Re: Playground Photo

by Guest 06.09.15 19:25

I am just a humble longtime reader of this forum, but I REALLY wish all this Photoshop talk would stop. It is so far beyond credible, that imo all it does is put the forum in a very far away corner of the internet. It will put of new readers looking for information, and it distracts from the main real issues and questions surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.
The last picture being exempt from this. Imo also not photoshopped, but the date might have been manipulated.

by tinkier 06.09.15 20:27

TB stated…..I think 'unevidenced thinking' would be a far more accurate way of putting it

If you were to ask 10 people what they could see in this photo, you would most likely get a number of differing opinions. The only evidence is the picture itself, what you can see with your own eyes. I have spent 30 minutes with a 3 year old today, trying to produce a similar scenario of jumping and landing in the same position as Madeleine (one arm flexed straight back the other straight by her side)….couldn't produce it once, even with prompting. Its just not natural arm positions,(from a jump) unless maybe the child had some kind of disability! So this will be my last word on this topic as it seems to be peeing some people right off!

by skyrocket 06.09.15 20:43

@ Tony Bennett - thanks for the advice re: photo uploads. I've ended up copying across from the Donegal thread but I will try your method in the future.

I'm still far from convinced about this playground image and I tend to agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that the anomalies can be evidenced, as far as is possible, by eyesight. If anything in this case could be easily evidenced it wouldn't now be 2015 with no conclusion and 30+ British police still working on it (apart from the Portuguese investigation). I do appreciate the time you've taken to explain your standpoint TB.

One other thing I've noticed is that MBM's right foot seems to be in mid air - there is definite shadow below it. So in effect she appears to be balancing on one foot - did your 3 year old try that Tinkier?!

Below is cousin Paul Cameron's egg rolling photo from Donegal, 9 April 2007, for comparison. This was taken just 3 weeks prior to the 'playground' photo in the above posts but it shows a very different looking MBM, both sizewise and appearance (hair/face). Something's not right. I'm not prepared to rule anything out unless the proof is concrete - the Mc's substituted a MBM look-a-like for Amelie in a short sequence of their 2009 'Madeleine Was Here Part 1' film. What possessed them to do that?

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

by **Tony Bennett** 06.09.15 20:50

Nina wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
skyrocket wrote:@ Nina @ Tigger @ Tinkier - all have 'alternative thinking' it appears...
I think 'unevidenced thinking' would be a far more accurate way of putting it
Tony, my evidence is what I see with my own eyes when I look at that photograph.

And that, Nina, is exactly the problem.

You use the judgment of your own eyes, which is subjective in a case like this. And ‘tinkler’ does the same: “The only evidence is the picture itself, what you can see with your own eyes”. So does ‘skyrocket’: “I'm still far from convinced about this playground image and I tend to agree with Nina and tinkler that the anomalies can be evidenced, as far as is possible, by eyesight”.

Your answer doesn’t address a single one of the 9 points I raised earlier up the thread.

This all takes us back to the excellent discussion we had on the ‘Last Photo’ threads. That discussion was led by PeterMac, with help from a number of others, who in his infinite patience to explore this issue as fully as practicable, consulted two acknowledged photographic experts, one a University professor, the other who ran a well-known photographic business. He shared their opinions with us.

Both, entirely independently of each other, and using a variety of advanced forensic techniques which neither you nor I know anything about, agreed that there was no evidence whatsoever of the ‘Last Photo’ being forged.

On that ‘Last Photo’ thread, there were several, like yourself, who absolutely insisted that the evidence ‘of their own eyes’ persuaded them of this bit of photoshopping, or that bit of photoshopping. I totted up a list of all the different bits of photoshopping that people imagined were there - it was about 30. And there was a lot of disagreement - Gerry’s sunglasses were/were not photoshopped, Madeleine had been photoshopped in, but not Gerry - or the other way round, the bougainvillea should/should not have been in flower at the time, and so it went on. And on and on.

The evidence of one’s own eyes is not to be neglected. However, Nina, and with the very greatest respect to you as always, if it conflicts with other evidence, it must sometimes be discarded.

