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 Carrry On Doctor 08.11.15 10:05

And the overall statistic (currently) is that 80% of people who voted consider that the 'last photograph' is a fake, using the correct definition of the word.

Personally, I voted 3 in the pole, but like many I am no expert. PM's experts offer a better explanation IMO.

Just on a wider note, there seems to be criticism of TextUSA as a poster, and it was good to see TB praising TextUSA's research recently. I would like to echo that praise, and to the many others who are gradually unravelling this mystery and getting closer to the truth.

I have long agreed with TextUSA on the reason and scale for the cover up as swinging, and not Paedophilia (the fact TM's are pointing us in that direction should be reason enough alone for it to be ruled out) but I don't agree with her theory about death on the 3rd as there seems to be strong arguments by others for something happening much earlier.

So to echo HiDeho's sentiments, we are all pushing for the same thing, which is the truth. We should be receptive to all research and opinion until it can be ruled out with certainty.

by Guest 08.11.15 10:22

@CarryonDoctor

So to echo HiDeho's sentiments, we are all pushing for the same thing, which is the truth. We should be receptive to all research and opinion until it can be ruled out with certainty.

by Guest 08.11.15 10:43

Between PeterMac's experts and the various members of the forums who use photo manipulation in their daily tasks all of whom have stated no photoshopping is good enough for me. Although Textusa does some sterling work I think they are wide of the mark with both this and the swinging theory. What makes her / them believe the 18th May date?

by Guest 08.11.15 10:44

So.. this swinging thing... was that the same deal with the previous Gasper holiday?

Definitely not!

I have yet to see any evidence of swinging.

I also find it difficult to believe you would take so many children on a swinging holiday.

by Guest 08.11.15 10:45

HKP wrote:Between PeterMac's experts and the various members of the forums who use photo manipulation in their daily tasks all of whom have stated no photoshopping is good enough for me. Although Textusa does some sterling work I think they are wide of the mark with both this and the swinging theory. What makes her / them believe the 18th May date?

If Textusa is using the "short hair" nonsense as evidence that she couldn't be more wide of the mark.

That stuff was deliberate disinformation.

by Doug D 08.11.15 11:01

Bobbin,

Jumping back to your original question, a photo of a photo would attach exif data for when the second photo was taken, as it is no different to taking any other photograph and a camera cannot magically capture something embedded within a previous digital image, so you could achieve the required date and time that way.

However exif data can be easily amended, and a photo of a photo would also lose resolution, so amending the data attached to the original would be the easier and better option.

A photo of a photo is also likely to show ‘illogical’ camera exposure settings etc, which also show in the exif data, as a bright sunny day outside is not going to produce the same requirements as those for a reasonably set-up photo of a photo, so to make it look right, you would still need to amend the data.

Sorry, but not a ‘goer’, imo.

by skyrocket 08.11.15 11:16

@ Bobbin

Not sure I can help but here are my thoughts on your question.

The 'last photo' is almost unique in that it has a large amount of exif data attached (there are only a couple of other photos circulating which show any data) - which I've always thought raised questions.

Exif data can be easily changed by anyone with moderate IT skills or it can be entirely removed.

When PeterMacs experts looked at the photo they would have examined the actual image for tell tale signs of photoshopping - these are hard to hide to the expert eye. These 'signs' would appear even if the photo was re-photographed after photoshopping and other inconsistencies would also be introduced by the process.

There would be no point in re-photographing an original hard copy image. The exif data would show the data for the re-photo but anything could be changed in the exif. I really can't see that anything would be 'gained'.

I had a lot of doubts about this image initially, so I know where you are coming from. But, all the evidence points towards a genuine photo with possible exif data manipulation. That is why, despite respecting Textusa's blogs enormously (and I agree we are all aiming for the same goal), I'd like to know if there is evidence out there regarding this photo which has been missed by other researchers. It's a vital point. I'd be happy to 'swing' the other way if there is solid evidence!

