Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by juliet 02.11.14 22:34

ps: I have no problem with AP's postings. I don't understand the snide comments.

by Liz Eagles 02.11.14 22:37

When the father of Madeleine McCann is asked about his last great memory and says the last photo - that has to be questioned.

This is why the reality/provenance of last photo is important and it's very important imo not to deviate from that.

This photograph wasn't released immediately on Madeleine's disappearance. This photograph would/should have been the most up-to-date photograph to give to the media/general public and yet it wasn't handed over immediately from the McCann's camera(s) to those who could print photographs (that's another topic).

Don't deviate. Keep your eye on the ball.

Just my opinion and all that jazz.

by plebgate 02.11.14 22:37

I don't think the comments about Atomic Peanut have been snide. I think they have been very direct and I tend to agree with them.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.11.14 22:39

Atomic Peanut wrote:... because the last photo has been argued about for 7 years without a satisfactory conclusion, whereas the playground photograph has obvious defects yet is rarely discussed
As I understand it, the point of disproving the timing or composition of the last photo is to demonstrate that M wasn't around at 2.30 on 3rd May. However, the playground photo was allegedly timed at about 5pm on 2nd May, and to eliminate that would move her disappearance forward nearly another day. The last photo would effectively be irrelevant. Yet still nobody wants to talk about it
My posts are based upon logic, and thank you to all of you who have recognised that

@ aquila - You make a very pertinent observation about Atomic Peanut drawing our attention away from the numerous problems with the Last Photo and trying to get us to look at the playground.

Atomic Peanut's position =

"Nothing to suggest the Last Photo couldn't have been taken on 3rd May - but look at the playground photo, that's the one with all the problems"

My position: =

Major problem with the Last Photo, given that it was produced 21 days later (a problem that Atomic Peanut has never addressed or commented on),e and given that it was obviously taken on a warm summer's day - and there is nothing wrong with the playground photo.

Now the application of Atomic Peanut's claimed 'logic':

These comments are from his past and oft-repeated postings about the playground photo:

QUOTE

So how do you explain the two impossible sets of shadows on the playground photo, left and right of the pic?

At best, it's two pictures joined together down the middle.

That isn't about debate and opinion, it's a fact staring everyone in the face.

That picture has been discussed on here and other forums for ages, but it cannot be an officially released photograph, surely?

Was it inserted into the mix by a joker who is now sitting back laughing about it?

Everything on the left hand side has a long (late afternoon) shadow going from bottom left to right and everything from middle to right hand side has a shadow going from bottom right to top, or no shadow at all.

I can't believe this was ever released as an official photo because nobody in the world has ever taken a photo like that

So much discussion about the "last photo" but that one [i.e. the playground photo] is impossible.

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

So let's now apply some of Atomic Peanut's fabled 'logic' to these two photographs.

Let's start with his assertion that the playground photo was taken on Wednesday 2 May.

He bases this on an article in a mag with no reputation for accuracy.

There is no mention ever by the McCanns of Madeleine 'playing all afternoon' with the Boyd's, or any other family.

There is no mention of it in Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'.

Then Atomic Peanut objects to the playground photo on the main ground that on the left of the picture the shadows are long and pointing right, whereas he says the shadow seen in the bottom right points a different way.

No it doesn't.

It is simply the shadow of the photographer!

As anyone who has ever taken a photograph with the sun behind them would know this.

Thirdly, it is as certain as can be that this playground photo was taken on the Saturday evening, 28th April, after the McCanns and the rest of the Tapas group had arrived in Praia da Luz.

Some of the group took their children to the playground/play area after they'd arrived and unpacked.

It's in their statements.

It's in Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'.

Madeleine is wearing (I think) the same clothes as she's seen wearing when she climbs up the aeroplane steps and slips a bit.

The shadows indicate latish evening, I should estimate between 5.30pm and 7.00pm.

There is nothing strange or tampered with on that photograph whatsoever.

And notice Atomic Peanut's dogmatism:

QUOTE: "It's two pictures joined together down the middle. That isn't about debate and opinion, it's a fact staring everyone in the face".

Well, well, well. I can't recall seeing as dogmatic a statement as that on this forum. Ever.

And what's more, I'm sure it's wrong.

Now back to the Last Photo.

The major query about the Last Photo is this: why, when it was in the McCanns' camera on 3 May, did it take until 24 May -a day after Mrs Philomena Rickwood arrived post haste from Ullapool to Faro by plane?

This has led to two sets of rival suggestions about the photo.

One group insists it's been photoshopped, and give a variety of reasons within the photographs as to why.

Another group believes it's a genuine photograph taken earlier in the week, maybe Sunday or Monday.

