Thursday, 26 May 2011

Gerry Superimposed Into Photo Of Kate Holding Baby who?


What a surprise... not... as we've seen far too many photos of Madeleine doctored and manipulated pastings and paintshop tooled to sink a battle ship in the past four year's, that is it really surprising to find yet another so called family photo were Gerry has been superimposed into it to make it look like Gerry's the typical family man!

Take a screenshot copy of the above, and put it into your picture viewing program and you'll see all the highlighted edges of Gerry where a blending and colouring tool has been used to put Gerry in the photo with Kate holding a child, and then ask yourself, why do the Mccann's need to fake photos and publish them if Madeleine was really their child!

Gerry look's the same age he was when he went to the court in Lisbon, and funnily enough, he's wearing the same tie that he wore to sue Ameral for his book in 2009, but Kate looks quite a few year's younger and has her own teeth, not the vineer's she's had since we first saw her in May 2007, which would put this photo of Kate holding the baby possibly before the year 2000.

And did anyone notice that not only Gerry is superimposed into the photo with Kate and baby, but also the picture behind Gerry's head, which was on the original photo of Gerry before it was cut and pasted in. There's a lot of blending used around the picture frame to blend it into the background to disguise the addition.

Also, Gerry's body is behind the baby's body, but his head is in front of the baby's head, and he's not leaning his head that far forward for this to be a correct composition between baby and Gerry.

The only other addition's I can pick up in the photo is Kate's had some extra colour added to her lips and so has the baby, and the baby's got a grey/blue right eye and a brown left eye, and the coloboma/fleck is situated at 06:30 on the clock face, instead of the regular 06:35-40 positions shown in other photos and videos.

15 comments:

  1. Ah and Argh. I can't normally post in my usual MegaFundline sign-in these days, there is a glitch.

    Anyway do you remember that lilac-colour cardigan Kate was wearing in 2007 (arguida time in PT), she was pictured with exactly the same one holding baby "Maddy"!

    Curiously enough I had the same type of cardi, bought in 2007. I've kept it though I have stopped wearing it this year for one purpose: once I noticed they were similar, mine was of good quality as it was quite expensive, not from the cheap range, I wore it sparingly for about 4 years, taking great care of it. I wanted to know what it would look like after about the same treatment, I suppose, and exactly the same time. No way my nice cardi would look like Kate's after 4 years of normal wear! It's quite baggy now, and fluffy, worn. Even if I "shave" it with a special machine for wool it would never look as good as new. I've washed it at cold temperature and with Woolite. I take great care of everyone's clothes in the family. Basically my conclusion is that... how strange could a cardigan look as good as new 4 years after?

    If she had kept it, why? Why take something on holiday if you bought it 4 years ago and never wore it? It wouldn't make sense. You'd go get a new one... Portugal's famous for its jumpers and cardigans and they are cheap compared to in England and often hand-knittted, gorgeous and of greater quality. Also if she didn't like that cardi then she's not exactly the type to still waer it, she's very fashion-minded.

    Imo that BABY (a NEW "IVF" or CLONE or whatever experimental one) was BORN in 2007, that's why you see Kate wear that cardi in 2007, I also bought my similar one during this year via a fashion catalog.

    So what have they been messing with regarding Babies, IVF/ CLONING/ experimentations???? Remember they refuse to show "Maddy"'s health records to the Portuguese Police! And photo clear "anomalies", discrepancies etc!

    Good post - can you please explain more re the edition mark (line), + other elements? as you're more experienced/ advanced in this than many other people. You can be well right on that one too, ty! x Mega

    ReplyDelete
  2. hello, is that my imagination or is Kate just wearing a bra under her jacket?

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, maybe Kate's wearing a camisol that looks like a bra?

    What's more interesting, is that Gerry look's the same age he was when he went to the court in Lisbon, and funnily enough, he's wearing the same tie that he wore to sue Ameral for his book in 2009, but Kate looks quite a few year's younger and has her own teeth, not the vineer's she's had since we first saw her in May 2007, which would put this photo of Kate holding the baby possibly before the year 2000.

    And did anyone notice that not only Gerry is superimposed into the photo with Kate and baby, but also the picture behind Gerry's head, which was on the original photo of Gerry before it was cut and pasted in. There's a lot of blending used around the picture frame to blend it into the background to disguise the addition.

    Also, Gerry's body is behind the baby's body, but his head is in front of the baby's head, and he's not leaning his head that far forward for this to be a correct composition between baby and Gerry.

    The only other addition's I can pick up in the photo is Kate's had some extra colour added to her lips and so has the baby, and the baby's got a grey/blue right eye and a brown left eye, and the coloboma/fleck is situated at 06:30 on the clock face, instead of the regular 06:35-40 positions shown in other photos and videos.

