Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by Guest 04.11.14 20:03

Why has floating leaf been banned?

by juliet 04.11.14 20:07

The OC guest of Indian descent then? Very supple for a lawyer.

by Guest 04.11.14 20:09

dantezebu wrote: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.

No it isn't.

Show us a crop from the photo in the video and not the deliberate murk in the floating leaf nonsense.

by Guest 04.11.14 20:10

dantezebu wrote:Why has floating leaf been banned?

ip address probably.

by Guest 04.11.14 20:14

BlueBag wrote:
dantezebu wrote:Why has floating leaf been banned?

ip address probably.

You know this BB?

by Guest 04.11.14 20:15

BlueBag wrote:
dantezebu wrote: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.
No it isn't.

Show us a crop from the photo in the video and not the deliberate murk in the floating leaf nonsense.

Maybe you need some help?

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

So.. whaddya say?

by Guest 04.11.14 20:16

dantezebu wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
dantezebu wrote:Why has floating leaf been banned?

ip address probably.
You know this BB?

No... but I'm a good guesser.

by Guest 04.11.14 20:18

So.. lets' cut to the chase...

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

THIS IS A LIE!!!!

Apologies accepted,

by Guest 04.11.14 20:19

BlueBag wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
dantezebu wrote: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.
No it isn't.

Show us a crop from the photo in the video and not the deliberate murk in the floating leaf nonsense.

Maybe you need some help?

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

So.. whaddya say?

The shrine with the crucifix in the villa. Not the mantlepiece.

by Guest 04.11.14 20:20

I guessed immediately I read his first post starting a new topic with a provocative question. He has achieved his aim of disruption.

by Guest 04.11.14 20:21

BlueBag wrote:So.. lets' cut to the chase...

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

THIS IS A LIE!!!!

Apologies accepted,

What is a lie?

by Guest 04.11.14 20:22

dantezebu wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
dantezebu wrote: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.
No it isn't.

Show us a crop from the photo in the video and not the deliberate murk in the floating leaf nonsense.

Maybe you need some help?

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

So.. whaddya say?
The shrine with the crucifix in the villa. Not the mantlepiece.

Oh.. the murky fuzzy foreshortened one.

Come on.. where is your brain?

by **Tony Bennett** 04.11.14 20:33

Ladyinred wrote:I guessed immediately I read his first post starting a new topic with a provocative question. He has achieved his aim of disruption.

A small amount of disruption - until s/he was quite rightly banned.

The 'lie' which Blue Bag refers to was 'floating leaf's deliberate lie that the two photos of Madeleine in the pink dress and the white hat showed different hair lengths for Madeleine - they don't.

But disruptors ike 'floating leaf' often bring long-term advantages, and s/he has achieved two tonight:

1. showing how important it is to certain people to disrupt and divert from the increasing attention being given to the date of the Last Photo, and

2. revealing quite a bit more about the true agendas of certain posters here.

by Guest 04.11.14 20:41

Tony Bennett wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:I guessed immediately I read his first post starting a new topic with a provocative question. He has achieved his aim of disruption.
A small amount of disruption - until s/he was quite rightly banned.

The 'lie' which Blue Bag refers to was 'floating leaf's deliberate lie that the two photos of Madeleine in the pink dress and the white hat showed different hair lengths for Madeleine - they don't.

But disruptors ike 'floating leaf' often bring long-term advantages, and s/he has achieved two tonight:

1. showing how important it is to certain people to disrupt and divert from the increasing attention being given to the date of the Last Photo, and

2. revealing quite a bit more about the true agendas of certain posters here.

Well to me the hair still looks shorter and the hat is a different shape even allowing for for shortening.
I never comment on the last photo because I know that it has not been photoshopped having also seen a convincing analysis by an expert. The exif data is another matter.
As I was involved in this discussion (not disruption) with you, I feel it is reasonable to ask you what has been revealed to you about posters and agendas.
Because I feel a comment like your number two is pretty disruptive.

by canada12 04.11.14 20:50

BlueBag wrote:
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.]
----------------------
canada12 is writing here:

I can't make my quote appear outside BB's quote... (apologies)

Well, at least we agree on the fact that has been a very concerted attempt as of late to try and remove the weather argument from The Last Photo.

