Re: Another look at the Last photo

by HelenMeg 08.11.14 16:25

Yes, if you refer to Page 3 of this thread - to the photo labelled 'The Ocean Club Swimming Pools' that PeterMac posted, then you can see the distance between the pool edge and the tree and the white wall.
With that in mind, look again at the Last Photo, and you can see that Gerry is far far too big in proportion to the tree ......

When you look at the photo on page 3 of the thread you can see what proportion of the tree a grown man would cover - and then looking at the Last photo you see that Gerry takes up almost the width of the tree!
Just not possible

by HelenMeg 08.11.14 16:30

Further to that, his shorts appear to cut off abruptly at the rim of the white pool edge. This could only happen if the rim was a raised 'lip' which it clearly is not - when you look at it in other areas.
I hope you can understand what I mean.

by Guest 08.11.14 16:42

Another look at the Last photo - Page 9 1_j16

This picture is from page three of this thread.
Where is the wall in the pool side photo?

Another look at the Last photo - Page 9 1_j15

by HelenMeg 08.11.14 16:44

Peter Mac believes that Gerry + children were sitting roughly where you can see the 3 children sitting - the wall is behind them... then the tree then the wall

by bobbin 08.11.14 16:49

WMD wrote:

This picture is from page three of this thread.
Where is the wall in the pool side photo?

The wall is behind the two loungers at the pool edge. The shadows just tip upwards a bit at the wall. The other loungers have shadows that don't tip up.

by Guest 08.11.14 16:55

If you look directly behind Madeleine she is in line with the tree,take that line to the top picture then behind GM should be? those covered areas?

by HelenMeg 08.11.14 17:01

Would like to pinpoint where they were sitting - Im not totally convinced..

by HelenMeg 08.11.14 17:02

WMD wrote:If you look directly behind Madeleine she is in line with the tree,take that line to the top picture then behind GM should be? those covered areas?

I think perhaps the covered areas would be out of view - too much to the right to feature..?

by Guest 08.11.14 17:17

HelenMeg wrote:
WMD wrote:If you look directly behind Madeleine she is in line with the tree,take that line to the top picture then behind GM should be? those covered areas?
I think perhaps the covered areas would be out of view - too much to the right to feature..?

Then there should be more empty space behind them IMO.

by Hicks 08.11.14 17:25

HelenMeg I'm with you. GM has been pasted in, that's why he appears to float at the edge of the pool and not to be sitting on it. Perhaps that's why his shadow is all wrong as some here believe.

I mentioned in an earlier post that his chest/trunk at the waist looks like it has been pasted on as it doesn't look right.

What with the info about the investigation into the creche records on the Naylor thread, the picture seems to be getting a bit clearer imo.

by canada12 08.11.14 17:31

Just for perspective purposes, here's The Last Photo superimposed over a picture of the pool area without people in it. I remember when this other photo was taken - someone on one of the forums specifically went to PDL with the intention of capturing the pool area as it would have been seen by the person taking the photo. The perspective isn't perfect, but it does give you some reference points as to where they were all sitting:

https://s778.photobucket.com/user/HiDeHo1/media/pool2.jpg.html
Another look at the Last photo - Page 9 Pool2

Another look at the Last photo - Page 9 Pool2

by Guest 08.11.14 17:39

Thanks for that Canada,the open area isn't as big as I thought.

by canada12 08.11.14 22:05

One other thing I'd like to mention, and that's the odd object behind Amelie which has never been adequately explained to my satisfaction.

IMO someone intended that to be the pool depth marker, however it cannot be the pool depth marker because of where it's actually located, and where the three people are sitting in The Last Photo.

The second reason I believe it cannot be the pool depth marker is because if you look at it between Amelie and Madeleine in The Last Photo, between Amelie's body and her left arm, you can see that it's a black stripe, with a white stripe underneath it, followed by a grey area which I think is supposed to be a shadow area.

However if you look at the depth marker on the other photo, you can see that it is white, and only slightly raised from the pool apron, and certainly wouldn't have a thick black stripe visible at its top edge, the way it's shown in The Last Photo. If it was genuinely the pool depth marker in The Last Photo, it would be a whitish rectangle behind Amelie, with no shading, since it would be in direct sun, and certainly not a solid black line as portrayed.

