Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by sami 08.11.14 15:25

Stillthinking wrote:
From Russell's statement

We tried to find a picture of Madeleine Kate checked her camera but these were mainly of her at home or not such a clear picture. We found a picture of Madeleine but we couldn’t print it off. Cat or one of the nannies said that they had a printer and took the camera away to get some photos copied. A copy of the photo was given directly to the Police, someone from the Mark Warner staff made a poster- but I do not know who that was. (page eight)

ie. They just went for the clearest pic of her. In the pool pic she's in a group, looking to the side and wearing a hat.

The statement does not mention a group. He says - they were at home or not clear. The pool photograph does not tick either of those boxes, it is not taken at home and it is a clear picture of the child's face.

They could use a scissor to cut others from a photograph, given the use for which it was intended at the time.

The playground photo would not suffice, but the pool or tennis photos most certainly would. The tennis photo is not a "group" but shows her face clearly.

by Stillthinking 08.11.14 16:06

BlueBag wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
BlueBag/ wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:Why is anybody who doubts the official forum line , seen as disruptive?
What do you call people who when shown how a shadow is possible still carry on?

This thread has been flooded with crap.

Deliberately in my opinion.

I call it somebody who disagrees with you.

One man's crap is another man's theory.
Which bit of the shadow do you find impossible under the circumstances?

I've never doubted the pic was genuine. It was never produced as something to prove she was alive on the 3rd. It was The Author and his acolytes who built it up into that and gave it an importance that IMO was unwarranted.

by Stillthinking 08.11.14 16:11

sami wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
From Russell's statement

We tried to find a picture of Madeleine Kate checked her camera but these were mainly of her at home or not such a clear picture. We found a picture of Madeleine but we couldn’t print it off. Cat or one of the nannies said that they had a printer and took the camera away to get some photos copied. A copy of the photo was given directly to the Police, someone from the Mark Warner staff made a poster- but I do not know who that was. (page eight)

ie. They just went for the clearest pic of her. In the pool pic she's in a group, looking to the side and wearing a hat.

The statement does not mention a group. He says - they were at home or not clear. The pool photograph does not tick either of those boxes, it is not taken at home and it is a clear picture of the child's face.

They could use a scissor to cut others from a photograph, given the use for which it was intended at the time.

The playground photo would not suffice, but the pool or tennis photos most certainly would. The tennis photo is not a "group" but shows her face clearly.

For the purposes of showing what she looked like, to print on posters/leaflets that night then a clear close up, preferably face on, hatless shot was better.They could print that straight off, rather than cutting up pictures.

by MissesWillYa 08.11.14 16:39

I don't often contribute to photo threads because I really don't know much about Photoshopping or this sun-angle stuff. But I have a couple of thoughts...

Could it be that there were two photos taken the same day around the same time (not May 3rd), one depicting Gerry, with or without Amelie next to him, at the side of the pool, and another depicting Madeleine, with or without Amelie next to her, at the side of the pool, and then they were just spliced together? This would not require alteration of shadows, etc., it would be fairly simple compared to all of that. And if Gerry were actually off doing something else on May 3rd, this makes it look like he was at the pool instead.

Also, if as some people think, the photo was taken the summer before 2007 because the children, especially Madeleine, seem oddly proportioned, could Madeleine's face be altered? When I look at her in that photo, I'm very much reminded of Sean as he looked around the time of the disappearance. In fact, there's a photo of him (maybe a professional, posed photo in a studio) where he makes almost the same face, with his mouth open and sort of turned to one side. I really think you could add hair and a hat and he'd look just like she does in the "last photo."

Just some thoughts, all in my own opinion.

by canada12 08.11.14 17:14

MissesWillYa wrote:
Also, if as some people think, the photo was taken the summer before 2007 because the children, especially Madeleine, seem oddly proportioned, could Madeleine's face be altered? When I look at her in that photo, I'm very much reminded of Sean as he looked around the time of the disappearance. In fact, there's a photo of him (maybe a professional, posed photo in a studio) where he makes almost the same face, with his mouth open and sort of turned to one side. I really think you could add hair and a hat and he'd look just like she does in the "last photo."

Just some thoughts, all in my own opinion.

