Re: Analyzing position of sun in last photo

by juliet 11.11.14 22:45

I have written about 237 posts on this thread saying it is my absolute belief that the last photo is utterly fake and Tony you seize on an obviously ironic comment to claim I insist the photo was taken on May 3!! Many posts back I said (sarcastically) that Atomic Peanut would claim that McCann had been doing press ups or started a fever to ecplain why he was so hot and sweaty on May 3. Atomic P said iirc that actually Gerry had been playing tennis hence the redness etc. Why TB had to invoke Kate's book so inappropriately I simply don't know. Who believes a word she says about anything, least of all May 3.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.11.14 22:52

j.rob wrote:I've written extensively on this thread why in my opinion the photo appears to be a fake.

Thanks for the prompt reply. Sorry if I've missed some of the points below

The body proportions are wrong.

I disagree

Amelie's right arm is missing.

It is not missing, it is behind her, resting on the ground - like Madeleine's

Gerry's upper body is far too big for his lower body.

I disagree

Amelie's right hand is not flat on the pool-side but appears to be hanging down which is inconsistent with the bent elbow of the left arm.

I disagree

Madeleine's head is at an impossible angle to her body

Why? She's just looking to her right at something

and appears 'stuck on'.

Not to me

Gerry is 'floating' above the pool.

An apparent effect because of the limitations of or parameters of a digital photograph

What they are wearing is inconsistent with a relatively cool day with a fairly strong wind.

That's because it was taken on a very warm, sunny day

The water would be chilly so I think it is unlikely they would be sitting with their legs in the water in such light clothes.

Yes they would, if it was a very warm, sunny day. As were Sunday and Monday that week

And so on. The whole photo looks like a composite to me.

I think one of the problems you and other 'photoshopping' advocates have is that you see multiple bits of photoshopping everywhere, s in your phrase: 'and so on'. How credible is it, really, that they photoshopped it in so many ways?

And isn't your central argument the very unscientific argument that 'bobbin' employed, which boils down to: "I can see this with my vewy own eyes, why can't you?" and "I don't need to hear the views of photographic experts, I trust my own eyes"

With no interaction between any of them.

That could equally be said of a great percentage of photos of people

Gerry staring in desperation at whoever is taking the photograph.

Sorry, but how on earth do you see 'desperation' behind those sunglasses?

Despite Gerry and Amelie being so close together there is no interaction at all between them.

See my reply above

And his right arm fades somewhat strangely behind her.

Nothing so strange as to make me think it's been photoshopped

As others have said, Gerry's legs also look odd.

Nothing so odd as to make me think it's been photoshopped

Those are just my views on the 'last photo'.

Thank you. It looks like we must agree to disagree.

Plus, why did it take so long to be published? Three weeks - that is ludicrous, as Gerry would say.

Of course, the $64,000 question. The suggestion that the photo is a genuine photo - but taken on Sunday or Monday - perfectly answers that question.

It needed someone to 'fix' the metadata/EXIF date and time

by **Tony Bennett** 11.11.14 22:54

juliet wrote: Atomic P said iirc that actually Gerry had been playing tennis hence the redness etc.

OK, I see.

He was wrong.

So you were also wrong

by MRNOODLES 11.11.14 22:56

Just as a thought, has anybody got photos on their computers? Zoomed in on various parts and noticed weird anomalies? I have it's just the wonderful world of digital images.

IMO I haven't been convinced of any serious photoshopping (maybe a tweak of the contrast here and there). Again my opinion, the deception of the photo/s is in regards when they were supposed to have been taken.

by juliet 11.11.14 23:05

Tony, I have always said the photo is an absolute fake. Why would I have suddenly gone off my head and started saying it was genuine and taken on May 3 - let alone explaining McCann's face.Yet because you don't get sarcasm or remember our many previous discussions you call
me a liar!

by rustyjames 11.11.14 23:09

He does seem to have fairly chunky forearms considering this is at more of an oblique angle, or is this photoshopped too given nearly every photo seems to have been claimed to look odd at some point?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by missbeetle 11.11.14 23:16

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Amelie (aged 2 years) appears to be wearing a perfectly-applied sweep of Nearly Black eyeliner...

Why?

