I don't see anything wrong with showing a little baby "topless," even if it is a girl. Most people who have kids who play in the water have tons of pictures like that - I know I do.
Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 20
- Thread starter colomom
- Start date
- Status
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
I'll trade you a bushel of corn for a barrel of oi
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,333
- Reaction score
- 53
Like I said in my previous post, if it was a picture taken by mom and dad, with the kid/s splashing and playing in the buff...I'd think nothing of it. I too have several tub/pool pictures that are priceless. It's the fact that she has makeup on and a "Professional" potographer took it is what is foreboding to me.
Call me old fashion, (and maybe a bit modest) but a topless glamor shot of a 2 or 3 year old with bright red lipstick, (by a professional potographer) is strange.
I also don't think that is the only picture like that. I don't know many potographers who only take one picture in a photo shoot.teacherbees
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 115
- Reaction score
- 3
Like I said in my previous post, if it was a picture taken by mom and dad, with the kid/s splashing and playing in the buff...I'd think nothing of it. I too have several tub/pool pictures that are priceless. It's the fact that she has makeup on and a "Professional" potographer took it is what is foreboding to me.
Call me old fashion, (and maybe a bit modest) but a topless glamor shot of a 2 or 3 year old with bright red lipstick, (by a professional potographer) is strange.
I absolutely agree with you in these sentiments. Studio pictures of a topless girl seem distasteful and exploitive to me, at just about any age.
That said, the picture in question is muted such that I'm not 100 percent certain Maddie is topless. Looking at the form of the shoulder area and to the right side of the photo, it may be that she has a towel draped over her.
Like I said in my previous post, if it was a picture taken by mom and dad, with the kid/s splashing and playing in the buff...I'd think nothing of it. I too have several tub/pool pictures that are priceless. It's the fact that she has makeup on and a "Professional" potographer took it is what is foreboding to me.
Call me old fashion, (and maybe a bit modest) but a topless glamor shot of a 2 or 3 year old with bright red lipstick, (by a professional potographer) is strange.
I would HARDLY call it a "glamour shot" and I doubt that IS lipstick but possibly re-touching of the photo during developing.
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
I'll trade you a bushel of corn for a barrel of oi
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,333
- Reaction score
- 53
That's fine Daffodil, you can call it anything you want.
You suppose they "re-touched" and added the lipstick smudged below her lip and on her chin? Oh maybe those are just sores....hummm, wonder why they didn't re-touch those while they where at it.
Why would they re-touch a photo to make her lips red, but not retouch skin blotches?
I'm not trying to argue that it's right to take picture of little girls wearing make-up - I hate that.
But . . . in this case, that looks more like a photo that has had a darker photo-filter overlay of some sort in the photoshopping process. The blue is very blue and her lips are very red - none of it looks natural. Even her skin looks darker. So I'm not sure that is lipstick, since if you look up and down the page her lips are naturally dark pink anway.
My daughter has had very pink lips since the day she was born, and often people would ask her if she was wearing lipgloss, which I never allowed until she was 10 or 11!
Madeleine also has naturally pink lips, but in this case, I really think that picture has been darkened so it's not natural anymore. I'm not saying I like it or that it's in good taste, but I'm also not sure it has any sinister overtone.What would this photographer have to do with her disappearance anyway? :waitasec: Are you making the case that the McCanns were shopping her around to people using that photo? I guess maybe I'm wondering about the point of this.
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
I'll trade you a bushel of corn for a barrel of oi
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,333
- Reaction score
- 53
I'm not trying to argue that it's right to take picture of little girls wearing make-up - I hate that.
But . . . in this case, that looks more like a photo that has had a darker photo-filter overlay of some sort in the photoshopping process. The blue is very blue and her lips are very red - none of it looks natural. Even her skin looks darker. So I'm not sure that is lipstick, since if you look up and down the page her lips are naturally dark pink anway.
My daughter has had very pink lips since the day she was born, and often people would ask her if she was wearing lipgloss, which I never allowed until she was 10 or 11!
What would this photographer have to do with her disappearance anyway? :waitasec: Are you making the case that the McCanns were shopping her around to people using that photo? I guess maybe I'm wondering about the point of this.
Well, first, if we discuss anything in the media, we are told by a few, that everything in the media is a lie...(except when it flames the PLE). So I thought I would find new things to discuss that had nothing to do with the media coverage of this case. Obviously we can't discuss real pictures taken by real professional photographers either...
The reason I find these couple of "head" shots interesting is because I wonder if the McCanns ever tried to get Madeleine into show business. They look like maybe they where a part of a portfolio. I have found 2 references that indicate that there is a famous UK Celebrity photographer named Paul Grover. I don't know if the signature stamp on Maddies pictures are his or not.