    This is definately a Doctor'd McScamm photo, no doubt about it!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Ka! This is a great explanation you gave the "Anonymous" above - the comment's made me laugh - so since all's in your words on your answer, I've added it to your blog post now - et voila!!

    Many points make me think. I see better now what I couldn't before. It would be excellent to find the photo of Gerry that you mean around the Portuguese court, (if I remember well, yes you're right!!!) and I had never noticed this about Kate's teeth.

    What you deduct intrigues me in the light of my observation re the lilac cardigan (see my comment above), Kate would have kept it for a lot longer than 4 years then! which could mean that a planning of events would be longer than I even thought - and... a much older child would exist! If so, GOSH how many clandestine "IVF/ CLONE" KIDS have they got onboard??!!

    I'll have a second look re the pasting. At first glance I couldn't see it but I know that you aremore used to edition than I am - I am a tool in that department! I can use filters and colours and etc. to enhance a pic but about editing in precision, past the Paint program I would need serious training!!! The wall seemed to me a "moiré" effect of the wall paper... yet can be an edition. Gerry's position doesn't really seem abnormal to me... but I will look again. I respect your opinions as always my dear friend, enjoy blogging Ka, speak soon! xx Mega

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gosh but how the hell couldn't I see this before?! Wow but Gerry's shoulder-and-arm-part on the right (as we see the pic facing it) is very large, partly due to his shoulder-pads, consequently we should see a bit of his other shoulder and arm on the other side! But there is none at all! And the baby's head is certainly not large enough to obstruct this part!

    Also, I've tried to stand, twisting one shoulder away as if to let a baby's head leaning on it. Then I moved my face forwards as he dooes. It nearly hurt! No way it would be a natural, relaxed position as his smile lets on to be, if anyone had to disarticulate themselves this way! Unless they're contorsionists!!!

    "JEEZ" I am GLAD your trained eyes saw this at first glance Ka!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. There's this one, Ka, the tie's different but Gerald looks pretty much the same on it, really looks the same age on that court day, 12th January 2010:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey Mega and Ka ............. Do you know what that pic reminds me of ? The pic of Gerry when he went to Washington. What do you think ? Those McCanns are disgusting. Kathie x

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Megafundline and Kathie20, sorry I havn't been on for a couple of weeks to answer your comments about this photo, because it's so blatently fake, it's a wonder to me as to why the McCann's havn't been arrested for it's fakery... unless of course the Metropolitan police, the government and the rest of the civil services all in on the scam and think us poor puiblic citizens don't have the intelligence to see through their shit, which only goes to prove they're probably all hooked on heroin to think that way, lol.

    I did originally think that the pasted in Gerry was probably taken around the time of the McCann's libel case on Ameral in the courts in Lisbon, as Gerry's around the same age, hair style and wearing same suit and tie, but Kathie20 mentioned Gerry's visit to Washington, which I'ed almost forgotton about, and it suddenly dawned on me that the pasted in Gerry with the picture behind his head, must have been on the wall of the hotel room Gerry was staying in Washington, cause again, it's the same suit, same tie and same shirt, although most photos of Gerry in Washington he's removed his tie... I wonder why he removed his tie for public photos of himself in Washington?... was it because Gerry was wearing the tie for the photo which was taken in his hotel room and pasted into the photo of Kate holding the baby boy!

    Your absolutely right about the angle of Gerry's shoulder and head Megafundline, it's vertually impossible to put one's body into that composition with his head that far forward over the baby's head and still be smiling, his shoulder would have been that hard onto the baby's head that Gerry would have practically knocked it off with that shoulder pad, lol.

    The best tell tale sign this is a fake photo, is the bright blue edit line which showed up from the filters used to detect anomallys that shouldn't be in the original photo all around Gerry and the picture behind his head, especially around Kate's fingers, it's plainly obvious that someone's spent some time pasting an older July 2007 Gerry into this photo of Kate holding a baby BOY!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here's a little part of one of Gerry's interviews while in the U.S. just 8 weeks after the abducrtion occured.

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id209.html

    On The Record with Greta Van Susteren, Aired 24 July 2007

    MCCANN: No, no. But with what's happened to us, we are trying to make the most of it, and do everything possible to try to get our daughter back. And both for my wife and I, our lives are on hold, at the minute, until we find out and, hopefully, get her back.

    VAN SUSTEREN: And obviously you are here at this organization. Anyone else you will be talking to in our government?

    MCCANN: I'm very pleased to say that the Attorney General took time out of his incredibly busy schedule to meet with us today. And we had a 40 minute meeting, and we talked about these very issues, about how we can advance legislation.