Eye kohl used on children -as seen in the Indian subcontinent - is soft, and smudges easily -

- this line looks like it was created with a sharp and expensive pencil (dangerous, and costly...!)

- or with liquid eyeliner paint - a much stabler line, but very tricky to draw, even on oneself -

- let alone a blinking, eye-rubbing, active toddler.

30 years of amateur experience with eyeliner tells me this looks bizarre.

Could it be photoshopped in, perhaps?

My observations only.

by Guest 11.11.14 23:19

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I mix an awful lot with young children and I have never NEVER seen one with a black line above their eyelashes along the line of their top lid like the above. Not even in very dark haired children. To me it looks like make-up. It looks like she has mascara on as well, she certainly has very dark lashes for a very blonde child.

IMO either this child has been photographed with eyeliner on or it has been photoshopped in later. Both seem very odd to me - eye liner on a 18 month old child? Why?

All in my opinion.

ETA: Our posts crossed MissBeetle, I have left mine in to re-inforce the point. Great minds think alike big grin

by **Tony Bennett** 11.11.14 23:28

juliet wrote:Tony, I have always said the photo is an absolute fake. Why would I have suddenly gone off my head and started saying it was genuine and taken on May 3 - let alone explaining McCann's face.Yet because you don't get sarcasm or remember our many previous discussions you call
me a liar!

Actually, I said that you and Atomic Peanut were 'wrong'. Which is very different.

Isn't it?

What I see from your posts is a lot of rather aggressive abuse, as in:

'Just use your eyes for once Bluebag instead of bleating on'.

'You can't tell the difference between a hat and hair? Bluebag - no wonder you can't get what we are saying'.

'You don't get sarcasm'.

'I have never in my years here seen such a concerted effort to say black is white'.

'TB and Bluebag are so fixated on the weather'.

'TB and Bluebag try to shut down all debate'.

'TB and BlueBag even demand that people ignore the evidence of their own eyes'.

'TB and BlueBag have forgotten how to use their eyes. Or common sense'.

'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'

'Stop snarling BlueBag at everyone who points out the facts'.

'It feels as if the thought police are stalking the forum'.

It doesn't look like we are going to agree.

You, bobbin and j.rob for example prefer the interpretations of your own eyes.
PeterMac, BlueBag and I prefer the science, we don't see obvious signs of photoshopping, and we have the backing of two top photographic experts, about which you made very sarcastic remarks.

I think the debate has almost run its course, it doesn't look like either 'side' is going to be convinced enough to change ther minds.

Finally, you couldn't recall what you said about Gerry coming straight back to the poolside after playing tennis. Here it is:

"Bobbin I agree with your findings 100%. Thank you for your clarity. Atomic Peanut made the point a long time ago that there was sunshine on May 3 and Gerry was hot and red because he came straight from tennis. QED."

by missbeetle 11.11.14 23:37

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hey Rusty James -

It's Gerry's dentition in this photograph that has caught my eye -

- he has what looks like a greyish line across the lower portion of his top teeth.

I have wondered if it is some sort of tooth-brace...?

Pure speculation only.

by juliet 11.11.14 23:43

Yes it was sarcasm.
Because bobbin like me couldn't work out why you were so adamant about the photo being genuine when that so suited the McCann agenda. All they need to say is - as Atomic Peanut said and I repeated - "Prove it wadn't sunny for five minutes on May 3! Prove Gerry wasn't all hot and sweating because we say he had only just stopped playing tennis!"
If you could explain why you are suddenly and so forcefully saying the last photo and playground photo are kosher - when they so clearly aren't - it would help. I have asked before but no answer. I am mystified by this new dogma.

by juliet 11.11.14 23:47

Ps Tony. Go back a few posts. You claimed what I said was "untrue" and "misled" others. I am getting really tired of your untruths.

by rustyjames 12.11.14 0:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
... SNIP ...

I think the debate has almost run its course, it doesn't look like either 'side' is going to be convinced enough to change ther minds.

I agree - without something irrefutable it seems those convinced there is photoshopping involved will continue with that belief, and those that believe there is a reasonable explanation for any seeming anomalies are going to continue with that belief too. In that regard we are each preaching to the converted and arguing amongst ourselves is not helping any of us getting any closer to the truth of what happened in 2007. The written word is also not always best at conveying complex ideas, theories and emotions, and we've obviously grown naturally suspicious of those with differing views after the number of disruptors that have joined.

