Analyzing position of sun in last photo

Tony Bennett wrote:

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.

Noted.

I see five extra examples in your post (in red above) of how this photo was 'created' by 'photoshopping' and accordingly will amend my previous list of examples of photoshopping claimst:

OLD LIST
  
1 whole of Gerry shopped in
2 whole of Madeleine shopped in
3 all three shopped in to the pool
4 just Madeleinee's head shopped in
5 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
6 Amelie's arm cut out
7 Madeleine's arm cut out
8 Madeleine's posture not natural
9 white and black item between Gerry and Amelie proves it's been photoshopped
10 Gerry looks like he's floating
11 Gerry's arm doesn't look right
12 nor does his thigh
13 sunglasses reflctions prove that he wasn't there
14 dandelion shadows not consistent with the others
15 bougainvillea didn't flower that time of year
16 Madeleine not wearing clothes for being by the pool
17 absence of emotional contact between the three of them
18 sun too high and shadows too short for that time of year
19 the photo was taken on a previous holiday 

AND NOW I WILL ADD YOUR NEW EXAMPLES

Additions by juliet:

20 'messed up Gerry's weightless body'
21 Gerry's fat arm
22 the tiny knob (finger ?) on Amelie's neck
23 Amelie's eyeliner
24 Maddie's poor unsupported neck


Are there any more, juliet?

It would be very helpful for us to have a full list to consider

9 white and black item between Gerry and Amelie proves it's been photoshopped

juliet wrote:What white and black item between McCann and Amelie? There is an unexplained black line by Amelie's arm, which has no place there and which is in my list.

juliet wrote:Are you actually saying that the thin little black line by Amelie is some sort of shadow of Gerry's arm? And we are supposed to take this seriously because you say so??

• The white bit is the continuation of the edge of the lip of the pool they are sitting on.
  
• The lip of the pool is raised from the ground behind them.
  
• The black line is the partial shadow of Gerry's arm, the rest obscured by the raised lip of the pool.
  

Tony Bennett wrote:

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

jeanmonroe wrote:

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.]

Does anyone KNOW if the PJ 'had' the 'last photo' in their possesion, or had even 'seen' the 'last photo', within the first 'golden hour'?

It WAS in KM's camera at THAT exact time, so she says, wasn't it?

It WAS in her camera................right? BEFORE and AFTER the first GNR/PJ 'arrived' wasn't it?

I wonder why, KM would not, if she (KM) did not, offer up that very  'last photo', taken just hours before Madeleine's 'disappearance'. to the PJ, so that they (PJ) could hastily produce a 'cropped' section, of Madeleine 'only', that they could distribute to the hundreds of 'searchers', the next day, 4th May 2007, so that people would KNOW exactly WHO they were supposed to be 'looking/searching' for, whilst K&G were 'very busy' phoning relatives and searching the internet!!

They, the searchers/police, certainly were NOT 'looking/searching' for, a much 'younger' child, (well actually they were, because 'that' photo was the only one given to them, by the child's parents), a cutesy, younger, child in a red dress, in a photo taken months before, which bore no resemblance to the 'actual' Madeleine, in the pool 'photo', pictured months BEFORE Madeleine was even in PDL.

PeterMac wrote:MID - TERM REVIEW

An attempt at a mid-term review of the discussions about the Last Photo

It is interesting how much debate, not to say anger and vituperation this subject raises.
Way beyond normal debate, argument, refutation, counter argument, introduction of new evidence,
No, something much more visceral is at play here, and one begins to believe that those who take one particular view realise how devastating it would be if the Last Photo were found to be not exactly right.

Let us sum up.

For the Last Photo to be evidence of Madeleine’s continued existence in good health at lunchtime on 3/5/7 every single aspect of it has to be absolutely right.  
If one thing can be shown to be wrong, then it is a Forgery - it tells a lie about itself, and can no longer be prayed in aid, or adduced as proof.

The time (accepting that it can vary by one hour) the date, the 3 people portrayed the location, the weather, their clothing, their positioning, the sunshine conditions, the wind, and all the EXIF, MUST be absolutely correct and beyond reproach and reasoned criticism.
But the more some begin to worry about individual aspects of the photo the more it seems others rush into the breach to defend it.

It is now being argued, apparently in all seriousness that the Weather reports from the local airport could be wrong.
That is then countered with video of a major windsurfing competition just down the coast, and the written reports from that event and from locals who keep such records.
But that is clearly not sufficient and we are then told that the photo was taken inland, whereas the video was on the coast.    This is of course true, but it is presented as if the difference of 400 m between sea and tennis court was especially significant.

