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

[Randolph2911]

I thought the nose and face is identical to the sketch . Should I remove it ? I didn't know

 

[Randolph2911]

The man ran the AAV "forum" on the site ALB's photos were posted

 

[Randolph2911]

****DO NOT GO TO AAV's WEBSITE OR EVEN THE ARCHIVES****

They are loaded with Trojan's.

 

[danzn16]

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.

Wow I'd be interested in knowing who you think it is if you find the thread! Crazy

 

[danzn16]

I posted about this earlier, and am quite familiar with the case. The missing girl that looks like the blonde girl in the above post is Jessie Louise Foster from Alberta, missing from Nevada since 2006 and believed to be a victim of human trafficking:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39093&highlight=Jessie+Louise+Foster

I don't think Jessie looks like the girl whatsoever. Jessie has a different nose, cheek, and brow structure. Most definitely not her. Especially if pic was posted in '03 and she went missing in '06

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Wow I'd be interested in knowing who you think it is if you find the thread! Crazy

Nah, I wrongly assumed sillybilly thought it was the same person that elepher50 did. I posted elepher50's comment last page I think. I'll look & edit this post.

Missed ya danzn!

Here it is:

waybackmachine data capture from 2006:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060323...-vacations.com/guest_escorts_entertainers.htm

elepher50's post:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - AL AL - Christy Lyn Garrard, 24, Boaz, 14 Aug 1998


The thread:
AL AL - Christy Lyn Garrard, 24, Boaz, 14 Aug 1998 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[danzn16]

i see a lot of distortion when the pics are blown up but i don't see anything convincing as far as photoshopped facial features, chains, etc. i think the thing everyone is seeing as writing is the indentation on the mattress from her right arm.

i do think it's likely in 2002 - 2004 those pictures would have been physical prints that were then scanned onto a computer using a scanner. this would introduce additional artifacting.

i also am having trouble making linear sense of how the pics could both be proclaimed to be her but also have photoshopped facial features. if the face has been edited then it only looks like her because of the editing, right? which would mean it's not her.

also, there's no way to alter waybackmachine's index of the pictures, so put that conspiracy theory to rest. they grab a copy of the web site at a point in time and archive it on their server. changing the actual site won't change their index.

i still don't understand how it can both be proclaimed that her kidnappers put her picture on a publicly available web site AND proclaimed that the pictures are a threat to them? it doesn't make sense. if they were threatened by the pictures then they wouldn't have put them online.

I agree, how can we further believe this is Amy if her face has been cut and changed and reshaped?

I've also been on my phone the whole time but I don't see any letters. I just see intentions on the bed where her hand that is furthest away from the camera is putting weight on the bed.

I do see the chain type structure JG pointed out. I need to go back and look at the original pic and see how that looks in that area. Put to me, just having a chain on a girl doesn't make it more likely to be Amy. Bondage and chains is a huge part of the sex industry so I don't think it's rare to see a girl like that and may account for her facial expression. I am trying to be unbiased and to not let emotions get involved and look at it from all angles and possibilities.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

****DO NOT GO TO AAV's WEBSITE OR EVEN THE ARCHIVES****

They are loaded with Trojan's.

We know. We posted that info awhile ago & advised to use cached pages. Viewing the sure through waybackmachine archives is safe. We advised everyone to have a strong firewall, spam & popup blockers in place, good antivirus software, and common sense.

 

[Randolph2911]

The chain on the bed is definetly a fact .. it may be subtle , but if you turn your brightness up and look at the original photo its very clear

 

[Randolph2911]

So for whoever thought CC wasn't linked to anything ...

He's the moderator of the board on AAV where Amy's photo was found in 2004.

There is your "connection" , and it's not a rumor ...

 

[Randolph2911]

No I don't

And I am not sure how admin feels about posting pics of people who are not POI
You may want to ask...

If PB is a POI and acceptable to sleuthe , why would the moderator of the forum in 2004 when the pictures of Amy were posted not be sleuthsble ?

