Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by rustyjames 07.11.14 22:05

Shadow from chin at 65 degrees with head slightly down and also with the original photo with head slightly back. I still think the shadow is possible even from the chin, but it's always going to be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt without recreating the exact scene.

I believe the shadows on the picture are genuine and therefore if they are from the sun at a different degree of altitude when were they taken? Even on midsummer's day in Praia da Luz the maximum altitude is 76 degrees.

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

by Atomic Peanut 07.11.14 22:25

But in the last photo the chin is in the shade and things that cast shadows have to be in the sun

To cast a shadow that long it would have be something sticking out as far as

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

by **Tony Bennett** 07.11.14 22:44

Atomic Peanut wrote:But in the last photo the chin is in the shade and things that cast shadows have to be in the sun

Quite frankly, Peanut, you have now resorted to deliberate falsehoods.

On looking at the photo, Gerry McCann's nose causes a thin shadow going down towards his chin.

But the rest of his chin is in the sunlight...

...meaning that we can be quite certain that the long shadow on Gerry's chest is indeed his chin.

And just as the senior academic told PeterMac, all the shadows are consistent, i.e. all three individuals were snapped at the same time - no fakery there.

Dealing with BlueBag's point, namely does it matter whether it was taken at 1.29pm (sun angle 68 deg) or 2.29pm (sun angle 65 deg)? my answer is not very much, i.e. I basically agree with BlueBag here, notwithstanding bobbin's comment.

The very short shadows suggest to me that it's somewhat more likely that the photo was taken at 1.29pm, but it would be almost impossible to verify from the shadow lengths.

But whether it was taken at 1.29pm or 2.29pm, a much much more important question is: what day was it taken?

And here, surely, we must look at the totality of the evidence, including:

* the absence of other clear proofs that Madeleine was alive on 3 May despite the claims of several witnesses that she was

* the claim by David Payne that he visited Apartment G5A at around 6.30pm and saw all three children - effectively disproved by the TWENTY contradictions between his account of that visit and Kate McCann's

* the weather on Sunday and Monday vis-a-vis Thursday, as so diligently researched by PaterMac

* the inexplicable delay of 3 weeks in producing the photo

* the coincidence of it being produced a day and a half after the wife of quicksand-drowning festishist and expert photoshopper Tony Rickwood flew in to Praia da Luz

by Atomic Peanut 07.11.14 22:50

No, I'm afraid I don't agree. Small parts of the chin are in sunlight (hence the nose shadow) but most of it is in the shade, including the bottom of it - ie the bit most likely to get that far down the chest. It is indeed a mystery

It's a pity there isn't a baseball cap in sight because that would cast a perfect shadow of that shape and length for a 65 degree sun

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

by **Tony Bennett** 07.11.14 23:28

Atomic Peanut wrote:No, I'm afraid I don't agree. Small parts of the chin are in sunlight (hence the nose shadow) but most of it is in the shade, including the bottom of it - ie the bit most likely to get that far down the chest. It is indeed a mystery

No it's not a mystery.

The sun is very high up.

So the very lowest part of his chin is understandably in the shade.

You say that 'small' parts of his chin are in sunlight. That is an admisson by you and contrary to your earlier mis-statement on this in two earlier posts tonight.

I think in fact the sun is on the greater part of his chin.

Anyway, you agree, after all, that there is sun on his chin.

So where is the shadow from that?

ANSWER: On his shirt, of course.

7 years and you've not worked that one out yet?

Pull the other one

by Guest 07.11.14 23:41

bobbin wrote:It does matter what angle the sun is shining at and, especially as the nose shadow stops short on the chin, what is that long shadow down Gerry's T shirt ?

His chin, elongated even more by the way the shirt is sitting on him.

Gerry is in a hunched forward position.

This is so brainless and pointless.

I suspect some people are having fun.

by Guest 07.11.14 23:46

rustyjames wrote:Shadow from chin at 65 degrees with head slightly down and also with the original photo with head slightly back. I still think the shadow is possible even from the chin, but it's always going to be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt without recreating the exact scene.

I believe the shadows on the picture are genuine and therefore if they are from the sun at a different degree of altitude when were they taken? Even on midsummer's day in Praia da Luz the maximum altitude is 76 degrees.

