Analyzing position of sun in last photo

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

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

Mr Peabody wrote:Can the metadata be proven to have been changed there is a lot of 'if it has been' on this and other threads. If you are correct then this debate is a waste of time. As far as I can conclude info. about expert opinion on photoshopping and weather had been made into a theory where the likelihood was the picture was taken on another day and this is what was passed to OG. Can the metadata change actually be proven?

We found the people carrier plus driver we’d pre-booked to meet us at Faro airport and arrived at the Ocean Club resort in the village of Praia da Luz at around three. After checking in we were driven over to our accommodation in a minibus by a Mark Warner rep. . . .
 . . .After the first couple of days we barely used the front door, coming and going through the patio doors and up and down the steps.  [Ooops !]

The travel cots we’d requested for Sean and Amelie had been placed in the back bedroom. As there were full-length patio doors here, too, and it was bigger and brighter, we decided to put the three children in the front bedroom, knowing they’d only be using their room to sleep in, and to take this one ourselves. We removed the cots and shoved the twin beds together. In the other room, we pushed the beds further apart, positioning each against a wall, to make room for the cots, which we placed in between them.
After reorganizing the sleeping arrangements and unpacking some essentials, we went down to the pool area at the back of the apartment to join the rest of the holiday group

The weather was pleasant enough, although there was a cool breeze. It was still April, after all.

Mr Peabody wrote:

Can the metadata be proven to have been changed there is a lot of 'if it has been' on this and other threads. If you are correct then this debate is a waste of time. As far as I can conclude info. about expert opinion on photoshopping and weather had been made into a theory where the likelihood was the picture was taken on another day and this is what was passed to OG. Can the metadata change actually be proven?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Mr Peabody wrote:

Can the metadata be proven to have been changed there is a lot of 'if it has been' on this and other threads. If you are correct then this debate is a waste of time. As far as I can conclude info. about expert opinion on photoshopping and weather had been made into a theory where the likelihood was the picture was taken on another day and this is what was passed to OG. Can the metadata change actually be proven?

I think you're the second person to suggest on this thread tonight that the 'Last Photo' threads are 'a waste of time'.

I don't think it's at all likely that one could prove, 7 years later, that the metadata were altered as has been suggested on this and other 'Last Photo' threads.

But I suggest that with these threads we edge nearer the truth.

You could say the same about Martin Grime's evidence, couldn't you?

"He can't prove there was a corpse there, uncorroborated evidence like that can't be used in a court of law, so sending the bloke there in the first place was a waste of time".

Mr Peabody wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Mr Peabody wrote:

Can the metadata be proven to have been changed there is a lot of 'if it has been' on this and other threads. If you are correct then this debate is a waste of time. As far as I can conclude info. about expert opinion on photoshopping and weather had been made into a theory where the likelihood was the picture was taken on another day and this is what was passed to OG. Can the metadata change actually be proven?

I think you're the second person to suggest on this thread tonight that the 'Last Photo' threads are 'a waste of time'.

I don't think it's at all likely that one could prove, 7 years later, that the metadata were altered as has been suggested on this and other 'Last Photo' threads.

But I suggest that with these threads we edge nearer the truth.

You could say the same about Martin Grime's evidence, couldn't you?

"He can't prove there was a corpse there, uncorroborated evidence like that can't be used in a court of law, so sending the bloke there in the first place was a waste of time".

Tony, you have taken this out of context,  S&M claimed the metadata had been proven and I was asking if this was correct as if it was then this thread is a waste of time.  Would you agree?

Interesting that you use the dogs as an example are you suggesting their 'evidence' is a waste of time?

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Mr Peabody wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Mr Peabody wrote:

Can the metadata be proven to have been changed there is a lot of 'if it has been' on this and other threads. If you are correct then this debate is a waste of time. As far as I can conclude info. about expert opinion on photoshopping and weather had been made into a theory where the likelihood was the picture was taken on another day and this is what was passed to OG. Can the metadata change actually be proven?

I think you're the second person to suggest on this thread tonight that the 'Last Photo' threads are 'a waste of time'.

I don't think it's at all likely that one could prove, 7 years later, that the metadata were altered as has been suggested on this and other 'Last Photo' threads.

But I suggest that with these threads we edge nearer the truth.

You could say the same about Martin Grime's evidence, couldn't you?

"He can't prove there was a corpse there, uncorroborated evidence like that can't be used in a court of law, so sending the bloke there in the first place was a waste of time".

Tony, you have taken this out of context,  S&M claimed the metadata had been proven and I was asking if this was correct as if it was then this thread is a waste of time.  Would you agree?

Interesting that you use the dogs as an example are you suggesting their 'evidence' is a waste of time?

I thought it had been proven some while ago, but if mistaken I humbly retract.