On a side point - what also interest me about this photo is the composition and particularly GM's demeanour. MBM looks happy enough but distracted by something; AM looks like she is in a world of her own (typical for a 2 year old although she often seems in videos to be enthralled by MBM and copies her big sisters every move and word); GM looks like he has been forced into it. He almost looks like he is grimacing - doesn't look happy.

by bobbin 08.11.15 11:21

Thank you Doug D for your respectable reply.

I started to see if I could find a reply to my own question and came across various websites which show how exif data can be lost. e.g. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It is clearly a huge subject and one in which I have no experience whatsoever.

I accept your 'photo of a photo' not being able to carry the 'sunlight' information without accurate 'sunlight conditions' applying at time of photo, so accept that a photo of a photo is not, as you say, a 'goer'.

However, the above site indicates that there are ways of losing meta data, either deliberately or accidentally.
The site above is dated as problems noted in 2014. At the time that the last photo was being 'supplied' who knows what sort of technological advantages or disadvantages were existent.

As many others do, I still see a multitude of inconsistencies in the last photo, which as Ladyinred has pointed out are discussed in other threads.

I am sure that the PJ have any number of pictures that will have been taken of the local area immediately following 3rd May 2007 and these will confirm or dispel some of the inconsistencies.

by Guest 08.11.15 11:27

BlueBag wrote:So.. this swinging thing... was that the same deal with the previous Gasper holiday?

Definitely not!

I have yet to see any evidence of swinging.

I also find it difficult to believe you would take so many children on a swinging holiday.

I'm not convinced of swinging but do not discount it, and respect that others hold this view. Maybe swinging and drug-taking? None of us knows.

There were lots of children on holiday, but how much time did they spend with their parents? Not much, dumped in day-care, which has always puzzled me. Maybe to allow swinging during the daytime too!

by bobbin 08.11.15 11:35

Thankyou skyrocket, I missed your post whilst I was replying to Doug D.

There are many disquieting things about this photo, some of them contextual and some, very subtle, physical/focal misalignments.

Were it not for PeterMac's experts, finding no sign of photo-shopping, then those who can see the discrepancies could well be discussing them freely.

It's as if the 'experts' findings' have negated all of the other inconsistencies to the point that they can no longer be discussed on this forum.

I remain, as do many others, aware of many inconsistencies, most of which have been covered before.

by Guest 08.11.15 11:55

Ladyinred wrote:
BlueBag wrote:So.. this swinging thing... was that the same deal with the previous Gasper holiday?

Definitely not!

I have yet to see any evidence of swinging.

I also find it difficult to believe you would take so many children on a swinging holiday.

I'm not convinced of swinging but do not discount it, and respect that others hold this view. Maybe swinging and drug-taking? None of us knows.

I wonder how many Grannies go along to swinging holidays with their daughter and grandchildren?

Seriously.

There is not a smidgen of evidence for swinging.

Lots of wishful thinking though.

I have as much respect for that view as "aliens did it".

Also based on previous similar holidays with the Gaspers.

There were lots of children on holiday, but how much time did they spend with their parents? Not much, dumped in day-care, which has always puzzled me. Maybe to allow swinging during the daytime too!

Me time - the modern day upwardly mobile parent.

by Guest 08.11.15 11:57

bobbin wrote:It's as if the 'experts' findings' have negated all of the other inconsistencies to the point that they can no longer be discussed on this forum.

I remain, as do many others, aware of many inconsistencies, most of which have been covered before.

They've already been discussed... to death.

Give us your best inconsistency and we'll discuss it.

Or you could use the search feature.

by MRNOODLES 08.11.15 13:33

FWIW I like reading Textusa at the same time like visiting this forum (I don't do any others).

On this occasion, my opinion, I'm sticking with Pete and the two experts. I just don't see any hard evidence of fannying around with 3 composites etc etc.

pray2

Please don't let war break out between here and Textusa's blog. It'll only give other '3rd parties' an excuse to stick their oars in and s**t stir further.

by HelenMeg 08.11.15 14:37

bobbin wrote:Thankyou skyrocket, I missed your post whilst I was replying to Doug D.

