Analyzing position of sun in last photo

BlueBag wrote:

j.rob wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

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.

You're right.

It's the lower black part is either Amelies or Gerry's shadow, the white part is the continuation of the white lip of the pool, the upper black part is something else unidentified.



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

As I have written before, and as is demonstrated above, Amelie's left hand is not consistent with her stance and sitting position. You can see above that Madeleine appears to have her hand flat on the edge of the pool, which would be consistent with that sitting position. Amelie has a bent elbow and it looks as though her hand is hanging down, rather than flat. This is not consistent with her sitting position or the rest of her arm. If her hand was hanging down, she would need to hunch up her shoulder, which she is not doing. And I think that given her position it would be impossible for her right arm to be completely obscured. The natural place for it to be would be on Gerry's leg, as they appear to be sitting so close together.

I disagree.

j.rob wrote:  At least you are consistent! Now, tell me why Amelie's hand is not flat on the pool side edge?

And tell me why her right arm is missing? 

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Without wishing to offend anyone with regards to the alleged photoshopping of the pool photograph, because people are entitled to draw their own inferences from their gut feelings or what they perceive to be in the photo, the matter has already been put to bed by two of the fields leading experts, from different backgrounds, and their findings passed on to Operation Grange. It is the time and date that is the material issue with the photograph, as both experts concluded there was no tampering with anything else.

It is also illogical to assume any significant tampering with the photos, as if the McCanns had done so they know that this would be revealed by forensic examination and would therefore be effectively sabotaging their own efforts at duplicity. It just doesn't make sense. What does make sense is if the metadata of other photos had also been tampered with, then it could demonstrate a plan to falsify a timeline.

Coupled with the phone records, apparently falsified creche sheets and lack of credible witness testimony as to Madeleines precise location at any given time, is the more important issue of where was she between 29th April and 3rd May. There seems to be no concrete, definitive corroborating witness testimony to establish this. This has led to suggestions of a substitute Madeleine (I really don't buy this as a theory), Madeleine being deceased before 2/3rd of May, Madeleine having an undisclosed mystery disease the McCanns wished to conceal (don't buy this either), and any other number of theories.

I would ask you to consider the possibility that she was not necessarily dead earlier than the night of the 2nd, but possibly in another location. Consider if you will the blue eyeshadow picture, the instant claims of pedophile gangs, the curious involvement of Murat, Malinka (who was recently re-interviewed), other "interesting" guests at the OC resort, the almost immediate involvement of Gordon Brown and consular interference, and the current expose of Westminster pedophile rings, PLUS the colourful background of MANY high profile individuals who involved themselves from the start. A quick Google will reveal quite an eyebrow raising number of dots to be connected between PACT, Missing People, the "personalities" involved and the current crackdown on elite pedophile rings. IMO this is why the apparent cover up in this case. Not because of the McCanns themselves, but the wider picture that could be exposed as a result of this high-profile disappearance. Also IMO, Madeleine and her disappearance is not the central aspect of this cover-up, but rather an event that served as a possible catalyst for a far more important issue.

BlueBag wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:Actually no!!

It's the shadow of the RAISED white lip of the pool.
-------------------------------------------------------

Then where are the rest of the 'shadows' of all the other raised white 'tiles/lip' of the pool?

Or is it a 'magic' tile and the ONLY ONE able to 'cast' a shadow?

Did you read my next post?

BlueBag wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:Actually no!!

It's the shadow of the RAISED white lip of the pool.
-------------------------------------------------------

Then where are the rest of the 'shadows' of all the other raised white 'tiles/lip' of the pool?

Or is it a 'magic' tile and the ONLY ONE able to 'cast' a shadow?

Did you read my next post?

"OR... the shadow of Gerry's arm that is beyond the raised white lip (more likely)."


I hope that answers your question.


I hope you have the good grace to acknowledge that.

BlueBag wrote:

j.rob wrote:  At least you are consistent! Now, tell me why Amelie's hand is not flat on the pool side edge?

Why should it be?

And tell me why her right arm is missing? 

It isn't, it's behind her out of view of the camera.



And you've been told this before by others but you seem to have ignored it.

j.rob wrote:It should be flat because her elbow is bent so if her hand was hanging down rather than flat her shoulder would be hunched.

The angle of the body and shoulder is not consistent, imo, with her arm disappearing completely. It looks odd.

BlueBag wrote:

j.rob wrote:It should be flat because her elbow is bent so if her hand was hanging down rather than flat her shoulder would be hunched.

???

Bizarre reasoning. Maybe she was just in the process of putting her hand down or lifting it up or maybe she just held it like that. 

The angle of the body and shoulder is not consistent, imo, with her arm disappearing completely. It looks odd.

I disagree. Others have disagreed with you as well.
But then it's just your opinion.

jeanmonroe wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:Actually no!!

It's the shadow of the RAISED white lip of the pool.
-------------------------------------------------------

Then where are the rest of the 'shadows' of all the other raised white 'tiles/lip' of the pool?