I think I first started looking at this picture sometime when "TheAuthor" first posted seven years ago. I disagreed with some of his analysis, particularly with regard to some of the anomalies, but was determined to find the vital clue within it.

I dislike arguing against the claims of photoshopping because I would love something critical to come from it and have tried hard to achieve that, but my scientific, mathematical and technical background wants hard evidence and I can't see anything that I can't adequately explain to my satisfaction. It's that same thinking that always draws me back to the dogs and dna. Occam's razor principle also comes into play - the number of photos now with claims to have "something odd" about them just doesn't fit with that to me.

by rustyjames 12.11.14 0:22

juliet wrote:
SNIP

If you could explain why you are suddenly and so forcefully saying the last photo and playground photo are kosher - when they so clearly aren't - it would help.

SNIP

Juliet - with all due respect this is in your opinion and you are stating it just as forcefully. Kosher is probably a good choice of word - this is starting to feel like arguing over religion.

by Guest 12.11.14 8:49

Chunky.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 12.11.14 8:54

Very chunky.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
He has thick forearms.

by Guest 12.11.14 9:54

BlackCatBoogie wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I mix an awful lot with young children and I have never NEVER seen one with a black line above their eyelashes along the line of their top lid like the above. Not even in very dark haired children. To me it looks like make-up. It looks like she has mascara on as well, she certainly has very dark lashes for a very blonde child.

IMO either this child has been photographed with eyeliner on or it has been photoshopped in later. Both seem very odd to me - eye liner on a 18 month old child? Why?

All in my opinion.

ETA: Our posts crossed MissBeetle, I have left mine in to re-inforce the point. Great minds think alike

You have contributed a lot to this thread Bluebag. Care to comment on the above.

I would say that it would be virtually impossible to draw such a precise line on the eyelid of a two-ish year old. I say this from personal experience, anyone who has cared for a young child will surely agree with me here. Also that it could stay on for any length of time, esp in the sun and wind.

I would say that this therefore must have been photoshopped in afterwards.

Thoughts?

by Guest 12.11.14 10:07

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I mix an awful lot with young children and I have never NEVER seen one with a black line above their eyelashes along the line of their top lid like the above. Not even in very dark haired children. To me it looks like make-up. It looks like she has mascara on as well, she certainly has very dark lashes for a very blonde child.

IMO either this child has been photographed with eyeliner on or it has been photoshopped in later. Both seem very odd to me - eye liner on a 18 month old child? Why?

All in my opinion.

ETA: Our posts crossed MissBeetle, I have left mine in to re-inforce the point. Great minds think alike
You have contributed a lot to this thread Bluebag. Care to comment on the above.

I would say that it would be virtually impossible to draw such a precise line on the eyelid of a two-ish year old. I say this from personal experience, anyone who has cared for a young child will surely agree with me here. Also that it could stay on for any length of time, esp in the sun and wind.

I would say that this therefore must have been photoshopped in afterwards.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Can you prove it's eyeliner and not the eye open slightly?

by tiny 12.11.14 10:19

BlueBag wrote:Very chunky.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
He has thick forearms.

are you trying to say that Gerry is a fat slob big grin

by Snifferdog 12.11.14 10:26

I doubt the eyeliner or open eye can be proved either way.
Just to say that my eldest daughter when Amelie's age had blue eyes thi long black eyelashes/eyebrows and light blonde hair.
Two of my nieces have the same but with platinum blonde hair.

by Guest 12.11.14 10:35

Snifferdog wrote:I doubt the eyeliner or open eye can be proved either way.
Just to say that my eldest daughter when Amelie's age had blue eyes thi long black eyelashes/eyebrows and light blonde hair.
Two of my nieces have the same but with platinum blonde hair.

Also if you look in google images for "children playing" you'll see the same thing with some children who are looking down.

None of these "photoshopped" claims stand up to scrutiny, they are either a lack of understanding or have simpler alternative explanations.

by Guest 12.11.14 10:50

BlueBag wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I mix an awful lot with young children and I have never NEVER seen one with a black line above their eyelashes along the line of their top lid like the above. Not even in very dark haired children. To me it looks like make-up. It looks like she has mascara on as well, she certainly has very dark lashes for a very blonde child.

