Re: Textusa releases new statement (6 Nov 2015) on 'The Last Photo' - says it is a photoshopped composite of THREE different photographs, two of which were taken on Friday 18 May 2007

by Verdi 11.11.15 23:06

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: On the second link note that all items examined have a reference beginning "NALF" these are the initials of Mr Foster.

Would you be so kind as to tell how you know NALF are the initials of Mr Foster? Seems a rather extraordinary reference system for the police and/or computer science.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.11.15 23:18

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Thanks for the reply, Tony. Glad it is finally cleared up! FYI the reason Hampshire were involved is simple. They are the Fosters local force and LP just logically delegated the task to them and PC Barham went to collect the items and took them to DC Martin to examine them. I get why it seems odd that the items were delivered late evening to the home address of the examiner, but put this down to wanting it done quickly. This was only 5 days later remember and abduction was still a real possibility.

If there was anything dodgy about this surely it is obvious LP wouldn't have forwarded on the email that is in the files!

I can't find the thread to link but the more detailed look into the Olympus and Hampshire Police was discussed in a thread at MMM. IIRC, it was the member 'Seahorse' that figured out the "NALF" reference being Mr Fosters initials. PeterMac also posted, I think.

Your input here on this matter has been most welcome and helpful, has indeed cleared up this issue for once and for all I think -and has avoided us going down another wrong turning.

Thanks again!

by Verdi 11.11.15 23:44

A few pointers to be getting on with..

MBM was reported missing on the night of 3rd May 2007.

Only five days later (weekend in between) Leicester police are requesting Hampshire police to call on the Fosters to check out photographic footage, video if I remember correctly. The footage had been uploaded on the Fosters computer/s and they didn't have the technical knowhow to send to the police. No mention at that stage of any camera equipment, memory cards etc.

Looking for the appropriate email I came across this I posted earlier this year..

Email from Leicester police to Hampshire Constabulary dated 8th May 2007

Would you kindly permit an officer to visit Mrs F*****?.
She has recently been on holiday to the MW complex and is in possession of video footage taken by her husband. It is understood that the footage is currently contained on their home computer. The allocated officer will need to review the footage and all footage of the complex should be downloaded onto a suitable storage disc. Mr F**** has indicated that it probably only consists of a thirty second pan of the playground area/pool area/Tapas bar. Mr and Mrs F are not technically competent to download the data. Please statement accordingly re exhibit continuity.

I have spoken to Mr F this morning and he has been advised that local officers will make contact with his wife.

If possible please send a copy to me for initial viewing in the Incident Room.

No mention of anything but video footage on the Fosters home computer to be transfered to an appropriate disc for onward transmission. At this point I can't see the need for the disc to be forwarded to an technical expert for analysis when all that was required was for the visiting police officer to transfer the video footage from the Fosters computer to a disc to be later examined by Leicester police.

Moving on to Stuart Martin's witness statement, there is absolutely no confirmation or even indication that the camera equipment handed over to him was the property of the Foster family. Not that I expect it to be mentioned in his statement but as I said, the detail of the equipment given over to him for analysis does not in any way indicate that it was connected to the Fosters. According to the email above, Mr Foster thought there would only be a thirty second pan on their video that might be of assistance to the investigation - again this hardly accords with the detail of the items analyzed by Stuart Martin. Also, neither Mr Foster or his wife were being investigated by the police so why would it be necessary to analyze their photographic equipment and/or shots, surely all the police would require is the actual photographs and/or video to view?

In my view this begs the question - who did this camera equipment belong to?

Looking at the bigger picture maybe this is not particularly important but this forum has been under a lot of fire, as some non-members insist categorically that the photographic equipment and imagery analyzed by Stuart Martin was the property of the Fosters alone, I would like to see some proof of that assertion. Not only for my own peace of mind but also to avert yet another instance of supposition being passed off as fact. It seems to me to be a case of if you say it often enough people will believe it.
----------

I'm none the wiser to date.

by Grande Finale 11.11.15 23:51

Was the last photograph photoshopped ?
Yes it was !

