Re: Another look at the Last photo

by bobbin 09.11.14 15:19

Tony Bennett wrote:
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

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/gestalt-3AsTheKTPHorg.jpg
If you copy and paste the above link into the tool bar, you will get a good clear picture that you can highlight and enlarge in detail.

Relative to the clock face, Gerry's nose shadow falls at about 5.30 and the dandelion photo falls at about 2 o'clock.

The dandelion is a small distance from the base of the wall and its shadow moves along the ground a little before it rises behind the dandelion itself onto the vertical stone wall.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 15:20

Dee Coy wrote:The question is, is there enough circumstantial evidence to prove the date has been manipulated as would be required by a court of law

Almost certainly not, but it is one issue that can be put into the melting pot with a lot of other circumstantial evidence in this case

Or would hard evidence such as that extractable from the Canon be necessary?

That could prove conclusive. I'm not sure the PJ were ever allowed to see that evidence, though. I doubt if it's still available - although IF Gerry McCann still has it, he could make the whole memory card and the EXIF data available so that we could all KNOW that he is telling the truth about the Last Photo

by HelenMeg 09.11.14 15:27

Bobbin - good point about the dandelion. I am not at all good with shadows for some reason though...

Could you, Bobbin, check out something that I have noticed and see if you agree...
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'.

by Nina 09.11.14 15:56

bobbin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
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
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/gestalt-3AsTheKTPHorg.jpg
If you copy and paste the above link into the tool bar, you will get a good clear picture that you can highlight and enlarge in detail.

Relative to the clock face, Gerry's nose shadow falls at about 5.30 and the dandelion photo falls at about 2 o'clock.

The dandelion is a small distance from the base of the wall and its shadow moves along the ground a little before it rises behind the dandelion itself onto the vertical stone wall.

Thank you Bobbin for that link. With the help of the zoom in and out facility it is a very good reproduction to examine. Now back to Gerry's thighs, and no I am not a frustrated old lady nah

but if any of us, thin, plump, normal or obese were to sit on anything with a hard edge like the edge of that pool then not only would our thighs flatten, but the area where the edge were then there would be a very clear dip down in the flesh. Gerry though has a smooth line.
You will gather Tony and PeterMac that I am questioning the report from the two very clever people who say it is genuine. I am not trying to disrupt the thread and will shut up, as I do mostly, from now on.

by bobbin 09.11.14 16:06

HelenMeg wrote:Bobbin - good point about the dandelion. I am not at all good with shadows for some reason though...

Could you, Bobbin, check out something that I have noticed and see if you agree...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'.

REPLY: I can't agree. Apart from all the other objections to the idea that Gerry has been 'shopped in', this would be a difficult operation because Amelie is in front of him. Usually the way photoshopping works is that the individual shopped in is in front of others. Another strong objection to this suggestion is how likely it would be that two children aged 3 and just over 2 would be left at the edge of a swimming pool like that. I very much doubt it. I am content with the explanation that Seam was with Kate and Kate took the picture from the other side of the pool.

Incidentally, in answer to your query, HelenMeg, as to why the legs are cut off: ANSWER: Because the photographer has zoomed in to focus on the people and the wall behind.

HelenMeg, I agree with you entirely about the lip, the shorts etc.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/gestalt-3AsTheKTPHorg.jpg

I enclose the above link again, to be able to look in close and expanded detail at the pool picture.

It is noticeable that there is a difference in 'acuity' between the left hand side of the picture (to Gerry's right) and the right hand side of the picture (to Amelie and Maddie's left)

in :-
1. The vertical, blue, pool-side tiles.
2. The horizontal beige patio stone tiles.
3. The depth/height of the top blue line of tiles under the pool rim/edge.
4. The pool edging stone.

REPLY: Not that I notice.

1. The tiles beneath and between Gerry's legs seem closer and marginally larger than those to our left.
2. The stones seem at a slightly different horizontal angle and their image sharpness is more muted than those to our right.
3. The line of blue tiles just under the pool rim between Gerry's legs appear thicker/higher than those to our left.
4. The edging stone has a less sharp image to our left than to our right.