IMO either this child has been photographed with eyeliner on or it has been photoshopped in later. Both seem very odd to me - eye liner on a 18 month old child? Why?

All in my opinion.

ETA: Our posts crossed MissBeetle, I have left mine in to re-inforce the point. Great minds think alike
You have contributed a lot to this thread Bluebag. Care to comment on the above.

I would say that it would be virtually impossible to draw such a precise line on the eyelid of a two-ish year old. I say this from personal experience, anyone who has cared for a young child will surely agree with me here. Also that it could stay on for any length of time, esp in the sun and wind.

I would say that this therefore must have been photoshopped in afterwards.

Thoughts?
Thoughts?

Can you prove it's eyeliner and not the eye open slightly?

It is very clearly a dark line drawn in just above the natual line of her top lashes. It clearly extends to the furthest extent of her inner and outer eye and has nothing to do with whether she has her eyes open or closed.

Even if she had her eyes fully or part open this would not produce a dark line like that. How could it unless her eyeball was black? In any case it is not in the right place it is above her top eyelashes.

It is make-up either very skillfully applied (any idea how difficult to draw a line like that even on a consenting adult - but a two year old?! ) or drawn into the photograph later.

I do not need to prove it further as it is present as clear as the day.

Question is how and why?

All in my own opinion.

ETA: For sure I will look at some stock 'children playing' images to see if a similar effect can be found - meanwhile maybe you could post a couple that you are referring to. But please bear in mind that retail stock images are quite likely to be digitally enhanced - they really prove nothing.

To me that is a close-up of a clear line drawn above her top lashes - unless someone can provide me with clear proof or evidence to the contrary.

by plebgate 12.11.14 11:05

I have to say that as PeterM. has posted to say that he has asked two expert photographers who are prepared to give written statements of their findings then for me I believe them and I think any judge would over amateur opinions on a website.

That does look like liquid eyeliner on Amelie's eye to me, but why would anyone photoshop that in?

I am sorry to see bobbin go and can't really see why she has.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.14 11:24

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
You have contributed a lot to this thread Bluebag. Care to comment on the above.

I would say that it would be virtually impossible to draw such a precise line on the eyelid of a two-ish year old. I say this from personal experience, anyone who has cared for a young child will surely agree with me here. Also that it could stay on for any length of time, esp in the sun and wind.

I would say that this therefore must have been photoshopped in afterwards.

Thoughts?

I've looked carefully at this enlargement.

1. It cannot be a 'partly open eye', as suggested, because the line is above the eyelash.

2. There would be absolutely no point in photoshopping this in, since quite frankly you cannot see this line unless it has been enlarged in the way that BCB has now produced.

3. The only explanation that fits what we see IMO is that an adult has indeed drawn that on Amelie with a pencil-liner.

There was evidence of very carefully applied make-up and jewellery by an adult in the picture below of Madeleine - and we don't know when that taken.

Many suggest that the photo below was also taken on the McCanns' holiday in Praia da Luz, Apri/May 2007

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 12.11.14 12:07

@ TB - yes it is definitely a line above the top eyelashes. And it is defintely in the style of khol make-up designed that grown-ups use to to ehance their eyes (sorry don't know how to put it am not an expert big grin

).

Bearing in mind it was the last photo and the publicity and exposure it was obviously going to receive then it is perhaps feasible that features were digitally enhanced for media/newspaper publication. I mean enhanced professionaly at the media offices, nothing to do with the Mccanns.

I know this is commonly done and it is usually fairly obvious, nothing sinister, just for publishing impact.

This is a possible innocent explanation. However when put together with everything else (esp the make-up photo you refer to above) I prefer to keep an open mind. Pretty darn odd to enhace a two year-olds eyes like that, that would be a big no-no in my parenting circles. But then for publication in a national newspaper maybe completely different concept?

I think we have to accept that as these images appeared in the global media they are quite likely to be manipulated and enhanced in some way as everything is these days, not always for sinister reasons.

Incidentally, I am sure I have also seen other instances of this effect as well on both MBM and A, it is not just this photo.

BTW I remain firmly in the camp that most of the family images have been (badly) photoshopped, esp where MBM appears along with other family members.

All in my own opinion.

Sorry if have derailed the shadows thread, maybe we could have a new thread if anyone interested.