VA - Amy Bradley, 23, Petersburg, 24 March 1998 - #2 - ***READ FIRST POST***

[dotr]

Dotr, could you give me the post that's in & I'll mess around with the picture for you? I don;t have much more time on the computer bc my husband & the boys are coming home soon but I can hurry if you can get me the picture link or something...

# 1760, bottom (last) pic. thanks, sorry found your post too late.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Sorry to post back to back but I have looked at your great enlargements over and over and now believe that these photos have been recently altered. I feel sure that as many times in the 1st thread and this one that these photos have been reviewed in every way possible, these odd occurrences would have shown up before now. I wonder if someone is playing games. Just asking.

The pics that I used came directly from FindAmy's posts. I believe she got them from the site waybackmachine, which I use all the time. Waybackmachine archives sites exactly how they are shown on the date of the site data captures. The only thing that I can see that Randolph did different was enhancing the pixture's colors with deepening & lighting if the same shades, which is a very common Photoshopped technique to show things that could be hidden. With the pics that I used, I blew them up, cropped & inverted them. Then I enhanced the color using Photobucket, which is a free picture hosting site. That's it, nothing nefarious.

One thing I noticed with the picture that looks like she's wearing glasses, the one that Randolph did...well now I'm wondering if it was actually a bad cut & paste job of her eye & no glasses at all. Maybe the cut if that portion was done in a shaded area & was then pasted onto a lighter area, therefore creating a "ring or circle" around the eye. Could that explain why she only has that "circle" around one part of her face?

& trust me, I don't play games...won't even be part of something like that. This is a missing oerson's case & I take that very seriously. I'm sure FBI has this stuff. They'd have to. They're the professionals, not us. These pictures were blown up, sharpened, cropped, and color enhanced to pinpoint imperfections. I'm certain the professionals have much better programs to utilize, so if that's the case then they would have determined all this stuff years ago. It's just not posted. However Hyscience did the original enhancing years ago when Amy's picture was seen on that sex vacay site. They did some of the same things that were just posted. Anybody can do this.

 

[Cuoco7]

I don't see any writing, trying to... But I think the darkened area on the bed (which is what is being highlighted as the writing area) may come from the indentation and pressure of her right hand on the bed, which has caused a shadow in the photo which is why it's behind her left arm.

 

[neesaki]

The pics that I used came directly from FindAmy's posts. I believe she got them from the site waybackmachine, which I use all the time. Waybackmachine archives sites exactly how they are shown on the date of the site data captures. The only thing that I can see that Randolph did different was enhancing the pixture's colors with deepening & lighting if the same shades, which is a very common Photoshopped technique to show things that could be hidden. With the pics that I used, I blew them up, cropped & inverted them. Then I enhanced the color using Photobucket, which is a free picture hosting site. That's it, nothing nefarious.

One thing I noticed with the picture that looks like she's wearing glasses, the one that Randolph did...well now I'm wondering if it was actually a bad cut & paste job of her eye & no glasses at all. Maybe the cut if that portion was done in a shaded area & was then pasted onto a lighter area, therefore creating a "ring or circle" around the eye. Could that explain why she only has that "circle" around one part of her face?

& trust me, I don't play games...won't even be part of something like that. This is a missing oerson's case & I take that very seriously. I'm sure FBI has this stuff. They'd have to. They're the professionals, not us. These pictures were blown up, sharpened, cropped, and color enhanced to pinpoint imperfections. I'm certain the professionals have much better programs to utilize, so if that's the case then they would have determined all this stuff years ago. It's just not posted. However Hyscience did the original enhancing years ago when Amy's picture was seen on that sex vacay site. They did some of the same things that were just posted. Anybody can do this.

I have a problem with the glasses, why just on one side of her face?

It's almost as though they marked the photo, then scanned it, either left the mark for some unknown purposeful reason - were they sending it back and forth just for some kind of comments, approval, etc.? and then the "wrong person" got their hands on the photo and it was either prematurely uploaded by mistake, or maybe it was never supposed to have been posted/uploaded at all, but somehow it was...

Interesting, my husband peered over my shoulder and saw the photo a while ago, so I asked him what he thought, and he said, "Is she wearing glasses?" ...

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I have a problem with the glasses, why just on one side of her face?