Juulcy and Richard IV have both spoken for me and given a clear and concise assessment of the playground photo - and Juulcy once again emphasises, and draws us back to, the huge significance of the evidence PeterMac and others accumulated that that photograph may have been taken earlier in the week.

I’ll return to this thread if and when I see some convincing responses to my nine points above.

by tinkier 06.09.15 21:24

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] stated….Below is cousin Paul Cameron's egg rolling photo from Donegal, 9 April 2007, for comparison. This was taken just 3 weeks prior to the 'playground' photo in the above posts but it shows a very different looking MBM, both sizewise and appearance (hair/face). Something's not right. I'm not prepared to rule anything out unless the proof is concrete - the Mc's substituted a MBM look-a-like for Amelie in a short sequence of their 2009 'Madeleine Was Here Part 1' film. What possessed them to do that?

I have to agree, it certainly does not look like the same MBM, and only 3 weeks before the playground picture was taken. This may be one of the pictures [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] thinks she may be wearing a wig?

TB..do you think this looks like the same child as in the playground photo?

ETA…[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] we only concentrated on the position of the arms.

by ryanm 06.09.15 21:29

What hits me when I see that picture is "Ring a ring o roses"

And why Sky dated it 2nd May which leaves all of them wearing 2 day old clothes and insisted Amelie was in it. Surely that in itself is questionable.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.09.15 21:34

ryanm wrote:And why Sky dated it 2nd May which leaves all of them wearing 2 day old clothes and insisted Amelie was in it. Surely that in itself is questionable?

Did SKY really date it 2nd May?

Who told them that?

Now that really IS questionable! yes

by **sharonl** 06.09.15 21:55

Tony Bennett wrote:
ryanm wrote:And why Sky dated it 2nd May which leaves all of them wearing 2 day old clothes and insisted Amelie was in it. Surely that in itself is questionable?
Did SKY really date it 2nd May?

Who told them that?

Now that really IS questionable!

Yet another cunning message to convince the world that Madeleine was alive and well after April 29th?

by ryanm 06.09.15 22:19

Complete with "mystery man" how convenient.

But if I remember right the photo was released at the same time as the twins "photo shoot" so surely the media already knew what the twins looked like.

So this photo raises a whole lot of questions.

by Verdi 06.09.15 23:17

Juulcy wrote:I am just a humble longtime reader of this forum, but I REALLY wish all this Photoshop talk would stop. It is so far beyond credible, that imo all it does is put the forum in a very far away corner of the internet. It will put of new readers looking for information, and it distracts from the main real issues and questions surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.
The last picture being exempt from this. Imo also not photoshopped, but the date might have been manipulated.

Finally - a voice of reason in this wilderness of make-believe. This is how myths are created and propagated, someone comes up with a ridiculous claim based on nothing but an over active imagination and a few months down the line it becomes an established fact.

I just hope not too many people are reading this thread, it's not very good for the forum's credibility.

by lj 06.09.15 23:22

tinkier wrote:TB stated…..I think 'unevidenced thinking' would be a far more accurate way of putting it

If you were to ask 10 people what they could see in this photo, you would most likely get a number of differing opinions. The only evidence is the picture itself, what you can see with your own eyes. I have spent 30 minutes with a 3 year old today, trying to produce a similar scenario of jumping and landing in the same position as Madeleine (one arm flexed straight back the other straight by her side)….couldn't produce it once, even with prompting. Its just not natural arm positions,(from a jump) unless maybe the child had some kind of disability! So this will be my last word on this topic as it seems to be peeing some people right off!

A photo is just a moment in time: those arms , as her whole body, were in movement. Since we don't know exactly what the movement was it would be impossible to recreate that with a 3 year old.

by tinkier 07.09.15 0:06

Verdi wrote:
Juulcy wrote:I am just a humble longtime reader of this forum, but I REALLY wish all this Photoshop talk would stop. It is so far beyond credible, that imo all it does is put the forum in a very far away corner of the internet. It will put of new readers looking for information, and it distracts from the main real issues and questions surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.
The last picture being exempt from this. Imo also not photoshopped, but the date might have been manipulated.
Finally - a voice of reason in this wilderness of make-believe. This is how myths are created and propagated, someone comes up with a ridiculous claim based on nothing but an over active imagination and a few months down the line it becomes an established fact.