However, the time and date on the photo CANNOT be correct as the weather conditions did not match those in the photo at any point in the day of the 3rd, so after extensive weather data being analysed we still end up with the position that the data on the picture must have been altered.

The only other explanation for this discrepecny is that the Mccanns wield so much power that they had the weather changed for the photo.

Mr Peabody wrote:

If it had been proven that the last photo was a fraud, surely that would have been trumpeted from the rooftops

@ Tony what about the dogs comparison, was this also a waste of time?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Mr Peabody wrote:

If it had been proven that the last photo was a fraud, surely that would have been trumpeted from the rooftops

@ Tony what about the dogs comparison, was this also a waste of time?

I think we are talking at cross purposes (my fault more than yours).

I think you were making the point - which 'smokeandmirrors' has since acknowledged - that there is no proof whatsoever that the metadata (time/date) of the 'Last Photo' have been altered.

What we have is indications that they might have been.    

Some say these are strong indications.

Others so they are weak.

I was making the point that even if something can't be proved outright one way or the other, it is still useful to discuss the evidences and indications either way on a forum such as this.

The dogs' alerts are an example.

Some here assert that the dogs' alerts are absolute proof that there was a coprse in Apartment G5A.

The McCanns' line is that at best these were mere 'indications' and in any event useless in a court of law because (they say) there is no corroboration.

Mr Peabody wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Mr Peabody wrote:

If it had been proven that the last photo was a fraud, surely that would have been trumpeted from the rooftops

@ Tony what about the dogs comparison, was this also a waste of time?

I think we are talking at cross purposes (my fault more than yours).

I think you were making the point - which 'smokeandmirrors' has since acknowledged - that there is no proof whatsoever that the metadata (time/date) of the 'Last Photo' have been altered.

What we have is indications that they might have been.    

Some say these are strong indications.

Others so they are weak.

I was making the point that even if something can't be proved outright one way or the other, it is still useful to discuss the evidences and indications either way on a forum such as this.

The dogs' alerts are an example.

Some here assert that the dogs' alerts are absolute proof that there was a coprse in Apartment G5A.

The McCanns' line is that at best these were mere 'indications' and in any event useless in a court of law because (they say) there is no corroboration.

Where do you stand on these alerts proof or indications? mines is proof (of a body but not whose because the dogs don't know). The other circumstantial evidence (at least) points to MBM.

Yes - please...

MissesWillYa wrote: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?

Are you referring to the Solimar apartments in Burgau, built and maintained by Robert Murat's father, where hairs which might belong to Robert Murat and Jane Tanner were found?

For that matter, is there a pool at Sagres, where people think the McC family went on Monday (or was it Sunday)?

People only think this because it suited British mainstream media stories on 11 & 12 May to claim that a paedophile [Wojcek Krokowski - see other thread in Debate section*] may have seen the McCanns at Sagres, either on the Monday or the Sunday. There is absolutely no evidence that the McCanns went to Sagres (some 16 miles from Praia da Luz) at all during that holiday - and 'madeleine' by Dr Kate McCann also makes no reference to a visit to Sagres

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

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?

An understandable suggestion, but it's not really necessary (there seems to be a perfectly valid reason for the 'weird lines' - see BlueBag's posts). Your suggestion would also mean that, if they were at another pool, they would all have to have been facing exactly the same way - because of the shadows. The shadows are precisely correct for the 'Last Photo', with the group sitting where they were photographed. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they were all facing the right way in another photo at another pool   

Does anyone know whether these other two locations had pools?

I don't know.

If they were in other locations in the early part of the week, they may have had a photo taken of themselves there.

There is no evidence I'm aware of for their being in any other locations that week

Mr Peabody wrote:

Mr Peabody wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Mr Peabody wrote:

If it had been proven that the last photo was a fraud, surely that would have been trumpeted from the rooftops

@ Tony what about the dogs comparison, was this also a waste of time?

I think we are talking at cross purposes (my fault more than yours).

I think you were making the point - which 'smokeandmirrors' has since acknowledged - that there is no proof whatsoever that the metadata (time/date) of the 'Last Photo' have been altered.

What we have is indications that they might have been.    

Some say these are strong indications.

Others so they are weak.

I was making the point that even if something can't be proved outright one way or the other, it is still useful to discuss the evidences and indications either way on a forum such as this.

The dogs' alerts are an example.

Some here assert that the dogs' alerts are absolute proof that there was a coprse in Apartment G5A.

The McCanns' line is that at best these were mere 'indications' and in any event useless in a court of law because (they say) there is no corroboration.

Where do you stand on these alerts proof or indications? mines is proof (of a body but not whose because the dogs don't know). The other circumstantial evidence (at least) points to MBM.

Back to the thread topic;

Yes - please...

so there is no proof whatsoever of metadata being changed yet you and others are vehemently arguing that it has based on Michael Fish's weather forecasts!  