Or is it a 'magic' tile and the ONLY ONE able to 'cast' a shadow?

Did you read my next post?

"OR... the shadow of Gerry's arm that is beyond the raised white lip (more likely)."


I hope that answers your question.


I hope you have the good grace to acknowledge that.

I'm nothing, if not curteous, but...........you do have two DIFFERENT 'scenario's' for 'explanation' for the 'black line', so which one are you saying it is, definitively?

the raised tile/lip 'shadow' or Gerry's arm/elbow 'shadow?

j.rob wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

j.rob wrote:It should be flat because her elbow is bent so if her hand was hanging down rather than flat her shoulder would be hunched.

???

Bizarre reasoning. Maybe she was just in the process of putting her hand down or lifting it up or maybe she just held it like that. 

The angle of the body and shoulder is not consistent, imo, with her arm disappearing completely. It looks odd.

I disagree. Others have disagreed with you as well.
But then it's just your opinion.

No more bizarre than your reasoning. 

It's fine if you disagree with me. It's fine if others disagree with me.

My opinion is 'just' my opinion.

And your opinion is 'just' your opinion.

Easy peasy.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:May I gently ask, for those that feel these images are composites of sort, or have been interfered with, apart from the known dishonesty of WHEN they were taken, what would be the actual purpose of such tampering? If the disappearance, for arguments sake, was a carefully orchestrated event and the pictures part of the deception, why would the McCanns create a series of photographs which could so easily be exposed to be "fakes"? Surely they would KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt that it would be tantamount to a confession of guilt. Wouldn't tampering with the photographs to that extent, pictures which would end up in police hands, be tantamount to a burglar deliberately not wearing gloves in order to ensure their fingerprints were left at the crime scene?

BlueBag wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:Actually no!!

It's the shadow of the RAISED white lip of the pool.
-------------------------------------------------------

Then where are the rest of the 'shadows' of all the other raised white 'tiles/lip' of the pool?

Or is it a 'magic' tile and the ONLY ONE able to 'cast' a shadow?

Did you read my next post?

"OR... the shadow of Gerry's arm that is beyond the raised white lip (more likely)."


I hope that answers your question.


I hope you have the good grace to acknowledge that.

I'm nothing, if not curteous, but...........you do have two DIFFERENT 'scenario's' for 'explanation' for the 'black line', so which one are you saying it is, definitively?

the raised tile/lip 'shadow' or Gerry's arm/elbow 'shadow?

Gerry's arm.. you know the one I said was "more likely". 

I've now upgraded that to "virtually certain".

A) The pool lip is raised, can't be disputed.
B) Gerry's arm is above the black line.

The most logical explanation is that the shadow of the arm falls beyond the lip but part of it is obscured by the lip.

What do you think?

j.rob wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:May I gently ask, for those that feel these images are composites of sort, or have been interfered with, apart from the known dishonesty of WHEN they were taken, what would be the actual purpose of such tampering? If the disappearance, for arguments sake, was a carefully orchestrated event and the pictures part of the deception, why would the McCanns create a series of photographs which could so easily be exposed to be "fakes"? Surely they would KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt that it would be tantamount to a confession of guilt. Wouldn't tampering with the photographs to that extent, pictures which would end up in police hands, be tantamount to a burglar deliberately not wearing gloves in order to ensure their fingerprints were left at the crime scene?

But you could argue that about the whole case. Very many things have been in police hands that are incredibly incriminating to Team McCann and they are still walking free. The McCanns are even ambassadors for missing children!

The whole case is awash with tampering, interference and 'fake' sightings. So why would the photos be any different?

What about Tanner-man? What about the jemmied shutters? What about the inconsistencies in the statements? What about releasing a photo of a child looking much younger than Madeleine. What about saying she had a coloboma when she didn't?

It's all games and riddles, imo.

j.rob wrote:

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.

BlueBag wrote:

j.rob wrote:  At least you are consistent! Now, tell me why Amelie's hand is not flat on the pool side edge?

Why should it be?

And tell me why her right arm is missing? 

It isn't, it's behind her out of view of the camera.



And you've been told this before by others but you seem to have ignored it.

BlackCatBoogie wrote:BB - if you look at A's left arm then it fills the whole of the sleeve.
How can her right arm be physically present if you can see 90% or so of the sleeve is empty. There is not enough spare room in the sleeve.

The only way this photo can make sense is if she has her right arm arm inside her top (as toddlers sometimes do).  But I do not think that is the case in this photo.

To me A's right arm is pretty much proof that this photo has been tampered with in some way.

All imo.

plebgate wrote:

j.rob wrote:

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.

If y
ou read my post I didn't say they are always right, I said I would take their word over that of amateurs on a website as would a judge IMO.