I just hope not too many people are reading this thread, it's not very good for the forum's credibility.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]…..and how many myths have you propagated in your time on this forum? Everything you write here and discuss is obviously very credible, and if you don't agree everything is a myth and will put people off from joining or reading this forum. How pompous! I will just slither back into my little hole!!

by Verdi 07.09.15 0:07

lj wrote:
tinkier wrote:TB stated…..I think 'unevidenced thinking' would be a far more accurate way of putting it

If you were to ask 10 people what they could see in this photo, you would most likely get a number of differing opinions. The only evidence is the picture itself, what you can see with your own eyes. I have spent 30 minutes with a 3 year old today, trying to produce a similar scenario of jumping and landing in the same position as Madeleine (one arm flexed straight back the other straight by her side)….couldn't produce it once, even with prompting. Its just not natural arm positions,(from a jump) unless maybe the child had some kind of disability! So this will be my last word on this topic as it seems to be peeing some people right off!

A photo is just a moment in time: those arms , as her whole body, were in movement. Since we don't know exactly what the movement was it would be impossible to recreate that with a 3 year old.

Quite so - a good example here..

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

A still shot obviously taken from a video. Just think of the possibilities for interpretation..

by lj 07.09.15 3:34

Wow, that's one for the collection.

by ROSA 07.09.15 4:15

I think her height was discussed long ago with the cubby house photo which showed her at the door way wearing the same clothes as the playground

by skyrocket 07.09.15 8:31

Might be because I didn't sleep particularly well last night but reading the last few comments from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and @Tony Bennett has raised my hackles a bit this morning!

[ Several abusive comments about other posters deleted. Your arguments about the photograph have been retained. Please refrain from any more abuse directed at other posters - Mod. ]

I have gone back to day 1 of this thread in 2011, again (I did read through it all BEFORE I posted a couple of days ago). Since that date many posters have been commenting about how odd this photo looks. Why has it suddenly become such a big issue - neither of you have been interested before; neither of you have posted on this thread before. By the way, the May 2/Sky issue has all mentioned on this thread by a previous poster.

I repeat, we may all be wrong about this photo being 'wrong' - I'm not sure whether it is or it isn't - but I find it quite interesting (nothing more) and I want to discuss it with other like-minded members (until the topic is exhausted or clarified).

Here's one of those past (fairly recent) posters who is interested enough in this photo to comment. Perhaps you'd like to put him right as well?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:26 pm
Madeleine's left leg has no shadow at all.
Unless you count the one going at right angles to the one Gerry is casting.
The more you look at this one, the more weird it becomes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I agree with you.

by Amy Dean 07.09.15 9:26

I've just seen that Easter egg photo of Madeleine for the first time.

Can this really be the same child as in the other Donegal photos with her cousins?

No wonder that people are suspicious about McCann photos.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.09.15 9:35

skyrocket wrote:Might be because I didn't sleep particularly well last night but reading the last few comments from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and @Tony Bennett has raised my hackles a bit this morning!

Here's one of those past (fairly recent) posters who is interested enough in this photo to comment. Perhaps you'd like to put him right as well?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Mon Jan 06, 2014 12:26 pm
Madeleine's left leg has no shadow at all.
Unless you count the one going at right angles to the one Gerry is casting.
The more you look at this one, the more weird it becomes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I agree with you.

Hackles tend to be raised when those with better arguments are winning the arguments over yours. There is then an unfortunate tendency for some to resort to personal abuse, always a sign of someone losing an argument.

Let us all stick to the facts on this thread, base our arguments on the facts, and see where that leads us.

By the way @ skyrocket, you were so consumed with a need to attack Verdi and myself that you completely forgot to answer any of my nine points which I made up the thread. Could you please look at them and answer them. These are points that simply must be answered by anyone maintaining the claim that this photo is in any way photoshopped. I will add the nine points to my post.

PeterMac's opinion? Yes, I will put him right on that one.

The one and only thing he has commented on is the apparent absence of a shadow for Madeleine's leg.

