Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by Snifferdog 04.11.14 14:18

I for one don't believe anything the pair say, because they are proven liars Atomic Peanut.

Which is why we are sifting through the fallout thereof, in the hope of getting justice for to date 3 dead people.

1. Madeleine - Died under suspicious circumstances. BH Howe has himself told us Maddie was murdered imo.

2. Colin Salke - Volunteer Maddy searcher who sold his house and possessions to search for Madeleine in PdL. He died and was hastily buried under suspicious circumstances imo.

3. Brenda - A concerned citizen, who was found dead under suspicious circumstances imo. in an hotel room.

by sarliv 04.11.14 14:19

AP .In your penultimate post you gave the impression that from the time they left the pool (after 14.29) until they went to the crèche was twenty minutes which clearly was not the case as Gerry himself says they were at the tapas crèche at 14.30/35.

by Atomic Peanut 04.11.14 14:23

Snifferdog, I don't want to involve myself in speculation. I am only trying to correct errors and misunderstandings that may lead people in the wrong direction
eg in this case there's no point looking for GM somewhere else at 2.29pm on the grounds that he told the PJ he wasn't at the pool/play area, because he didn't
But it's fair to say that I find the case as fascinating as you do!
sarliv - no, GM said they left the twins some time between 14.35 and 14.50
Am taking a break now in case I'm accused of dominating the thread

by HelenMeg 04.11.14 14:40

Atomic Peanut wrote:By an amazing coincidence, solar noon (the highest point in the sky of the sun) in Faro on 3rd May 2007 was 1.29pm - exactly the time shown on the camera
The full chart is here: Faro

I purport, then, it may not be a coincidence at all but that 1.29 was chosen for a reason. Why would they do that?
So that a photoshopper would know exactly where shadows should fall etc.

by juliet 04.11.14 16:18

The last photo shows GM floating above the pool side next to an armless Amelie who looks far too big (in proportion) to how she appears normally. I say for the 50th time that there is something seriously wrong with "Madeleine's" neck. The tendons etc which would be prominent are missing and there is an impossible horizontal crease. Her head was pasted on. The child's arm has a bracelet of baby fat which is entirely absent from the lanky, bruised tennis court child's arm.
As for the plsyground - surely Tony you can see that half Madeleine's right knee has been sliced off? She also has literally two left feet. A bit of pink in front of her fleece is meant to be GM's calf ( I think) but is too far from his upper leg to work. If she straightened up she would be about 5ft tall. GM is looking dumbly at the ground while Sean reaches out to thin air. The man behind is a
contortionist - his foot is at a ridiculous angle. Plus weird shadows and odd vertical lines in the grass....
As for why - they needed happy family pix. They had none so they faked them.

by Guest 04.11.14 17:24

juliet wrote:The last photo shows GM floating above the pool side next to an armless Amelie who looks far too big (in proportion) to how she appears normally. I say for the 50th time that there is something seriously wrong with "Madeleine's" neck. The tendons etc which would be prominent are missing and there is an impossible horizontal crease. Her head was pasted on. The child's arm has a bracelet of baby fat which is entirely absent from the lanky, bruised tennis court child's arm.

Sorry.. no.. just no.

Did anyone mention the weather in recent posts?

by j.rob 04.11.14 17:28

juliet wrote:The last photo shows GM floating above the pool side next to an armless Amelie who looks far too big (in proportion) to how she appears normally. I say for the 50th time that there is something seriously wrong with "Madeleine's" neck. The tendons etc which would be prominent are missing and there is an impossible horizontal crease. Her head was pasted on. The child's arm has a bracelet of baby fat which is entirely absent from the lanky, bruised tennis court child's arm.
As for the plsyground - surely Tony you can see that half Madeleine's right knee has been sliced off? She also has literally two left feet. A bit of pink in front of her fleece is meant to be GM's calf ( I think) but is too far from his upper leg to work. If she straightened up she would be about 5ft tall. GM is looking dumbly at the ground while Sean reaches out to thin air. The man behind is a
contortionist - his foot is at a ridiculous angle. Plus weird shadows and odd vertical lines in the grass....
As for why - they needed happy family pix. They had none so they faked them.