It's almost as though they marked the photo, then scanned it, either left the mark for some unknown purposeful reason - were they sending it back and forth just for some kind of comments, approval, etc.? and then the "wrong person" got their hands on the photo and it was either prematurely uploaded by mistake, or maybe it was never supposed to have been posted/uploaded at all, but somehow it was...

Interesting, my husband peered over my shoulder and saw the photo a while ago, so I asked him what he thought, and he said, "Is she wearing glasses?" ...

I know, it's so darn weird. The only explanation I can think of is that they cut & pasted an eye there (the circular area), then they used either red eye reduction or something else that blurred it, making it appear as though it could be part of a set if glasses. Idk but if I click on red eye too much it'll make that black burst (streaks) like what is shown above that eye. The whole thing is weird.

 

[Cuoco7]

I don't want to derail where we are going, but post #918 on 1st thread has a photo of another girl supposedly from AAV thT just looks out of place. Something in her eyes shows the same torment I see in Amy's eyes. None of the other photos are remotely similar. Has anyone done any research on this photo? They are eerily the same feel. Am I alone in this feeling? I've been wanting to post for awhile about this, but you all seem so much sharper in your skills!
If someone can try to find the original of that photo, that would be great. I don't know where to start.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

When I first came to Amy's thread, I seriously thought the one photo (the main one) wasn't photoshopped. When SoSueMe verified these picture are Amy, I dissected these pics as much as I could & now there's no doubt in my mind that they've been doctored before putting on the sex vacay site. So why? To doctor certain parts that wouldn't need to be doctored cant be covered under the excuse that it was done to prevent Amy from being discovered. I mean, they put a picture of her on that site for all to see but didn't use a professional to do the picture job? It kind of doesn't make sense. I wish we knew how long her picture was on there, I mean exactly from what date to what date.

 

[Randolph2911]

sorry to play devil's advocate but i think you guys are pulling a lot out of random pixels in a picture that has been blown up well beyond its size. i've said before that i do not believe those pictures are amy, but i also do not believe there is writing or chains in those pictures. i think you're seeing the type of pixellation that shows up any time you blow up a picture well beyond it's bitrate and the human mind has a tendency to see patterns even if there aren't any. no disrespect intended.

Moo ...

If you look at the original photo , and don't edit it ... it's beyond obvious the woman is chained to a bed.

No one is looking at random pixels. I wouldn't post anything I thought could even be possibly "pixel distortion".

You don't need to do any editing to the photo to the woman chained to a bed ...

I never said what the markings were that (appear IMO to be written with a pen) are -- because I don't know .

I do know that there is something that was written on this photograph ... And I do know (and am well aware) what pixel distortion is and how "things can be seen"

But this isn't an example of that ...

Again , look at the original photograph ... the woman is chained to the bed I don't think there should even be an argument regarding that.... I feel debating the fact that the girl is chained to the bed is not going to help bring her home to her family ... you don't need anything but the original photo and your eyes to see the chain in the picture linked to whatever is on her arm.

And re: "glasses" , I say "glasses photo" but I doubt they are glasses ... It looks like someone circled her eye which appears to be blackened and not open.

I feel the pics were a threat to someone ...moo because of the markings on the photo. I also moo do not think these were the original photos ...

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I don't want to derail where we are going, but post #918 on 1st thread has a photo of another girl supposedly from AAV thT just looks out of place. Something in her eyes shows the same torment I see in Amy's eyes. None of the other photos are remotely similar. Has anyone done any research on this photo? They are eerily the same feel. Am I alone in this feeling? I've been wanting to post for awhile about this, but you all seem so much sharper in your skills!
If someone can try to find the original of that photo, that would be great. I don't know where to start.

I knew that was the one you were talking about! Elepher50 found a great comparison to another missing female with that picture, the thread is here but I forget her name. I think it's her. I mean I REALLY think its her. I believe the tip has been forwarded, including the pic... At least I think it has. I'll have to find that thread but I know its in this thread.

 

[Randolph2911]

Just need a little clarification, the writing/marking you're referring to on the photo, is only across the bed, behind her arm? I see nothing at all going across her arm. Almost like it's on the bed itself?
Idk, I think I'm going cross eyed looking and trying to figure this out.

Good question ...

MOO , the photo isn't an original and it was scanned. I believe that this pic was taken in a low light setting and the flash from the camera reflected , which is why Amy's arm is very bright.

