Re: Analyzing position of sun in last photo

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.14 12:22

BlackCatBoogie wrote:@ 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 ).

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

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.

All in my own opinion.

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

I don't think you've derailed this thread since it is all about the Last Photo, admittedly we are now on a different aspect of it.

If I've interpreted you correctly, you are saying:

1. It's almost definitely a line drawn on the eyelid, as if by a pencil-liner, by an adult

2. It just could have been added in by either the McCanns or the Press Association (publishers of the photograph) to enhance it to make it look better.

I wholly reject (2) above. I think (1) is correct and unless anyone says different I shall continue to hold that what we see there is eye-liner on Amelie's left eye.

If there are other possible explanations, I hope posters will explain what they could possibly be

by Guest 12.11.14 12:23

BlackCatBoogie wrote:@ TB - yes it is definitely a line above the top eyelashes

Can you prove that and prove it's not an artifact of jpeg compression?

It looks like the eyelash has merged with the open eye line.. compression can do that.

Also:

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

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.14 12:28

BlueBag wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:@ TB - yes it is definitely a line above the top eyelashes
Can you prove that and prove it's not an artifact of jpeg compression?

It looks like the eyelash has merged with the open eye line.. compression can do that.

It's a definite line.

Whether it's a line drawn by a pencil-liner or the result of jpeg compression I am unqualified to say

by j.rob 12.11.14 12:34

juliet wrote:May I say jrob, that imo TB and Bluebag are so fixated on the weather and shadows that they have forgotten how to use their eyes. Or common sense. I am now goggling at McCann's huge fat Popeye lower arm which you pointed out. As big as Amelie's head.

I must admit I am finding this thread more and more surreal.

However, whether the photo is photo-shopped or not, if it was taken at a time other than Thursday lunch-time, then that would indicate that something had happened to Madeleine by Thursday lunch-time. So there was a need to lie about where she was and what she was doing on Thursday lunch-time. Or a need to lie about where Gerry was and what he was doing on Thursday lunch-time. Or a need to lie about where Amelie was and what she was doing on Thursday lunch-time. Or a need to lie about where Kate was and what she was doing on Thursday lunch-time.

If every other photo produced by the McCanns had been 'normal' then I might be less inclined to scrutinize the 'last photo'. But given that the vast majority of the photos produced by the McCanns are peculiar then I think it is entirely natural to be highly suspicious of the provenance of the alleged 'last photo.'

Another thought, though. If 'the last photo' was indeed taken on Saturday or Sunday (or even bits of the last photo) then that would indicate that *something* happened to Madeleine earlier on in the week. Which I have long suspected anyway.

by Liz Eagles 12.11.14 12:39

Jeez, this thread has now turned into eyeliner on A**lie's eye, her neck folds and the girth of Gerry's forearm as well as his 'floating' thighs and the introduction of the photograph of Madeleine wearing make-up (I find it very disturbing as to why that particular photo was released).

What next? the shadow of a cross on Gerry's crotch area?

by Guest 12.11.14 12:54

aquila wrote:Jeez, this thread has now turned into eyeliner on A**lie's eye, her neck folds and the girth of Gerry's forearm as well as his 'floating' thighs and the introduction of the photograph of Madeleine wearing make-up (I find it very disturbing as to why that particular photo was released).

What next? the shadow of a cross on Gerry's crotch area?

Well I happen to find eyeliner on a two year old a bit odd. Don't you?

by j.rob 12.11.14 12:55

plebgate wrote: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.

Experts are not always right. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they are biased. Sometimes they lie. Sometimes they are singing to a particular tune. We have seen all manner of 'experts' in the Madeleine McCann case. A great many 'professionals' have got rich off the back of the disappearance of a child. Lawyers, doctors, PR people.

by Liz Eagles 12.11.14 13:00

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
aquila wrote:Jeez, this thread has now turned into eyeliner on A**lie's eye, her neck folds and the girth of Gerry's forearm as well as his 'floating' thighs and the introduction of the photograph of Madeleine wearing make-up (I find it very disturbing as to why that particular photo was released).

What next? the shadow of a cross on Gerry's crotch area?
Well I happen to find eyeliner on a two year old a bit odd. Don't you?

and your proof of eyeliner is?

by j.rob 12.11.14 13:06

I know there has been discussion about this before. But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?

What I find baffling is, why make such a hash of the photo-shopping? It's almost as though someone was deliberately leaving little 'clues'. Either to trip up TM. Or to give 'clues' to other people. Or something.

More discussion about the last photo here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-457414/The-picture-Madeleine-Just-hours-later-gone.html

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

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.14 13:17

j.rob wrote:I know there has been discussion about this before. But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?

BlueBag on another thread interpreted this as a 'misinterpretation' by the camera of the slightly raised little black-and-white stone plaque giving the depth of the pool as 0.60m or 0.90m - caused by 'jpeg compression' or some similar process.

The senior academic expert that PeterMac consulted, who carried out a forensic examination of the shadows on the Last Photo, also referred generally to this process of 'jpeg compression', though s/he used a slightly different technical explanation for it.