I stand by that until it is shown that PeterM's experts are wrong.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

j.rob wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:May I gently ask, for those that feel these images are composites of sort, or have been interfered with, apart from the known dishonesty of WHEN they were taken, what would be the actual purpose of such tampering? If the disappearance, for arguments sake, was a carefully orchestrated event and the pictures part of the deception, why would the McCanns create a series of photographs which could so easily be exposed to be "fakes"? Surely they would KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt that it would be tantamount to a confession of guilt. Wouldn't tampering with the photographs to that extent, pictures which would end up in police hands, be tantamount to a burglar deliberately not wearing gloves in order to ensure their fingerprints were left at the crime scene?

But you could argue that about the whole case. Very many things have been in police hands that are incredibly incriminating to Team McCann and they are still walking free. The McCanns are even ambassadors for missing children!

The whole case is awash with tampering, interference and 'fake' sightings. So why would the photos be any different?

What about Tanner-man? What about the jemmied shutters? What about the inconsistencies in the statements? What about releasing a photo of a child looking much younger than Madeleine. What about saying she had a coloboma when she didn't?

It's all games and riddles, imo.

I hear what you are saying. However my gut feeling is that focussing in on the minutiae of individual photographs is a little like looking at the case through the wrong end of the telescope. Yes, there is a bewildering array of weird inconsistencies that on the surface of it should add up to a collection of circumstantial evidence that would warrant a different path for the investigation. However, I personally think it is a mistake to assume that this is because the McCanns in particular have somehow been given extra-special protection. In crude terms they have, BUT given the rather large number of individuals of "elite" type people that have allied themselves to this case, those that WERE in PdL that "whooshed" inexplicably within the first few hours, odd connectiontions and involvement of individuals that warrant investigation for their "activities" and "interests" I truly believe that Madeleines disappearance became of HUGE interest politically because of WHO could be exposed as being involved in CSA / paedophilia. In other words, I believe the evidence points towards whatever happened to Madeleine was an event that COULD blow open a MASSIVE can of worms, and that is why the establishment are playing along with the story which is so riddled with rubbish. Phone records, Gaspar statements, Gordon Brown, Burgau, botched forensics at FSS and so on. They are all dots in the bigger picture IMO.

BlueBag wrote:Hey j.rob

Do you think we resolved the white/black patch between Amelies arm and side?

j.rob wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Hey j.rob

Do you think we resolved the white/black patch between Amelies arm and side?

Yes. Didn't we agree that it was evidence of photo-shopping?

j.rob wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

j.rob wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:May I gently ask, for those that feel these images are composites of sort, or have been interfered with, apart from the known dishonesty of WHEN they were taken, what would be the actual purpose of such tampering? If the disappearance, for arguments sake, was a carefully orchestrated event and the pictures part of the deception, why would the McCanns create a series of photographs which could so easily be exposed to be "fakes"? Surely they would KNOW beyond all reasonable doubt that it would be tantamount to a confession of guilt. Wouldn't tampering with the photographs to that extent, pictures which would end up in police hands, be tantamount to a burglar deliberately not wearing gloves in order to ensure their fingerprints were left at the crime scene?

But you could argue that about the whole case. Very many things have been in police hands that are incredibly incriminating to Team McCann and they are still walking free. The McCanns are even ambassadors for missing children!

The whole case is awash with tampering, interference and 'fake' sightings. So why would the photos be any different?

What about Tanner-man? What about the jemmied shutters? What about the inconsistencies in the statements? What about releasing a photo of a child looking much younger than Madeleine. What about saying she had a coloboma when she didn't?

It's all games and riddles, imo.

I hear what you are saying. However my gut feeling is that focussing in on the minutiae of individual photographs is a little like looking at the case through the wrong end of the telescope. Yes, there is a bewildering array of weird inconsistencies that on the surface of it should add up to a collection of circumstantial evidence that would warrant a different path for the investigation. However, I personally think it is a mistake to assume that this is because the McCanns in particular have somehow been given extra-special protection. In crude terms they have, BUT given the rather large number of individuals of "elite" type people that have allied themselves to this case, those that WERE in PdL that "whooshed" inexplicably within the first few hours, odd connectiontions and involvement of individuals that warrant investigation for their "activities" and "interests" I truly believe that Madeleines disappearance became of HUGE interest politically because of WHO could be exposed as being involved in CSA / paedophilia. In other words, I believe the evidence points towards whatever happened to Madeleine was an event that COULD blow open a MASSIVE can of worms, and that is why the establishment are playing along with the story which is so riddled with rubbish. Phone records, Gaspar statements, Gordon Brown, Burgau, botched forensics at FSS and so on. They are all dots in the bigger picture IMO.

If the big cover-up is primarily to do with CSA/paedophilia (and of course it may be to do with that as well as other things) then that raises rather horrible questions about the lack of genuine photos of any of the McCann children that week. Or indeed any of the Tapas children that week. Why so few family photos. A big group of friends supposedly on holiday together for a week and no photos or video-footage of their children playing. 

So odd.

Why would that be? 

I can only think of a few explanations. And they lead to pretty much the same conclusions I am afraid. Something deeply unsavoury was going on that week. And Madeleine may have been, quite literally or at least metaphorically, 'sacrificed to keep a lid on a massive secret or secrets.

IMO. Simply a theory which I hope is wrong.