MAYBE, the McCanns where hoping Maddie could be the next Mary-Kate or Ashley Olsen (or who-ever)...And something went horribly wrong... Maybe someone DID kidnap her, because they saw these beautiful, (can't say glamorous) pictures of Madeleine where she is made up to look enticing to a talent scout...(but unfortunately to a sick Paedophile as well).
Yeah, me too. I just don't see anything wrong on this one...
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
I'll trade you a bushel of corn for a barrel of oi
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,333
- Reaction score
- 53
I find it hard to believe that so many people would let a grown man take topless pictures of their toddler girls. Why wasn't a bathing suit used? Would a swim suit take away from the adorable girl in the photo? What is the point of this picture? It's a swimming pool, not a bath tub. Most people wear bathing suits in swimming pools. Some may think this is a cute an innocent picture, but to ingrain in your child's mind that it is okay to pose this way, is not natural. If Mom and Dad are telling Madeleine it is okay to pose topless for a some male photographer, than she will be willing to pose for anyone...even a paedo (at daycare, or for a friends pervert father...(yes it happens) preschool, or a church, Lord forbid.) Do you really think a 2 or 3 year old can distinguish who is a "good guy" and who is a "sicko?"
SleuthMom
Former Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 936
- Reaction score
- 7
Like I said in my previous post, if it was a picture taken by mom and dad, with the kid/s splashing and playing in the buff...I'd think nothing of it. I too have several tub/pool pictures that are priceless. It's the fact that she has makeup on and a "Professional" potographer took it is what is foreboding to me.
Call me old fashion, (and maybe a bit modest) but a topless glamor shot of a 2 or 3 year old with bright red lipstick, (by a professional potographer) is strange.
Could you post a link of the single picture in question? Thanks.
I don't think there is any way to tell, is there? I assume they used that photo because it was a good picture of her face, but that's just me.Thanks ThoughtFox!
Is that the real size pic or was cut?
Clarence is spinning again, and he's overlooking the fact that the McCanns have never been "cleared" as Arguidos.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080130/wl_uk_afp/britainportugalmissing;_ylt=A9G_RzzkBaFHGHcAmB5vaA8F
Go, Clarence, Go! I guess this means that tomorrow all the charges will be dropped?
Um, no, probably not. :crazy:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080130/wl_uk_afp/britainportugalmissing;_ylt=A9G_RzzkBaFHGHcAmB5vaA8F
Go, Clarence, Go! I guess this means that tomorrow all the charges will be dropped? Um, no, probably not. :crazy:
Clarence is spinning again, and he's overlooking the fact that the McCanns have never been "cleared" as Arguidos.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080130/wl_uk_afp/britainportugalmissing;_ylt=A9G_RzzkBaFHGHcAmB5vaA8F
Um, no, probably not. :crazy:
Sorry must have missed it have they been charged ? when did that happen ?
april4sky
It is not who is right, but what is right, that is
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Messages
- 1,227
- Reaction score
- 9
Madeleine: Investigation a 'fiasco' as bungling Portuguese police fail to send crucial documents to British authorities
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511426&in_page_id=1770
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511426&in_page_id=1770
Sorry - I meant that all "suspician" had been dropped. It was late at night here, lol.
iNTERESTEDWOMAN
I'll trade you a bushel of corn for a barrel of oi
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,333
- Reaction score
- 53
Another case of believing that which we chose to believe....
in 24Horas this morning:
http://24horasnewspaper.com/total.php?numero=2754&link=10
Rogatory letter was in England but was returned to the State Attorney
English tantrum delays process
The letter that was destinated to interrogate the McCanns and their friends returned because of simple bureaucratic problems. The PJ was unaware of this whole story
A veritable 'tantrum' from the English is delaying the conclusion of the investigations into the Madeleine case. The English have already held the letter that contains the questions that the PJ wants to be asked from the McCann family and their friends - sent by Eurojust, the European entity that is competent to establish the judicial connection between various countries - but their understanding was that some bureaucratic formalities were not being observed. And they requested a new letter.
[continues, see full article in Portuguese Press thread]
in 24Horas this morning:
http://24horasnewspaper.com/total.php?numero=2754&link=10
Rogatory letter was in England but was returned to the State Attorney
English tantrum delays process
The letter that was destinated to interrogate the McCanns and their friends returned because of simple bureaucratic problems. The PJ was unaware of this whole story
A veritable 'tantrum' from the English is delaying the conclusion of the investigations into the Madeleine case. The English have already held the letter that contains the questions that the PJ wants to be asked from the McCann family and their friends - sent by Eurojust, the European entity that is competent to establish the judicial connection between various countries - but their understanding was that some bureaucratic formalities were not being observed. And they requested a new letter.
[continues, see full article in Portuguese Press thread]
- Status
Similar threads
Staff online
-
SillybillyAdministrator
-
friendlysleutherModerator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 132
- Guests online
- 984
- Total visitors
- 1,116