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

by MissesWillYa 08.11.14 17:21

canada12 wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:
Also, if as some people think, the photo was taken the summer before 2007 because the children, especially Madeleine, seem oddly proportioned, could Madeleine's face be altered? When I look at her in that photo, I'm very much reminded of Sean as he looked around the time of the disappearance. In fact, there's a photo of him (maybe a professional, posed photo in a studio) where he makes almost the same face, with his mouth open and sort of turned to one side. I really think you could add hair and a hat and he'd look just like she does in the "last photo."

Just some thoughts, all in my own opinion.

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

Yes, that's the one.

I think his face in this photo looks quite similar to hers in the last photo. Not exactly the same, so I'm not necessarily saying this photo of him was used, but...if he were in the habit of making a face like this one and there were other photos with a similar expression...

In my opinion, Sean and Madeleine look a lot alike. I think Amelie has a different look, especially around the eyes.

Also, weren't we told that in the last photo, she was turned to the side because she was watching him clowning around in that direction, near where Kate was supposedly standing to take the photo? She was laughing at something he was doing, ostensibly. So much of what they say is really them telling us what actually happened...so telling us about Madeleine turning to laugh at crazy Sean might have deeper meaning.

JMO.

by comperedna 08.11.14 17:29

That photo of Madeleine sitting between Sean and Amelie above is a particularly clear and attractive one. She is the right age, her hair is the right length. Everything about it is good and sharp. I wonder why they didn't use it for the 'missing' posters.

by Nina 08.11.14 17:33

MissesWillYa wrote:
canada12 wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:
Also, if as some people think, the photo was taken the summer before 2007 because the children, especially Madeleine, seem oddly proportioned, could Madeleine's face be altered? When I look at her in that photo, I'm very much reminded of Sean as he looked around the time of the disappearance. In fact, there's a photo of him (maybe a professional, posed photo in a studio) where he makes almost the same face, with his mouth open and sort of turned to one side. I really think you could add hair and a hat and he'd look just like she does in the "last photo."

Just some thoughts, all in my own opinion.

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

Yes, that's the one.

I think his face in this photo looks quite similar to hers in the last photo. Not exactly the same, so I'm not necessarily saying this photo of him was used, but...if he were in the habit of making a face like this one and there were other photos with a similar expression...

In my opinion, Sean and Madeleine look a lot alike. I think Amelie has a different look, especially around the eyes.

Also, weren't we told that in the last photo, she was turned to the side because she was watching him clowning around in that direction, near where Kate was supposedly standing to take the photo? She was laughing at something he was doing, ostensibly. So much of what they say is really them telling us what actually happened...so telling us about Madeleine turning to laugh at crazy Sean might have deeper meaning.

JMO.

Now what is wrong with this photo of Madeleine being used? Very recent to May I would say, and full frontal face, no hat and easy just to lift her from this threesome.

by MissesWillYa 08.11.14 17:38

I think this photo of Madeleine is perfect for a missing poster. I actually don't like it much as a portrait to begin with, the lighting seems harsh. It already looks more like a photo for clear, public depiction/identification.

by TheTruthWillOut 08.11.14 17:45

^That picture was likely not available to be fair. As it looks like a studio picture by a company, it likely wouldn't be residing on a McCann accessible PC, camera memory card or Photobucket account.

by MissesWillYa 08.11.14 17:50

TheTruthWillOut wrote:^That picture was likely not available to be fair. As it looks like a studio picture by a company, it likely wouldn't be residing on a McCann accessible PC, camera memory card or Photobucket account.

Maybe so. It probably depends on the studio. I live in the US, so I can't speak for the UK, but when I take my kids for portraits, I'm usually given a digital file of the photos as well. I can also access the photos on the company's website with a log-in and password. I've been able to do this since about 2005, when my first child was born, with at least three of the major studio-portrait providers over here.

by LombardySkeptik 08.11.14 19:05

Nina wrote:
palm tree wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
palm tree wrote:
aquila wrote:
palm tree wrote:
aquila wrote:The very big shadow in the last photograph seems to be the exif data and the very late production of the photograph when the world's press was alert, champing at the bit and ready to roll with the very last photograph taken of Madeleine McCann. There is no 'wriggle-room' to not produce the last photo immediately - even if one of the twins were in it. It just doesn't cut the mustard for me.

The argument/posturing/theorising about photoshopping is insignificant by comparison.

Just my opinion.
Very true.
There's also something else to be considered imo.