In the absence of clear, unambiguous evidence to the contrary, I'll stick with BlueBag's opinion on that.

by Guest 12.11.14 13:17

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:@ TB - yes it is definitely a line above the top eyelashes
Can you prove that and prove it's not an artifact of jpeg compression?

It looks like the eyelash has merged with the open eye line.. compression can do that.
It's a definite line.

Whether it's a line drawn by a pencil-liner or the result of jpeg compression I am unqualified to say

Well it looks like a line.

But there's loads of kids pictures out there of kids looking down with the same line.

JPEG pictures are always a compromise between image fidelity and file size.

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

by Guest 12.11.14 13:20

j.rob wrote:I know there has been discussion about this before. But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?

The white tile that has the pool depth written on it.

by j.rob 12.11.14 13:21

I defy anyone to tell me that Madeleine's head and neck are consistent with her body posture. Her body is facing in one direction and her head is facing in another. In order to achieve this stance, the neck has to twist around quite sharply which causes the tendons to stand out. It causes a noticeable twist to the neck. And bulges to the neck. This is not apparent in the photo. There are no signs that her neck is turning sharply to one sign.

So, as far as I am concerned, Madeleine's head has been stuck onto her (or someone's) body.

But WHY??

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.14 13:21

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:@ TB - yes it is definitely a line above the top eyelashes
Can you prove that and prove it's not an artifact of jpeg compression?

It looks like the eyelash has merged with the open eye line.. compression can do that.
It's a definite line.

Whether it's a line drawn by a pencil-liner or the result of jpeg compression I am unqualified to say

Well it looks like a line.

But there's loads of kids pictures out there of kids looking down with the same line.

JPEG pictures are always a compromise between image fidelity and file size.

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

The same line, BlueBag?

I can't see it.

Are you able please to enlarge the eyes of one of the children so that we can see what you mean?

TIA

by Doug D 12.11.14 13:23

BCB:

‘it is perhaps feasible that features were digitally enhanced for media/newspaper publication. I mean enhanced professionally at the media offices, nothing to do with the McCanns.’

That’s precisely the trouble with all of the McCann photos. They have (nearly?) all reached the public via the media and there is hardly a picture in the papers now that hasn’t been squashed/shortened/lengthened/colour corrected/amended in some way, to enhance presentation or to fit in the required space.

It’s why the papers employ photo editors.

We don’t even know the histories of the pictures that are presented in the PJ files, so even they can’t be trusted as being the ‘originals’.

As far as the ‘eyeliner’ is concerned, when viewed at pixel level it shows this:

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

which to me doesn’t look completely natural as far as a photo goes, but I have no real understanding of how cameras remember images and when you blow up any photo to this level you always seem to get this ‘un-natural’ look, with harsh divides that make it look as though something has been done even when it hasn’t.

I have also no knowledge of how a photo editors programme would process an ‘enhance the eye’ command, but it could well be that it seeks out a natural curve above the eyelashes and enhances it in this way.

About the best quality 'last' photo around is this one:

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

If you open this photo in something such as ‘paint’ you can zoom in even more & it just makes it look weirder & weirder to the layman.

I’m sorry to the doubters as there are as many oddities in the photos as there are discrepancies in the statements, but as regards the photos I do think we need to trust the experts, because the camera frequently lies, we just need to look at our own photo collections to see that, long legs, short bodies, no neck etc.

If people are not prepared to accept that PeterMac has sought out two reliable experts, so be it, no-one is going to change their minds.

by j.rob 12.11.14 13:23

BlueBag wrote:
j.rob wrote:I know there has been discussion about this before. But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?
The white tile that has the pool depth written on it.

It doesn't look like the pool marker.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.14 13:32

j.rob wrote:I defy anyone to tell me that Madeleine's head and neck are consistent with her body posture.

I do so. It is perfectly possible for an adult or child to turn just their head that way - and not the rest of ther body.

Her body is facing in one direction and her head is facing in another. In order to achieve this stance, the neck has to twist around quite sharply which causes the tendons to stand out. It causes a noticeable twist to the neck. And bulges to the neck. This is not apparent in the photo.

Here once again one has to bring into play the shadows. If as you suggest Madeleine's head was photoshopped on to her body from another picture, then how do you account for the shadows on the top of her torso being fully consistent with the position of the sun that day?

And of course (as PeterMac's experts advised) we have the forensic opinion that all the shadows ARE consistent with each other.

There are no signs that her neck is turning sharply to one [*side - T.B.].

No obvious signs, but then I think you demand too much in terms of visible signs of a neck being turned sideways

So, as far as I am concerned, Madeleine's head has been stuck onto her (or someone's) body.

Agree to disagree again.

But WHY??

The suggestion that the Last Photo was a genuine photo of Madeleine, taken earlier in the week, would explain the delay in producing it, and better than the 1,001 suggestions made about bits of the photo here and there that have allegedly been photoshopped

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.14 13:33

j.rob wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
j.rob wrote:I know there has been discussion about this before. But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?
The white tile that has the pool depth written on it.