We are then told that wind speed is taken with an Anemometer at 3m from the ground in an open area and that the frictional resistance of hedges, trees, buildings, shrubs, cars, and so on will effectively slow the apparent wind speed at human level.  This is correct, of course, but this argument is considerably reduced by noting that the wind from the SSW passes across a large area of open land, a car park, a road, a low wall and some thin and low vegetation, before passing round or through a chain link fence before hitting the three people full in the face, without ruffling Madeleine's fine hair, nor dislodging the children's sun hats

We are also asked to accept that the fact that the sun shone through for a few minutes on a day when the cover increased from 50% + to 75% plus, before clearing later in the evening, would be sufficient to vindicate the Photo.
But people dress for the average of the weather they anticuipate, and all three are dressed for a hot and sunny day, not one with thick clouds which lets the sun through for a few minutes from time to time.

The perspiration sheen, no more, on Gerry’s forehead was noted, but then in an extraordinary leap we are asked to believe that he had come directly from a tennis court, and for that reason would have been sweating.   Except that he is not sweating.  There is no sweat on his T shirt, either under the arms, nor in the characteristic stripe down the front below the chin.    If he had been sweating he would be likely to have showered and changed before lunch.     He is wearing ‘normal’ clothing for a hot day.  He is not wearing Tennis gear, and as a keen and semi-professional sportsman of many year’s standing, would be likely to adhere to a fairly rigid personal dress code when on court.   He has his feet in the pool, there is no sign of expensive tennis shoes
But strangely this explanation is totally independent of, and in fact contrary to anything the McCanns have told us about the sequence of events.

The alternative timings of 13:29 and 14:29 are also in direct contradiction to what is said in statements elsewhere,

And then we come to the strange timings
Why was this not used as the poster photo ?.  It is argued that the poster has to be full face with no hat.  To which one is forced to ask - Why?   The cropped pool photo is far more representative of a child than the much younger one presented from several months before.
Why was the photo not handed to the PJ.    The PJ ended up issuing the poster photo on their own official poster in the absence of any other or better image

And what is the significance of the sequence
20th   GM to UK to collect photos from the album
22nd  GM, PM (PR) return to PdL with Mitchell
23rd   photo sent to AFP
24th photo released to world

But then there is a further inadvertent spin off
The wind at lunchtime is recorded at Force 4 - stiff breeze.
Assuming we accept the argument that at ground level even across open land etc. it would have been less than that, then let us move to consideration of the wind at 10pm
By then it is Force 2/3 and has veered to WNW, at a slight angle to the road and the car park. The road is built up, gardens have trees and bushes, the car park was protected by high trees and thick bushes. The window to the children’s room was further partially protected by a wall, somewhat higher that the sill
The window opening is max. 1 m x 0.5 m   = 0.5 square metre
The door is 2 m x 0.75 m = 1.5 square metre
thus reducing the effective wind speed / pressure by two thirds.

For a gust to slam the door against the weight of an adult holding it, and for a second gust to whoosh full length curtains from where they are trapped between the bed and the wall, and against the wall and the wicker chair, would need a series of gusts of Force 7 +
The effect of this on the 40 square metres of the tarpaulin cover in the Tapas bar would have been “noticeable”, and at Faro airport the wind sheer caused by these extraordinary conditions would have been noted and pilots warned to take appropriate evasive action.
Even when the Tapas group made their rogatories and were specifically asked about the wind conditions, not one commented on this strange phenomenon.

Beyond a reasonable doubt ?  Not sure if an entire jury would agree
Balance of probabilities ?  Certainly arguable

juliet wrote:We members of the "photoshopping brigade" as TB describes us, are not and never have been in disagreement with eachother (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.

PeterMac wrote:MID - TERM REVIEW

An attempt at a mid-term review of the discussions about the Last Photo

It is interesting how much debate, not to say anger and vituperation this subject raises.
Way beyond normal debate, argument, refutation, counter argument, introduction of new evidence,
No, something much more visceral is at play here, and one begins to believe that those who take one particular view realise how devastating it would be if the Last Photo were found to be not exactly right.

Let us sum up.

For the Last Photo to be evidence of Madeleine’s continued existence in good health at lunchtime on 3/5/7 every single aspect of it has to be absolutely right.  
If one thing can be shown to be wrong, then it is a Forgery - it tells a lie about itself, and can no longer be prayed in aid, or adduced as proof.

The time (accepting that it can vary by one hour) the date, the 3 people portrayed the location, the weather, their clothing, their positioning, the sunshine conditions, the wind, and all the EXIF, MUST be absolutely correct and beyond reproach and reasoned criticism.
But the more some begin to worry about individual aspects of the photo the more it seems others rush into the breach to defend it.

It is now being argued, apparently in all seriousness that the Weather reports from the local airport could be wrong.
That is then countered with video of a major windsurfing competition just down the coast, and the written reports from that event and from locals who keep such records.
But that is clearly not sufficient and we are then told that the photo was taken inland, whereas the video was on the coast.    This is of course true, but it is presented as if the difference of 400 m between sea and tennis court was especially significant.