Also, the pool depth marker is located in the middle of the white part of the pool apron, not on the paving stone part. The black and white thing behind Amelie in The Last Photo is very definitely located on the paving stone part, not the white part.

So either it's NOT the pool depth marker and it's something else - but then, what??
Or it's someone attempting to put the depth marker in, but failing badly.

Here's the marker on The Last Photo:
Another look at the Last photo - Page 9 Whitething

Another look at the Last photo - Page 9 Whitething

Here it is on the pool photo:
Another look at the Last photo - Page 9 Poolwithdepthmarker

by HelenMeg 09.11.14 11:36

Yes this black stripe is odd - and cannot be the pool depth marker. So what is it?

I also find strange that on the photo on page 3 of the thread, the distances between the pool, tree and wall look relatively long - whereas in the photo in your post - there doesnt look to be much distance at
all between pool and tree. That may be just perspective and angle.

However, I maintain that Gerry has been placed in the photo and there is no way he is sitting on that pool edge. He is too 'enlarged' and
has been 'dropped' on there, IMO of course.

Oh yes and it came to me last night that the sunglasses may have been 'needed' to conceal the eyes - as when he was 'shunted into place' in the photo they needed to give the impression his eyes were pointing towards camera. Hence the awkward angle at which he sits. Someone took a lot of time and trouble trying to get this right! IMO

HANG ON !! Now I understand why it looks so odd - as I write it has just come to me. IN ORDER TO MAKE IT look like a normal posed family photo - Gerry was shunted on to make it look as if he was pointing at the
'photograph taker'.... if he were sitting naturally on the edge of the pool as people do, he would have been pointing at a right angle to the pool edge. People sit at the edge of a pool dangling their legs in and looking straight ahead. In order to be placed in this photo Gerry had to be made to face the camera and therefore he is not sitting properly at the pool edge.
Can you understand what I am trying to say? Have to go now ... please someone - can you see what I am trying to say...

by Nina 09.11.14 11:53

canada12 wrote:One other thing I'd like to mention, and that's the odd object behind Amelie which has never been adequately explained to my satisfaction.

IMO someone intended that to be the pool depth marker, however it cannot be the pool depth marker because of where it's actually located, and where the three people are sitting in The Last Photo.

The second reason I believe it cannot be the pool depth marker is because if you look at it between Amelie and Madeleine in The Last Photo, between Amelie's body and her left arm, you can see that it's a black stripe, with a white stripe underneath it, followed by a grey area which I think is supposed to be a shadow area.

However if you look at the depth marker on the other photo, you can see that it is white, and only slightly raised from the pool apron, and certainly wouldn't have a thick black stripe visible at its top edge, the way it's shown in The Last Photo. If it was genuinely the pool depth marker in The Last Photo, it would be a whitish rectangle behind Amelie, with no shading, since it would be in direct sun, and certainly not a solid black line as portrayed.

Also, the pool depth marker is located in the middle of the white part of the pool apron, not on the paving stone part. The black and white thing behind Amelie in The Last Photo is very definitely located on the paving stone part, not the white part.

So either it's NOT the pool depth marker and it's something else - but then, what??
Or it's someone attempting to put the depth marker in, but failing badly.

Here's the marker on The Last Photo:

Here it is on the pool photo:

Failing eyesight and cannot locate my magnifying glass can anyone see what the depth is at, is it 90cms? Not really important at the moment but could be. We need as many facts about this location as possible, all imo of course, and I am not trying to derail this thread for those who may think that I am.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 12:14

HelenMeg wrote:However, I maintain that Gerry has been placed in the photo and there is no way he is sitting on that pool edge. He is too 'enlarged' and
has been 'dropped' on there, IMO of course.