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

End of story.

by bobbin 08.11.14 8:50

BlueBag wrote:
rustyjames wrote:Shadow from chin at 65 degrees with head slightly down and also with the original photo with head slightly back. I still think the shadow is possible even from the chin, but it's always going to be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt without recreating the exact scene.

I believe the shadows on the picture are genuine and therefore if they are from the sun at a different degree of altitude when were they taken? Even on midsummer's day in Praia da Luz the maximum altitude is 76 degrees.

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

For you perhaps, but then shoe-horning isn't everyone's modus operandi when it comes to serious forensic analysis.

Making the wrong facts fit into an investigation results in the wrong person being convicted, and that has very serious consequences.

It's all very well looking at this as a school debating society challenge, to see which side wins the argument, but in the real world, police investigations and forensic analysis have life affecting consequences.

It is interesting nevertheless to have watched the squirming and silly arguments given on this discussion and as I said earlier, I am glad you are not helping me with my 3000 piece jigsaw puzzle where an astute eye is essential and any cheating to make the wrong bit fit is just cheating oneself.

As long as this doesn't result in the life-time imprisonment of the wrong person, shoe-horning is neither here nor there, but if it were you facing a life sentence then I think you'd be thinking differently about a casual shoe-horn "oversight".

If ignoring any photo shopping, and accepting a faked photo as 'credible', there is a risk that the investigation will look away from the incriminating data and place the blame for Maddie's disappearance on some other person who is not actually guilty.

This is not sport, this is serious but thankfully it is not in the forum members' hands to determine the police investigation and we can only hope that the police investigators themselves are constituted of a group of un-corrupted police and that the case when it comes to court will also be met by an un-corrupted judge.

by Atomic Peanut 08.11.14 8:57

Indeed. Personally, I wouldn't have chosen a profile pic where the chest of the person is turned towards the camera, thus distorting the length of the shadow

But now let's turn our attention to M, who after all is the main point of focus - that is an incredible "last photo" hat. The brim sticks out no more than an inch, it's balanced on top of her head and slightly tilted back, yet her face (except for the tip of her nose) is in the shade...... even though she's almost facing the sun

There are two shadows on the hat (one strong, one less so) that aren't consistent with a sun behind the photographer

I would have said the sun is directly above her

But it wasn't

by missbeetle 08.11.14 9:01

Very well said, Bobbin - thank you.

by **PeterMac** 08.11.14 9:11

Atomic Peanut wrote:
But now let's turn our attention to M, who after all is the main point of focus - that is an incredible "last photo" hat. The brim sticks out no more than an inch, it's balanced on top of her head and slightly tilted back,

In a Force 4 Stiff breeze. Blowing virtually straight at her. Now look at her hair.
There was an international windsurfing competition in Portimao just down the coast.
It is extremely difficult to see how that photo, or even the elements of it, could possibly have been taken on 3/5/7.

by Atomic Peanut 08.11.14 9:18

Or indeed on 28th/29th April, when the wind speed and direction was virtually the same as on 3rd May at 2.30pm?
Assuming, of course, that the wind speed in the play area was the same as it was on the exposed windsurfing beach at Portimao

by Liz Eagles 08.11.14 9:40

PeterMac wrote:
aquila wrote:
I need to ask you PeterMac, as an ex police officer in receipt of a pension from your job whether you find your comments on the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance could possibly be a threat to your retirement.
Do you mean in the Brenda Leyland, or Dr Kelly, or Erwin Rommell, or Mike Todd sense .. . ?

Sorry Peter, I've been away from my pooter. I can see how my question was a bit vague. I meant in the sense of Brenda Leyland sort of thing - I don't want to derail this topic so apologies if it's slightly off.

What I mean is the valuable information you have provided re the last photo and in many other areas is very credible and I only wondered if tptb have ever approached you as you are an ex police officer and asked you to lay off the case so to speak.

TBH I wish I hadn't asked the question now as I don't seem to be able to word things correctly. The point is that the last photo is of great significance to the case imo and one only has to read the many opinions and obvious derailment of anything that counters that.

by juliet 08.11.14 9:50

Is aquila suggesting tptb have leaned on PeterMac re the last photo? This new insistence on the photo being genuine is surprising but surely it came from two experts "paid from PeterMac's own pockets"!

by Guest 08.11.14 9:53

Atomic Peanut wrote:Indeed. Personally, I wouldn't have chosen a profile pic where the chest of the person is turned towards the camera, thus distorting the length of the shadow

But you must surely concede the point that there is rather a large area from the throat to the point of the chin that is capable of casting a long shadow if the sun is at 65, or 69 degrees? (we don't know exactly when the picture was taken or on which day).