I agree. I think all the pics look very peculiar. The head positions are often out of synch with the body position. Amelie's right arm could not be hidden at the angle she is sitting at, imo. And, as I wrote up-thread, the hidden left hand could not be resting flat on the ground as it should be, given the sitting stance with the bent elbow, as her wrist is too high up.

Madeleine's head has to be pasted on because given her body position the head is at an impossible angle - I don't think it would be physically possible to have the head so twisted to the side given the angle of her body.

I wonder who was involved in the production of all these photos? Why do such a bad job?

by juliet 04.11.14 18:11

Thank you jrob. Interesting and true about Amelie's arm and hand. I hadn't noticed that before. Surely the blatant fakeness of these pictures is hugely important - they show that the whole Madeleine story is built on lies and fakery.

by j.rob 04.11.14 18:14

Indeed. Every photo in Kate's book is weird in one way or another. What a peculiar family, imo.

by canada12 04.11.14 18:48

juliet wrote:Thank you jrob. Interesting and true about Amelie's arm and hand. I hadn't noticed that before. Surely the blatant fakeness of these pictures is hugely important - they show that the whole Madeleine story is built on lies and fakery.

I agree with both of you.

Plus, Gerry's left arm is completely in focus and it's behind Amelie.
The folds and the details on his shorts are completely in focus, and they're beside Amelie.
Yet Amelie's right arm (the fuzzy pink thing which people insist IS her right arm, and which I believe is not her right arm, it's someone's attempt to make it look like a right arm) is fuzzy and out of focus, and lacking in the same definition that Gerry's arm (which is BEHIND Amelie's arm) is. Amelie's arm, if it's genuine, should be distinct and with a distinct border, the same as Gerry's arm and the detailing on his shorts and tshirt). Also for that matter, Madeleine's right arm (also a photoshopped addition IMO) has no right shoulder. There should be a curve leading into her hair, given the angle she's sitting at. There is no curve, just a straight line going up into her hair.

by Guest 04.11.14 18:54

No planes.

Same brown stuff.

The weather... anyone?

by missbeetle 04.11.14 19:00

canada12 wrote:
juliet wrote:Thank you jrob. Interesting and true about Amelie's arm and hand. I hadn't noticed that before. Surely the blatant fakeness of these pictures is hugely important - they show that the whole Madeleine story is built on lies and fakery.
I agree with both of you.

Plus, Gerry's left arm is completely in focus and it's behind Amelie.
The folds and the details on his shorts are completely in focus, and they're beside Amelie.
Yet Amelie's right arm (the fuzzy pink thing which people insist IS her right arm, and which I believe is not her right arm, it's someone's attempt to make it look like a right arm) is fuzzy and out of focus, and lacking in the same definition that Gerry's arm (which is BEHIND Amelie's arm) is. Amelie's arm, if it's genuine, should be distinct and with a distinct border, the same as Gerry's arm and the detailing on his shorts and tshirt). Also for that matter, Madeleine's right arm (also a photoshopped addition IMO) has no right shoulder. There should be a curve leading into her hair, given the angle she's sitting at. There is no curve, just a straight line going up into her hair.

I'm with you ladies on this, too -

I'm beginning to wonder if only women can see these things!

by floating leaf 04.11.14 19:03

NickE wrote:@Peter Mac.
Theory?

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

did some one cut Maddies hair LONG?

by Guest 04.11.14 19:04

Divide and conquer.

So easy.

Floating leafs...

by juliet 04.11.14 19:19

Bluebag, if you look back a bit there is endless stuff about the weather.
Floating leaf, the hair length ( and hat shape) in those two photos are completely different. Another bizare McCann mystery.
missbeetle: I do think maybe men have something wrong with their eyes! How could anyoone miss the two left feet in the playground pic!? Or the missing knee?

by canada12 04.11.14 19:38

BlueBag wrote:Divide and conquer.

So easy.

Floating leafs...