Again , I don't feel this was the original picture in its original form ... It's very strange , and I think it's been copied/processed more then once.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Good question ...

MOO , the photo isn't an original and it was scanned. I believe that this pic was taken in a low light setting and the flash from the camera reflected , which is why Amy's arm is very bright.

Again , I don't feel this was the original picture in its original form ... It's very strange , and I think it's been copied/processed more then once.

Totally agree & appreciate your digging into the pictures. Thank you Randolph.

 

[Randolph2911]

Now, using this picture:

Again, first is regular & 2nd is inverted, yellow is areas of concern whereas blue could be normal. What do you guys think? Looks like her right eye (on our left) looks doctored from too much red eye reduction, discoloration not due to makeup, ear jacked up (maybe from trying to hide her piercings), etc.

The eyes do look like they could have possibly been doctored .... In 2002-05' it would definetly not be hard to do that.

 

[Sillybilly]

.. Re the pic where you circled her ankle, yea I think it's a tatt, but is that the same ankle that was tattooed on Amy?

<rsbm>

According to the Bradley website, Amy's tatt was "above her right ankle"

> very bottom of page shows what her tatts look like:

http://www.amybradley.net/photos.htm

Gawd, i always feel like such a voyeaur in viewing these pics of Amy. She was/is such a classy young lady, and to know that the world is seeing her in such a demeaning situation makes me ill. I know if we ever find her, she will forgive that in us and understand.

 

[Randolph2911]

Sorry to post back to back but I have looked at your great enlargements over and over and now believe that these photos have been recently altered. I feel sure that as many times in the 1st thread and this one that these photos have been reviewed in every way possible, these odd occurrences would have shown up before now. I wonder if someone is playing games. Just asking.

The photos were from the website FA provided , period.

Playing games ? I don't think this is the type of place that "play games , and a missing American woman that's quite possibly been living a horror movie for 15 years is NOT something that a human being would "play games with."

I for one am insulted by the post you've made .. as my efforts are to help bring a young woman who is a victim of crime overseas are anything but a "JOKE".

Please see the photos the verified poster put up , as they are the same ones in these pages ...

Please see the AAV website , as they are the same ones on here in these pages ...

 

[neesaki]

I know, it's so darn weird. The only explanation I can think of is that they cut & pasted an eye there (the circular area), then they used either red eye reduction or something else that blurred it, making it appear as though it could be part of a set if glasses. Idk but if I click on red eye too much it'll make that black burst (streaks) like what is shown above that eye. The whole thing is weird.

I wonder if all the distortion is due to them doctoring the photo to camoflage/cover up bruising in that area around her eye.

 

[Randolph2911]

I have a problem with the glasses, why just on one side of her face?

It's almost as though they marked the photo, then scanned it, either left the mark for some unknown purposeful reason - were they sending it back and forth just for some kind of comments, approval, etc.? and then the "wrong person" got their hands on the photo and it was either prematurely uploaded by mistake, or maybe it was never supposed to have been posted/uploaded at all, but somehow it was...

Interesting, my husband peered over my shoulder and saw the photo a while ago, so I asked him what he thought, and he said, "Is she wearing glasses?" ...

I just want to emphasize that my mention of the term "glasses" as just to describe that photo.

I do not feel they are "glasses" , but there is obviously something going on with those eyes ...

And again , this girl is chained to a bed ... and I can say IMO that's a fact and can be seen by looking at the original photograph.

Disgusting world we live in ...

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Omg, I just saw something. Anybody on her that's on an iPhone or iPad?

 

[neesaki]

Omg, I just saw something. Anybody on her that's on an iPhone or iPad?

I have both, why?

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I have both, why?

Turn the brightness all the way up on your iPhone. This is what I just did. I'm going over all of the pictures to see if there's something my iPhone can pick up that my pc didn't. Then I saw it. After you turn your brightness up, go to this post, 1st picture, use your fingers to spread the picture on her wrist:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8427843&postcount=1814"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

This pic: omg omg omg

It's a damn linked chain! A chain wrapped around her wrist! They must have put black marker on the picture itself (on her wrist) before scanning it. The bright light coming from underneath the picture on the scan allowed the chain to show through. I'll bet the original picture was taken with a disposable camera!

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Can somebody try to do this on a pc & see if it shows up? I can't right now. Randolph? Somebody?