Create Date 2007:05:24 17:41:20+01:00
11 months, 23 days, 7 hours, 3 minutes, 4 seconds ago
Creator Tool Adobe Photoshop CS Windows

Does the date change when an image is digitally altered ?
Yes it does !

Create Date 2007:05:24 17:41:20+01:00

Was the date of the original photograph changed in the Exif data ?
It would be relatively easy to do so !

it is relatively easy to alter this date, to give a false reading, by downloading a utility called ExifTool from the web.

Exif data and large resolution image at the bottom of the page here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
My conclusion "The last photograph" cannot be used as proof that madeleine was
present at the Ocean club on 3rd May 2007.

The press were reporting at that time that there were other family photographs taken after the last photograph ? Go figure ??

Hi-de-ho asked the question is there any proof that Maddie was seen after Sunday 29th ?
I personally haven't seen any proof yet !

Right I'm off to watch Richie D Halls The Phantoms ?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by j.rob 12.11.15 0:00

Oh dear, how childish some posters are on here. And quite incapable of any kind of reasoned argument, it would seem. Did some posters ever get GCSE English? I really do wonder.

But just to ask quite a simple question again, from my previous post:

Even if the ONLY thing that is 'wrong' with the photo is that there was deception about when it was taken, and it was taken on Saturday rather than Thursday, that still means that the photo is deceptive. As it purports to show something happening on Thursday, when in fact it was happening on Saturday.

So why the need for this (major) deception?

----

Tony and some other posters appear to think that the last photo was taken on Saturday and not on Thursday as the McCanns and theiir friends/supporters allege.

I am just wondering why they would want to be so deceptive?

Quite a simple question really.

by Guest 12.11.15 7:09

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: On the second link note that all items examined have a reference beginning "NALF" these are the initials of Mr Foster.

Would you be so kind as to tell how you know NALF are the initials of Mr Foster? Seems a rather extraordinary reference system for the police and/or computer science.

Quiet.

What does NALF exactly stand for?

They used his second and third names?

Really?

by Guest 12.11.15 7:11

j.rob wrote:Oh dear, how childish some posters are on here. And quite incapable of any kind of reasoned argument, it would seem. Did some posters ever get GCSE English? I really do wonder.

But just to ask quite a simple question again, from my previous post:

Even if the ONLY thing that is 'wrong' with the photo is that there was deception about when it was taken, and it was taken on Saturday rather than Thursday, that still means that the photo is deceptive. As it purports to show something happening on Thursday, when in fact it was happening on Saturday.

So why the need for this (major) deception?

----

Tony and some other posters appear to think that the last photo was taken on Saturday and not on Thursday as the McCanns and theiir friends/supporters allege.

I am just wondering why they would want to be so deceptive?

Quite a simple question really.

No j.rob.

Your original post didn't just ask a a simple question.

Your original post mentioned fakery because of subjects not engaging with the camera and a missing arm.

That's why you got flak.

by Guest 12.11.15 7:46

PC Clive Barham works for the Hampshire Constabulary.

He is based in Bishops Waltham.

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

Bishops Waltham and Soberton are policed by the same team.

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

Soberton is where the Fosters live (it's in the PJ files photocopy).

So the stuff delivered for analysis was absolutely from the Fosters camera.

However... the photos delivered to the PJ from the Tapas group seems to have come from a CD.

Did the PJ ever ask why "the last photo" was held back from this CD?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.15 8:21

BlueBag wrote:
So the stuff delivered for analysis was absolutely from the Fosters camera.

REPLY: You mean from their cameras (pl.) - the video camcorder, AND what we must presume was their Olympus.

However... the photos delivered to the PJ from the Tapas group seems to have come from a CD.
Did the PJ ever ask why "the last photo" was held back from this CD?

REPLY: IIRC Michael Wright and Gerry McCann delivered TWO CDs to Portimao Police Station. These contain pdf. photos which had been collated and in some cases cropped from - well, we don't actually know which cameras - by Gerry McCann, Michael Wright, and the Head of Risk at one of the world's most prestigious and powerful PR agencies, Alex Woolfall...