No dividing and conquering going on here. Some of us believe passionately that The Last Picture was photoshopped because of some very small but obvious details, once you see them. Others of us believe passionately that the EXIF data has been altered, by relying on the weather reports and the McCanns' statements. Even others of us believe there's nothing wrong with the picture and that it's accurate. So, there are three points of view here. All passionately argued, none of them proven.

by Guest 04.11.14 19:40

canada12 wrote:No dividing and conquering going on here. Some of us believe passionately that The Last Picture was photoshopped because of some very small but obvious details

Some of us passionately believe that's BS.

The KEY issue is "when was it taken".

Everything else is distraction.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.11.14 19:42

juliet wrote:@ juliet Thanks you very much for providing clear answers as to where you are coming from in terms of your allegation that both photos have been heavily photoshopped. I will reply in detail to each of your points

The last photo shows GM floating above the pool side

In the early days much was made of this. He did look 'detached' from the poolside and I still think that to this day. But, in short, expert photographers I've talked to say that depending on things like the kind of camera used and how you focus on your subject etc. it is quite common to gain that sort of impression. That I think is also, in terms, what PeterMac's experts said. I think it is also common ground on this thread that the short shadows on Gerry (and the two children) are perfectly consistent with photos being taken at the Ocean Club pool at around 1pm to 2pm that time of year

next to an armless Amelie

A number of people have shown in the past that someone leaning back, with say their right hand behind them on the ground, and photographed from their left-hand side, might appear to have no right hand. I agree with them. Moreover, if this photograph had been photoshopped by experts, do you really think they would have gone to the trouble of removing Amelie's right arm? Why on earth would they do that?

who looks far too big (in proportion) to how she appears normally.

That is not my view, juliet, nor the view of many others

I say for the 50th time that there is something seriously wrong with "Madeleine's" neck. The tendons etc which would be prominent are missing and there is an impossible horizontal crease. Her head was pasted on.

I can't agree. I think she is naturally looking well to her left in the picture and that acounts for some, if not most or all, of what you see

The child's arm has a bracelet of baby fat which is entirely absent from the lanky, bruised tennis court child's arm.

That is a comment mainly on the 'tennis balls photo' - and I would actually agree with you that there are a number of major question marks about that photo, not least, who took it

As for the playground - surely Tony you can see that half Madeleine's right knee has been sliced off? She also has literally two left feet.

No. My interpretation is quite different. She is moving quite fast when the photo is taken. I see nothing untoward here and although I do see what you mean about 'two left feet', my view is that you are reading too much in to what you see there

A bit of pink in front of her fleece is meant to be GM's calf ( I think) but is too far from his upper leg to work.

I thought the pink might be a bit of scarf or something like that. Whatever it is, I don't see that it has been photoshopped

If she straightened up she would be about 5ft tall.

I simply cannot agree with your interpretation here

GM is looking dumbly at the ground while Sean reaches out to thin air.

He does not look 'dumb' to me. He is smiling, surely? Sean is just gesticulating about something, expressing joy and fun, I think, happy in his new surroundings

The man behind is a contortionist - his foot is at a ridiculous angle.

Again we disagree; our interpretations of what we see are different

Plus weird shadows and odd vertical lines in the grass...

I think all the shadows are capable of explanation - and I don't see 'odd vertical lines' in the grass - even if there are, what exactly would be the point of photoshopping them in?

As for why - they needed happy family pix. They had none so they faked them.

I am quite sure that the playground picture is a genuine picture taken at between 5pm and 7pm on Saturday 28 April in the Ocean Club play area. The man of African descent in the pcture has been identified.

You have listed what you say are several different b of photoshopping:

* Madeleine's leg sliced off
* Madeleine - 2 'left feet'
* bit of pink fleece
* Madeleine about 5 feet tall
* Gerry 'looking dumb'
* Sean 'reaching out into thin air'
* Contortionist bloke
* Weird shadows
* Vertical lines in the grass

Do you honestly think that all these 'photoshopping errors' could have been made by an expert photoshopper?

And with respect, they did not need 'happy family pix' - unless you are one of those who seriously suggests that Madeleine wasn't there at all.

No, what they desperately needed was a photograph proving that Madeleine was still there and very much alive on the afternoon of 3 May.

They thought they had got it with the 'Last Photo'.

But maybe, now that we have seen PeterMac's masterly analysis of when that photo was really taken, maybe they haven't, after all.