Both groups accept the possibility that it was taken on 3 May.

So why (using logic) has Atomic Peanut invested such energy on this forum in...

* trying to prove by wind directions, microclimates, sunny intervals here and there, and people maybe wearing cardigans and then whipping them off every time the sun comes out for a couple of minutes? (look at all the time he's spent on this on the forum and all the photos he's collected)

* basing much of his evidence on the clearly dubious Boyd family article?

* false claims that the playground photo, almost certainly a genuine photo taken on the Saturday evening, 28 April, was (a) taken on 2 May (b) taken on 3 May, or (c) is a crude photoshop produced by sticking (QUOTE AP) "two pictures joined together down the middle?

I've used my deductive reasoning powers to work out the answer.

So has aquila.

He may be polite.

It is perfectly possible for someone to be polite whilst leading them a merry dance up and down the garden path all the time.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.11.14 22:47

@ Juliet & @ canada 12

Juliet wrote:

Surely no-one believes in the ludicrous playground photo? I thought it had been dismissed as a fake years ago? The trouble is that the media won't publish the truth about this ridiculous mess of a five foot tall Maddie with (literally) two left feet and a missing knee, apart from all the wrong shadows, ballet dancer onlooker etc etc. What can you do with the British press which re-publishes a seven year old photo (which looks nothing like the peggy toothed child we were told is missing) with nauseating McCann-dictated commentary.

I have no problem with AP's postings.

Canada 12 wrote:

IMO the Playground Photo (with all of its obvious mistakes) was put out there as a diversion. So that it could be pointed at as an obvious case of photoshopping, to divert attention away from The Last Photo, which (IMO) has also been photoshopped, but with a good deal more skill than the Playground Photo.

Sorry.

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

Just to make it clear, by the 'Playground Photo', I understood Atomic Peanut to be referring to the one of a group on the lawn with Gerry swinging Madeleine around, and one of the Tapas group's children in the foreground, looking on.

Does anyone seriously suggest that that photo was photshopped?

If so, how?

by juliet 02.11.14 22:48

My concern is why there is any concerted effort at all to say "the last photo is 100% genuine but taken earlier in the week." The "last photo" is so obviously 100% fake!!! Look at the child's neck alone...at her body which has no resemblance whatsoever to the bruised, lanky, unkempt tennis court child.

by Liz Eagles 02.11.14 22:50

plebgate wrote:I don't think the comments about Atomic Peanut have been snide. I think they have been very direct and I tend to agree with them.

I don't think they've been snide either.

Hands up who's had a PM from Atomic Peanut in the last couple of days? I have.

Let me say that Atomic Peanut's posts need to be read in full (there's only about 90 of them) to get the general gist of 'it's not a whitewash -you prove it', 'it's all very simple - prove that it's not' 'the last photo is not the one to look at'....so on and so forth.

Then there's the Boyd family posts and the timelines that make your head spin.

Then there's the talk of Kiko's posts about the Naylors.

As a respected member of this forum often reminds us....keep your eye on the squirrel.

by juliet 02.11.14 22:56

I haven't had a pm from AP or anyone.
Maybe I misunderstand...Tony, are you questioning whether the playground pic is photoshopped or quoting someone else?

by canada12 02.11.14 23:11

Hi Tony

Regarding the shadows in the playground pic...

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

That may be the photographer's shadow, but if it was, it would be facing in the same direction as Madeleine and Gerry's shadows, and the shadows of the people on the left side of the picture ie, off to the top right. This shadow is angled in the direction of the top left. Also most peculiar that the playhouse casts no shadow at all, given how long the shadows are on the left side of the picture. And the shadow cast by the tree beside the white structure is clearly facing to the left, not to the right.

by juliet 02.11.14 23:18

Shadows apart..look at Maddie's two left feet. Look at her sliced off knee. Look at her size: she would be five feet tall if straightened.Look at the man behind with his contorted stance. Look at....the 100 wrong things which have been noted over and over again.

by Liz Eagles 02.11.14 23:24

juliet wrote:Shadows apart..look at Maddie's two left feet. Look at her sliced off knee. Look at her size: she would be five feet tall if straightened.Look at the man behind with his contorted stance. Look at....the 100 wrong things which have been noted over and over again.

Why not take this to an appropriate topic?

This one is about the last photo.

by juliet 02.11.14 23:28

Tony moved it on.

by canada12 02.11.14 23:43

aquila wrote:
Why not take this to an appropriate topic?

This one is about the last photo.

Agreed. We're being diverted, which I believe was the intent.