Times, 6 October 2007:

QUOTE

The McCanns had photographs of Madeleine on their digital camera, which Mr Woolfall began transferring to a laptop computer.

"I said to Kate, 'Let's try to identify pictures where her face is visible'. Downloading the images was a very difficult process for them. It was upsetting.

[ SNIPPED ]

Mr Woolfall transmitted the photographs to the Press Association in London, from where they were distributed to the media. The portfolio included the now famous image of Madeleine wearing a hat on a tennis court.

UNQUOTE

by Guest 12.11.15 8:29

Yes sorry, cameras.

Again I ask... when the last photo popped up on the 28th May... did the PJ not go "WTF?... do you have any others like this tucked away?"

Did they not DEMAND everything - the memory cards - immediately?

by Guest 12.11.15 8:43

HelenMeg wrote:
bobbin wrote:Thankyou skyrocket,
...
The bourganvilleau is in full bloom on the 'Last photo'... yet when I looked at other photos taken at the time of M's stay in PdL ( in someones public facebook photo collection available online) - they had not yet started to bloom!

...

Long shot, but hey ho, if you don't ask you don't get.~

Have you any idea where this Facebook photo collection was, or how you found it? Photos of Luz from that time are valuable.

by Guest 12.11.15 8:43

Looked up Foster, Soberton in Whitepages.

His first name begins with N.
His second name begins with A.
No idea what L is.

So NALF is almost certainly a reference to Mr Foster which includes video and Olympus camera.

All publicly available information.

by guest12345 12.11.15 9:19

Tony Bennett wrote:
guest12345 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
guest12345 wrote:@ willowthewisp........

You may find that other pictures with other people in the background are not able to be published, at the request of the person in the photo (who doesn't want to be judged as a suspect) or by any police force who are investigating all leads....including anyone caught on film.

...or you may find that there are no photos of Madeleine at all after Sunday that week

That is one other theory yes Tony, although without access to the case files/evidence (annoyingly for us) we will never know what additional photos (if any) there are
Don't you think, honestly @ guest12345, that if there was even ONE photo that provided clear proof that Madeleine was alive after Sunday 29 April, that the McCann propaganda machine would have moved heaven and earth to make sure that the public saw it? - Not necessarily as the parents don't have access to photographic evidence in the files

It would remove all the 'conspiracy' theories at a stroke, wouldn't it? - Possibly, or would just provoke different conspiracy theories. Besides, 'confusion is good' right?

None in the McCanns' camera, the Canon, not one save 'The Last Photo' and the three 'playground photos'. - That are in the public domain

None in the Paynes' camera, the Olympus, not one. - That are in the public domain

None in anyone else's camera. - That are in the public domain

One in Philip Edmonds' camera, so he says - but has anyone produced it? - As it's not in the public domain due to being in the live case files

Please don't tell me honestly that you think that one is sitting in the PJ offices in Portimao, gathering dust of over 8 years, which conclusively proves she was alive after 29 April? - No, I personally think there will be a very large file containing lots of photographs as collected by CEOP. Some showing potential witnesses/suspects and no Madeleine, some used to map the movements of the family and other guests and some to show Madeleine's movements as best possible

Apologies for the late reply on this Tony (and other threads), I have had some pretty serious issues to deal with at home so catching up on everything. Comments above.

It never fails to surprise me how much interest is played on the photographs. The photos available to us on-line/through the media may well have been airbrushed/photoshopped/descriptions or timings changed, but this will most likely be to make the photos have as much impact as possible in the media/marketing information.

If there was no evidence in the on-going case files of Madeleine being alive after the Saturday as suggested, non of the forces involved would be focusing on witness statements/suspects on the fateful evening. It just wouldn't happen. There would be an appeal to the public for more information relating to the days prior to the event and all forces, especially the PJ (and Amaral, whom everyone seems to trust/believe) would not be saying she died on that evening.