We are then told that wind speed is taken with an Anemometer at 3m from the ground in an open area and that the frictional resistance of hedges, trees, buildings, shrubs, cars, and so on will effectively slow the apparent wind speed at human level.  This is correct, of course, but this argument is considerably reduced by noting that the wind from the SSW passes across a large area of open land, a car park, a road, a low wall and some thin and low vegetation, before passing round or through a chain link fence before hitting the three people full in the face, without ruffling Madeleine's fine hair, nor dislodging the children's sun hats

We are also asked to accept that the fact that the sun shone through for a few minutes on a day when the cover increased from 50% + to 75% plus, before clearing later in the evening, would be sufficient to vindicate the Photo.
But people dress for the average of the weather they anticuipate, and all three are dressed for a hot and sunny day, not one with thick clouds which lets the sun through for a few minutes from time to time.

The perspiration sheen, no more, on Gerry’s forehead was noted, but then in an extraordinary leap we are asked to believe that he had come directly from a tennis court, and for that reason would have been sweating.   Except that he is not sweating.  There is no sweat on his T shirt, either under the arms, nor in the characteristic stripe down the front below the chin.    If he had been sweating he would be likely to have showered and changed before lunch.     He is wearing ‘normal’ clothing for a hot day.  He is not wearing Tennis gear, and as a keen and semi-professional sportsman of many year’s standing, would be likely to adhere to a fairly rigid personal dress code when on court.   He has his feet in the pool, there is no sign of expensive tennis shoes
But strangely this explanation is totally independent of, and in fact contrary to anything the McCanns have told us about the sequence of events.

The alternative timings of 13:29 and 14:29 are also in direct contradiction to what is said in statements elsewhere,

And then we come to the strange timings
Why was this not used as the poster photo ?.  It is argued that the poster has to be full face with no hat.  To which one is forced to ask - Why?   The cropped pool photo is far more representative of a child than the much younger one presented from several months before.
Why was the photo not handed to the PJ.    The PJ ended up issuing the poster photo on their own official poster in the absence of any other or better image

And what is the significance of the sequence
20th   GM to UK to collect photos from the album
22nd  GM, PM (PR) return to PdL with Mitchell
23rd   photo sent to AFP
24th photo released to world

But then there is a further inadvertent spin off
The wind at lunchtime is recorded at Force 4 - stiff breeze.
Assuming we accept the argument that at ground level even across open land etc. it would have been less than that, then let us move to consideration of the wind at 10pm
By then it is Force 2/3 and has veered to WNW, at a slight angle to the road and the car park. The road is built up, gardens have trees and bushes, the car park was protected by high trees and thick bushes. The window to the children’s room was further partially protected by a wall, somewhat higher that the sill
The window opening is max. 1 m x 0.5 m   = 0.5 square metre
The door is 2 m x 0.75 m = 1.5 square metre
thus reducing the effective wind speed / pressure by two thirds.

For a gust to slam the door against the weight of an adult holding it, and for a second gust to whoosh full length curtains from where they are trapped between the bed and the wall, and against the wall and the wicker chair, would need a series of gusts of Force 7 +
The effect of this on the 40 square metres of the tarpaulin cover in the Tapas bar would have been “noticeable”, and at Faro airport the wind sheer caused by these extraordinary conditions would have been noted and pilots warned to take appropriate evasive action.
Even when the Tapas group made their rogatories and were specifically asked about the wind conditions, not one commented on this strange phenomenon.

Beyond a reasonable doubt ?  Not sure if an entire jury would agree
Balance of probabilities ?  Certainly arguable

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Joss thanks for posting up the info about the metadata. It says the picture was created on the 3rd but modified on the 24th. Could this mean the creation date could have been modified?

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Joss thanks for posting up the info about the metadata. It says the picture was created on the 3rd but modified on the 24th. Could this mean the creation date could have been modified?

PeterMac wrote:
SNIP

There is probably a difference between the "official version' with day 1 being the day of arrival, briefing etc
and day 1 of racing, which is possibly the next day.
Needs more work either way.
But is does show serious wind in the early afternoon.  Those windsails are belting along, and bystanders are wearing fleeces.

PeterMac wrote:

Joss wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Joss thanks for posting up the info about the metadata. It says the picture was created on the 3rd but modified on the 24th. Could this mean the creation date could have been modified?

You're welcome. In reply to your question it could be modified but i don't really know for sure. I am not very photography knowledgeable, but maybe someone else that is could answer the question a bit better?
The info. is from the link i just posted earlier, the Mccannfiles.

Yes, it can.
google is, or have a quick look at
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] How to Edit Exif Data in Photographs
Why would anyone want to modify the Exif data of photographs? Well, there can be several genuine reasons.
For instance, the internal date of your camera was incorrect and therefore all the pictures were captured with a wrong timestamp.

EXIF Date Changer 3.0.1.2

rustyjames wrote:

PeterMac wrote:
SNIP

There is probably a difference between the "official version' with day 1 being the day of arrival, briefing etc
and day 1 of racing, which is possibly the next day.
Needs more work either way.
But is does show serious wind in the early afternoon.  Those windsails are belting along, and bystanders are wearing fleeces.

The schedule seems to be clearer on the main page for the competition - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]