    And, I think importantly, Madeleine's disappearance has already created some discussion at the G-8 summit recently. So it's becoming more topical. At least the public will know consider the issues, and that's something that we need to capitalize. There is a window of opportunity here to affect change for the better.

    And, of course, Kate and I are both hopeful that the publicity surrounding this and our tie-ins with the National Center and International Center for Missing and Exploited Children keep Madeleine's profile high and increases the chances of us finding her.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Did the Attorney General Gonzales, did you get the sense that he knew about your daughter's disappearance before the meeting was set up?

    MCCANN: Yes.

    VAN SUSTEREN: He knew about it.

    MCCANN: He is, obviously, at the very least been briefed prior to the meeting, but he certainly gave the impression that he knew about Madeleine's disappearance.

    And we know that the publicity around Madeleine really has been global. It has touched almost every parent who has seen it in the news. And Kate and I have had tremendous empathy from all over the world.

    Everyone knows that feeling, that when you think your child is missing, even if it's for a few seconds, a few minutes.

    VAN SUSTEREN: Do you believe she is still alive, or is that just the survival mechanism in you, in a sense, that you want to believe she is?

    MCCANN: Of course we want to believe it, but I will not accept that Madeleine is dead until I get concrete evidence that assures us that she is dead. There is no evidence of serious harm, and there has been a very extensive ground search from quite a large radius around Praia da Luz, from where she was abducted.

    I'm not saying it's impossible, but, actually, I think she is probably more likely to be alive than dead. We truly believe that.



    So what was Gerry doing being involved in advancing legislation for just 8 weeks after the abduction?

    Gerry's reference to the G-8 Sumit and that the public will know and consider the issue's, leave's one with an impression that the abduction was a preplanned event to some sort of forcing the public into changing legislation, but what legislation when the G-8 Summit wasn't publically aird and only a small part of it published in the press? Is there some sort of secret policy and changing of legislation going on that the publis isn't allowed to know about going on, because Gerry's telling me there is a heap of secracy about child abductions going on between governments, the feeling it give's me just make's me want to vomit!

    "At least the public will know consider the issues, and that's something that we need to capitalize. There is a window of opportunity here to affect change for the better."

    Yep, I feel sick, Gerry sounds like a paedophile telling the public that he has a legal right to sexually abuse children!

    ReplyDelete
  10. kATHIE20 ( WHATS UP GERRY , YOU ARE NOT SUING ANYONE OVER THE GASPAR STATEMENT ?)9 August 2011 at 05:02

    You are right there Ka. Gerry McCann an out and out Paedophile. Another thing we must remember is their own FRIENDS THE GASPARS. It must go for something that their friends the Gaspars that they used to go on holiday , etc, should make an official police statement regarding Gerry McCann and David Payne making paedophile gestures towards Madeleine. Also David Payne liked to bath the children. Very strange and sick. Also Gerry McCann and David Payne have never challenged or sued anyone that mentions the Gaspar statement which is all over the internet. Are they afraid to open up a really big can of worms ? becaudse it sure sounds like it to me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kathie20 ( google GASPAR STATEMENT )9 August 2011 at 05:07

    _____________

    GOOLE GASPAR STATEMENT
    GOOGLE GASPAR STATEMENT.








    EVERYONE WHO IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE GASPAR STATEMENT LOOK IT UP NOW ON GOOGLE. ALSO SEE THE OFFICIAL PRINT VERSION BY THE POLICE ....... AND gERRY DOES NOT SUE ????????
    WHY NOT GERRY ?
    BECAUSE THATS IT , YOU ARE FINISHED THEN , YOUR CAREERS OVER ? JUSTR LIKE YOU SAID WHEN YOU FOUND MADELEINE ????????

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thats totally right Kathie20, Gerry ranted and screamed in the UK press to threaten to sue 24 Horas for publishing that he wasn't the biological father of Madeleine, and he didn't even attempt to sue them, infact, he totally ignored the issue and carried on making more money out of the fake fund, same thing he's done over the Gaspers statements, he's totally ignored them and hopes they'll fade out of the public issue domain... boy is he totally wrong, the Gaspers statements and the paternity issue are one of the most talked about issues of the decade!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Antenna 3" or some tv channel of the sort who were keen to broadcast mr. Gerry getting really angry?
      - my belly ache would have got the worst of me and I would have probably spewn out some vomit, -literally.
      Twice in my life - as a Parent- I got confronted to a situation when one of my children was MISSING, temporarilly. The first instance was a family mistake, [...]the 2nd instance, with my other child, missing from home as early as 8am on a week-end day, caused me to physically feel sick while standing, hopeless, at our front-door. M KID WAS OK![..]These two instances have shown me something: if your CHILD goes MISSING, what you get is belly ache. You turn around and ask yourself questions, did I/ we LOCK the back door last night? Is there any CLUE I/we could follow? FIRST THING THOUGH: I/we/ You GO OUT. I/ You GET OUT AND ENQUIRE.
      2nd/ Is my CHILD at risk? Is he/ she being HARMED right now? Or exposed to any other danger? - and this, THIS is getting round your head in a circle. You need to THINK, and FAST.
      3rd/ POLICE or Medical/ other organisation/ sources (like phoning 999 - asking if anyone, name, description, has been marked as an Entry in any hospital/ police station). If nothing comes up, keep trying to think, How well do I know my Child? Well, fairly well, or was there any misty area?