Can I make it clear that I completely support the theory that the EXIF has been altered and that the photo was taken earlier in the holiday? I'm sorry if the photoshopping arguments have been distracting from that. I just don't see the two arguments as being mutually exclusive. Rather, I see them as being wholly supportive of the argument that the photo is not accurate, it doesn't depict the truth, and it was created in order to try and prove that both Madeleine and Gerry were present at a certain time on a certain day in a certain place.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.11.14 20:56

dantezebu wrote:
As I was involved in this discussion (not disruption) with you, I feel it is reasonable to ask you what has been revealed to you about posters and agendas.

Because I feel a comment like your number two is pretty disruptive.

OK.

And I will answer.

'Blue Bag' could see straightaway that 'floating leaf' was a disruptor and lying about the 'shorter hair'.

You, by contrast, showed that you had no understanding of this - by publicly querying why 'floating leaf' had been banned (when it should have been obvious why), and moreover challenged him as to whether he 'knew' if 'floating leaf' had been banned or not.

That told me quite a lot about both of you.

Any way, that's my answer - enough of this disruption, and let's get back to the Last Photo.

Just as you had a question for me, I have one for you.

Do you think that the 'Last Photo' was taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May, or at some other date and time?

by juliet 04.11.14 21:01

It feels as if the thought police are stalking the forum. " The hair IS the same length even though your eyes say it isn't. The hat IS the same shape, ditto."
If anyone could explain the new orthodoxy - that all McCann holiday snaps are 100%.genuine even when bits of limbs are missing, necks are made of fuzzy felt, Indian lawyers are African ballet dancers etc -then I might understand the vehemence of its adherents.

by Guest 04.11.14 21:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
dantezebu wrote:
As I was involved in this discussion (not disruption) with you, I feel it is reasonable to ask you what has been revealed to you about posters and agendas.

Because I feel a comment like your number two is pretty disruptive.
OK.

And I will answer.

'Blue Bag' could see straightaway that 'floating leaf' was a disruptor and lying about the 'shorter hair'.

You, by contrast, showed that you had no understanding of this - by publicly querying why 'floating leaf' had been banned (when it should have been obvious why), and moreover challenged him as to whether he 'knew' if 'floating leaf' had been banned or not.

That told me quite a lot about both of you.

Any way, that's my answer - enough of this disruption, and let's get back to the Last Photo.

Just as you had a question for me, I have one for you.

Do you think that the 'Last Photo' was taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May, or at some other date and time?

Actually my question to BB was that if he knew floating leaf had been banned because of his IP address as BB had presumed, not had he been banned.

I really didn't see any real disruption from FL, just him picking up on an early post by another poster who had not been accused of disruption when he posted it earlier in the thread. But he was pounced on quite violently and quickly which I found surprising. I have not seen any discussion of this other photo before and I was interested.
But I am more surprised by your further innuendo " That told me quite a lot about both of you."

In answer to your question, I do not know.
My concerns about the photograph lie with the fact that it was not produced until 3 weeks after Madeleine disappeared, when it could have been essential for identifying her, given that was supposedly how she was dressed and looking when last seen by anyone outside of her family.

by Hicks 04.11.14 22:03

Looking back through this thread I came across the high resolution last photo( first few pages)
If you magnify it looks like Amelie and Madeleine are actually sat on the edge of the pool, however to my mind Gerry does seem to float. Look at his waist, the torso doesn't fit the waist...if you see what I mean.

Sorry having trouble posting links these past few days.

@Tony, a few pages back you referred to me as a he. Just to correct you, I am a she.

by juliet 04.11.14 22:40

TB and Bluebag won't have that. Gerry is simply someone with a misshapen body who casts no shadow. But talking of body shapes, how can the poolside chubby, healthy Maddie be that same poor marked and bruised thin tennis court Maddie?

by **Tony Bennett** 04.11.14 22:48

Hicks wrote:Looking back through this thread I came across the high resolution last photo ( first few pages)...If you magnify it looks like Amelie and Madeleine are actually sat on the edge of the pool, however to my mind Gerry does seem to float. Look at his waist, the torso doesn't fit the waist...if you see what I mean.