Back to The Last Photo~~shopped~~. :-)

by canada12 03.11.14 0:20

bobbin wrote:
Thanks for posting a good image of the 'last photo'. I had been searching everywhere to find one.
I must say though, I have now seen something which I had never noticed before, and it absolutely clinches the fact that Gerry McC, at least, has been photo-shopped.

Perhaps, after all the previous speculation, the photo was in fact, more to demonstrate G McC in the vicinity at that time, and not Maddie, which makes me now question, WHERE IN FACT WAS HE ?

I did get the feeling, as Tony above, that your contribution here seemed more like hindrance than help, but seriously, you have helped an inordinate amount.

If someone had been here, to hinder, then the phrase 'hoist with his own petard' would be in order, but since you assure us you are here to help, let me say a big 'thank you'.

The information has now been sent to a wide variety of photo analysts and it is out of my hands.
I will not be putting the information here, since it is not us on this forum, whose voices will be important when the whole McC farce is unravelled.
Let's just be content that it is in the right hands.

Here's the picture again:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Click on it and make it as big as you can.

I wondered if the image of Gerry had been reversed, as I originally thought his hair was combed in the wrong direction. I've amended my posting now, as it seems he does comb it in that direction.

But I still believe there should be deep shadows in between his legs, where his hand is.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.14 0:52

canada12 wrote:Hi Tony

Regarding the shadows in the playground pic...

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

That may be the photographer's shadow, but if it was, it would be facing in the same direction as Madeleine and Gerry's shadows, and the shadows of the people on the left side of the picture ie, off to the top right. This shadow is angled in the direction of the top left. Also most peculiar that the playhouse casts no shadow at all, given how long the shadows are on the left side of the picture. And the shadow cast by the tree beside the white structure is clearly facing to the left, not to the right.

@ canada12

I agree with aquila that Peanut has diverted us - albeit with some skill - but let me reply briefly to your points:

1. It is also possible that the shadow could be produced by, say, a tree behind the photographer. The problem is that we only see part of the shadow, and neither do we see what exactly is producing the shadow. You say that the shadow is 'angled in the direction of the top left', but with ful land due respect to your view, it must be to some extent an ASSUMPTION based on the limited information we have about what or who is producing the shadow

2. The left side and top of the playhouse produce a shadow that can be clearly seen behind the playhouse, while the right side of the playhouse obscures its shadow - it's there, but we can't see it because of the shadow angle

3. I know exactly what you mean about the tree on the right, and the shadow it appears to cast, but in my view the shadow is not from the tree but from something else bove

@ juliet

Again, with due respect, I don't see two left feet for Madeleine, I don't think that's anything like proven.

To recap, I have a simple view about both photos under discussion.

Both are I think simple, natural photos, probably taken:

Playground photo - between 5.30pm and 7.00pm Saturday 28th

Pool photo/'Last Photo' - probably around 1pm to 2pm on Sunday 29th.

To my mind the tennis balls photo is the most difficult of the three to explain.

One final point to those who say that the playground photo is faked/photoshopped, what exactly would be the point of that?

What would it achieve?

by Snifferdog 03.11.14 6:39

I would like to add my 2 cents worth.

We have a cast concrete swimming pool, constructed is similar fashion to the ocean club pools in full sun, it is very protected on 2 sides with a less amount of protection on the third, with the fourth side being completely open.

The ocean club pool area cannot be compared to an enclosed courtyard.
I have one, even though cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared size wise to the Ocean Club pool area, titter

it is in full sun, but when overcast, it gets cold there when the weather is 17•C, and if one takes the wind chill factor into account, If the pool were in this courtyard I can guarantee that none of us would be sitting in short sleeves, sweating with our feet in the pool.

Taking into consideration the equivalent end of winter early spring time into account, unless the OC pool is heated, just putting my hands in the water to clean the filter is enough to numb my hands, cause them to go blue, and make them ache, and I live in a subtropical climate!!!

by Atomic Peanut 03.11.14 8:25

Tony Bennett wrote:Atomic Peanut objects to the playground photo on the main ground that on the left of the picture the shadows are long and pointing right, whereas he says the shadow seen in the bottom right points a different way. No it doesn't.
It is simply the shadow of the photographer!

AP's reply: It's a tree. It was there in early May 2007 but was removed shortly after. See below the picture taken on 11th May 2007, which has been in circulation since the early days. It isn't even someone with a huge afro

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

As anyone who has ever taken a photograph with the sun behind them would know this.

AP's reply: Or that you were standing next to a tree when you took the photograph

Thirdly, it is as certain as can be that this playground photo was taken on the Saturday evening, 28th April, after the McCanns and the rest of the Tapas group had arrived in Praia da Luz.