HANG ON!! Now I understand why it looks so odd - as I write it has just come to me. IN ORDER TO MAKE IT look like a normal posed family photo - Gerry was shunted on to make it look as if he was pointing at the 'photograph taker'...if he were sitting naturally on the edge of the pool as people do, he would have been pointing at a right angle to the pool edge. People sit at the edge of a pool dangling their legs in and looking straight ahead. In order to be placed in this photo Gerry had to be made to face the camera and therefore he is not sitting properly at the pool edge.

Your analysis of where Gerry is facing is completely undermined by the senior academic expert whom PeterMac consulted, who said (see other Last Photo threrad):

QUOTE:

"I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent - they are."

UNQUOTE

If Gerry McCann had been 'turned round' and photoshopped in, as you suggest HelenMeg, then his shadow would NOT be consistent with those of Madeleine and Amelie.

Just to make it clear, the expert basically said that all three individuals were snapped at the same time.

And the other expert that PeterMac consulted came, independently, to the very same conclusion

by juliet 09.11.14 12:42

This photoshop "expert" becomes more distinguished every time TB posts. Now he is a "senior academic expert"...in a few minutes he will be chief academic forensic photographic expert to the Queen. Yet all I recall PeterMac saying is that his experts thought it "likely" the Last Photo wasn't shopped. For some reason TB and Blubag are thumping on and on to say these mysterious Lords of Academic Expertise deny any manipulation, absolutely and on oath, for all time. The problem is that if it can be shown that yes, there was a glimpse of sun on May 3 and that was when the last photo was taken - well, end of TB argument.

by Briohazard 09.11.14 12:43

I always thought the black/white/grey bit was;
Black- gerrys elbow shadow
White- remainder of edge of the the pool
Grey- amelies shadow

Maybe? I never thought it was a pool marker, I just assumed the above

by **PeterMac** 09.11.14 12:51

juliet wrote:The problem is that if it can be shown that yes, there was a glimpse of sun on May 3 and that was when the last photo was taken - well, end of TB argument.

I don't think so.

You dress each morning for the conditions you see and expect for the majority of the day.
A glimpse of sun at exactly 13;29 or 14:29 may find you overdressed for two minutes, just as a sudden shower on an otherwise fine day catches you without your raincoat and umbrella.
So you shelter in the doorway of a shop, with everyone else . . . and then carry on with your life when it stops.
Gerry and the children are dressed for a hot DAY, not a hot five minutes. He is sweating and has sunglasses, T shirt and short shorts.
It is hot and sunny and has been hot and sunny and will continue to be hot and sunny
It was a hot and sunny and calm DAY
3/5/7 wasn't.
29/4/7 was

by Guest 09.11.14 12:59

The question is, is there enough circumstantial eveidence to prove the date has been manipulated as would be required by a court of law. Or would hard evidence such as that extractable from the Canon be necessary?

by plebgate 09.11.14 13:36

PeterMac wrote:
juliet wrote:The problem is that if it can be shown that yes, there was a glimpse of sun on May 3 and that was when the last photo was taken - well, end of TB argument.

I don't think so.

You dress each morning for the conditions you see and expect for the majority of the day.
A glimpse of sun at exactly 13;29 or 14:29 may find you overdressed for two minutes, just as a sudden shower on an otherwise fine day catches you without your raincoat and umbrella.
So you shelter in the doorway of a shop, with everyone else . . . and then carry on with your life when it stops.
Gerry and the children are dressed for a hot DAY, not a hot five minutes. He is sweating and has sunglasses, T shirt and short shorts.
It is hot and sunny and has been hot and sunny and will continue to be hot and sunny
It was a hot and sunny and calm DAY
3/5/7 wasn't.
29/4/7 was

As SY have this info. one would think they at least would be asking questions of the parents about it - wouldn't one?

One might also think it would have been a good idea if the police had asked them to do a lie detector test before spending millions of pounds working backwards on the re-investigation - wouldn't one?

Even if a lie detector result could not be used in court I am sure if they passed with flying colours - most, if not all questioners, would say fair play to them and wait for the result of the re-investigation. I know I would.

by bobbin 09.11.14 14:43

Tony Bennett wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:However, I maintain that Gerry has been placed in the photo and there is no way he is sitting on that pool edge. He is too 'enlarged' and
has been 'dropped' on there, IMO of course.