That is easily explained.

Look at the shadow of Gerry's leg - that is clear, and consistent with where the sun is.

Look at the shadow of Sean's left arm. There it is, exactly where it should be - consistent with where the sun is...and consistent with the other shadows.

Now look at the semicircular shadow to the right of Madeleine. Note how Madeleine is crouched and her left leg at right angles at the knee. The shadow produced - the semi-circular shadow - looks exactly what it should be for Madeleine in that crouched position and the sun where it is.

Here again are the nine POSITIVE points I raised earlier which suggest that this photo has not been photoshopped in any way. To date, not one of those who insist this photo is photoshopped have been able to counter even one of my nine arguments. And neither has missbeetle come here to explain what the dogs alerted to, if - as she claims without evidence - Madeleine was never on that holiday:

THE NINE POINTS

So now let's review the POSITIVE evidence that this photo is NOT a fake/photoshopped in any way:

1. Madeleine's shadow. It fits perfectly with the shadow on Gerry, and with all the other shadows on the photograph.

2. It would be very hard to fake such a shadow on a photograph such as this.

3. The setting for the photograph is exactly in accordance with what we know about the events of that day - arrival on a sunny day in the early/mid-afternoon, quickly go to the apartment, then run down to the playground and let the kids let off steam.

4. The child of another member of the Tapas 7 is in the foreground - is it claimed that this image is also photoshopped?

5. If you say this is photoshopped, what do you say about the other two playground pictures of Madeleine by the Wendy House? Not Madeleine? Photoshopped. Faked?

6. If you say this is not Madeleine on this holiday, what about the airport bus vidoeo? Was that Madeleine? If yes, was that Madeleine on that holiday, or another?

7. If you say this is not Madeleine on this holiday, what about the 'climbing-the-steps-of-the-plane' video? Was that Madeleine? If yes, was Madeleine on that holiday, or another?

8. If this was NOT Madeleine, how do you account for the 17 alerts of the dogs?

9. If this was NOT Madeleine, how to you account for her name being on the passenger manifest for 28 April?

Opinions are fine - but need evidence to support them.

++++++++++++++

ETA @ Amy Dean You wrote: "I've just seen that Easter egg photo of Madeleine for the first time. Can this really be the same child as in the other Donegal photos with her cousins? No wonder that people are suspicious about McCann photos".

REPLY: Who exactly is claiming that that girl in the Donegal photo is Madeleine? It clearly isn't Madeleine. Has someone jumped to the wrong conclusion here?

by **tigger** 07.09.15 9:55

@ Tony:

Just because I consider the playground photo to be of another child (the two Wendy house ones also but not photoshopped imo) does not mean I believe Maddie wasn't in PdL, or that I doubt the evidence of the cadaver dogs. All it means is that I believe Maddie not to be in those photographs.

A number of questions arise from this photograph:

Only one with Gerry in it is photoshopped imo
Why weren't there more photos taken of this jolly little interlude? Surely the photograph would have appeared to be a dud the moment it appeared on the LCD screen, nothing to stop the photographer to take another twenty or so. Unless this was a split second in time they felt they had to share with the world?

If the girl in pink stands up she will be far too tall. Personally I think Sean is there (where is Amelie?) and Jane Tanner's little girl. Gerry is actually there as well, possibly looking at what Sean is doing.

The girl in the Wendy house may be about 98 cm tall (35 7/8"), just a little shorter than the known height of this type of Wendy house door, which is 1 meter (36 1/3"). (somebody else worked this out quite some time ago)

Kate gives Maddie's height as 90 cm (35 7/8"), the tennis photo imo shows a girl rather taller if one takes into account the known diameter of tennisballs and makes a slight adjustment for the angle, it would be around 114 cm (44 7/8"). The opposite end of the scale for four year olds.

The fact that this episode is in the book is no guarantee of its veracity. E.g. the book mentions the purchase of sunglasses as having been purchased on the Thursday, thus it gave us a date post quem for the pool photo.

I would also suggest [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] a locked topic with plenty of interesting points on the many photographs. There are also some before and after shots of the Tapas, most of whom do not seem to have aged at all well in just a few years.

by Amy Dean 07.09.15 10:01

Tony, the girl in the Easter egg photo is wearing the same clothes as in the ones with Madeleine's cousins.