AP's reply: That's the first time I have heard that, and it makes sense, but the media all reported that it had been taken at 5pm or 5.15pm on 2nd May. If, as has been suggested many times, the time and date of the last photo have been shifted, why not the time and date of the playground picture too?

The shadows indicate latish evening, I should estimate between 5.30pm and 7.00pm.

AP's reply: I agree

There is nothing strange or tampered with on that photograph whatsoever.

There is no mention ever by the McCanns of Madeleine 'playing all afternoon' with the Boyd's, or any other family.

AP's reply: I thought you didn't believe their version of the story. Now you are using them as witnesses

I know exactly what you mean about the tree on the right, and the shadow it appears to cast, but in my view the shadow is not from the tree but from something else above

AP's reply: There isn't anything (see photo). The tree on the right in the playground photo is casting a mid-afternoon shadow, not an evening one

I mentioned a few pages back that there is a long-standing attempt to debate the last photo while exonerating the playground photo despite its obvious flaws. I have been impressed so that so many of the big guns have arrived to defend the playground pic while attempting to discredit me. But the defence has to be based on facts
I would also like to reply to the suggestion that I have been PM-ing members. I only ever PM in return to a PM, and even then rarely, but on one occasion I PM-ed someone with a polite reply to a query posted on this thread because I had already answered the point before and thought it would disrupt the discussion to answer it again. In return, I received a diatribe
I have taken a screenshot of the relevant pages of this thread including this post

by Snifferdog 03.11.14 9:20

I have not noticed there has been any particular acceptance of the playground picture being the rrreeel McCoy.

Did I miss something?

nerdy

by juliet 03.11.14 9:29

Is Tony really saying there is "nothing tampered with" in the playground photo?? I must have misunderstood because no-one can pretend it's kosher.

by Liz Eagles 03.11.14 9:35

Is the last photo thread going to stay on topic? - it's about the last photo isn't it?

by HelenMeg 03.11.14 10:44

canada12 wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Thanks for posting a good image of the 'last photo'. I had been searching everywhere to find one.
I must say though, I have now seen something which I had never noticed before, and it absolutely clinches the fact that Gerry McC, at least, has been photo-shopped.

Perhaps, after all the previous speculation, the photo was in fact, more to demonstrate G McC in the vicinity at that time, and not Maddie, which makes me now question, WHERE IN FACT WAS HE ?

I did get the feeling, as Tony above, that your contribution here seemed more like hindrance than help, but seriously, you have helped an inordinate amount.

If someone had been here, to hinder, then the phrase 'hoist with his own petard' would be in order, but since you assure us you are here to help, let me say a big 'thank you'.

The information has now been sent to a wide variety of photo analysts and it is out of my hands.
I will not be putting the information here, since it is not us on this forum, whose voices will be important when the whole McC farce is unravelled.
Let's just be content that it is in the right hands.

Here's the picture again:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Click on it and make it as big as you can.

I wondered if the image of Gerry had been reversed, as I originally thought his hair was combed in the wrong direction. I've amended my posting now, as it seems he does comb it in that direction.

But I still believe there should be deep shadows in between his legs, where his hand is.

IMO, regardless of when the photo was taken, and I agree with PeterMac that it is likely to have been taken at the beginning of the holiday week - Gerry has been shopped in to the photo. He has been placed there to 'float' on the side of the pool and his hand made to curl around the lip. The area of his thighs gives it away.

THE SUNGLASSES and the BEAD are key features - as referred to by Kate - she uses both to defend the fact that it is the LAST PHOTO

by HelenMeg 03.11.14 10:51

PLEASE go to first page of this thread and right click on the 'last' photo - and select View Image - then focus in on Gerry's thighs!! So that you are seeing a real closeup of that area. You can see pretty clearly that he has been shopped on to the photo. Look at how the shopper has curled his hand around the rim. Look at the inside of the thighs and where the material of his shorts stops. No shadowing at all. It is so apparent....
No doubt at all Gerry was shopped in to this photo.

Hence the importance Kate gives to the purchase of sunglasses.

by HelenMeg 03.11.14 10:57

He is not even in proportion for the photo correctly. Look at the positioning of both knees - his right knee is a lot further back. There is no widening of thigh where you would expect - e.g. when you sit on something your legs widen. But just look between those legs (apologies I'm not at all interested in scrutinizing what goes on between his legs) and see how it gives the game away.

Ive always thought he looked as if he was floating or had been placed in the photo but only today have I bothered to actually focus in on that area of the photo. Does anyone see what I am seeing?

by smokinggun 03.11.14 11:54

Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in the thread. Looking at the reflection in GM's sunglasses you can see the pink hat of Amelie but then there is the side of the pool running along with no MM!!