Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by Sonmi-451 24.07.14 13:11

BlueBag wrote:
missbeetle wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"

It could be the hair dye Gerald is thought to use, it could be a trick of the light...

...but to me it looks like a five-pointed star inside a circle on the top of his head.

Can I ask why you think artifacts like this in compressed and magnified digital photographs are important?

Bluebag...

Maybe it's the forum equivalent of burying a serious bit of journalism on a news-stand underneath a pile of eye-catching gossip magazines? The serious stuff is soon hidden and forgotten about by those that pass by later.

Posts that have stated clear, objective, rational analysis have been followed by reams of ridiculous things, (Indeed, MissBeetle has reported ghost children and two ghost dogs in the Last Photo and Amelie having 'no nostrils' and before long any serious discussion on the photo was many pages back in the thread). I am thus suspicious that the analysis I posted a short while ago regarding the scientific, objective, analysis of the sun's position is now being effectively 'bumped down' the thread and will not be seen as Human nature is to not rummage through older pages when you log on, but to engage only with the 'latest' posts.

I've asked you questions, MissBeatle, (sorry MissBeetle) a few times in this thread about your motives. Your failure to respond is both rude, and suspicious. Convince me you're serious and not trying to undermine sensible contributions relating to this dead child? Please?

by rustyjames 24.07.14 13:26

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I keep expecting someone from Monty Python to arrive, declaring STOP, THIS IS GETTING SILLY!

And now for something completely different ....

Excellent post Sonmi-451 and I fully agree with your assessment. The date/time is everything.

Do you have an extract showing the hair anomaly? I assume it is the change of colour for a section below the bead. There is what looks like a strand of hair going across from left to right just at the point where the colour changes.

by j.rob 24.07.14 13:46

missbeetle wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"

It could be the hair dye Gerald is thought to use, it could be a trick of the light...

...but to me it looks like a five-pointed star inside a circle on the top of his head.

Ha! You'll be seeing horns next....oh, hang on!

by j.rob 24.07.14 14:04

Hicks wrote:Am I correct in thinking that the tennis photo was taken on the Tuesday morning?

Kate mentions that this photo of Madeleine is Gerry's favourite. Is that because it was the REAL last photograph of his daughter?

If you study the tennis photo enlarged you can't fail to notice that Madeleine's arms are covered in red marks and bruises.
If you look at the photo flipped you can clearly see finger marks on Madeleine's left arm, over the elbow. It looks as though she has been grabbed with brute force. Also there is a bruise on the back of her wrist. In the pool photo Madeleine's left arm shows no marks at all. I would imagine then that the pool photo was taken before the tennis photo.

Is it possible that Madeleine's body could not be given over to the authorities as it would have shown signs of physical abuse?

Sue Healy always seems to go to great lengths to assure us that Kate is always 'placid' with the children. Umm......

All in my opinion.

Oh dear, what a horrible thought. But why on earth would they release a photo of their daughter showing obvious signs of physical abuse? Surely that would be madness? Also, it doesn't look like Madeleine's face in that tennis-ball photo.

Still, there are some odd things written in Kate's book. She recounts how Madeleine tripped on the airplane steps and sustained a large bruise on her shin 'almost immediately'. And, perhaps surprisingly, this episode, as well as a short clip on the airport bus, is the only film footage there is of the McCanns and/or their friends from that holiday. An odd selection, given that Gerry is behaving like a bear with a very sore head.

Kate also writes how she went swimming with Madeleine on the first day even though the water in the pool was freezing, because Madeleine was so excited about the pool. Kate does not say what Gerry and the twins did during this time. There are no photos of this occasion. But then taking photos does not seem to have been a feature of the holiday for either the McCanns or their friends.

However, what I do find very peculiar indeed is Kate's comment on page 64:

"The other dad and I chipped in with our views - I mentioned not being allowed to take photographs of your own kids in swimming pools any more."

The context of this sentence is an alleged conversation with a fellow holiday maker standing near the tennis courts while children are playing mini tennis on Thursday morning. I have written at length about Kate's very peculiar account of this incident in which someone, depending on who you believe, is video-recording the holiday maker's (Nigel) three year old daughter playing tennis. Russell and Matt both give accounts of this incident in their police statements. Russell's account is inconsistent, imo.