REPLY: Again I do not see these differences - or if there are any subtle differences, I think these are explicable without needing to suggest, as youj do, that two photos have been merged.

This makes me think that two photos at least were taken, from either slightly different positions (distance and height) or with slightly different camera settings (maybe even a different camera).

In terms of PeterMac's experts, they may well have found that the three people seem to carry the same shadow effect, but that shadow effect does not agree with the 'constants' in the photo, namely the dandelion, the tree, its rough bark shadows, and of course, the shadows of the stones in the little wall.

REPLY: The shadows of the rocks behind the dandelion have shadows that seem in perfect accordance with what we see elsewhere in the photo - a high sun, slightly behind the the individulas. Nothing to see there IMO.

As for the dandelion, I note two lower leaves spreading out to the right; these seem to me to account for the shadow below.

Were the angle of the dandelion shadow also applied to the shadow from the wisp of hair on Maddie's left shoulder, then the wisp shadow would fall in a different place, namely to the right of the wisp and further towards the back of Maddie's shoulder.

Where the shadow of Maddie's nose is I don't know.

It should, according even to the shadows shown for Gerry, Amelie and Maddie, be visibly at the edge of her pink top. It isn't and yet Gerry's nose shadow does show.

REPLY: There is only a tiny bit of shadow on Maddie's nose, not nearly sufficient IMO to produce anything very noticeable by way of a shadow.

The raised rim which you noticed on the edge of the pool between Gerry's legs is not consistent with any other part of the pool edge be it in sharp focus or even slightly hazy.

REPLY: Again I fail to see any obvious 'raised rim' which mght be sufficient to suggest that Gerry has been photoshopped in from another photograph.

by j.rob 09.11.14 17:38

Nina wrote:
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.

Good point. Plus take a close look at what is supposed to be Amelie's left arm and the crease of her wrist. You cannot see most of her left hand because it is supposedly hidden behind Madeleine. But given Amelie's seated stance with a bent elbow, the only plausible position, imo, for her right hand would for it to be resting flat on the pool edge.

She would not have a bent elbow and then a hand hanging down as is suggested by the photo as that would be uncomfortable and would cause her shoulder to be hunched up. Yet from the glimpse of what should be her left hand below the wrist crease, her hand is too high above the pool-side to be able to reach the ground. And also, as already stated, her hand appears to be hanging down, not palm down on the ground with fingers spread as would be consistent with the sitting stance.

I also think that the arm looks out of proportion to the body in the photo above. The forearm looks too long.

TM always seem to get it wrong when it comes to hands/fingers in their (photo-shopped, imo) photos. Plus get it wrong with body proportions.

The devil is in the detail, so they say.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 17:44

One other very important point to bring out here is the number of ways in which a perfectly genuine photo can look fake - because of a phenomenon known as 'jpeg compression'.

Here's an introduction to this important subject - especially the subject of jpeg compression producing 'artifacts':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact

by rustyjames 09.11.14 17:48

Lots of comments on this thread since I last looked this morning. I don't have lots of time but my opinion on a few of them.

HelenMeg wrote:
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.

Yes - the last photo was taken with a focal length 21.7mm which is the equivalent of 104.2mm on a 35mm camera and is towards the telephoto end. The photo on page 3 was taken with a focal length of 7.9mm on a Sony DSC-200 which has the same sensor size as the Canon and the equivalent would be 37.9mm on a 35mm which is fairly wide angle.

The effect on perspective is shown here ...

Another look at the Last photo - Page 10 Wntlines

Another look at the Last photo - Page 10 Wntlines

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.

But the pool is round. You would only face at right angles in that case if the photographer was on the far side of the pool.

by Guest 09.11.14 18:13

rustyjames wrote:Lots of comments on this thread since I last looked this morning. I don't have lots of time but my opinion on a few of them.

HelenMeg wrote:
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.

Yes - the last photo was taken with a focal length 21.7mm which is the equivalent of 104.2mm on a 35mm camera and is towards the telephoto end. The photo on page 3 was taken with a focal length of 7.9mm on a Sony DSC-200 which has the same sensor size as the Canon and the equivalent would be 37.9mm on a 35mm which is fairly wide angle.