Amaral/the PJ would have had more conclusive evidence of deception from the parents and as such, they would have been charged...but they didn't and the parents weren't.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.15 9:39

guest12345 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
guest12345 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
guest12345 wrote:@ willowthewisp........

You may find that other pictures with other people in the background are not able to be published, at the request of the person in the photo (who doesn't want to be judged as a suspect) or by any police force who are investigating all leads....including anyone caught on film.

...or you may find that there are no photos of Madeleine at all after Sunday that week

That is one other theory yes Tony, although without access to the case files/evidence (annoyingly for us) we will never know what additional photos (if any) there are
Don't you think, honestly @ guest12345, that if there was even ONE photo that provided clear proof that Madeleine was alive after Sunday 29 April, that the McCann propaganda machine would have moved heaven and earth to make sure that the public saw it? - Not necessarily as the parents don't have access to photographic evidence in the files

It would remove all the 'conspiracy' theories at a stroke, wouldn't it? - Possibly, or would just provoke different conspiracy theories. Besides, 'confusion is good' right?

None in the McCanns' camera, the Canon, not one save 'The Last Photo' and the three 'playground photos'. - That are in the public domain

None in the Paynes' camera, the Olympus, not one. - That are in the public domain

None in anyone else's camera. - That are in the public domain

One in Philip Edmonds' camera, so he says - but has anyone produced it? - As it's not in the public domain due to being in the live case files

Please don't tell me honestly that you think that one is sitting in the PJ offices in Portimao, gathering dust of over 8 years, which conclusively proves she was alive after 29 April? - No, I personally think there will be a very large file containing lots of photographs as collected by CEOP. Some showing potential witnesses/suspects and no Madeleine, some used to map the movements of the family and other guests and some to show Madeleine's movements as best possible
It never fails to surprise me how much interest is played on the photographs. The photos available to us on-line/through the media may well have been airbrushed/photoshopped/descriptions or timings changed, but this will most likely be to make the photos have as much impact as possible in the media/marketing information.

@ guest12345

May I say how much I admire your bravery.

You are bold enough to tell us that in your careful judgment, photoshopping and even altered timings of photos were deliberately carried out "to make the photos have as much impact as possible" for "media/marketing information".

Your courage in holding to the view that there may be numerous photos of Madeleine alive, from Sunday to Thursday that week, available to the PJ and/or Scotland Yard, but the PJ are hiding them, is commendable.

Your fearlessness in waving aside the fact that the McCanns cannot produce ANY family photographs from that holiday (with or without Madeleine) that are without dispute later than Sunday is again a subject for our wonderment and astonishment.

Your ingenuity in imagining that CEOP have a bulging file of photos tucked away in their HQ which include ones showing Madeleine's movements throughout that week quite frankly takes my breath away.

But most of all I am grateful to you for at last revealing your true agenda for being here.

by **Jill Havern** 12.11.15 9:42

Tony Bennett wrote:But most of all I am grateful to you for at last revealing your true agenda for being here.

by Carrry On Doctor 12.11.15 9:59

The longevity of this topic and frequent outbreak of war over it is testimony to its significance. It is clearly critical to the case and is one of the best hopes of finding evidence on which someone can act.

If the 'last photo' is proved to be fake, the house of cards tumbles.

The ferocity of the rebuttals from some quarters is very revealing.

It is one of our best chances. Great work CMOMM.

by Guest 12.11.15 10:40

guest12345 wrote:

Amaral/the PJ would have had more conclusive evidence of deception from the parents and as such, they would have been charged...but they didn't and the parents weren't.

You are suggesting that the PJ were not being hampered.

Clearly they were on a number of fronts.

Politically and the LP were not exactly brilliant at forwarding all relevant information.

by Guest 12.11.15 10:41

Carrry On Doctor wrote:The longevity of this topic and frequent outbreak of war over it is testimony to its significance. It is clearly critical to the case and is one of the best hopes of finding evidence on which someone can act.

If the 'last photo' is proved to be fake, the house of cards tumbles.

The ferocity of the rebuttals from some quarters is very revealing.

It is one of our best chances. Great work CMOMM.