But, irrespective of that. Why on earth would Kate claim that that she, or anyone else for that matter is "not allowed" to take photographs of their own children in swimming pools?

Who says you can't take photographs of your own children? Why is Kate not allowed to take photographs of her own children in swimming pools? Is she somehow alluding to the Saturday swimming with Madeleine and not being able to take a photo of the activity? Or is she maybe explaining why there are no photos of this or......

....what?!

by inspirespirit 24.07.14 14:11

missbeetle wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"

It could be the hair dye Gerald is thought to use, it could be a trick of the light...

...but to me it looks like a five-pointed star inside a circle on the top of his head.

I have removed your comment Inspirespirit as a personal attack. However, I understand fully why you said it. NFWTD.

by j.rob 24.07.14 14:23

canada12 wrote:
SallyVern wrote:Hi Canada12

I'm not an expert on photos. Rustyjames has already alerted me to why the shadows are correct on the pool photo.

There's a high resolution photo of the one you mean:

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

But even then the lack of neck seems to be there. I'm nervous on speculating now after realising how wrong I was about the shadows in the last photo. May be someone with some knowledge (Rustyjames?) can explain why there seems to be something wrong with Madeleine's neck.

Thanks for this.
If you look very closely in the space behind the left side of Madeleine's half-neck, you'll see the pattern of Amelie's striped jacket where it shouldn't actually be.

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

I've suspected from the start that Madeleine's head was replaced in this photo.

Interesting observation: she's sitting in almost the same pose as in The Last Photo. Almost identical, with head tilted and turned the same way.

Well, where does one start with this photo? The body angles are mostly at odds with the head angles. The hands are mostly weird, in particular Madeleine's right hand. The boy on the right's trouser white line does not follow the angle of the trousers. His upper body is at the wrong angle to his lower body. His legs are pointing in the opposite direction to the one in which his head is leaning. Madeleine is not really 'sitting ' properly on the wall. Her head angle is all wrong. The right arm is peculiar. Her head is pointing one way while the body is skewed sharply the other way. It's an impossible pose. Sean only has three fingers on his right hand and the thumb on the right hand is very odd. Amelie's body and head are also at peculiar angles. The girl on the right - her lower trousers are bulging out in a strange way. The bottom part of her legs look odd. And where her hands are crossed over Amelie's head, there is a digit pointing forward to the right of her chin. With her fingers intertwined like that, how could she have a digit pointing forward in that manner? With the hands flat on Amelie's head, I don't think it is possible for the thumb to be where it is.

When exactly is this photo supposed to have been taken?

by inspirespirit 24.07.14 14:35

j.rob wrote:
canada12 wrote:
SallyVern wrote:Hi Canada12

I'm not an expert on photos. Rustyjames has already alerted me to why the shadows are correct on the pool photo.

There's a high resolution photo of the one you mean:

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

But even then the lack of neck seems to be there. I'm nervous on speculating now after realising how wrong I was about the shadows in the last photo. May be someone with some knowledge (Rustyjames?) can explain why there seems to be something wrong with Madeleine's neck.

Thanks for this.
If you look very closely in the space behind the left side of Madeleine's half-neck, you'll see the pattern of Amelie's striped jacket where it shouldn't actually be.

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

I've suspected from the start that Madeleine's head was replaced in this photo.

Interesting observation: she's sitting in almost the same pose as in The Last Photo. Almost identical, with head tilted and turned the same way.

Well, where does one start with this photo? The body angles are mostly at odds with the head angles. The hands are mostly weird, in particular Madeleine's right hand. The boy on the right's trouser white line does not follow the angle of the trousers. His upper body is at the wrong angle to his lower body. His legs are pointing in the opposite direction to the one in which his head is leaning. Madeleine is not really 'sitting ' properly on the wall. Her head angle is all wrong. The right arm is peculiar. Her head is pointing one way while the body is skewed sharply the other way. It's an impossible pose. Sean only has three fingers on his right hand and the thumb on the right hand is very odd. Amelie's body and head are also at peculiar angles. The girl on the right - her lower trousers are bulging out in a strange way. The bottom part of her legs look odd. And where her hands are crossed over Amelie's head, there is a digit pointing forward to the right of her chin. With her fingers intertwined like that, how could she have a digit pointing forward in that manner? With the hands flat on Amelie's head, I don't think it is possible for the thumb to be where it is.