The effect on perspective is shown here ...

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.

But the pool is round. You would only face at right angles in that case if the photographer was on the far side of the pool.

The number of hours I have wasted with people who think a picture "isn't right" but just don't understand cameras and all the parameters that can be involved.

It goes hand in hand with their usual lack of understanding of compression algorithms and camera internal enhancement software.

by rustyjames 09.11.14 19:01

HelenMeg wrote:Bobbin - good point about the dandelion. I am not at all good with shadows for some reason though...

Could you, Bobbin, check out something that I have noticed and see if you agree...
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'.

All I can see is a possible slight lip on the pool edge and a pair of shorts that are bulging outwards and flattened at the base from being sat upon.

by rustyjames 09.11.14 19:08

Nina wrote:

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.

0.60m I think - the sign is facing as you would enter the pool.

by Nina 09.11.14 19:34

rustyjames wrote:
Nina wrote:

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.

0.60m I think - the sign is facing as you would enter the pool.

Many thanks for that rustyjames roses

by rustyjames 09.11.14 19:36

bobbin wrote:
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.

I must admit I've always found that strange, however someone who has achieved all the other level of photoshopping that has been suggested would not make a mistake on a detail like that when they were pasting it in.

The explanation I believe is that between Gerry and the photographer is part of the lip of Amelie's hat and then the pool edge. It is not horizontal as it's the rounded edge of the pool - in fact from the photographer's perpective it is mostly vertical with an anti-clockwise curve from them to the subject.

Now that curve is reflected in the left part of the lens which is concave. The effect is to straighten the curve of the pool - in fact it has done so so much that it has introduced a very slight curve in the opposite direction. The dark patch to the right of the reflection is possibly a shadow - maybe even from the photographer.

More here ... https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10497p80-another-look-at-the-last-photo#286981

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.

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.

The sun is high up and slightly in front, (i.e. somewhere around SSW). The shadows are down and slightly away from the photographer.

Now Gerry's nose and the dandelion leaf are pointing in completely different directions, but both cast shadows consistent with the above. Had the leaf been pointing in the same direction then its shadow would also be in roughly the same direction.

The mistake is possibly considering the light to be coming from behind to cast the shadow on Gerry?

by j.rob 09.11.14 19:41

HelenMeg wrote: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...

I agree. Everything about the photo is peculiar. If it was a genuine happy family photo of Gerry , Amelie and Madeleine dipping their feet into chilly water in a pool on a relatively cool day it would look completely different, imo.

There is only one person staring in a quite desperate way at the camera, and that is Gerry. This indicates to me that Gerry was quite desperate to 'prove' that he, Amelie and Madeleine were all enjoying each other's company at the OC pool complex on Thursday lunch-time.

When, in fact, that is not what was happening.

The photo is ridiculous, as Gerry might say.

In my opinion, obviously!

by rustyjames 09.11.14 20:48

HelenMeg wrote: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

Yes it's not the greatest photo ever taken. You could argue the positioning of Amelie and Madeleine at least comes close to following the rule of thirds smilie

Given the 21.7mm focal length it would have been a considerable distance away. It would be possible to calculate the approx distance from the focal length (21.7mm), the sensor size of the camera (7.144 x 5.358 mm), and some assumptions about the known height of something in the picture, (e.g. a guess at the height of Gerry's torso), and some estimates as the percentage of the frame it takes up.

I'm not guaranteeing this calculation and I'd appreciate someone sanitising it as I've not tried to calculate this before, but using a rough guess of Gerry's torso and head as 0.85m and taking up half the frame height.

(21.7mm / 5.358mm) x 0.85m = 3.44m to fill the frame, therefore 6.88m away to half fill the frame.

by rustyjames 09.11.14 20:55

Putting that figure onto a Google Earth map from June 2007 looks reasonable .....