Especially if the subject is hunched forward.

But I noticed in the time honored internet forum before I look more silly fashion you want to move on now.

It's always like nailing jelly to a wall.

by Dr What 08.11.14 9:54

It is of significance Aquila.You are right.

Since TM desperately need to convince everyone that this picture is the 'last photo' taken at that time and on that day, it is important that they maintain the illusion.

As with a poorly constructed wall, once one brick is removed, the whole wall becomes unstable...and could come crashing down.

by Guest 08.11.14 9:56

Does anyone seriously want to debate the shadow nonsense anymore?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Can't we talk about the weather?

I don't know, maybe some people don't want to talk about the weather.

by Nereid 08.11.14 9:56

rustyjames wrote:Shadow from chin at 65 degrees with head slightly down and also with the original photo with head slightly back. I still think the shadow is possible even from the chin, but it's always going to be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt without recreating the exact scene.

I believe the shadows on the picture are genuine and therefore if they are from the sun at a different degree of altitude when were they taken? Even on midsummer's day in Praia da Luz the maximum altitude is 76 degrees.

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

It would be better if his whole shirt was visible. Then you would see that the shadow would hit at about the height of his arm pits. The shadow won't continue to go inside his body.

My picture below is also flawed because Gerry has a different stance as to what he has in the Last Picture, but it shows you what I mean.

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

If Gerry's protruding head casts such a long shadow over his chest, by the same token his legs must cast a shadow on the pool behind them, but they don't.

Excellent post bobbin!

by juliet 08.11.14 9:56

Bobbin, brilliant post re the shoehorning.

by Guest 08.11.14 9:58

Is it my imagination or is the integrity of Peter being attacked now?

by Liz Eagles 08.11.14 9:59

juliet wrote:Is aquila suggesting tptb have leaned on PeterMac re the last photo? This new insistence on the photo being genuine is surprising but surely it came from two experts "paid from PeterMac's own pockets"!

No, that's not what I meant and I guess you probably know that. Please don't use my posts to further your own opinions/agenda on the last photo.

by Guest 08.11.14 10:01

Nereid wrote:
rustyjames wrote:Shadow from chin at 65 degrees with head slightly down and also with the original photo with head slightly back. I still think the shadow is possible even from the chin, but it's always going to be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt without recreating the exact scene.

I believe the shadows on the picture are genuine and therefore if they are from the sun at a different degree of altitude when were they taken? Even on midsummer's day in Praia da Luz the maximum altitude is 76 degrees.

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

It would be better if his whole shirt was visible. Then you would see that the shadow would hit at about the height of his arm pits. The shadow won't continue to go inside his body.

My picture below is also flawed because Gerry has a different stance as to what he has in the Last Picture, but it shows you what I mean.

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

If Gerry's protruding head casts such a long shadow over his chest, by the same token his legs must cast a shadow on the pool behind them, but they don't.

Excellent post bobbin!

You can't be for real.

Gerry is hunched forward in "the last photo".

Peter's analysis must have hit a large nail on the head to generate so much flack.

by Liz Eagles 08.11.14 10:03

BlueBag wrote:Is it my imagination or is the integrity of Peter being attacked now?

PeterMac's integrity is and never has been attacked by me. I hold his opinions and his research and his tireless effort in the highest regard.

I note that some posters such as Juliet (and no doubt more will become apparent) will twist what I've said for their own agenda on this thread....you know the ones BlueBag....

by rustyjames 08.11.14 10:05

And back to the weather and the shadows, particularly facial, just a reminder of this from PeterMac from here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

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

by Guest 08.11.14 10:05

aquila wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Is it my imagination or is the integrity of Peter being attacked now?
PeterMac's integrity is and never has been attacked by me. I hold his opinions and his research and his tireless effort in the highest regard.

I note that some posters such as Juliet (and no doubt more will become apparent) will twist what I've said for their own agenda on this thread....you know the ones BlueBag....

I know that aquila.

I also have the greatest respect for him.