If your child were to go missing from your home in UK and you were asked for a current photograph you'd probably have to think about the last photo. If your child goes missing on a family holiday you don't need to think - you took your camera on holiday to take photographs of your kids. It's easy peasy isn't it?
Exactly Aquila, that was something that would've been so easy to do, they had two cameras right there, no need to think for the last pic, same goes for a scent and DNA, this alone would make one think they didn't want her found.
Imo

Ok think that through... so they didn't want her found.. so she was alive and there to be found then?

The night she went missing they would have wanted a recent pic which was a close up of just Madeleine, face on ideally, that could be easily photocopied.
Didn't say that, but what I will say is if it was my child and I had the pic at the pool taken only several hours before, it's clearly that pic I would've given to police.
IMO
Or any of the photographs taken from that holiday, or all of them even, as it doesn't matter if it was full frontal or not as they were looking for a little girl in the dark called Madeleine and she was days short of her 4th birthday, blonde and about 90cms tall. Now there can't have been many little girls fitting that description out alone that night, or, even in the company of another person or persons.
To produce a photograph of a much younger child though is like me saying my one year old dog is missing but here is a cute photograph of him when he was eight weeks old.

IMO its this behaviour more than anything else that is most suspicious, that and the failure to mention taking this 'last' photo in the initial interviews (i commented on that earlier before thread disruption)

Of course a cynical explanation for not doing this is the camera will have clear timelines even if not actual times
and of course it wasn't because they didn't want her found (i.e.. alive) - there was little chance of that IMO

by Nina 08.11.14 19:52

Non of it makes sense LombardySkeptik . Added to the photograph they did release for the searches, and the lack of searching themselves till they dropped through sheer exhaustion, then they had no real urgency to find a small vulnerable child being subjected to at the least fear of being lost after wandering looking for her neglectful parents, and at the worst , well will not go there.
Incidently I do not believe the neglect issue, imo there was always someone with the children.

by Atomic Peanut 08.11.14 20:07

I've been away from my computer for most of the day and was hoping to return to find that someone had posted a diagram with angles demonstrating how M's face (except for the tip of her nose) and chest could be in the shade when she is almost facing the sun. Do you realise how big the brim of her hat would have to be for that to make sense?
Here's a clue:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
If she had borrowed Amelie's hat, and had worn it horizontally, it might just about work, but not with that white one and a 65 degree sun
Unless, of course, you can demonstrate otherwise

by Guest 08.11.14 21:02

Having fun are we?

by Guest 09.11.14 8:05

Atomic Peanut wrote:I've been away from my computer for most of the day and was hoping to return to find that someone had posted a diagram with angles demonstrating how M's face (except for the tip of her nose) and chest could be in the shade when she is almost facing the sun. Do you realise how big the brim of her hat would have to be for that to make sense?
Here's a clue:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
If she had borrowed Amelie's hat, and had worn it horizontally, it might just about work, but not with that white one and a 65 degree sun
Unless, of course, you can demonstrate otherwise

I'll tell you what.. instead of yanking everyone's chain, why don't you do a diagram with angles, hats and body postures and show us how the shadow is not possible.

by juliet 09.11.14 9:01

If you can't be bothered to even try to back up your claims Bluebag, at least stop snarling at everyone who points out the facts.

by Atomic Peanut 09.11.14 9:02

I set this puzzle two days ago and, unsurprisingly, nobody has managed to solve it
I read with interest comments about weather reports and the shadow directions being inconclusive, and not worth arguing over, but you don't have to know anything about either, so all those charts and graphics are effectively just padding. The evidence is all in the photo

We have been told many times that two experts have said the photo is genuine because the head and hat shadow length on the chest of all three figures is identical. I have been lampooned for disputing their evidence

The shadow lengths are all the same. Indeed they are. Exactly the same. But that's precisely the problem. One of of them is wearing no hat, another is wearing a hat whose brim extends only a fraction and the third is wearing a hat with a big brim.

The shadow lengths shouldn't be the same. How could those experts get that so wrong? The bigger the brim, the longer the shadow. That's how it shades your face. It's obvious

If that weren't the case, why would you wear a hat with a brim, or a baseball cap, to keep the sun off your face?

On the other hand, if anyone does know where I can buy a hat like M's that can keep the sun off your face and chest without protruding several inches, please let us all know

To judge by the photo, though, I might just need a spot of sun cream right on the end of my nose

by Nereid 09.11.14 9:16

BlueBag wrote:A picture of Lagos at 22.01 on 3rd May 2007

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

That's what the EXIF says.

So it must be true.