      -In any case, you/ I /we never had the time to nurture any 'philosophical' essay sketch. We need to think fast, and the BRAIN does it right. YOUR/ MY Brain says it: YES YOU DID LOCK THE DOOR LAST NIGHT. [...]the missing time - that I recorded- was 8:00.

      WHAT has MY KID been up to recently? With WHOM? Logics come as a Rescuer: My Kid has been up to NOTHING, EXCEPT, playing around, with whom? Our Neighbour's Kid. This is whom I got my answer from. This kid was at first quite freaky - suspicious?? NO! - because I/ we WERE FREAKING! And I wouldn't have called any MEDIA at that point, I was thinking : if my Child is around, distressed / injured, the LAST thing I want for my Child is any person looking out for my Child. This would only bring MORE WORRIES.

      What I/You think is then: Police, Medical, Community trusted People... but seriously, you don't want any media / press, cause you're thinking: PROTECTION. If any stranger got hold of my KID / or NOT, this is IMPORTANT, I/You do NOT want to MAKE THIS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY STRANGER TO MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE!

      - and this is my Point: if Your Child went "missing", the NOT KNOWING makes you act in total discretion. The LAST thing you want is a lot of other people to know that your Child is... where??? What you want to do is THINKING, and: REACHING OUT to You KID, so FIRST thing would be: ASKING AROUND, GOING AROUND (like WE did), KEEPING IT QUIET, for the simple reason is: you want to HEAR ANY SOUND - ANY sound is then VITAL

      -and you can't help yourself but keeping still, though mobile, keeping not 1, but your 2 ears wide open, though at regular times you SHOUT Yoyr Kid's NAME - ONLY YOUR OWN VOICE WILL CATCH YOUR CHILD'S ATTENTION - IF NEARBY.

      -Now, McCanns, no you don't "smash a kid's bed"... NO you don't "STAY IN THE APARTMENT".... NO you DON'T LET STRANGERS INVADE, ... NO you don't tell PORKIES to your FAMILY and Friends on the telephone. You JUST DON'T do this. And your BELLY ACHE makes you feel like any help, including the POLICE, feel like this Help COULD be THE PATH to help YOU FIND Your CHILD BACK.

      -last but not least: a "FUND" is clearly the LAST thing that's on your mind. What you want, is to FIND your CHILD BACK,[..]
      NEVER, hear me? NEVER YOU would "venture" say ANY word such as: "MY KID WAS SO BEAUTIFUL..." "SHE HAD A NAUGHTY SPOT!"... "FIND HER BODY!"

      --- These are the words of people on drugs who have never loved their Child.

      Delete
  13. I just noticed Gerry saying " what happened us we are making the MOST OF " then he mentions Madeleine.
    To right Gerry is making the most of it. What a greedy little sod he is. Then he cares to mention Madeleine.
    Always the after thought is Madeleine. What a pure shame for that little girl having two neglectful greey parents.
    Yep, that photograph is photoshopped with Gerry and his Washington suit on with his Wahington ' the funds going well ' stupid looking face. What an idiot. The feelings of a child being missing doesn't come into this farce / circus. Cos they haven't got the true gut wrenching feelings of REAL LOVING PARENTS. The feelings of distress and despair is as fake as that photograph. One day I hope Portugal issues a European arrest warrant for those two fraudsters. That will be the day when the public see real tears real distress teal despair. Genuine emotion will be coming from the pair of them only because they have been exposed. The day is coming soon. Its only a matter of time. Kathie 20

    ReplyDelete
  14. I was hoping they were going to arrest them both right after the libel trial, especially cos they list the court was more behind Amaral in any case. And UK govt changed too but unfortunately not đŸ˜¡ I hope they get their karma soon, that book is vile, you're not allowed to make money from crime. I despise them after the way they try to subliminally plant ideas thru the book about the Portugese authorities, they & UK government is abhorrent.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for leaving a comment: