Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by Guest 24.07.14 17:20

Canada12: your photo hasn't come out.

Are you able to post the one that I gave a link to? I agree that the full version isn't odd.

by canada12 24.07.14 17:32

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Canada12: your photo hasn't come out.

Are you able to post the one that I gave a link to? I agree that the full version isn't odd.

That's weird - I can see the photo on my screen!

Oh well.

Here's the one you linked to :-)

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

by canada12 24.07.14 17:41

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Thank you Canada12. All I can see from your original post is X marks the spot!

Really strange :-) Well, here's the link to the "X" photo :-)

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

by noddy100 24.07.14 17:42

It is one of those tops with bi coloured sleeves like there is a white one under a green t shirt. Looks normal to me. As do all the photos. Apart from teh date.
I have some odd looking pictures of us with weird angles etc.

by Sonmi-451 24.07.14 17:43

@PeterMac,

I agree... I was trying to keep it short! big grin

IMO the amount of sweat on a breezy day is far more of a giveaway than the wearing of lightweight clothing... but I was saving on keystrokes!

n.b Since the Last Photo was demonstrably not taken when it was claimed is there a sticky page where only the barest undeniable facts are saved, (e.g. Weather, sun angles, full EXIF data, etc.). Somewhere where contents can be 'ringfenced' leaving debate in the threads to (quite rightly) continue in order to consider the 'Why'?, as well as potentially raise new facts (& challenge the old ones) that can be influence what's on the 'Sticky'?

by **PeterMac** 24.07.14 17:45

Sonmi-451 wrote:
Clarrie said it was actually 14:29.

It would be wonderful if by blathering on about the time and drawing everyone's attention to the EXIF metadata
which has in turn caused everyone to disbelieve it right from the start - purely because Mitchell said it, in the first instance-
and then spent time and effort in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it is wrong . . .
Mitchell is ultimately the case of the McCanns' demise !

Wouldn't that be poetic !

And just to put it on the record again
Last Photo taken on the Canon
Canon in the possession of Kate on 10th (when the other camera - the Olympus - was in Hampshire)
Last Photo not in list in PJ files
Gerry goes back to UK on 20th
Returns to PdL WITH MITCHELL on 22nd
Another family member with close relative who has considerable photographic expertise also comes to PdL on 22nd
Photo released in press on 24th
Therefore released by Mitchell to the French agency on 23rd

IT FITS
But perhaps this is just another extraordinary sequence of St Katherine's coincidences

by canada12 24.07.14 18:39

PeterMac wrote:
Sonmi-451 wrote:
Clarrie said it was actually 14:29.
It would be wonderful if by blathering on about the time and drawing everyone's attention to the EXIF metadata
which has in turn caused everyone to disbelieve it right from the start - purely because Mitchell said it, in the first instance-
and then spent time and effort in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it is wrong . . .
Mitchell is ultimately the case of the McCanns' demise !

Wouldn't that be poetic !

And just to put it on the record again
Last Photo taken on the Canon
Canon in the possession of Kate on 10th (when the other camera - the Olympus - was in Hampshire)
Last Photo not in list in PJ files
Gerry goes back to UK on 20th
Returns to PdL WITH MITCHELL on 22nd
Another family member with close relative who has considerable photographic expertise also comes to PdL on 22nd
Photo released in press on 24th
Therefore released by Mitchell to the French agency on 23rd

IT FITS
But perhaps this is just another extraordinary sequence of St Katherine's coincidences

It would be interesting to find out who allegedly changed the EXIF data in the camera.

If it was Kate or Gerry, using information from the internet, then they're responsible, IMO.

However if they allegedly asked someone else to change the EXIF data, then it would be interesting to find out the reason they gave that person, for changing the data.

Or perhaps they just asked that person, "How do I change the EXIF data on a photograph?" and that person would then have explained how.

Either way, that person is now IMO a potential witness for the prosecution, if this ever went to trial.

by SallyVern 24.07.14 19:05

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.

You're welcome.

Actually, if you look at Madeleine on the other Donegal photo her neck looks slim too but in proportion for a slip of a girl. Now imagine her looking to the side. Would this not give the impression of an anomaly? I agree with another poster who suggested the stripy pattern that can be seen on Madeleine's shoulder is Amelie's hood showing.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The full high resolution photo can be viewed here:

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

by Guest 24.07.14 20:04

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!

Agreed j.rob the child behind Amelie looks like he has at least five fingers and a thumb on his left hand.
In the blown-up photo Amelie has strange lines drawn around the underside of her arms.
There seems to be strange lines around the outer left arm of the person who is holding her hand in the red trousers. And lines around KM?
Another photoshop job? Would it be normal for this to be done before publication in a newspaper say - for definition?
IMO all the photos with children in it appear to be altered. IMO the only one that seems not be be tampered with are the wedding and honeymoon photos.

All in my own opinion, nowt stated as fact.

by j.rob 24.07.14 20:08

canada12 wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Canada12: your photo hasn't come out.

Are you able to post the one that I gave a link to? I agree that the full version isn't odd.
That's weird - I can see the photo on my screen!

Oh well.

Here's the one you linked to :-)

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

Thanks. That looks less odd. Although the hands/fingers are still a bit weird looking. Maybe just a play of light.

Does anyone know who all the other people are? I wonder who the obscured child behind Amelie and the obscured women behind Kate are? I wonder when it was taken and why the choice of those people and that shot?

by Guest 24.07.14 20:31

BlackCatBoogie wrote:Agreed j.rob the child behind Amelie looks like he has at least five fingers and a thumb on his left hand.
Amelie has strange lines drawn around the underside of her arms.
There seems to be strange lines around the outer left arm of the person who is holding her hand in the red trousers. And lines around KM?
Another photoshop job?

Seriously, can we stop the ridiculous stuff now please.

This is just more useless chaff.

by rustyjames 24.07.14 20:35

Sonmi-451 - I doubt it alters the calculations much, but I'm wondering if the angle the picture is taken is closer to NE than you have it, the reason being twofold:

I have a Canon A series I've just been playing with that has a nearly identical lens. The "last picture" exif data says it was taken with 21.7mm which is 109mm equivalent for 35mm. I've tried framing the equivalent of a group of people and have to be a fair distance away to get anything similar.
Secondly to get so much of the paving (or wall I can't tell which) in the background to the left of the tree I would have thought you'd need to be further around the pool.

I've played with findmyshadow with the values you have and I'm probably misinterpreting it but I'm struggling to find any date/time that throws shadows as they are being cast - i.e. almost directly overhead and a little to the right.

by Sonmi-451 24.07.14 20:59

rustyjames wrote:Sonmi-451 - I doubt it alters the calculations much, but I'm wondering if the angle the picture is taken is closer to NE than you have it, the reason being twofold:

I have a Canon A series I've just been playing with that has a nearly identical lens. The "last picture" exif data says it was taken with 21.7mm which is 109mm equivalent for 35mm. I've tried framing the equivalent of a group of people and have to be a fair distance away to get anything similar.
Secondly to get so much of the paving (or wall I can't tell which) in the background to the left of the tree I would have thought you'd need to be further around the pool.

I've played with findmyshadow with the values you have and I'm probably misinterpreting it but I'm struggling to find any date/time that throws shadows as they are being cast - i.e. almost directly overhead and a little to the right.

Hi Rustyjames,

It's great to know someone's double checking things. Ironing out any errors so as we can get to a unanimous thumbs up on an agreed lot of input data is what analysis is all about. It's music to my ears!

When I got a moment I was going to work on the basis of the field of view being 19.6 deg (that's what the EXIF says... does that seem right for the lens set up?). Then I am going to see if I can better pinpoint the photographer's position as accurately as possible...and then check my earlier estimate of the direction they're pointing. n.b. This would be necessary to then work back, as you're doing, to calculate the 'true' time the photo was taken... but at the 'summary level' of being able to say "at 2pm the shadow on a 1m tall object would have been ~50cm that still stands.

When I was looking at findmyshadow I think the observed shadow would have been around midday, (if my 12 deg offset from North was correct), but the shadow casting tool calculates only in hourly slots so there's a 'jump' at what would be the crucial bit needed to tie things up.

What do you think a better offset from North might be? I'l re-do my estimates as soon as I can and maybe we can swap thoughts and come up with a more exact figure?

by j.rob 24.07.14 21:22

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
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!
Agreed j.rob the child behind Amelie looks like he has at least five fingers and a thumb.
Amelie has strange lines drawn around the underside of her arms.
As does the person on her right who is holding her hand. And seems to be lines around KM.
Another photoshop job?
Maybe it would just be easier if we just accept that all the photos with thier children in appear to be altered. The only one that seems not be be tampered with is the wedding photo.

All in my own opinion, nowt stated as fact.

Well - I have to admit, I do still find it a strange photo.....the only person engaging with whoever has taken the photo is Amelie. Everyone else is noticeably looking down to the ground, or is obscured behind foliage/other people. And there is a break in the top of the white wall in the larger photo at the level of Kate's right elbow which is difficult to account for

When you say the wedding photo, do you mean the one in Kate's book? I even find that slightly odd as I was surprised there wasn't a more 'formal' one - even if just taken by a friend. I was *almost* wondering whether the whole 'white wedding' was a fantasy. But then in their statements the Gaspers said they went to the McCann's wedding. You would just expect a wedding photo chosen for the book to have a plain background, for instance, or a formal photo with the couple with best man etc, rather than a a few blurred guests lollling around in the background and a waitress scurrying up with a tray and what looks like two candles on it. Why not just edit them out to sharpen up the 'happy wedding' photo?

Oh well, who knows?

Of interest, perhaps, is that in the Gasper statements, Mr Gasper says that he thinks the McCann's went to New Zealand AFTER their wedding. Whereas according to Kate their period in New Zealand was most definitely BEFORE their weddding.

Mrs Gasper:

"To explain the way in which we met the McCann family, I would like to state that my husband knows Kate, as they both attended Dundee University between 1987 and 1992. At that time, Kate's name was Kate Healy. I met Kate and Gerry on the occasion of their wedding, around 1998, in Liverpool. Both Savio and I went to the wedding because as Savio was an old friend of Kate's, we were both invited to the event.

As far as I know, Savio did not know Gerry before the above mentioned wedding. From that time onwards, we met as friends about three times a year and we would spent weekends away together. I would say that we became intimate friends of Gerry and Kate."

Mr Gasper says of his friendship with Kate:

"When we first became friends in 1987 she was still known as Kate Healy, this was the case until she married Gerry at the end of 1990s. Kate and I completed our medical degrees in 1992, when we each carried on with our lives, once we had begun our careers.

After I finished my degree I began my career in Exeter, and I think Kate went to Glasgow.

I only met up with Kate again in 1997 or 1998. At that moment I was married to Katherina, we had both been invited to attend Kate and Gerry's wedding.

After their wedding we lost contact and I think they went to New Zealand.

We only met up again in 2001 in Birmingham."

Those are two conflicting accounts. They cannot both be right.

Kate in her book writes that she was in New Zealand from July 1995 until September 1996. She describes Gerry as being there from September 1995 until September 1996.

(I was wondering whether Mr Gasper maybe thought theMcCanns went on honeymoon in NZ but while Kate does not write about the honeymoon at all, there are two photos purporting to be from their honeymoon, one captioned as being at Lake Tahoe (they are wearing ski gear) and the other as being in Maui (where Kate is wearing a summer dress and has a suntan).

by Guest 24.07.14 21:26

BlueBag wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:Agreed j.rob the child behind Amelie looks like he has at least five fingers and a thumb on his left hand.
Amelie has strange lines drawn around the underside of her arms.
There seems to be strange lines around the outer left arm of the person who is holding her hand in the red trousers. And lines around KM?
Another photoshop job?

Seriously, can we stop the ridiculous stuff now please.

This is just more useless chaff.

Blow the picture up to 450 - 500% BlueBag. Post it here if you can or I will.
Then tell me that you can't see very heavy lines around Amelie's lower arms and a lot of the other body contours - this could have been done as part of the publishing process if this appeared in the printed media (to give the photo it some sort of definition) or it could indicate some sort of manipulation. Also the hand of the child behind Amelie looks slightly odd as j.rob mentioned. Could just be a oddity of the photo or again it could indicate some sort of manipulation.

IMO a lot of the photographs which include the Mccann children/relatives have been manipulated or are odd in some way.

BTW I find you comments totally uncalled for - this is a thread about photographs isn't it?
I suggest you blow it up and take a look - not that I want to start a debate about photoshopping re this particular photo - it has been done to death now imo.

All in my own opinion.

by Guest 24.07.14 21:45

j.rob wrote:Quote snipped due to size/photos etc...

When you say the wedding photo, do you mean the one in Kate's book? I even find that slightly odd as I was surprised there wasn't a more 'formal' one - even if just taken by a friend. I was *almost* wondering whether the whole 'white wedding' was a fantasy. But then in their statements the Gaspers said they went to the McCann's wedding. You would just expect a wedding photo chosen for the book to have a plain background, for instance, or a formal photo with the couple with best man etc, rather than a a few blurred guests lollling around in the background and a waitress scurrying up with a tray and what looks like two candles on it. Why not just edit them out to sharpen up the 'happy wedding' photo?

@j.rob

It just seems that a lot of the photos where the children are included just don't seem right. It seems to me that an awful lot have been altered in some way. Why exactly I don't know.

The only ones that seem right and unmanipulated to me are the wedding and honeymoon picutres in the bewk i.e the ones before any children were included.

I completely agree with you about the wedding photo thou - it does seem slightly at odds with the character traits that KM appears to have exhibited since 2007. I would have expected a much more formal or elegant photo or just one that was posed a bit better. Similarly there is only a few lines about the wedding in the book and these are almost dismissive in their tone, again not what you would have expected. The wedding is a bit of a puzzle to me but that is another topic.

All in my own opinion

by rustyjames 24.07.14 21:59

Sonmi-451 wrote:I was going to work on the basis of the field of view being 19.6 deg (that's what the EXIF says... does that seem right for the lens set up?).

The exif data I've got displayed just says it's 21.7mm (109mm equivalent) and taken with an aperture of f/4. Sorry I've no idea how that translates to field of view.

Sonmi-451 wrote:What do you think a better offset from North might be? I'l re-do my estimates as soon as I can and maybe we can swap thoughts and come up with a more exact figure?

I can't really be sure. I'm going off Google's aerial view and also the picture someone put on earlier in the thread of the same scene taken at some other time and it could be anywhere from your figure up to around 45 degrees - i.e. directly from the opposite side of the pool.

by secrets and lies 24.07.14 22:04

I definitely think some of the photos look "odd" and "manipulated" but I also think with photos there can be a lot of strange anomalies depending on the angle, the light etc., This is the nature of photography. Things can look out-of-proportion, disconnected, floating and there is not always manipulation behind it. That said, absolutely NOTHING would surprise me in relation to these people.

What is more interesting to me is WHY these pictures, and not just the one's with Maddie, might have needed to be manipulated at all? There would have be be a good reason to go to all that bother. The involvement of others in manipulating the images would make them (the McCanns) vulnerable-even if it were a close family member. This leads us into the terrain of very many people being involved in this elaborate hoax. If so, surely these accomplices would then want their share of the profits in return for their help and their silence.

We know the twins exist. We have seen untouched press photos of them being carried on/off planes etc., Perhaps at this stage, with so many odd diversions and uncomfortable coincidences in this story, our eyes are being directed by our brains to see what isn't really there, in the case of at least some of these pictures.

by rustyjames 24.07.14 22:18

BlackCatBoogie wrote:Blow the picture up to 450 - 500% BlueBag. Post it here if you can or I will.
Then tell me that you can't see very heavy lines around Amelie's lower arms and a lot of the other body contours - this could have been done as part of the publishing process if this appeared in the printed media (to give the photo it some sort of definition) or it could indicate some sort of manipulation.

Or it could be because the highest quality version I've seen of the image is just 468x374 pixels and quality of 79 - i.e. 175032 pixels or less than 0.2 Megapixels. Blow that up and those are the sort of artifacts you'll see.

by canada12 24.07.14 22:23

secrets and lies wrote:I definitely think some of the photos look "odd" and "manipulated" but I also think with photos there can be a lot of strange anomalies depending on the angle, the light etc., This is the nature of photography. Things can look out-of-proportion, disconnected, floating and there is not always manipulation behind it. That said, absolutely NOTHING would surprise me in relation to these people.

What is more interesting to me is WHY these pictures, and not just the one's with Maddie, might have needed to be manipulated at all? There would have be be a good reason to go to all that bother. The involvement of others in manipulating the images would make them (the McCanns) vulnerable-even if it were a close family member. This leads us into the terrain of very many people being involved in this elaborate hoax. If so, surely these accomplices would then want their share of the profits in return for their help and their silence.

We know the twins exist. We have seen untouched press photos of them being carried on/off planes etc., Perhaps at this stage, with so many odd diversions and uncomfortable coincidences in this story, our eyes are being directed by our brains to see what isn't really there, in the case of at least some of these pictures.

The only photos I've ever had issues with are the ones which purport to show Madeleine. My reasons for this are largely because it's impossible to put together a reasonable chronology of the child, based on the pictures we've been given, what she looks like, where she's supposed to have been, when she's supposed to have been there, and what she was doing in those photos. The 2 photos of Madeleine in the pink jacket and pink trousers at PDL seem sound. If it IS Madeleine - and who honestly knows? She doesn't look like the same child pictured on the tennis court. And the child pictured on the tennis court doesn't look like the child sitting by the swimming pool. And the child sitting by the swimming pool looks younger than the child in some of the photos of "Madeleine" which were released following her disappearance - the football jersey photo, the child with the crimped hair, the child opening Christmas presents, the child in the red party dress, etc etc etc.

So that's why I'm suspicious, and why I wonder about the circumstances of each photo Madeleine appears in, and why I wonder if the photos have been altered in any way.

by Sonmi-451 24.07.14 22:28

rustyjames wrote:
Sonmi-451 wrote:I was going to work on the basis of the field of view being 19.6 deg (that's what the EXIF says... does that seem right for the lens set up?).

The exif data I've got displayed just says it's 21.7mm (109mm equivalent) and taken with an aperture of f/4. Sorry I've no idea how that translates to field of view.

Sonmi-451 wrote:What do you think a better offset from North might be? I'l re-do my estimates as soon as I can and maybe we can swap thoughts and come up with a more exact figure?

I can't really be sure. I'm going off Google's aerial view and also the picture someone put on earlier in the thread of the same scene taken at some other time and it could be anywhere from your figure up to around 45 degrees - i.e. directly from the opposite side of the pool.

Canada12 tracked down a photo from someone who'd gone and taken a photo of the pool area, (it's on Page 29 in this thread).

The line up was good enough to paste over a semi-transparent 'McCAnn Pool Pic to confirm where they were sitting, (see below). This gave me my very rough estimate of where the McCann photographer was standing. I then went to Google Earth and tried to estimate the offset from true north, (I came up with a range of somewhere between 8~14degs...and plumped for 12 degs in the shadow calculations.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />" />

Any improvements on the correct angle will be graciously received, (I've a glass of wine ready in case I need to drown my sorrows if I was lots and lots out! spin

)

by secrets and lies 24.07.14 22:30

Agreed, Canada.

It is the pics of Madeleine that make me suspicious.

I have a very hard time, for example, reconciling the child on the cover of Kate McCann's book with the child seen in many other pics purporting to be Maddie.

When this case is eventually solved (having a hopeful day today) it will be interesting to look back and see if we were right about the photo oddities or if our imaginations have been making crazy leaps.

by missbeetle 25.07.14 0:07

j.rob wrote:
canada12 wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Canada12: your photo hasn't come out.

Are you able to post the one that I gave a link to? I agree that the full version isn't odd.
That's weird - I can see the photo on my screen!

Oh well.

Here's the one you linked to :-)

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

Thanks. That looks less odd. Although the hands/fingers are still a bit weird looking. Maybe just a play of light.

Does anyone know who all the other people are? I wonder who the obscured child behind Amelie and the obscured women behind Kate are? I wonder when it was taken and why the choice of those people and that shot?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(undated photograph snipped from Pamalam, with thanks)

My thoughts are that the obscured lady behind Kate McCann is Fiona Payne.

The little dark-haired girl behind Amelie I reckon is Lily Payne.

The lady to the far left I haven't seen before.

Thank you Canada12, J.Rob, BlackCatBoogie , Hicks and others - some excellent observations and analyses.

by Nina 25.07.14 6:59

Sonmi-451 wrote:
rustyjames wrote:
Sonmi-451 wrote:I was going to work on the basis of the field of view being 19.6 deg (that's what the EXIF says... does that seem right for the lens set up?).

The exif data I've got displayed just says it's 21.7mm (109mm equivalent) and taken with an aperture of f/4. Sorry I've no idea how that translates to field of view.

Sonmi-451 wrote:What do you think a better offset from North might be? I'l re-do my estimates as soon as I can and maybe we can swap thoughts and come up with a more exact figure?

I can't really be sure. I'm going off Google's aerial view and also the picture someone put on earlier in the thread of the same scene taken at some other time and it could be anywhere from your figure up to around 45 degrees - i.e. directly from the opposite side of the pool.

Canada12 tracked down a photo from someone who'd gone and taken a photo of the pool area, (it's on Page 29 in this thread).

The line up was good enough to paste over a semi-transparent 'McCAnn Pool Pic to confirm where they were sitting, (see below). This gave me my very rough estimate of where the McCann photographer was standing. I then went to Google Earth and tried to estimate the offset from true north, (I came up with a range of somewhere between 8~14degs...and plumped for 12 degs in the shadow calculations.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />" />

Any improvements on the correct angle will be graciously received, (I've a glass of wine ready in case I need to drown my sorrows if I was lots and lots out! )

Just an aside and nothing near your technical examinations of the photo but the photo of Gerry and the girls overlaid the larger one the pool side is white where as on the larger one it is beige. The chairs on both are still white though. As I say not technical, just a meaningless observation.

by missbeetle 25.07.14 7:07

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

Any ideas on what the black dot on Kate's right lower shin is?

Uncle Sandy's knee looks uncomfortable, too.

Enough of this, MissB! Thank you. NFWTD.