in contact with them regarding Madeleine McCann. Now that isn't just odd - it's alarming.

Even the stone throwing chavs of Braunstone can see that...

QUICK!!

TO THE MYSTERY MACHINE!!