The missing Alabama teen, Natalee Holloway would bring out some very devoted internet sleuths and analysts. One that stands above the rest is Australian Roly Roper.
After creating one of the most interesting Natalee Holloway sites, Australian Holloway site by Rolly Roper,
he decided to join the posting brigade at Refugees Unleashed in March of 2007. Here is a link to the site Rolls created.
There were many details that Roly would focus on,mainly a drowning scenario between the Marriott Beach and the Holiday Inn at the Fisherman Huts. He would question the tunnel vision of ALE dwelling too much on the Kalpoes and Joran van der Sloot as he believed cell phone usage would make body disposal difficult in the time frame allotted. He would be critical of Beth Holloway and how tourism in Aruba would be effected by the boycott of Aruba. Roly had a great mind and created many hours of good discussion on message boards.
Sat Mar 24, 2007
Poster Rolls Refugees Unleashed
Rolls responds to some photos that were posted on line, possibly of Natalee Holloway.
When Hans initially posted the club shot and Natalee side-by-side I tried it on a couple of people without preamble for their reaction. It was exactly the same as my initial reaction - there is "something wrong" with the Natalee-stranger in the club shot; it "doesn't fit" in the context somehow.
So I tried taking the two images and superimposed them using Merge, aligning on the eye pupils. It was very easy to get a good fit in several key elements such as the mouth. Too easy, and too good.
I then tried supering Natalee with *herself* using other known Natalee shots and got more of the result I was expecting - they matched, but didn't match very well and took quite a bit of work to get them even to that point.
Therefore, much as I hate to agree with the Monkeys on anything, I have to conclude that not only is the face of the girl in the club shot Natalee, it's a skilled morph of the very shot Hans posted alongside.
Fashion, p00rn and scandal rags have been doing this sort of thing for years now and the "cosmetic surgery" to nose bob, cheek bones, smile lines, &c, is simply a restrained application of exactly the same technique that turns Judge Judy et al in l'il Shango.
In the bad old days of darkrooms it was called "retouching" or "dodging".
So in a case riddled with fabricated "evidence" here's another item to confuse the issues.
As far as the rest of the Monkey logic is concerned (a plot to prove Natalee is alive); without at least something like a newspaper dated post May 30 2005 in view the shot isn't evidence of anything except the skill of the person who created it.
Tues Mar 27, 2007
Gregor Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:38 am
If it's an altered picture to prove Natalee is alive wouldn't it have been widely distributed, especially in the U.S.?
"If it's ... to prove Natalee is alive ..."
I don't think it is.
I'm reminded of some nonsense around the time of the de Veries show concerning Joran paying someone (excessively) to photoshop Natalee into a picture with him.
So I suspect a black sense of humor. I once knew a darkroom operator for a newspaper who would, for example, give some of the schoolgirls in the netball team shot subtle breast enhancements by carefully 'dodging' or darkening shaded areas - long before Photoshop - purely to see what he could get away with.
Whoever did this has demonstrated quite considerable graphics skills, and as we have clearly seen HMI are not the sharpest set of steak knives (e.g. the Boycott, the Renfro Statement, and now the Boston demo).
So if it's not just idle doodling by an artist, or someone having a good chuckle up their sleeve at all of us who still follow this case ("that'll confuse 'em, heh heh"), then it may be taken as a warning lesson to keep some healthy skepticism even when we are looking at "gold plated evidence" such as Lee Broughton's dynamite FBI302.
In the overlays she has been carefully aged, for example removing residual puppy-fat and highlighting cheek bones by changing non-critical shading areas on the cheeks. And while her eyebrows have been hijacked north a la Shango, the critical areas of the mouth and particularly the eyes have been treated very minimally - mainly introducing red-eye to match the other girls and to cover up the signature reflection of the lighting of the source shot. It's a much more skilled job than the Skeeters tape (and I "dips me lid" to the artist).
I want to be quite clear I'm not finger-pointing, just reporting my observations, and that this pic could have orginated anywhere upstream from the Powerpoint presentation where it was found, and for all sorts of reasons that have nothing material to do with this case.
De-conflating Gregor's question; yes, (IMO) it's a fake; and no, it wasn't done to prove anything.
If it contained something in the background like an airliner, building or earthwork that didn't exist in May 2005 it would be an entirely different matter. But apart from "Natalee" having apparently matured in the face a bit and got a nice tan, there is nothing to date this at all, or to show that it is genuine.
While I'm sure it has been Skeeterised I can't go long with the HMI logic that it's part of a deep plot. They see plots under every bush and we should remain careful not to be seduced to even partly buy into their paranoia.
Tue Mar 27, 2007
Rolls responds to how Joran would know whether he was the last person to have been with Natalee that night.
iwabwu Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:32 pm
Has Joran denied being the last known person to be with her?
Wabbi, of all the very many silly questions you have posed on this case, this one is a real corker. Tell me, have YOU stopped beating your partner yet?
One thing that I have found depressing following this case is that many people seem to pass through the US education system without ever being taught how to use logic and clear-thinking. Your question is an object example of that.
How on earth could Joran KNOW if Natalee encountered someone AFTER they parted?
The question is simply and literally absurd. Unless he left her with somebody else (who would then by definition be the last person currently KNOWN to be with her) he can't deny or affirm because he couldn't possibly know.
But since you ask; Edward Kissle initially said that he saw Natalee on the beach, but later CHANGED HIS STORY. Lee Broughton initially told the FBI she was out partying until "3 or 4am" yet CHANGED HER STORY, saying she went directly to bed. We already knew she and/or Ruth had to be lying because of the two unexplained 3am keycard swipes.
Using the HMI yardstick this makes them liars, criminals, rapists, and murderers.
Wabbi> How could they know in the beginning that Joran was the last one known to be with a disappeared person?
Because Edward Kissle, Lee Broughton, and FEB (at least) didn't tell the truth about seeing her LATER when J2K are known to be on-line at home.
Broughton's FBI302 is so damaging to Beth's "character establishment" of Natalee that I doubt Beth released it, rather someone with access to it trying to point to the truth, a truth that would undermine Beth's OCD war on J2K and Aruba. And who other than Lee herself would have a copy? Or is Beth really so far off her rocker she would willingly put this bomb under her own construction?
Lee's lie is absolutely critical to who saw Natalee last. To pose one of your own questions back to you, "why was the truth not good enough", in this case for Lee?
Lee could have said that at 3:20am she could see the entire sweep of Palm Beach to the huts, and didn't see Natalee. This would be no different to the mystery fishermen.
Instead she opted to write herself right out of the script altogether by telling a much more significant lie than the a couple of hundred metres between the HI front door and the Huts told by J2K.
Why is Lee still traumatised by that night while J2K weren't? Why does Lee claim "flashbacks", and these associated with "party scenes" rather than, say, waking up in the morning?
Why couldn't Lee tell the truth Wabbi?
The obvious answer is that Lee (and Edward's) truth conflicts with Beth's.
Wabbi> That's one of the unanswered questions in my mind.
I have been reading your questions and the responses to them for a long time now, and given the obvious choice between you being an utterly witless bonehead, or fundamentally dishonest, I have concluded that you are the latter. You appear to be one of those Christians who thinks you can hide your dishonesty from God, but if you're such an open book in this life, your arse is toast in the next.
:: Next >>