They have invested a huge amount of effort in 'proving' that the Last Photo was taken at 2.29pm on 3 May.

Personally I now think there area great number of indications that it wasn't - and was taken at around 1.30pm earlier in the week.

And if that were the case, they would have no need o the kind of elaborate photoshopping you have suggested.

Just a few seconds altering the date and time stamp would have been all that was necessary.

Thanks once again for your answers - robust debate is healthy and, well, if we disagree, we disagree

by canada12 04.11.14 19:44

BlueBag wrote:
canada12 wrote:No dividing and conquering going on here. Some of us believe passionately that The Last Picture was photoshopped because of some very small but obvious details
Some of us passionately believe that's BS.

The KEY issue is "when was it taken".

Everything else is distraction.

What happens if the weather information turns out to be dodgy? There's been a concerted attempt recently to try and discredit the weather reports to try and prove that the weather was warm enough for that picture to be taken. What happens if you remove the weather from the argument? You're left with nothing to prove that the EXIF info was altered. I agree, the KEY issue is "when was it taken". But if you can additionally accept that certain aspects of the photo may have been photoshopped in, you have a much stronger platform for arguing that the photo is misleading, than you do if you rely solely on the EXIF info.

I don't understand why you'd want to discard a possibility that would bolster the argument...?

I'm not arguing against the EXIF info - I fully support that theory. I'm arguing that we should consider photoshopping as an additional aspect of the picture.

by Guest 04.11.14 19:46

Plus weird shadows and odd vertical lines in the grass...

I think all the shadows are capable of explanation - and I don't see 'odd vertical lines' in the grass - even if there are, what exactly would be the point of photoshopping them in?

It's called parallax. I'm sick of arguing with people (who sometimes willfully) on the internet don't understand cameras.

by Guest 04.11.14 19:48

canada12 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
canada12 wrote:No dividing and conquering going on here. Some of us believe passionately that The Last Picture was photoshopped because of some very small but obvious details
Some of us passionately believe that's BS.

The KEY issue is "when was it taken".

Everything else is distraction.

What happens if the weather information turns out to be dodgy? There's been a concerted attempt recently to try and discredit the weather reports to try and prove that the weather was warm enough for that picture to be taken. What happens if you remove the weather from the argument? You're left with nothing to prove that the EXIF info was altered. I agree, the KEY issue is "when was it taken". But if you can additionally accept that certain aspects of the photo may have been photoshopped in, you have a much stronger platform for arguing that the photo is misleading, than you do if you rely solely on the EXIF info.

I don't understand why you'd want to discard a possibility that would bolster the argument...?

Yeah!

Let's remove the weather from the argument.

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

by missbeetle 04.11.14 19:48

Hi Tony -

I wasn't aware that the Playground Man had been identified as being 'of African descent'.

Perhaps he is a Ugandan relation?

by Guest 04.11.14 19:54

BlueBag wrote:Divide and conquer.

So easy.

Floating leafs...

There are already differing opinions on the last photo.
Floating leaf has made a very valid observation.
The two girls in the photos have similar pink tops, similar white hats and in a remarkably similar pose.
But the hair length is not.
The one with short hair is part of a KM Maddie shrine.
The long haired version is the last photo.
Rather than dismiss floating leaf outright why not have a closer look yourself and then explain why you think he/she is trying to divide and rule.

Your eagerness to dismiss them instantly looks more like disruption to me.

by juliet 04.11.14 19:55

Thank you for your reply Tony. However it is all a bit pointless if you simply can't see what I see. That photoshopped child is not only hugely out of proportion but the careless/incompetent has cut off her knee leaving a short, blunt upper leg but also messed up the two feet. The shoe nearest the viewer also disappears into the grass. (It has been suggested that the original jumping figure was on a beach). But you must have read these views scores of times. Why are a few of you suddenly insisting the pool photo and the playground photo are 100% genuine?? It is baffling.

by sallypelt 04.11.14 20:01

missbeetle wrote:Hi Tony -

I wasn't aware that the Playground Man had been identified as being 'of African descent'.

Perhaps he is a Ugandan relation?

HE'S AN IMMIGRATION BARRISTER WITH COOPER TUFFS