WARNING - a complete misrepresentation of what posters on this thread have been saying - kindly refrain
 
And the photoshoppers are standing their ground based on their lack of photographic knowledge. One side or the other is trying very hard but in whose interest? All imo.

A robust and constructive debate is in progress. Either make a constructive contribution to the thread - or try and make a constructive contribution somewhere else on the forum

- admin

PeterMac wrote:

After reorganizing the sleeping arrangements and unpacking some essentials, we went down to the pool area at the back of the apartment to join the rest of the holiday group

BUT

The weather was pleasant enough, although there was a cool breeze. It was still April, after all.

aiyoyo wrote:
It could well have been taken on the day of arrival, .

PeterMac wrote:But they didn't arrive until 3pm.  
At Main reception, then keys, signing in, maps, different minibus, luggage, apartments, unload, children, toilet, shower, change,
look round, move beds and cots, sort out, unpack a bit, and
THEN go outside.

This is at least 4pm, possibly later.   And they were due at the endless reception speeches and

We found the people carrier plus driver we’d pre-booked to meet us at Faro airport and arrived at the Ocean Club resort in the village of Praia da Luz at around three. After checking in we were driven over to our accommodation in a minibus by a Mark Warner rep. . . .
 . . .After the first couple of days we barely used the front door, coming and going through the patio doors and up and down the steps.  [Ooops !]

The travel cots we’d requested for Sean and Amelie had been placed in the back bedroom. As there were full-length patio doors here, too, and it was bigger and brighter, we decided to put the three children in the front bedroom, knowing they’d only be using their room to sleep in, and to take this one ourselves. We removed the cots and shoved the twin beds together. In the other room, we pushed the beds further apart, positioning each against a wall, to make room for the cots, which we placed in between them.
After reorganizing the sleeping arrangements and unpacking some essentials, we went down to the pool area at the back of the apartment to join the rest of the holiday group

No mention of changing the children into the Gap and Monsoon special clothes, no mention of hot weather, no mention of shorts, T shirts,    . . .

BUT

The weather was pleasant enough, although there was a cool breeze. It was still April, after all.

PeterMac wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
It could well have been taken on the day of arrival, .

My point was that even on their own admission it would have been 4pm before they got down to the pool to meet all the others, and more probably 4.30
The sun is clearly high in the sky - on any test,  - and incidentally where are all the others. Where is the Group Photo ? "Here is us on the first day . . ."

It is indicators like this that force me towards Sunday 29th

PeterMac wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
It could well have been taken on the day of arrival, .

My point was that even on their own admission it would have been 4pm before they got down to the pool to meet all the others, and more probably 4.30
The sun is clearly high in the sky - on any test,  - and incidentally where are all the others. Where is the Group Photo ? "Here is us on the first day . . ."

It is indicators like this that force me towards Sunday 29th

Tony Bennett 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?

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...

j.rob wrote:In my opinion only there is no reason at all that they would be telling the truth with their photos. They don't with anything else. If you go through the photos in Kate's book carefully, very few of them stand up to scrutiny. So many are 'composites', designed to convey a normal, happy and contented family life. When that was not the reality, imo.

As for the last photo, I do think Gerry looks quite manic. Staring fixedly at whoever is taking the photograph. There are many odd things about it. I just can't believe that this was the best they could come up with THREE WEEKS LATER!!

Incredible.

I have a very nasty suspicion that photographs and filming may well have been a feature of that holiday. But what was being photographed or filmed was not suitable for the family album

What we have seen paraded before out eyes, literally played out under the full media glare, is nothing less than an abomination, imo. And to then have Kate in a role as ambassador for missing children.

There is something very rotten indeed in the state of Denmark.

juliet wrote:We members of the "photoshopping brigade" as TB describes us, are not and never have been in disagreement with each other (as he so falsely claims). We are in total agreement that a not very skilled photoshopper has tried to suggest that these three McCanns once sat together at the side of the PdL pool. This photoshopper seems to have got the shadows right, according to those senior academic experts Tony loves to invoke, but he messed up Gerry's weightless body, his fat arm, Amelie's non existent arm, the tiny knob (finger?) on Amelie's neck, her eyeliner, that mystery black line by her arm,  Maddie's poor unsupported neck, before even beginning on the sunglasses and the reflection...The people we disagree with are TB and Bluebag who for some reason have spent many days trying to clamp down on all photoshopping discussion. Btw we don't say the photo was "tampered with". That suggests tyere was once a photo to mess about with. We say the Last Photo was created to support the idea that Maddie was alive and well and part of a happy family holiday.

Joss wrote:Does anyone know if the supposed "last photo" was analyzed by the software to determine if the photo was photoshopped or not? That would be one way to make a fairly accurate opinion on it i would think?
I don't know if you would need the original photo etc. or not, but this is some kind of computer programme to maybe help with that:

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