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

[masootz]

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.

from my own experience you get those types of artifacts when you zoom in on an image because the computer is trying to fill in the gaps. computers are inherently bad at this so you end up with weird fill patterns. when you enlarge an image and then save it, those artifacts become a permanent part of the picture. it's fine to disagree, i just was mentioning above that i think stating it as a "fact" is far-reaching. just my 2 cents.

 

[Randolph2911]

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.

Disagreed.

The girl is linked via chain to the bed ... the chain is clear enough in the photo that it shouldn't be a debate.

I do not see silver chains tied to a tether "all over the picture" ...

But your interpretation is your right ... I am 100% sure the girl has a chain attached to her.

 

[masootz]

<snip>

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

thanks, sorry, i wasn't directing that at you. others have mentioned previously about wayback having viruses which isn't true, so i was trying to respond to the notion of manipulating the wayback archive before it became a permanently entrenched part of the discussion.

 

[masootz]

Disagreed.

The girl is linked via chain to the bed ... the chain is clear enough in the photo that it shouldn't be a debate.

I do not see silver chains tied to a tether "all over the picture" ...

But your interpretation is your right ... I am 100% sure the girl has a chain attached to her.

i don't see silver chains at all, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. going with your theory, what's the significance of the chain?

 

[Dushi]

Disagreed.

The girl is linked via chain to the bed ... the chain is clear enough in the photo that it shouldn't be a debate.
I do not see silver chains tied to a tether "all over the picture" ...

But your interpretation is your right ... I am 100% sure the girl has a chain attached to her.

I am not saying that anyone is right or wrong
The fact is I can not see what you are seeing

As far as debate, There won't be one from me about these photos for several reasons

I can't see anything
LE would have found anything and everything of value
If there was anything in the photos that would lead to finding amy, such as words, I do not believe Findamy would want them spread over the forum, putting amy in danger

All of this is only my opinion of course

 

[masootz]

here's a quick crop of the picture -

the top is the "chain" area
the middle is the area behind the bedframe
the bottom is the area behind her shoe.

i see the same type artifacting in all three areas. just my opinion.

 

[Randolph2911]

Can you please point out to me anywhere else you see a chain linked to her wrist ? I don't see them "all over the place" , I do see one chain in this location though ...

 

[Sillybilly]

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 ...

<bbm>

I think this is the first we've heard that. How do you know that Randolph?

 

[Randolph2911]

here's a quick crop of the picture -

the top is the "chain" area
the middle is the area behind the bedframe
the bottom is the area behind her shoe.

i see the same type artifacting in all three areas. just my opinion.

I don't .

 

[Randolph2911]

<bbm>

I think this is the first we've heard that. How do you know that Randolph?

Via the board on that site. I cannot take credit for the find as it was posted publicly on the web a while ago on another forums thread...

You can use the wayback machine for the forum.

You can google "Charles Croes Amy Bradley" , and see this discussed many times.

 

[neesaki]

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.

This kept me up 'til the wee hours of the morning thinking about it. It just doesn't make sense that someone would doctor Amy's face... what, to try and make it look like her? Which doesn't make sense to me. And if it was to try and not make it look like her, that sure didn't work. At first I thought maybe they were trying to maybe cover up bruising or something. :dunno:

Now I'm starting to think it was a scanned photo maybe done with poor quality equipment. I mean, I have scanned things in the past, especially back when technology wasn't so good, and the images were quite bad. Take that it has also perhaps been copied many times and what do you get.

As far as if there is actually lettering/writing, I just can't make anything out. I mean, I see something, but maybe it's just a shadow as was suggested, caused by the pressure/ indentation on the bed. I can't tell if that's a mattress cover on the mattress or just a bare mattress. If there is one, it could also wrinkle in some areas.

I do believe that's a chain on the bed though, but you're right, that doesn't make it more likely to be Amy. Just another possible detail in the photo that was previously missed. On the wrist, all I see is a dark band, I tried on my ipad as well but don't see anything else. The dark band looks like it's either made from cloth as it has a soft look to it, or it could just be blacked over on the photo, as Jersey was saying.

As far as the hair, it does look like a wig to me. jmo

 

[Randolph2911]

I am not saying that anyone is right or wrong
The fact is I can not see what you are seeing

As far as debate, There won't be one from me about these photos for several reasons

I can't see anything
LE would have found anything and everything of value
If there was anything in the photos that would lead to finding amy, such as words, I do not believe Findamy would want them spread over the forum, putting amy in danger

All of this is only my opinion of course

FindAmy put the pictures on the board ....

The fact is ... important or not ... that she's chained to the bed.

 

[Randolph2911]

I think it's possible due to some similiatries and the fact the person on the left was moderator of the board Amy's photo was on.