And he matches the sketch to boot ...

Happy thanksgiving btw to my fellow canadians

 

[Randolph2911]

I agree, how can we further believe this is Amy if her face has been cut and changed and reshaped?

I've also been on my phone the whole time but I don't see any letters. I just see intentions on the bed where her hand that is furthest away from the camera is putting weight on the bed.

I do see the chain type structure JG pointed out. I need to go back and look at the original pic and see how that looks in that area. Put to me, just having a chain on a girl doesn't make it more likely to be Amy. Bondage and chains is a huge part of the sex industry so I don't think it's rare to see a girl like that and may account for her facial expression. I am trying to be unbiased and to not let emotions get involved and look at it from all angles and possibilities.

I don't think anyone said her face has been changed ... I do feel that the photo had man made markings on it before it was posted ...

- The tattoo area on her shoulder is distorted
- Ears match
- facial structures match
- mole matches (source : dr Phil)
- The photo matches eye witness accounts
- The website reported no information abut the photo besides that it was "put up for show/accident and came from curaçao" (paraphrase)
- that doesn't add up with the jist of the website
- Family confirmed its Amy
- we were told by a vp that the FBI verified it's Amy

It's Amy ...
- No other girls are chained on the website to a bed and look scared out of they're minds.

 

[Randolph2911]

I know that LE consider Amy's case to be active but can y'all share your 'picture' findings with FBI?
If I ever go missing, I want y'all on my team.

I think the FBI knew these findings within minutes of seeing the photo ... and with the technology nowadays I'm sure they know every single detail in regards to the pic.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

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 apologize and did not mean to infer that anyone on this board was doing anything to "play games", but surely you can understand why I was asking if this was a possibility. Earlier in the threads, these pictures were analyzed in many different ways, maybe we didn't have the tools that some of you have and that could be the reason, but just found it odd. Again, I apologize if anyone took offense. Will just lurk from now on.

I see nothing offensive in your post
Its a question, an opinion which you are more than entitled to

Please don't just lurk... participate

nosyone, I agree with Dushi. Please don't just lurk. You're very much needed and appreciated here. I certainly didn't take offense to your post, none at all. I understood where you were coming from in that statement completely. That's why I explained it the way I did. The pictures I posted last night I did in that short span of time. These same pictures I went over right after SoSueMe verified the pictures are indeed Amy, bc I was one of the people that had questions about it really being Amy. If technical forensic professionals went over these pictures & determined they're Amy, then that's as good as it gets for me & I'm going to follow those same professional opinions in order to move forward. I found the same stuff when going over the pics previously, except the wrist area which I accidentally saw last night. I was blown away after I enlarged it on my iPhone. I was amazed at seeing links there. Here I thought it was maybe brushed on black using paintshop or something. Now I think before the picture was scanned, that somebody used a wide tip black marker on her wrist area... The bright light from the scanner allowed the chain links to show through the uploaded picture. That's crazy. If I can get a good picture of it I will & then I'll post it. Either way, I swear I wasn't offended and hope I didn't offend you in my response to you. Please don't just lurk. You're needed here my dear!

:blowkiss:

PS: I'd never be offended that somebody didn't agree with me. It's ok. These are all opinions. There could be 25 people on here looking at the same picture & still have 25 differing opinions. It's ok. It's positive brainstorming, that's how I see it.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I don't think anyone said her face has been changed ... I do feel that the photo had man made markings on it before it was posted ...

- The tattoo area on her shoulder is distorted
- Ears match
- facial structures match
- mole matches (source : dr Phil)
- The photo matches eye witness accounts
- The website reported no information abut the photo besides that it was "put up for show/accident and came from curaçao" (paraphrase)
- that doesn't add up with the jist of the website
- Family confirmed its Amy
- we were told by a vp that the FBI verified it's Amy

It's Amy ...
- No other girls are chained on the website to a bed and look scared out of they're minds.

Actually, one other one looks like she could be secured at the ankles to the headboard while on her knees facing the camera... There's a few, IMO, that look scared chitless.