I can't see EXIF data there. But if it says 22.01 on 3rd of May, it does seem that the camera settings were wrong, hence the time on the EXIF being out of whack.

The shadows on the picture I posted tallies with the 12.53 time. But yes there is a chance that the EXIF is wrong.

But that also means that the 'weather' pictures PeterMac used in his report (pages 11 and 12) could all have the wrong dates/times. They're also from Flickr you see.

So you have now singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of parts of PeterMac's report.

Well done!

by plebgate 09.11.14 9:45

This post copied over from another look at the last photo thread by PeterM.

PeterMac on Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:54 pm

worriedmum wrote:From page 55 of Kate's book,
''It was , I remember, very cold and windy and I discovered five layers of clothing were required to keep me comfortable.''

As it was so 'very cold and windy', can someone tell me

i) If the wind on the 3rd May was mentioned by any of the staff or diners at the Tapas bar . I ask because it appears to be a sort of gazebo area from the pictures. If it was very windy wouldn't the wind have made everything flap noisily? The wind dropped to a low Force 3 that evening and the sky cleared completely by about 11pm
ii)If it was very windy, why didn't the bedroom door slam shut the moment Kate opened the patio door? See above, it wasn't
iii) If it was very cold, was there heating on in the apartment? Doesn't Gerry remember Madeleine sleeping 'on' the covers, not 'in' them? Covered in another thread Kate reports Madeleine "snuggled down in bed " Gerry reports her on top of the covers.
iv) If it was very cold and windy, and the bedroom window was open, wouldn't you notice this straight away when you check? See above. It wasn't
v)Why was the bedroom door not moving slightly if it was windy? See above
vi)If Gerry noticed the door was 'not as they had left it', why wouldn't he therefore assume it was the sort of draught created by opening the patio door?
Because they didn't work out this part of the story.

by Atomic Peanut 09.11.14 9:49

The case for the defence seems to be crumbling by the minute

Head and hat shadows exactly the same lengths (as confirmed by two experts) - impossible

Weather pictures from 28th/29th April - inconclusive owing to unreliable EXIF data

Now I present to you something that will convince you - M's nose

It sticks out slightly from the tiny brim of her hat, so the end of it is in full sun

M's hat makes a clear line of shadow across her chest - top right to bottom left

But, being in the sun, her nose should create a shadow protruding from the hat shadow somewhere near her left shoulder. It doesn't

This could be the most important nose in the history of noses

by Nina 09.11.14 10:02

jd wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]....Last Photo allegedly taken May 3rd 2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]...Allegedly taken between May 4th - May 12th 2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]....Taken 5th May 2007 - McCanns 2nd media statement

A few things to observe baring in mind there are only a few days between all 3 pictures. The obvious that Amelie and Kate are wearing the same tops. However, Amelie looks different to me in the face ie younger or older in one of these pics. Then look at Kates face, in the 2nd picture she looks so much younger. Gerry looks a lot younger in the poolside pic compared to the 2nd media statement pic. To my eye, there is no continuity in their ages/faces that all 3 pics were taken with a few days of each other

The top 2 pics look to have been taken within a year previously and adds further weight to this scam being pre planned ie they planned what pics to release and to keep continuity wore the same clothes. Only Gerry forgot to bring the poolside pic and had to go back to the UK and get it, then it was released....thoughts?

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

On the second photograph down of Kate holding Amelie is Amelie wearing the famous broderie anglaise shorts that Madeleine was wearing, or was there real extravagance and two pairs were bought? I have wondered why those shorts and top were not handed over for DNA.

by palm tree 09.11.14 10:12

Is that the outfit described by KM in her book that was bought for Maddie? I remember KM describing an orange smock top, but Maddie was wearing a pink top?
IMO
Sorry, KM described a peach coloured top, still, Maddie is wearing pink.

by joyce1938 09.11.14 10:14

no ,the toddlers little shorts are not not same as as maddie wore at all ,hers were longer in leg by far,would have been passed the smaller ones knees . It seems we shall never be free of all the different ideas ,and by professional photo people and none seem to agree, what hope is there of the laymaen like most of us are ,would choose to believe one or another . My question is ,, Is too much being made of all this photo stuff ,does it take away from anything else ,so many half truths etc .joyce1938

by plebgate 09.11.14 10:17

It is an orange T-shirt in the photo with cuddlecat, not a smock top.

I think Joyce is right - Maddie's clothes would have been too big for her little sister, as would her shoes surely?

Log in for more topics