There are many disquieting things about this photo, some of them contextual and some, very subtle, physical/focal misalignments.

Were it not for PeterMac's experts, finding no sign of photo-shopping, then those who can see the discrepancies could well be discussing them freely.

It's as if the 'experts' findings' have negated all of the other inconsistencies to the point that they can no longer be discussed on this forum.

I remain, as do many others, aware of many inconsistencies, most of which have been covered before.

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!

Further to that, there is a full discussion elsewhere on why 'photoshopping experts' would not necessarily be relevant to the discussion on whether the Last photo is fake - as photoshopping as such was not necessarily involved. If someone replaced the lenses of the sunglasses in the Last Photo with the lenses from a different picture - would a photoshopper be able to spot this? Depends how you define photoshopping....

Many of us, it is clear, believe the Last Photo is a 'fake' regardless of being scorned and told in no uncertain terms that we are 'wrong'. So we should simply agree to differ. We are told we are wrong because two 'experts' said they believed it was not photoshopped. Are we supposed to say' OK then'. I dont think so!! big grin

by **Jill Havern** 08.11.15 14:39

HelenMeg wrote:
bobbin wrote:Thankyou skyrocket, I missed your post whilst I was replying to Doug D.

There are many disquieting things about this photo, some of them contextual and some, very subtle, physical/focal misalignments.

Were it not for PeterMac's experts, finding no sign of photo-shopping, then those who can see the discrepancies could well be discussing them freely.

It's as if the 'experts' findings' have negated all of the other inconsistencies to the point that they can no longer be discussed on this forum.

I remain, as do many others, aware of many inconsistencies, most of which have been covered before.
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!

Further to that, there is a full discussion elsewhere on why 'photoshopping experts' would not necessarily be relevant to the discussion on whether the Last photo is fake - as photoshopping as such was not necessarily involved. If someone replaced the lenses of the sunglasses in the Last Photo with the lenses from a different picture - would a photoshopper be able to spot this? Depends how you define photoshopping....

Many of us, it is clear, believe the Last Photo is a 'fake' regardless of being scorned and told in no uncertain terms that we are 'wrong'. So we should simply agree to differ. We are told we are wrong because two 'experts' said they believed it was not photoshopped. Are we supposed to say' OK then'. I dont think so!!

So why scorn the McCanns for saying the expert dogs are notoriously unreliable?

by Guest 08.11.15 14:58

HelenMeg wrote:
bobbin wrote:Thankyou skyrocket, I missed your post whilst I was replying to Doug D.

There are many disquieting things about this photo, some of them contextual and some, very subtle, physical/focal misalignments.

Were it not for PeterMac's experts, finding no sign of photo-shopping, then those who can see the discrepancies could well be discussing them freely.

It's as if the 'experts' findings' have negated all of the other inconsistencies to the point that they can no longer be discussed on this forum.

I remain, as do many others, aware of many inconsistencies, most of which have been covered before.
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!

Go on then... show us.

by **Jill Havern** 08.11.15 20:33

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:Many of us, it is clear, believe the Last Photo is a 'fake' regardless of being scorned and told in no uncertain terms that we are 'wrong'. So we should simply agree to differ. We are told we are wrong because two 'experts' said they believed it was not photoshopped. Are we supposed to say' OK then'. I dont think so!!
So why scorn the McCanns for saying the expert dogs are notoriously unreliable?

Just to add a bit more to this post - I've asked PeterMac about his two experts and he said that one of them is the son of one of his visitors and "is a professional "photoshopper". Peter said: "He lead the team which did the advert some years ago, where paint squirted down the side of a factory in Manchester, and a car popped out at the bottom.

It was real paint, and a real factory due for demolition. One take.
Their job was to take the film, and then to take OUT every gantry, crane, hose, nozzle . .
making it look as though the paint was just squirting out from nowhere.