Another look at the Last photo - Page 10 Screenshot2014-11-09204738_zps849bc29c

Another look at the Last photo - Page 10 Screenshot2014-11-09204738_zps849bc29c

by juliet 09.11.14 21:27

What I have noticed (apart from GM's ginormously fat left arm below the elbow!) is the usual lack of interaction between him and the children. He is slumped, hand on hip presumably, not touching or looking at these toddlers. Any normal man would have half an eye on them, lively kids on the edge of the pool, or at least have an arm or hand on a shoulder. But in in so many pics he is grimacing, mouth open, as if pasted in as an afterthought.

by sarliv 09.11.14 22:17

BlueBag wrote:
rustyjames wrote:Lots of comments on this thread since I last looked this morning. I don't have lots of time but my opinion on a few of them.

HelenMeg wrote:
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.

Yes - the last photo was taken with a focal length 21.7mm which is the equivalent of 104.2mm on a 35mm camera and is towards the telephoto end. The photo on page 3 was taken with a focal length of 7.9mm on a Sony DSC-200 which has the same sensor size as the Canon and the equivalent would be 37.9mm on a 35mm which is fairly wide angle.

The effect on perspective is shown here ...

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.

But the pool is round. You would only face at right angles in that case if the photographer was on the far side of the pool.

The number of hours I have wasted with people who think a picture "isn't right" but just don't understand cameras and all the parameters that can be involved.

It goes hand in hand with their usual lack of understanding of compression algorithms and camera internal enhancement software.

Bluebag with this post you have given yourself away as being Tony Bennett.
Game over.

by sarliv 09.11.14 22:49

Tony Bennett wrote:One other very important point to bring out here is the number of ways in which a perfectly genuine photo can look fake - because of a phenomenon known as 'jpeg compression'.

Here's an introduction to this important subject - especially the subject of jpeg compression producing 'artifacts':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact

by ultimaThule 09.11.14 23:06

juliet wrote:What I have noticed (apart from GM's ginormously fat left arm below the elbow!) is the usual lack of interaction between him and the children. He is slumped, hand on hip presumably, not touching or looking at these toddlers. Any normal man would have half an eye on them, lively kids on the edge of the pool, or at least have an arm or hand on a shoulder. But in so many pics he is grimacing, mouth open, as if pasted in as an afterthought.

The simple explanation is that either he, or whatever child/ren he's depicted with, have been pasted in to give the impression of family bliss or he's not a normal man, juliet, and at the present time I see no reason to discount either possibility.

by plebgate 09.11.14 23:14

sarliv wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:One other very important point to bring out here is the number of ways in which a perfectly genuine photo can look fake - because of a phenomenon known as 'jpeg compression'.

Here's an introduction to this important subject - especially the subject of jpeg compression producing 'artifacts':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact

Err, not quite sure what you are saying - Tony Bennet posted this before Blue Bag posted his comments.

Is it not possible that Blue bag read the link Tony posted and was agreeing that people had a lack of knowledge about compression issues?

Maybe I am wrong, but it is a possibility so I can't see how you can state for sure that TB has been busted?

by juliet 10.11.14 0:14

UltimaThule....one of the pictures which is proven photoshopped is GM in a suit, mouth agape, pushed in behind KM and baby Madeleine. KM looks about 10 years younger than in 2007 and is wearing a suit and camisole. Even the pic on the wall is faked according to senior academic experts.

by Guest 10.11.14 8:29

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/bm/05.jpg

I think that this is the photo you mean, Juliet. Do you have a link to it being confirmed as not genuine?

It certainly would throw doubt on other photos if one was proved to be a fake.

I just can't see what would be the point of doctoring (pun fully intended) a photo which has no relevance to Madeleine's disappearance.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.14 9:18

sarliv wrote:
Bluebag with this post you have given yourself away as being Tony Bennett.

Game over.

I think BlueBag will be coming along a bit later to deny that he is me.

But how will anyone know?

Where is the proof that he's not me?

@ BlueBag

BlueBag! Help!

sarliv will never believe me.

Will he, perhaps, believe you?

by juliet 10.11.14 9:59

Thank you Marian. That's the one. You can see that he has been put in too close to the baby and a photoshop expert showed that he was definitely added later. All the pixels or whatever were completely different. I don't know what the point was or why Kate looks 25 and not 35.