I agreed a little earlier this evening that it does look as though Gerry McCann is floating, i.e. detached from the poolside. Against that, we have photographers who assure us that this is just an impression that we have - from the way a camera photograph tries, not always succesfully, to reproduce and reflect reality.

But a still more important point is the one I referred to earlier, and as far as I can see it hasn't been answered by any of those who insist that the 'Last Photo' is photoshopped - namely the problem of the 100% consistent shadows.

We simply cannot get away from what our own eyes see and what the photographic experts confirm: the sun was very high, and the shadows are all of short and consistent length - effectively proving that the three individuals in the picture were snapped on the same occasion.

I would genuinely like to see you or any other 'photoshpping advocate' address this very crucial observation.

@Tony, a few pages back you referred to me as a he. Just to correct you, I am a she.

I am sorry, I will try to remember

@ canada12

You wrote: "Can I make it clear that I completely support the theory that the EXIF has been altered and that the photo was taken earlier in the holiday? I'm sorry if the photoshopping arguments have been distracting from that. I just don't see the two arguments as being mutually exclusive. Rather, I see them as being wholly supportive of the argument that the photo is not accurate, it doesn't depict the truth, and it was created in order to try and prove that both Madeleine and Gerry were present at a certain time on a certain day in a certain place".

REPLY: Thank you for that, and you are right in one respect, but if I may say so IMO wrong in another.

Agreed that there is unanimity on this thread between the 'photoshoppers' and the 'earlier-in-the-week-but genuine' brigade that the 'Last Photo' is not what it purports to be. And you are dead right that this is an important area of agreement.

However, in every aspect of this mysterious case, it's important to get to the truth.

And there is a truth to be discovered about this 'Last Photo'.

Either it has been photoshopped, or it has not.

Either it has been taken at 2.29pm on 3 May 2007, or it has not.

If it wasn't taken at 2.29pm on 3 May, then when was it taken?

And we can really narrow the debate down to three very specific alternatives:

1. It is a genuine photograph taken, just as the McCanns claim, at 2.29pm on 3 May - OR

2. It is a genuine photograph taken (as per the weather records) on Sunday 29th or Monday 30th - OR

3. It is a mish-mashed mess of all sorts of bits of photoshopping here and there, the most popular versions of this theory being: 'Gerry has been photoshopped in' or 'Madeleine has been photoshopped in'.

In the absence of proof, let us continue to accumulate and analyse the evidence as to which one of these three is correct.

by Hicks 04.11.14 23:06

juliet wrote:TB and Bluebag won't have that. Gerry is simply someone with a misshapen body who casts no shadow. But talking of body shapes, how can the poolside chubby, healthy Maddie be that same poor marked and bruised thin tennis court Maddie?

I spend far too much time trying to think it all through juliet.....and usually go round in circles!

The knees look really sore with raised red marks( could have been her fall going up the steps to the plane) in the tennis pic, trouble is we can't really get a look at Madeleine's knees in the last photo to compare.

There has to be a very good reason why this last photo was released three weeks after the event, or more importantly, after GM returned from the UK, with CM in tow.
Any ideas?

by juliet 04.11.14 23:17

It is a mish-mashed mess of photoshopping. Like the playground photo.

by sazza 04.11.14 23:22

juliet wrote:It is a mish-mashed mess of photoshopping. Like the playground photo.

No no no. I am not having that. Mr Bennett is correct in what he is saying.

by Liz Eagles 04.11.14 23:26

sazza wrote:
juliet wrote:It is a mish-mashed mess of photoshopping. Like the playground photo.
No no no. I am not having that. Mr Bennett is correct in what he is saying.

Is it panto evening on the forum?

sazza appears, talks about Blacksmith and in his/her second post talks about the last photo?