 

[masootz]

The chain on the bed is definetly a fact .. it may be subtle , but if you turn your brightness up and look at the original photo its very clear

no disrespect intended but i don't think it's a fact. i think it's the same distortion that shows up all over that picture when you zoom it in. the exact same patterns as the "chain" show up as artifacts around her foot, around the bed frame, in the area around her hair, etc. it's also not evident at all in the picture when it's not blown up. i still says it's just artifacts that show up when a computer tries to render an image by filling in pixels that aren't there. this happens any time you zoom in past the normal size of an image.

 

[Dushi]

fwiw - i have fifteen years of experience as a web administrator and systems administrator. i want to take a minute to speak about the search for the origin of the pictures on those adult sites.

first, the only person who for certain would know where those pics came from before going on those sites is whoever uploaded them to each site (could be a different person for each site or could be the same person for all of them). depending on how the web site was designed that person could be the web administrator or, if the site has a file upload utility built into the back-end, it could be someone with user rights. if we could determine who designed the web site(s) we could go a long way towards determining how those pictures got on those sites. the web administrator could at least answer whether others had access to uploading images or whether he/she would have uploaded them and then inserted them into the site. you're also more likely to find a web designer/administrator willing to talk because in my experience most of the time the person who designs a web site has zero affiliation with the organization other than being paid to create a site and sometimes to maintain it. i've designed sites for law firms, businesses, etc and have had no dealings with any of those groups other than being paid to design a site that functions for their purposes.

second, just because those pictures are on a site doesn't necessarily mean she was really with that organization. i'm reminded of the eve carson case in north carolina (young student murdered one night during a robbery). several years later her picture started showing up in india in advertisements for a school system. turns out the web administrator for the india site had just googled for pictures of a young college student and had inadvertantly grabbed eve carson's photos without realizing her background. it's possible that these adult sites are just scammy and posting images of women that aren't even part of their organization but say on their site "these are the actual girls you'll meet". so it's possible the photos are a red herring as far as amy being associated with these specific groups, although that still takes us back to point #1 - someone uploaded them, so that person got them from somewhere.

finally, pb and az may have no association with her photos other than someone uploaded them to sites associated with their organizations. i think you'd do a lot better sleuthing who designed the web sites. it's possible it's like going after bill gates for something uploaded to microsoft's web site. just b/c he's the head of the org doesn't mean he has any idea what's on the web site.

just my 2 cents. hope it helps.

This is a good post and I feel is worthy of a second read

 

[Dushi]

Looking at the video a little closer, I do see some inconsistencies. Amy's eyes appear to be a little more widely-set. With the right-eyes, nose, and mouth aligned, the left eye appears to drift outward when the overlay switches to Amy. There is a very slight difference in camera angles that may account in-part for that difference, but I don't think the difference in camera angles is substantial enough to explain the apparent difference in pupillary distance.

Also, the ears appear to be quite different.

Here's the link again:
http://youtu.be/Q-GaKZsHN3Q

This is also interesting, another opinion

 

[Jersey*Girl]

no disrespect intended but i don't think it's a fact. i think it's the same distortion that shows up all over that picture when you zoom it in. the exact same patterns as the "chain" show up as artifacts around her foot, around the bed frame, in the area around her hair, etc. it's also not evident at all in the picture when it's not blown up. i still says it's just artifacts that show up when a computer tries to render an image by filling in pixels that aren't there. this happens any time you zoom in past the normal size of an image.

But it doesn't explain the zigzag pattern of it & it doesn't explain not showing up in the empty spaces. It also doesn't explain how adding color hides those other portions but enhances the zigzagged part. IMO there is is substance with dimension that was picked up on.

 

[Sillybilly]

also, there's no way to alter waybackmachine's index of the pictures, so put that conspiracy theory to rest. they grab a copy of the web site at a point in time and archive it on their server. changing the actual site won't change their index

<snip>

It wasn't a "conspiracy theory" .. it was a valid question that i simply didn't know the answer to.