I don't know who else she can be.

by skyrocket 07.09.15 10:03

@ Tony Bennett

Morning!

PeterMac's opinion? Yes, I will put him right on that one.

Need I say more!! But I will.

That's MY point Tony, we are all entitled to an opinion. Wouldn't it be better if we were 'allowed' to comment without personal attack, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] seems to relish in it - I've said before, I don't. Also noted (and the reason for my mirth on previous post yesterday) was the fact that the 2 of you seem to come as a package when you want to press an opinion.
When I questioned (with fact) the end of the Spanish TV translation last week - the pair of you leapt straight down my throat. When I commented on this thread - the same again, despite my opinion being no different than many others on this same thread over 4 years. Any reason? I'm not remotely interested in winning arguments - can you hand on heart say the same?

Wouldn't it be better if we all just gave our opinions/evidence and let others make up there own minds whether they agree or not? Why with every opinion given do specified others have to be lampooned or argued with? I have noted all your points - I agree with some and others not. I am a scientist trained and at heart - I accept proof. I don't blindly accept opinion. Neither am I asking you or anyone else to accept mine. I don't feel it's obligatory to continue any sort of one 2 one dialogue/justification session. I haven't the energy!

Wow this is all too much at this time of the morning - so pointless and time consuming.

I have no gripes with you Tony or Verdi personally (I don't know either of you) - just a clash of blogging styles I guess!

Enough said from me.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - another point to add:

Do you know of 3 other young children who would be content to play on/with grass when there are castles and slides next to them? 1 maybe - all 3, doubt it.

by **tigger** 07.09.15 10:10

The photo is one that was delivered to the PJ on a DVD by GM and MW. No sources/cameras given. The date here does not comply with that in the book.

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

See Also Video Tapes & memory Cards deleted images

PHOTOGRAPHS Outros Apensos - 3 Volume III - Apenso VIII
97 pages of images; mostly black and white silhouettes; many duplicates.

TRANSLATION BY ALBYM
They are my own descriptions, and yes, almost all of the B&W (non-grey scale) images do not readily permit identification of the individual. They were created for the PDF using what is is known as 'pure Black and White' scanning/printing - there are no other colours whatsoever in the images.

File notes - 9 May:
PDF Apenso Desc.
12 549    Analysis of CD delivered by GM
13 550    Analysis of CD delivered by M Wright
14 551    Image grouping index: (1)Apartments; (2)Ocean Club; (3)Beach
15 552    Blank page
16 553    Receipt of images dated 8 May
17 554    Receipt of images dated 8 May (same words; different signature)
18 555    Blank page

607 MISSING PAGE NUMBER

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

Page 608
Family handout photo dated 02/05/2007 of Gerry McCann playing with his children (left to right) Madeleine and Sean (laughing) the day before Madeleine went missing on the evening of May 3.

by **Jill Havern** 07.09.15 10:15

tigger wrote:I would also suggest [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] a locked topic with plenty of interesting points on the many photographs. There are also some before and after shots of the Tapas, most of whom do not seem to have aged at all well in just a few years.

It's locked because it reached the maximum pages...this is the follow-on thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by ROSA 07.09.15 10:18

Madeleines maternal grandparents seem like real normal down to earth people they would of seen all the photos and videos of M and have never challenged any of them think about that for a moment it kind of tells me that they accept all these images of Madeleine McCann their grandchild to be real.

by ryanm 07.09.15 10:27

tigger wrote:

607 MISSING PAGE NUMBER

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

Page 608
Family handout photo dated 02/05/2007 of Gerry McCann playing with his children (left to right) Madeleine and Sean (laughing) the day before Madeleine went missing on the evening of May 3.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], perhaps I'm missing something. I understood that the caption that was put on 608 was arising from the Sky news piece in relation this photo and had nothing to do with file content. When you go back to the original PJ file there's no information on where the photo came from, it seems they took all of the PDL photos from T9 and sorted them into 3 groups so it's not clear whose camera they came from and what date it was taken.

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