Re: Analyzing position of sun in last photo

by j.rob 12.11.14 17:35

I hope it is wrong too, but this is where my theory tends to go based on the broader picture. This theory was galvanised by some of the contributors to an auction and associated supporters of Missing People. Lets just say there were a couple of "eyebrow" raisers in there, and the subsequent media furore surrounding allegations against one of them (ageing pop star x 2). In a broader context, in recent months a number of individuals connected to charities involving children have also come under the whole CSA spotlight. Link this also to Labour members previous associations with PIE through the Liberty organisation, secret family courts which are taking away children and putting them in care homes, and the subsequent knowledge that "elites" were abusing these children in an organised way, Jimmy Savile and so on, this establishment pedophile ring is absolutely huge, it's tentacles spread everywhere. There has to be some reason WHY the government are prepared to spend £10m looking into this, yet at the same time "losing" massive dossiers of establishment CSA. Add into the mix the pathetically lenient sentencing of paedophiles and the dismissal of victims who are trying to speak out and it's a very very dark picture emerging.

--------------
I guess Jimmy Saville was just the tip of the ice-berg, then? And of course those charities involving vulnerable children will of course attract (hopefully only a small minority)of those whose intentions are not benevolent. The Mary Moss Elm Bank Guest House scandal appeared to have tentacles reaching high up. With M15 sitting outside in their cars I do believe I read somewhere. Yikes.

I always thought that there was a potential for massive abuse of the system given the secrecy that surrounds family courts. There were those awful miscarriages of justice - such as solicitor Sally Clarke - when 'experts' were convinced that parents of babies or children with medical problems - sometimes caused by medical procedures, imo, were convicted of 'Munchausen by Proxy.' A good example of a nice little 'catch-all syndrome' beloved of a few high profile 'medical expert witnesses' who were prepared to toe a certain line - perhaps to cover up for medically-induced illnesses in some cases - became the darlings of the family courts as remaining children were taken into care - or put up for adoption (adoption targets?) and the 'experts' get their fame and fortune off the back of other people's suffering, imo.

Which is what has happened in this case, imo. Everyone making money out of an innocent child. Disgusting.

And if children are taken into 'care' and are then subsequently abused either by an establishment paedophile ring or otherwise then that is a horrendous situation.

As you say, a very dark picture emerging. But at least it is emerging. Best way of getting rid of the cock-roaches is by shining a light on them, imo.

by j.rob 12.11.14 17:36

BlueBag wrote:
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?

That's hilarious.

Seriously, have you crossed it off your list yet?

My mind is open on the subject. I think it is unlikely that there is/was no photo-shopping at all. Very unlikely.

by Guest 12.11.14 17:45

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
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.

I hope it is wrong too, but this is where my theory tends to go based on the broader picture. This theory was galvanised by some of the contributors to an auction and associated supporters of Missing People. Lets just say there were a couple of "eyebrow" raisers in there, and the subsequent media furore surrounding allegations against one of them (ageing pop star x 2). In a broader context, in recent months a number of individuals connected to charities involving children have also come under the whole CSA spotlight. Link this also to Labour members previous associations with PIE through the Liberty organisation, secret family courts which are taking away children and putting them in care homes, and the subsequent knowledge that "elites" were abusing these children in an organised way, Jimmy Savile and so on, this establishment pedophile ring is absolutely huge, it's tentacles spread everywhere. There has to be some reason WHY the government are prepared to spend £10m looking into this, yet at the same time "losing" massive dossiers of establishment CSA. Add into the mix the pathetically lenient sentencing of paedophiles and the dismissal of victims who are trying to speak out and it's a very very dark picture emerging.

My own thoughts and conclusions exactly S&M.
I too hope I am wrong but it all seems to be stacking up.

All imo

by j.rob 12.11.14 18:17

I hope it is wrong too, but this is where my theory tends to go based on the broader picture. This theory was galvanised by some of the contributors to an auction and associated supporters of Missing People. Lets just say there were a couple of "eyebrow" raisers in there, and the subsequent media furore surrounding allegations against one of them (ageing pop star x 2). In a broader context, in recent months a number of individuals connected to charities involving children have also come under the whole CSA spotlight. Link this also to Labour members previous associations with PIE through the Liberty organisation, secret family courts which are taking away children and putting them in care homes, and the subsequent knowledge that "elites" were abusing these children in an organised way, Jimmy Savile and so on, this establishment pedophile ring is absolutely huge, it's tentacles spread everywhere.

-------------

And of course this raises very worrying questions about charities involving children. And particularly the charity Missing People which has Kate McCann as an ambassador. I mean, that says it all really. Put the fox in charge of the hen coop.

But this has gone off-topic.

Now, back to those pesky pixels and shadows.........