When exactly is this photo supposed to have been taken?

I really can't see what everyone else seems to be seeing. The stripes under Madeleines hair just looks like Amelie has a hood on her zippy top which bulges out at the back. Madeleine just looks like she is playing with her thumbs as kiddies do. Their hands or fingers don't look odd to me. They are all sat awkward because they are littlies sitting hunched on a wall. I don't get half of what people are seeing. The only one I can relate to being anything other than what it should be, is the one sat by the pool and that is purely because people who know a lot more than I do have agreed it has to be false because of the sun/weather/timings. All the others just seem normal photos, to me.

by joyce1938 24.07.14 14:40

good picture of maddies right hand ,yes she has pulled her thumb back at an odd angle to be sure,but its more clear to see now in this picture,no I don't see what some people are seeing either.joyce1938

by canada12 24.07.14 14:47

Bumping this because it's massively important, and IMO proves The Last Photo is a fraud. Thank you Sonmi-451.

Sonmi-451 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
canada12 wrote:[quote=BlueBag [Snipped]]

The massive elephant in the swimming pool here is the sunshine.

Indeed... I fully agree. To me the absolute proof this photo was not taken when it is claimed to have been can be unarguably determined by the sun's position in the sky and the angle of the shadows cast. This isn't perception or 'belief'...this is hard, repeatable science. The following page from the analysis I started last night unarguably shows the time is wrong (owing to the sun's position), if we add to that PeterMac's previously supplied weather reports they strongly suggest the date is also wrong. Therefore the photo is not what it is claimed to be.

As regards any manipulation being made, beyond the date/timestamp, I'm happy to keep applying any analysis to any perceived anomalies to (i) help weed out those that can be explained and (ii) see if any are left. I started with the view there were no image anomalies, but I'm keeping an open mind and at the moment the bit beneath the elastic band in MBM's hair does look odd, (I digitally manipulate photos myself for part of my living and it does, at the moment, give the impression of being something beyond a normal processing anomalie)

.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />[/quote]

by worriedmum 24.07.14 15:02

The most interesting point for me is the fact that Madeleine's visible arm on the tennis photo is blotchy and has uneven skin tone and what Kate described as sunburn and Goncalo Amaral described as a bruise. And the oddly pale hand.

We then are presented with the pool photo aka 'The Last Photo'.

Madeleine's visible arm is lightly flushed. There are no visible marks/bruises/sunburn on it. This leads me to different possible reasons:

i) It's a different arm and for some reason wasn't bumped or sunburned.

ii) It's the same arm as the' tennis photo 'and it healed in the space of two days.

iii) It's the same arm as the 'tennis photo' but there is a mix-up of when the photos were taken- the 'pool photo' was taken first- hence the unblemished visible arm. (The' tennis photo 'has been published facing both ways). There is a small dark mark on Madeleine's calf in the tennis photo. The Police files record her as having a birthmark on her calf. If this IS her birthmark, then the arm above it is the same arm visible on the' pool photo '- so then we have an arm which is sunburned/bruised on Tennis day (Tuesday?) and completely healed by Thursday?

If someone can blow up and paste the sections of arm to compare , that would be great.

by JohnyT 24.07.14 15:31

joyce1938 wrote:good picture of maddies right hand ,yes she has pulled her thumb back at an odd angle to be sure,but its more clear to see now in this picture,no I don't see what some people are seeing either.joyce1938

I agree, personally I think the photos are being over-analysed. Looking back through photos of my kids and there looks to be lots of anomalies. I think the only thing dubious about the photo is the weather but even then could there have been a break in the clouds? Btw...was the camera clock changed or was it on UK time?
JohnyT

by Guest 24.07.14 15:33

JohnyT wrote:
joyce1938 wrote:good picture of maddies right hand ,yes she has pulled her thumb back at an odd angle to be sure,but its more clear to see now in this picture,no I don't see what some people are seeing either.joyce1938
I agree, personally I think the photos are being over-analysed. Looking back through photos of my kids and there looks to be lots of anomalies. I think the only thing dubious about the photo is the weather but even then could there have been a break in the clouds?
JohnyT

I think there were two levels of cloud cover at that particular time.