It doesn't look like the pool marker.

That is because - it is said - jpeg compression can produce odd distortions like that.

by Liz Eagles 12.11.14 13:37

Doug D wrote:BCB:

‘it is perhaps feasible that features were digitally enhanced for media/newspaper publication. I mean enhanced professionally at the media offices, nothing to do with the McCanns.’

That’s precisely the trouble with all of the McCann photos. They have (nearly?) all reached the public via the media and there is hardly a picture in the papers now that hasn’t been squashed/shortened/lengthened/colour corrected/amended in some way, to enhance presentation or to fit in the required space.

It’s why the papers employ photo editors.

We don’t even know the histories of the pictures that are presented in the PJ files, so even they can’t be trusted as being the ‘originals’.

As far as the ‘eyeliner’ is concerned, when viewed at pixel level it shows this:

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

which to me doesn’t look completely natural as far as a photo goes, but I have no real understanding of how cameras remember images and when you blow up any photo to this level you always seem to get this ‘un-natural’ look, with harsh divides that make it look as though something has been done even when it hasn’t.

I have also no knowledge of how a photo editors programme would process an ‘enhance the eye’ command, but it could well be that it seeks out a natural curve above the eyelashes and enhances it in this way.

About the best quality 'last' photo around is this one:

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

If you open this photo in something such as ‘paint’ you can zoom in even more & it just makes it look weirder & weirder to the layman.

I’m sorry to the doubters as there are as many oddities in the photos as there are discrepancies in the statements, but as regards the photos I do think we need to trust the experts, because the camera frequently lies, we just need to look at our own photo collections to see that, long legs, short bodies, no neck etc.

If people are not prepared to accept that PeterMac has sought out two reliable experts, so be it, no-one is going to change their minds.

When parents scream 'taken by a paedophile' (see Gerry's blog and Kate's bewk) and they are surrounded by men in suits who are drafted in almost immediately....one of them a PR bloke even gave up his job as head of MMU to champion the McCanns you have to ask why the McCanns released a photograph of their daughter in make-up. That photograph would hardly have helped in the search for Madeleine. Sit that photograph alongside the other released photos of Madeleine and it doesn't make sense for a huge PR bloke to ever consider this photograph of use. £70,000 price tag p.a on Clarence Mitchell apparently and not a single thing showing in the Fund (Limited company) accounts to show the contributors/donors/general public.

Or am I bonkers?

by Woofer 12.11.14 13:39

j.rob wrote:I know there has been discussion about this before. But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?

What I find baffling is, why make such a hash of the photo-shopping? It's almost as though someone was deliberately leaving little 'clues'. Either to trip up TM. Or to give 'clues' to other people. Or something.

More discussion about the last photo here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-457414/The-picture-Madeleine-Just-hours-later-gone.html

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

The white patch is just the lighter apron of the pool which can be seen continuing round by MBM`s left wrist BUT the black line above the white patch shouldn`t be there - it`s not the depth marker btw.

by Guest 12.11.14 13:40

j.rob wrote:I defy anyone to tell me that Madeleine's head and neck are consistent with her body posture. Her body is facing in one direction and her head is facing in another. In order to achieve this stance, the neck has to twist around quite sharply which causes the tendons to stand out. It causes a noticeable twist to the neck. And bulges to the neck. This is not apparent in the photo. There are no signs that her neck is turning sharply to one sign.

So, as far as I am concerned, Madeleine's head has been stuck onto her (or someone's) body.

But WHY??

I defy you.

It looks ok to me.

by Doug D 12.11.14 13:41

It’s not the pool marker, which is further around to the right.

If you look at the animated overlaid picture on here (second large picture down below Maddie):

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

the pool marker is clearly not here.

I think it is just a shadow from the slightly raised edge of the pool surround, at that particular point, but without physically examining the pool surround at that point to see if there is a high spot that could cause a shadow, it just creates more anomaly questions as why there can be shadow there and nowhere else around the edge line.

Before someone points out that this shadow doesn't show in the underlaid photo, the sun is at a different angle and won't cast a shadow in the same direction.

by jeanmonroe 12.11.14 13:42

j.rob wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
j.rob wrote:I know there has been discussion about this before. But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?
The white tile that has the pool depth written on it.

It doesn't look like the pool marker.

It's NOT the pool 'marker'

THAT was several feet to the LEFT of Madeleine to 'where' she was 'sitting'.

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

by j.rob 12.11.14 13:48

BlueBag wrote:
j.rob wrote:I defy anyone to tell me that Madeleine's head and neck are consistent with her body posture. Her body is facing in one direction and her head is facing in another. In order to achieve this stance, the neck has to twist around quite sharply which causes the tendons to stand out. It causes a noticeable twist to the neck. And bulges to the neck. This is not apparent in the photo. There are no signs that her neck is turning sharply to one sign.

So, as far as I am concerned, Madeleine's head has been stuck onto her (or someone's) body.

But WHY??
I defy you.

It looks ok to me.

It would do though, wouldn't it?! Guess this whole photo-shopping thing is quite a nice little 'hot potato' then?