HANG ON!! Now I understand why it looks so odd - as I write it has just come to me. IN ORDER TO MAKE IT look like a normal posed family photo - Gerry was shunted on to make it look as if he was pointing at the 'photograph taker'...if he were sitting naturally on the edge of the pool as people do, he would have been pointing at a right angle to the pool edge. People sit at the edge of a pool dangling their legs in and looking straight ahead. In order to be placed in this photo Gerry had to be made to face the camera and therefore he is not sitting properly at the pool edge.
Your analysis of where Gerry is facing is completely undermined by the senior academic expert whom PeterMac consulted, who said (see other Last Photo threrad):

QUOTE:

"I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent - they are."

UNQUOTE

If Gerry McCann had been 'turned round' and photoshopped in, as you suggest HelenMeg, then his shadow would NOT be consistent with those of Madeleine and Amelie.

Just to make it clear, the expert basically said that all three individuals were snapped at the same time.

And the other expert that PeterMac consulted came, independently, to the very same conclusion

Tony, you will hopefully have realised by now that there are many posters here who do not accept the 'experts' view.

The lay person who successfully can navigate through life, not tripping over every uneven surface in the pavement, is quite capable of making very accurate visual judgements, without having to 'prove' by taking examination papers that they can see what they see and where they are going.

So, I would thank you very much for not implying that failure to accept an apparent 'expert's' view on any matter is de facto a failure to be able to make another judgement, equally as valid.

Since you seem to be answering for PeterMac and his experts could you please ask them to explain how there is a vertical image of the horizontal wall of the swimming pool reflected in Gerry's sunglasses.

Also, how they can state that the light sources for the shadow of the dandelion on the ground behind it and of Gerry's nose in a downward and forward angle onto his chin can be simultaneously the same.

If one were to put a light source on a tall pole and shine it until the dandelion shadow coincided with how it shows in the photo and if one looked at Gerry's nose casting its own shadow, the nose shadow would fall in a different place. This must indicate that there are two different light sources.

Since the two shadows show different light sources, either Gerry has been photo-shopped or the dandelion has been, since they both demonstrate a different shadow behaviour pattern in the one photo.

Now, I can see every good reason for Gerry wanting to be able to claim to have been in the photo, on his claimed 3rd May, but I cannot see why he would want the dandelion to have its shadow falling in a manner not consistent with his own. For this reason I would suspect that Gerry has been photo-shopped in and the dandelion is a constant.

A simple couple of questions.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 15:02

bobbin wrote:
Also, how they can state that the light sources for the shadow of the dandelion on the ground behind it and of Gerry's nose in a downward and forward angle onto his chin can be simultaneously the same..

OK, I have looked again and again at the dandelion and its shadow, but I do not see what you see.

What I see on the picture is a very high sun making short shadows, and with my untrained eye all the shadows look of consistent length - an opinion backed up by two experts, one of whom used a detailed forensic analysis to say so.

In order to assist the debate about the dandelion, could you please help us with the best quality enlargement of the dandelion and its shadow, then we can analyse what we see or think we see

by HelenMeg 09.11.14 15:07

Also - I'd like to know where the photographer was standing when they took this. Why are the legs chopped off - try and imagine taking this photo - imagine yourself as the photographer and see how difficult it would be to take this shot, where you miss the legs supposedly dangling into the water. I'm going to try and imagine where I would stand

by HelenMeg 09.11.14 15:18

I feel that Gerry has been 'placed' into the photo because:

if you look closely at the rim of the pool edge and follow it around - from the left of Gerry right around until you see it between Amelie and Madeleine - you can see that it is not ridged at all - it is a flat surface - there is NO raised lip at the edge. However, when you look at the part of it between Gerry's legs it appears as if there is a raised lip. It is a flat surface and yet Gerry's shorts appear to be obscured from view by 'the raised lip'.

The shorts material stops abruptly in a straight line as if the edging is a raised lip - which clearly it is not. How can this be explained other than by Gerry having been 'shopped in'. Can anyone explain this please?