In what way is it revealing?

Some people are interested in testable proof... if you can't provide it than expect to be rebutted.

by pennylane 12.11.15 10:47

BlueBag wrote:
guest12345 wrote:

Amaral/the PJ would have had more conclusive evidence of deception from the parents and as such, they would have been charged...but they didn't and the parents weren't.
You are suggesting that the PJ were not being hampered.

Clearly they were on a number of fronts.

Politically and the LP were not exactly brilliant at forwarding all relevant information.

Exactly BB. The PJ were indeed hampered, and the Home Office obscured every attempt for the investigation to get off the ground, by holding back basic information on the McCanns. An obstruction of justice if ever I saw it.

Stuart Prior: 'We have arrested people in England for a lot less!'

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.15 11:06

BlueBag wrote:
Some people are interested in testable proof... if you can't provide it than expect to be rebutted.

The entire forum is about testable proof, or perhaps we should, rather, talk about testable evidence.

This is a reminder of the forum's mission statement:

This forum is dedicated to finding the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann and why there is a UK government cover up. Members regularly submit evidence to the British and Portuguese police and to Goncalo Amaral.

It is often said by posters something like "This is only my opinion - and I'm entitled to my opinion".

However, there is only ONE truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann, and we are much more likely to get there if we sift bad, unevidenced theories from good, evidenced ones.

The problem on this thread is that we have on one side two top photographic experts and an array of others knowledgeable in camera and photoshopping matters who all pronounce the Last Photo as genuine.

(On top of that, we have a great deal of largely circumstantial evidence that it was probably taken on the Sunday).

Ranged against these experts is a small army mostly of amateurs who have come up with an array of dozens of impressions of this or that bit of photoshopping. Verdi provided a list of about 20 photoshopping ideas that people have put forward - but the list is far longer. And equally, the 'photoshoppers' strenuously disagree with each other about which bits of photoshopping are the right ones!

In the poll, this army of amateurs who prefer the 'photoshopping' solution to the claim that the Last Photo is genuine - but not taken on Thursday 3 May - is about equally divided between those who support Textusa's hypothesis that the McCanns held a photoshoot on Friday 18 May to create the 'Last Photo', and those who disagree with her.

Given the array of photographic experts who have pronounced the Last Photo is a genuine, unphotoshopped photo, the burden is very much on the photoshopping brigade to come here and present convincing evidence that these top experts are somehow mistaken.

by Verdi 12.11.15 12:18

Was having computer problems when posting today @ 12:44 am. This should have followed the introduction..

a) Why did it occur to the Fosters that they might have photographs of interest to the investigation into MBM's disappearance only days after it was reported.

b) Why did the Fosters contact Leicester police as opposed to their local constabulary - how did they know that Leicester police were involved only days after MBM's disappearance was reported.

I wish to make it quite clear that in no way am I suggesting the Fosters are in any way at fault, I'm merely trying to make some sense out of it all. So far I haven't read anything to convince me that all the photographic equipment and associated paraphernalia belonged solely to the Fosters. Remember this..

Email from Leicester police to Hampshire Constabulary dated 8th May 2007

Would you kindly permit an officer to visit Mrs F*****?.
She has recently been on holiday to the MW complex and is in possession of video footage taken by her husband. It is understood that the footage is currently contained on their home computer. The allocated officer will need to review the footage and all footage of the complex should be downloaded onto a suitable storage disc. Mr F**** has indicated that it probably only consists of a thirty second pan of the playground area/pool area/Tapas bar. Mr and Mrs F are not technically competent to download the data. Please statement accordingly re exhibit continuity.

I have spoken to Mr F this morning and he has been advised that local officers will make contact with his wife.

If possible please send a copy to me for initial viewing in the Incident Room.

Having said that, clearly I'm out on a limb on this one so will bow out disgracefully...

by Guest 12.11.15 12:26

Verdi wrote:So far I haven't read anything to convince me that all the photographic equipment and associated paraphernalia belonged solely to the Fosters. Remember this..

The video and memory card were brought by PC Barham.