Not a day for skimpy clothes at the pool.

by JohnyT 24.07.14 15:37

What temperature was it?
ETA Found it....mmmmm wasn't that hot then

by Sonmi-451 24.07.14 16:11

Hi JohnyT,

PeterMac posted some data on this thread about the weather round about Page 8. This seriously questions the likelihood of the pool pic having been taken on the 3rd. However, a defense lawyer would presumably claim there was a break in the clouds and that the parents dressed kids in shorts and t-shirts on a reasonably chilly day, etc..

However, physics and maths aren't open to personal interpretation, and thus no defense lawyer can counter them. If the data I've entered to calculate the casting of shadows is correct this demonstrates, irrefutably that the sun's angle was such that the photo could not have been taken at 2.29pm on the 3rd in Praia da Luz. (n.b. I've published the inputs it in my posting, so anyone can challenge it and can point out any errors). To be absolutely clear to anyone with any doubts... the sun's angle and the calculated shadow lengths are not an 'opinion', not a 'feeling... just trigonometry output by an impartial bit of software using (independently verifiable) data input.

The photo is therefore shown to be fake, (anyone can freely spend a few minutes double checking the data I used and pointing out any flaws and/or keying it into FindMyShadow.com for confirmation of the calculated shadows).

Now we can discuss the 'why?' The only thing that can be said for certain is that the 'Last Photo/Pool Pic' has been fraudulently used to place Gerry, Amelie and Madeleine at the poolside at 2.29pm on 3rd Mat 2007. I still think it's worthwhile analysing (i.e. not giving opinion, but proper analysis), the queries members have. I (naively?) hope that if that's systematically done we can reduce these 'photo threads' to less than 90% of their length and be left with, perhaps, a few bits of (potentially relevant) wheat separated from the chaff.

Update: JohhnyT: Just seen your update! You found the weather data whilst I was typing :D

by JohnyT 24.07.14 16:20

Thank you Sonmi for that detailed reply.
JohnyT

by Miraflores 24.07.14 16:23

The clock didn't need to be changed: Portugal and the UK are on the same time.

by j.rob 24.07.14 16:28

You can get a reasonable idea of the relative sizes of Madeleine, Sean and Amelie (assuming that the children in this video ARE Madeleine, Sean and Amelie from the McCann Christmas appeal 2007.

Talking of peculiar hands, there is a very strange close-up of Gerry's hands at the 0.44 mark.

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

by MissesWillYa 24.07.14 16:43

I know it's been mentioned that Madeleine's facial expression in the pool photo is similar to Sean's expression in (I think) a contemporaneous photo of the children (I don't have that photo on hand right now, but in it, he's laughing with his head turned to the side, mouth open, similar to Madeleine in the pool photo). I've just noticed how similar their faces are in the Donegal beach photo! They look so much alike to me, maybe more than any brother/sister pair I've ever seen. I don't know if it means anything, but wow, it's almost the same face (IMO)....

by Guest 24.07.14 17:03

This sounds like the photo you mean.

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

by j.rob 24.07.14 17:04

BlueBag wrote:Pink.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Did she have a pink and an orange one?

Why are the twins faces sometimes blanked out and at other times not blanked out? Why not just be consistent one way or the other?

I hate to write this, as I am starting to sound like a stuck record, but this is an odd photo.

Why?

At first glance, it looks like quite a normal photo. You simply assume that it is Amelie walking in front of another child. So far, so good. But the hands are weird again. The fingers of both Amelie and on the adult hands either side are strange.

And the child right behind her. Is she wearing a green top or a white top? The left hand which is being held by another adult looks too large and the trousers look different colours on the left side compared with the right side.

Does anyone know when and where this photo was supposedly taken and when it was released. I wonder who the other child is supposed to be?

But WHY do the McCanns release such strange photos?!

My head is spinning. I have never come across such PECULIAR people. What on earth was/is going on?!