They are paid a LOT of money for doing it. And this is a short FILM, not a single photo image."

Peter said the second expert is Professor Hany Farid and this is his website so anyone can contact him and make their own equiries: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by HelenMeg 08.11.15 20:53

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
bobbin wrote:Thankyou skyrocket, I missed your post whilst I was replying to Doug D.

There are many disquieting things about this photo, some of them contextual and some, very subtle, physical/focal misalignments.

Were it not for PeterMac's experts, finding no sign of photo-shopping, then those who can see the discrepancies could well be discussing them freely.

It's as if the 'experts' findings' have negated all of the other inconsistencies to the point that they can no longer be discussed on this forum.

I remain, as do many others, aware of many inconsistencies, most of which have been covered before.
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!

Further to that, there is a full discussion elsewhere on why 'photoshopping experts' would not necessarily be relevant to the discussion on whether the Last photo is fake - as photoshopping as such was not necessarily involved. If someone replaced the lenses of the sunglasses in the Last Photo with the lenses from a different picture - would a photoshopper be able to spot this? Depends how you define photoshopping....

Many of us, it is clear, believe the Last Photo is a 'fake' regardless of being scorned and told in no uncertain terms that we are 'wrong'. So we should simply agree to differ. We are told we are wrong because two 'experts' said they believed it was not photoshopped. Are we supposed to say' OK then'. I dont think so!!
So why scorn the McCanns for saying the expert dogs are notoriously unreliable?

What I meant is that I still believe the 'Last Photo' is a fake, no matter that other people tell me that it is is not. I dont believe they simply changed the date. I dont think I'm the only one who has this opinion and I would just like to agree to differ with those that believe it is a genuine photo (with date changed). I respect that others feel vehemently that it is genuine (apart from date) but I feel vehemently that it is a fake.

by HelenMeg 08.11.15 21:08

BlueBag wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
bobbin wrote:Thankyou skyrocket, I missed your post whilst I was replying to Doug D.

There are many disquieting things about this photo, some of them contextual and some, very subtle, physical/focal misalignments.

Were it not for PeterMac's experts, finding no sign of photo-shopping, then those who can see the discrepancies could well be discussing them freely.

It's as if the 'experts' findings' have negated all of the other inconsistencies to the point that they can no longer be discussed on this forum.

I remain, as do many others, aware of many inconsistencies, most of which have been covered before.
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!
Go on then... show us.

A guy and wife and 2 kids on hols at same time same week as Mc Canns at same resort - wife appeared in a tabloid saying her boy had played with Madeleine - by swimming pool (I think).
Their photos of their boys in the swimming pool are on show in facebook publicly and I can see the wall where the bougainvillea is - it is not blooming at all. But I dont feel it is a good thing to write
their names etc here. If anyone feels that they wish to see them then it is pretty easy to research and find... They actually took photos of their little boys in the pool area etc .

by Gaggzy 08.11.15 21:23

MRNOODLES wrote:FWIW I like reading Textusa at the same time like visiting this forum (I don't do any others).

On this occasion, my opinion, I'm sticking with Pete and the two experts. I just don't see any hard evidence of fannying around with 3 composites etc etc.

Please don't let war break out between here and Textusa's blog. It'll only give other '3rd parties' an excuse to stick their oars in and s**t stir further.

Tut-tut. All this talk of 'swinging,' eh? friends

Where would they have gotten all their energy for swinging from, what with all the tennis they were playing?

There's a saying : Never marry a tennis player, cos to them, love means nothing.

'New balls, please.'

by whatsupdoc 08.11.15 22:21

Eddie's track record is 200 correct results out of 200 cases. There was a case in USA of a dog detecting a corpse 12 feet down under a layer of rotting meat. I've seen the photos of the excavation. They had to bring in a "Back Hoe" as the Americans call it to do some of the digging.
We wouldn't rely on dogs in police and customs services etc. if we didn't trust them. So I would go along with someone died in 5A.