He is one of the local Bobbies for Soberton were the Fosters live.

The items are labeled NALF/...

They are Mr Fosters initials (don't know what L stands for but N and A are in the phone book).

I think it's fairly certain.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.15 12:43

Verdi wrote:a) Why did it occur to the Fosters that they might have photographs of interest to the investigation into MBM's disappearance only days after it was reported.

b) Why did the Fosters contact Leicester police as opposed to their local constabulary - how did they know that Leicester police were involved only days after MBM's disappearance was reported.

I wish to make it quite clear that in no way am I suggesting the Fosters are in any way at fault, I'm merely trying to make some sense out of it all. So far I haven't read anything to convince me that all the photographic equipment and associated paraphernalia belonged solely to the Fosters. Remember this...

[SNIPPED]

Having said that, clearly I'm out on a limb on this one so will bow out disgracefully...

No, you are not completely out on a limb @ Verdi.

I accept that 'TheTruthWillOut' has taken us to two links which give, on the face of it, a perfectly straightforward explanation of how a piece of video film, a camera and TWO memory cards surfaced in Hampshire on Tuesday 8 May.

I did earlier say that we would have to accept, unless there is evidence another way, that these were all Nigel Foster's camera/cards/video etc.

I share your reservations, however, @ Verdi.

One presumes that before this assorted camera equipment got to D.C. Martin's home, Nigel Foster handed it all in at a police station somewhere in Hampshire. It was remarkably swift work given that Madeleine's disappearance only became public during Friday 4 May.

Nigel Foster would have known all about the claims that Madeleine was abducted.

I think you are quite right @ Verdi to question what entered Nigel Foster's mind as to what could have made him think that any of his still or moving images could possibly assist the PJ's search for the abductor. Like you I am struggling to see what he had shot that could possibly help to find Madeleine, or her abductor.

Also, I cannot help but think that Nigel Foster's approach to the police was connected in some way with the incident described in detail by Kate McCann on page 64 of her book: 'madeleine', where she refers to "Another guest [who we now know as Nigel Foster - T.B.] appearing with a video camera to record his three-year-old daughter playing mini-tennis..." So we are told, Nigel Foster, Russell O'Brien and Kate McCann then all started talking about paedophiles and "how people were so untrusting that you hardly dared speak to children you didn't know..."

'j.rob' brought together a great deal of material re Nigel Foster and hinted that there were two quite separate versions of this encounter - Kate McCann's and Nigel Foster's. It was IMO his best contribution to the forum debates. Maybe he will come along and remind us what he said...

...so, in the meantime @ Verdi, hang in there, Sir

by willowthewisp 12.11.15 13:59

BlueBag wrote:
Amy Dean wrote:A bit of Amelie's right arm can be seen; no mystery about that.
No mystery at all.

The mystery is why people keep regurgitating this nonsense.

They'll be going on about the black line between Amelies left arm and body next.

I know it has probably been discussed, shadow on Amelie's right arm, but it is clear all other shadows are in the other direction, was there two suns shining on this day?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.15 14:12

willowthewisp wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Amy Dean wrote:A bit of Amelie's right arm can be seen; no mystery about that.
No mystery at all.

The mystery is why people keep regurgitating this nonsense.

They'll be going on about the black line between Amelies left arm and body next.
I know it has probably been discussed, shadow on Amelie's right arm, but it is clear all other shadows are in the other direction, was there two suns shining on this day?

I cannot fathom what you are talking about.

Very little of Amelie's right arm is visible.

The shadow of her hat encompasses the right side of her body and the top part of her torso.

The sleeve on her left arm casts a shadow on her arm as you would expect.

The shadows on Amelie are even to the untrained eye fully consistent with all the other shadows in the photo, just as the two experts found.

Why do you even speak about 'two suns'?

If you could explain more fully what you mean, that would help us to respond.

Textusa releases new statement (6 Nov 2015) on 'The Last Photo' - says it is a photoshopped composite of THREE different photographs, two of which were taken on Friday 18 May 2007

The Last Photo...