HELP!

by Guest 24.07.14 17:11

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

You get the whole picture here.

by canada12 24.07.14 17:11

j.rob wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Pink.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Did she have a pink and an orange one?

Why are the twins faces sometimes blanked out and at other times not blanked out? Why not just be consistent one way or the other?

I hate to write this, as I am starting to sound like a stuck record, but this is an odd photo.

Why?

At first glance, it looks like quite a normal photo. You simply assume that it is Amelie walking in front of another child. So far, so good. But the hands are weird again. The fingers of both Amelie and on the adult hands either side are strange.

And the child right behind her. Is she wearing a green top or a white top? The left hand which is being held by another adult looks too large and the trousers look different colours on the left side compared with the right side.

Does anyone know when and where this photo was supposedly taken and when it was released. I wonder who the other child is supposed to be?

But WHY do the McCanns release such strange photos?!

My head is spinning. I have never come across such PECULIAR people. What on earth was/is going on?!

HELP!

Here's another view of that photo, j.rob. It's a press picture so I doubt it's been tampered with. The reason Amelie's face is blanked out is because we went through a period when we weren't supposed to show the twins' faces. I think that time has now passed.

I don't see anything wrong with this picture.

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

by Sonmi-451 24.07.14 17:11

Miraflores wrote:The clock didn't need to be changed: Portugal and the UK are on the same time.

Hi Miraflores,

That's very true. I should therefore clarify, when the term 'timestamp' is used for photos that it also covers the date.

It doesn't actually matter very much whether the camera's clock was an hour out or not. The image's EXIF data gives the following time and date for digitisation of the image (i.e. when it was taken):

Date/Time Digitized

2007:05:03 13:29:51+01:00

Clarrie said it was actually 14:29. However, the shadow calculations have been made, splitting the difference, at 2pm. It's worth noting that the trigonometry using either 1:30 or 2:30 would still show a problem with the angles and lengths of the shadows.

Since the pool photo shows an image that could not have been taken at either 1.30 , or 2.30, someone is lying about the time, (either one, it doesn't matter for the point being made). Add to that the evidence that the 3rd was mainly cloudy and that indicates that they are very likely also lying about the date. Putting both those bits together, (as well as Clarrie's comment about the clock being an hour out when challenged), indicates that people are lying and and have gone to the trouble of also changing the image's EXIF data (i.e. that's the info that is embedded in the digital photo file that tell you the camera, the time and date, the focal length, the exposure, the field of vew, etc. etc.... you can access this data easily enough yourself. I'll explain how if you wish).

I hope all of the above explains that it doesn't actually matter very much whether or not the camera's clock was set to GMT or BST and thus technically an hour out? The fact remains the photo was not taken at either 1.30 or 2.30 on the 3rd.

I hope all that made sense? I apologise but I can be a bit of a nerd sometimes! big grin

by **PeterMac** 24.07.14 17:15

Sonmi-451 wrote:Hi JohnyT,

PeterMac posted some data on this thread about the weather round about Page 8. This seriously questions the likelihood of the pool pic having been taken on the 3rd. However, a defense lawyer would presumably claim there was a break in the clouds and that the parents dressed kids in shorts and t-shirts on a reasonably chilly day, etc..

And would then have to go on to show how it suddenly became so warm that Gerry's forehead got all sweaty and shiny, and why despite the known force 4 breeze, Madeleine's very fine hair is not blowing around and so on.

This is an extract of a much longer piece sent to Grange, and to the PJ, and Dr Amaral, as well as a range of selected and trusted journalists a long time ago.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

by canada12 24.07.14 17:19

Thanks Sonmi-451 and PeterMac for the excellent clarification of the impossibility of The Last Photo being taken at the time and day the McCanns have stated. If this is their only "concrete" proof that Madeleine was alive at the stated hour, and that Gerry was sitting on the edge of that pool at the stated hour, then I'm afraid the McCanns' main alibi for that day and time has now been torpedoed. And if it goes to court, I think a good prosecutor would be able to call expert witnesses to confirm the fraud of "The Last Photo".

It's been stated and shown a number of times before this, all through the 7 years since Madeleine disappeared, but this is the clearest confirmation I've seen to date, and the least confusing when it comes to shadows and where the sun is.