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.14 18:22

j.rob wrote:
I am afraid it would take a lot more than two 'experts' to persuade me that all of the photos released by the McCanns were genuine photos. The problem is that experts can be paid to dance to a particular tune. Or they may have other agendas. In actual fact, a self-proclaimed 'expert' is, imo, even more likely to have a particular agenda than a layperson. They get paid (often handsomely) to toe a certain line.

I have no idea if this applies to PeterM's experts. I am simply pointing out that just because someone who calls him or herself an 'expert' it does not necessarily mean that what they say is the only version of 'the truth'. An expert opinion is just that, an opinion.

Expert witnesses can make a lot of money by toeing a certain line.

@ j.rob

Can I just make some things crystal clear.

1. PeterMac's two experts ONLY analysed 'The Last Photo' - no other photos

2. Neither expert was paid, but gave their time voluntarily and in response to a very specific but short set of instructions from PeterMac.

You are right, that all experts' opinions are opinions, but clearly some experts in their chosen fields acquire greater reputations than others, to the extent that one can rely on them.

Martin Grime would I suggest be an outstanding example.

I think if the names of PeterMac's experts ever became known, all would agree that both are top experts.

I think the 'Last Photo' threads have been very informative.

They only become divisive if people at the end of the day are prepared to calmly agree to disagree.

I trust that if any discussion continues, it will be without sniping and point-scoring.

P.S. I have examined my eyebrows and there is no black line or any other colour immediately above them

by Smokeandmirrors 12.11.14 18:28

BCB and j.rob, and anyone else interested in this line, perhaps so as not to do too far off topic here, I'll start one in members lounge about the broader issue of establishment cover up, as we are witnessing with the CSAinquiry fiasco at the moment. It is definitely worth considering in light of the £10m spent so far and the clear obfuscation of the issue we are seeing unfolding right now. Hope to see you there! (Establishment Cover-ups re:CSA)

by Guest 12.11.14 18:40

j.rob wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
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?

That's hilarious.

Seriously, have you crossed it off your list yet?

My mind is open on the subject. I think it is unlikely that there is/was no photo-shopping at all. Very unlikely.

I knew I was wasting my time.

It's always the same.

jeanmonroe also hasn't had the good grace to acknowledge the explanation.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.14 18:40

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?

I think this is a very powerful point, and I did make it earlier, maybe on one of the other 'Last Photo' threads.

Why take the risk when no-one would really notice a change in the date and time of the photo?

And on that point, it has been argued that the excessive number of words by the McCanns to try and 'prove' that it was the 'Last Photo' is suspcious...details about the exact time, whether Portugal and the UK had the same time zones, the hair bead being carefully being taken out when Madeleine was put to bed that night etc.

Similar considerations apply to the 'Tennis Balls' photo.

But the other thing that has always bothered me about those who see photoshopping everywhere in the 'Last Photo' is the sheer number of different claims made that this photo has been photoshopped.

The 'photoshopping brigade', if I may use that term, disagree massively amongst themselves about what has or has not been photoshopped. Here is a list of some of the photoshopping claims made for the 'Last Photo':

* whole of Gerry shopped in
* whole of Madeleine shopped in
* all three shopped in to the pool
* just Madeleinee's head shopped in
* someone used high tech photoshopping of shadows to make sure they were were all consistent with each other and with the height of the sun
* Amelie's arm cut out
* Madeleine's arm cut out
* Madeleine's posture not natural
* white and black item between Gerry and Amelie proves it's been photoshopped
* Gerry looks like he's floating
* Gerry's arm doesn't look right
* nor does his thigh
* sunglasses reflctions prove that he wasn't there
* dandelion shadows not consistent with the others
* bougainvillea didn't flower that time of year
* Madeleine not wearing clothes for being by the pool
* absence of emotional contact between the three of them
* sun too high and shadows too short for that time of year
* the photo was taken on a previous holiday

...and so it goes on. Seemingly endlessly...

by Guest 12.11.14 18:46

Tony Bennett wrote: white and black item between Gerry and Amelie proves it's been photoshopped

Even when you nail it by leading them through a process of critical thinking and analysis they still don't acknowledge it.

It's sad.

BlueBag - your tone can sometimes be patronising and dismissive - even rude. It's not necessary, and doesn't tend to promote polite and respectful debate on the forum. Please consider your choice of words, thanks - admin

by Dr What 12.11.14 18:54

Yep.

It's doing exactly what was intended.
Producing an area of debate that takes all of us away from the core issues of what happened to Maddie and how the crime was committed.

Those are the issues that really matter.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.14 19:05

Dr What wrote:Yep.

It's doing exactly what was intended. Producing an area of debate that takes all of us away from the core issues of what happened to Maddie and how the crime was committed.

Those are the issues that really matter.

I beg to differ 100%.