It may not be him ... but I think it's worth a sleuthe .. Sketches are always well done , but "perfect" is impossible so that's my .2c

I am not accusing anyone , I just feel it's worth sleuthing ..

<modsnip>

 

[neesaki]

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.

The thing about these photos, is they're so bad that they raise many unanswered questions. So here we all go, as human beings must, lol, doing everything we can to try and fill in the blanks. As we're exploring the possibilities, there are all kinds of things that can come up, some of which just lead to more questions. It can be frustrating and rather crazy making as well, and sometimes emotions can run a little high. I also can see how it might seem that we go off on tangents while we are in the midst of some of our brainstorming sessions. And we certainly don't all agree, can't possibly. If it's a dead end, thankfully, we eventually find our way back and move on.

We all can be a little sensitive at times, especially when it's a case that we really care about, such as Amy's. Also, I don't consider your or anyone's opinions offensive in the least, you, Randolph, all of us here have something to contribute. And the more questions the better, imo. Your input and opinion is very appreciated and it would so disappointing if you decided to just :lurk::seeya:

 

[Jersey*Girl]

from my own experience you get those types of artifacts when you zoom in on an image because the computer is trying to fill in the gaps. computers are inherently bad at this so you end up with weird fill patterns. when you enlarge an image and then save it, those artifacts become a permanent part of the picture. it's fine to disagree, i just was mentioning above that i think stating it as a "fact" is far-reaching. just my 2 cents.

I know, I agree masootz, but it doesn't explain the dissimilar patterns. What's shown zigzagging on the bed is not the same as what's shown around her feet & around the bed frame. Artifacts can be removed and/or softened in Photoshop anyway. The pic is a jpeg. The zigzag still shows up on the bed. This is the very main reason I believe it's a chain. It shows up as a structure with substance.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Neesaki, beautifully said.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Re this post above:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8429544&postcount=1887"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

Randolph, you can't see it in that picture that you supplied bc, when you enhanced the color, it darkened the wrist area. I posted it on the other page. I'll look, but I only saw it on my iPhone so far.

 

[danzn16]

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.

Yes, it has been stated that one eye appears to be of different shape and size. It has been said her ear appears altered. And possibly the area around her eye. And then the "written on" area around her eye. We are talking about all this alteration/distortion/writing, then how do we know the picture is too altered to make a determination? I originally believed this picture was without a doubt Amy as well. Until the very observant sleuthers here blew up Amy's picture before she was kidnapped and compared to these pictures. Her ear lobe does not match up. And ear lobes absolutely do not change in life - that is a fact. If you go back in the threads you can see much discussion about this. This may be do to the alteration though in the photo?? I do not know why they would do this if they want it to be known this was Amy though. And other parts of her facial structure is also questionable when comparing to known pics of Amy. It was said publicly that experts could never determine if this picture was actually Amy. Dr. Phil's experts could not make a determination and on the Vanished episode it was said it couldn't be determined by different experts either. The only place we have ever seen that these pictures are definitely Amy is here on WS from the verified insider and we do not know why other than the family thinks it is her. I don't know why it would change from indeterminable to certain. So that is why I am still questioning. Plus the differences in facial structure. Also it is not true what you stated that FBI verified that it's Amy. The verified insider only said that FBI believes with the family that it is Amy or likely to be Amy. The poster said nothing about verification. Big difference. I am so glad you guys are here picking apart the photo. You would think that this information of her being chained to a bed would have been released on the Dr. Phil show or on Vanished. I don't think this information would be sensitive as it can be seen on the photo and it isn't too far-fetched to believe that Amy has been held in restraints at some point in her captivity. So that's another weird point to me. But I think you guys have made a great find. The verified insider did point out that she thought it may be a tether or cuff on her wrist but mentioned nothing about the chain earlier in the threads. So I'm not even sure the verified insider or family knows about this information? I'm sure the FBI does though. And the verified insider did state many times how much the FBI doesn't share.

 

[danzn16]

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.

Please stay aboard nosyone!! It is EXCELLENT to stay skeptical and keep your mind open in cases like these. I've been active in sleuthing cases with pictures like these in which the pictures are sharped, contrasted, etc and things come out that were never in the pictures and people really believe that they are. So we need people like you! Also in those cases there are people that do alter the photos and say they didn't so that's another reason we need skepticism. I'm not saying any of the above is happening here and I don't think it is but just saying on another case it did and it could always happen in any other case. Different point of views is what makes WS wonderful and what makes us get further ahead in the case if possible. Stick around

 

[danzn16]

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.

I 100% agree. We need to be careful what we claim to be fact. These photos are so distorted I think we should all be weary to claim anything we see as fact. Unless you're a crime investigator photo analysis expert with years of experience under your belt and you contacted the FBI please don't claim anything (IMO)! Just state your opinion and leave it up the experts otherwise some people might get confused and we'll spend pages of threads clearing up rumors again.