However, I have come across PhD people who are way off track and I think , along with many more people I have heard say, they have to conform with the policies laid down else they lose their grant. No more comments on this so end of.

The first question to ask is what generation is the photo that is being observed. I could only go by what was available on the internet but I did find that the Last Photo had been manipulated. The front wall was block-copied and the background was badly altered, especially around the large tree. I agree the point re the flowers is a good one. I think I am correct in saying that the Last Photo was not found in either Gerry's or Kate's cameras. Putting the kids in a creche and no decent pix of the kids wasn't like any of the holidays that I took the family on.
I have used digital manipulation tools since at least Paint Shop Pro 7 in 2001 and also Adobe Photoshop. I haven't debated the Last photo much because I know what I found.
Maybe the experts were looking at a photo with no apparent errors but the blooming flowers are something else.
Who knows how many versions of the photo exist now?

by Grande Finale 08.11.15 23:55

Hi,

I Have personally spent many hours studying the rock wall at the back of the last photo using another
photograph someone kindly took of the rock wall alone and my conclusion was that the single photo of madeleine in the church, was taken and manipulated from the Last Photograph and NOT the other way around. (GM's Elbow was Erased and new rocks cloned in.)

I have read a lot of text USA's work and respect the logic and detail therein, but if textUSA thinks that Maddie met her demise after 2.30pm on the 3rd then there would be NO POINT in manipulating the last photo.

The whole point of the last photograph is a clumsy attempt to prove that Maddie was there on 03/05/2007
(which wasn't the case IMO) to that end all that had to be done was to alter the date on the exif data.

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

by cbeagle 09.11.15 1:30

HelenMeg wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Go on then... show us.
A guy and wife and 2 kids on hols at same time same week as Mc Canns at same resort - wife appeared in a tabloid saying her boy had played with Madeleine - by swimming pool (I think).
Their photos of their boys in the swimming pool are on show in facebook publicly and I can see the wall where the bougainvillea is - it is not blooming at all. But I dont feel it is a good thing to write
their names etc here. If anyone feels that they wish to see them then it is pretty easy to research and find... They actually took photos of their little boys in the pool area etc .

I couldn't find this, I believe I found the facebook profile of Vicky whose son Louie allegedly(*) played with Madeleine, but there don't see to be any photos from any vacation.

(*) As usual in this case there always seems to be doubts about any testimony and/or news article.

by Mark Willis 09.11.15 6:26

A long long time ago, on a forum far away, ok, it was 3As, the original massive snap was posted on there.
I spent 2 days scanning that pic and found no alteration of it whatsoever.
No pixel aberrations, nothing.
Not that I needed to.
It's not photoshopped. The only anomaly is the "when" of when it was taken.
Probably several days before the 3rd May, which day I am not sure, but that's about it.
Its purpose was to endorse the idea that M was still around on "the last day", is all.

by Guest 09.11.15 7:35

HelenMeg wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
bobbin wrote:Thankyou skyrocket, I missed your post whilst I was replying to Doug D.

There are many disquieting things about this photo, some of them contextual and some, very subtle, physical/focal misalignments.

Were it not for PeterMac's experts, finding no sign of photo-shopping, then those who can see the discrepancies could well be discussing them freely.

It's as if the 'experts' findings' have negated all of the other inconsistencies to the point that they can no longer be discussed on this forum.

I remain, as do many others, aware of many inconsistencies, most of which have been covered before.
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!
Go on then... show us.
A guy and wife and 2 kids on hols at same time same week as Mc Canns at same resort - wife appeared in a tabloid saying her boy had played with Madeleine - by swimming pool (I think).
Their photos of their boys in the swimming pool are on show in facebook publicly and I can see the wall where the bougainvillea is - it is not blooming at all. But I dont feel it is a good thing to write
their names etc here. If anyone feels that they wish to see them then it is pretty easy to research and find... They actually took photos of their little boys in the pool area etc .

Nope... you're going to have to show us or provide a link.

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...