The issue of the date of the 'Last Photo' strikes at the very core issue of whether, as for example Dr Goncalo Amaral believed, Madeleine was still alive at the 'high tea' at 5.30pm on 3 May.

It would be hard to find a more fundamental issue than that for anyone investigating the case.

And PeterMac has put together a great deal of very interesting and persuasive evidence - not proof of course - on this crucial topic.

by Smokeandmirrors 12.11.14 19:08

I think your list hits the nail square on the head Tony, at least in my opinion. I know it is highly unlikely we'll all agree on this issue (which has been debated for years) and there is no intention on my part to get into a row about it, I just cannot see any logical justification for pursuing that idea, or any logical reason why a completely mashed up picture would be released in the full knowledge they'd be fully exposed in a heartbeat.

I rather think that any perceived anomalies could be because we are not seeing the original image anyway, it has been reproduced, or that so many porkies have been told along the way by Team McCann that it has become second nature to see deceit where there may be none.

by Dr What 12.11.14 19:17

Tony.

You have misunderstood me.

The issue of the pics is very important.The veracity of these pics is paramount.

My observation is that the energy taken by some posters here to continually disagree with other posters is a waste.

It is a deliberate attempt by some to prolong an area of debate that has no hope of resolution.Some agree that they are fake.Some disagree that they are fake.No-one will convince the other side otherwise.

The only party that benefits from this circular argument are those who do not want the spotlight to fall on other areas of debate.

Tie the enemy in knots and let it devour itself.

by Guest 12.11.14 19:18

BlueBag wrote:BlueBag - your tone can sometimes be patronising and dismissive - even rude. It's not necessary, and doesn't tend to promote polite and respectful debate on the forum. Please consider your choice of words, thanks - admin

Apologies.

But when I see patent nonsense I'm like a bog with a bone.

I'm a bit OCD.

What kicked this off was being told not to mention any "silly theories" about focal lengths... yeah.. right.. (hence the Father Ted video).

That person is no longer with us... oh wait...

I think "the last photo" is extremely important and get quite annoyed at the continuous attempts at distraction about it over nothing (which has been demonstrated so in this thread).

I'm a combative debater.. I can't help it, I was made that way.

I think the truth and critical analysis is important. Opinion means nothing if it doesn't hold water.

by juliet 12.11.14 19:18

No-one asked TB or Bluebag to spend hours - days - trying to kill all photoshopping discussion. I notice that PeterMac keeps out of it, as he says the important and obvious point of agreement is that the photo is fake.
TB and Bluebag' s idea of debate is to say "I disagree with the findings" 50 different ways or come up with ludicrous theories like "Amelie's eyes are a bit open" or "That thin black line is a shadow of Gerry's arm (!)".

Neither has explained, despite being asked repeatedly, why they are so rabidly against all photoshopping debate. What drives their endless and rather futile rebuttals?

by Guest 12.11.14 19:26

juliet wrote:No-one asked TB or Bluebag to spend hours - days - trying to kill all photoshopping discussion

I'm not trying to kill it, I've been encouraging it.

I'm opposing meaningless opinion using criticial thinking.

If you express an opinion you should be able to defend it.

I'm not opposed to substantiated opinion.

The key issue about the "last photo" is the date it was taken... but some people want to go on and on about photoshopping issues that inevitably fail the test (this is 9/11 no planes all over again).

If we eliminate the nonsense we get closer to the truth.

by Guest 12.11.14 19:29

juliet wrote:TB and Bluebag' s idea of debate is to say "I disagree with the findings" 50 different ways or come up with ludicrous theories like "Amelie's eyes are a bit open" or "That thin black line is a shadow of Gerry's arm (!)".

Both of those are well argued points by me!

The white/black patch should no longer be an issue to fair-minded people.

by Guest 12.11.14 19:31

juliet wrote:No-one asked TB or Bluebag to spend hours - days - trying to kill all photoshopping discussion. I notice that PeterMac keeps out of it, as he says the important and obvious point of agreement is that the photo is fake.

I just re-read this.

Disingenious or what?

by missbeetle 12.11.14 19:32

BlueBag wrote:
BlueBag wrote:BlueBag - your tone can sometimes be patronising and dismissive - even rude. It's not necessary, and doesn't tend to promote polite and respectful debate on the forum. Please consider your choice of words, thanks - admin
Apologies.

But when I see patent nonsense I'm like a bog with a bone.

I'm a bit OCD.

What kicked this off was being told not to mention any "silly theories" about focal lengths... yeah.. right.. (hence the Father Ted video).

That person is no longer with us... oh wait...

I think "the last photo" is extremely important and get quite annoyed at the continuous attempts at distraction about it over nothing (which has been demonstrated so in this thread).

I'm a combative debater.. I can't help it, I was made that way.

I think the truth and critical analysis is important. Opinion means nothing if it doesn't hold water.

A bog with a bone...?

Sounds like a bad case of the Rickwoods!

by Smokeandmirrors 12.11.14 19:40

juliet wrote:No-one asked TB or Bluebag to spend hours - days - trying to kill all photoshopping discussion. I notice that PeterMac keeps out of it, as he says the important and obvious point of agreement is that the photo is fake.
TB and Bluebag' s idea of debate is to say "I disagree with the findings" 50 different ways or come up with ludicrous theories like "Amelie's eyes are a bit open" or "That thin black line is a shadow of Gerry's arm (!)".

Neither has explained, despite being asked repeatedly, why they are so rabidly against all photoshopping debate. What drives their endless and rather futile rebuttals?

A little harsh, there is just no evidence for photoshopping other than the proven metadata change on the last one.

by Mr Peabody 12.11.14 19:48

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
juliet wrote:No-one asked TB or Bluebag to spend hours - days - trying to kill all photoshopping discussion. I notice that PeterMac keeps out of it, as he says the important and obvious point of agreement is that the photo is fake.
TB and Bluebag' s idea of debate is to say "I disagree with the findings" 50 different ways or come up with ludicrous theories like "Amelie's eyes are a bit open" or "That thin black line is a shadow of Gerry's arm (!)".

Neither has explained, despite being asked repeatedly, why they are so rabidly against all photoshopping debate. What drives their endless and rather futile rebuttals?

A little harsh, there is just no evidence for photoshopping other than the proven metadata change on the last one.

This thread has made entertaining reading! What proven metadata change would that be because if it's proven then the case can be brought to trial imo.

by juliet 12.11.14 19:49

Bluebag: your idea of critical thinking is to say "The black line is the depth tile, stupid!" "No? Er...it's Gerry's arm. Obvious innit? Just admit it." (I paraphrase).
So much effort and hectoring and wild theories and unpleasant sneering. Which you apparently can't help because you were "made that way".
You could learn a lot from PeterMac. His courteous stated view was that there was a "cigarette paper" between our views. The shared opinion was that the last photo is a lie whether because of photoshopping or the day it was taken.

by MissesWillYa 12.11.14 20:02

I'm hesitant to get involved here, but I thought of something...

Does anyone know whether there is a pool at the apartment where some think Madeleine's makeup photo was taken? For that matter, is there a pool at Sagres, where people think the McC family went on Monday (or was it Sunday)?

If it's the case that the last photo was most likely taken on a different day, maybe the three family members were photographed at some other pool, and then the OC pool's surroundings were added behind them? It's just a thought. Could that explain the weird lines near Amelie's wrist, it's the edge of some other pool they were sitting near?

Does anyone know whether these other two locations had pools? If they were in other locations in the early part of the week, they may have had a photo taken of themselves there.

by Smokeandmirrors 12.11.14 20:04

Mr Peabody wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
juliet wrote:No-one asked TB or Bluebag to spend hours - days - trying to kill all photoshopping discussion. I notice that PeterMac keeps out of it, as he says the important and obvious point of agreement is that the photo is fake.
TB and Bluebag' s idea of debate is to say "I disagree with the findings" 50 different ways or come up with ludicrous theories like "Amelie's eyes are a bit open" or "That thin black line is a shadow of Gerry's arm (!)".

Neither has explained, despite being asked repeatedly, why they are so rabidly against all photoshopping debate. What drives their endless and rather futile rebuttals?

A little harsh, there is just no evidence for photoshopping other than the proven metadata change on the last one.
This thread has made entertaining reading! What proven metadata change would that be because if it's proven then the case can be brought to trial imo.

Info with Grange and has been a while

by Guest 12.11.14 20:13

juliet wrote:Bluebag: your idea of critical thinking is to say "The black line is the depth tile, stupid!" "No? Er...it's Gerry's arm. Obvious innit? Just admit it." (I paraphrase).

No it isn't.

That is a gross misrepresentation of the process that was applied here.

I have never looked at this issue myself before but I remembered a discussion about the white tile and I remembered seeing a picture of it roughly behind them.
Someone said it wasn't and I had a closer look and agreed.
I could see that the white was a continuation of the white lip of the tiles around the pool (diagram in this thread).
So then what was the black?
I thought it must be Gerry's arm shadow but the line was too thin.
I then looked for different photos of the pool and saw that the lip of the pool is actually raised.
That made me think that the shadow was of the lip, again wrong.
But then I made the connection with the shadow of the arm and that being partially obscured by the raised lip.
That is a perfect fit.

My think process is laid out here in this thread.

My conclusion is that the black line is the partial shadow of Gerry's arm, the rest being obscured by the raised pool lip.

That's not a "wild theory".

That's a reasoned conclusion.