Re: Former Ullapool teacher struck off for indecent images

by ProfessorPPlum 12.11.13 18:43

Tony Bennett wrote:how easy or difficult would it be for a reasonably good amateur photoshopper to alter the time and date stamp date on the photograph?

Tony, I expect it would be easy to add or change a date stamp on a digital image or a scan of a paper photograph with a date/time stamp, as easy or hard as changing anything else in a digital image. It takes time, technique and a good eye. (For the record I've personally not seen a date stamp on this particularly pool image but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist).

I have no idea when this picture was taken or whether the McCanns were trying to mislead with it or not. All I've commented on is that I couldn't find any evidence of photoshopping - specifically relating to the claims made in an earlier discussion about Madeleine and / or Amelie being 'dropped' into the picture etc etc. As for blooming flowers and whatnot - your guess is a good as mine. I've no idea whether the picture was taken months earlier than claimed or years.

I've never claimed to be an expert. I do claim to be a long time user and manipulator of digital images and over the years (since about 1994) I've learned to recognise many of the hallmarks of photoshopped images. I don't see any of those hallmarks in this image.

Angelique, I removed GM glasses and rotated them to make them look like he was wearing them on his shirt, the joke being that doing this solved the 'problem' of the odd reflection which, on may occasions I've agreed are very confusing. Many things can appear counter-intuitive and confusing until we know why. Until I rule out for sure that a reflection like that would be physically impossible, then I'm not going to assume its been faked.

And finally, I return to the question I asked several times previously: assuming you're so good at manipulating images that you are able to photoshop Amelie and / or Madeleine into a picture without leaving the slightest trace, why would you then be so slap-dash as to paste cock-eyed reflections in to GM's sunglasses? Just to give the conspiracy theorists something to chew on?

Watching: I have no idea why someone would suggest that Gerry's sunglasses are photoshopped on. I certainly don't subscribe to that idea.

by ProfessorPPlum 12.11.13 18:46

Sietah wrote:
ProfessorPPlum wrote:
Interesting that your only rebuttal to my point of view is to resort to trying to 'insult' me and my avatar.
It was wrong of me to make that nasty comment and I don't mean it.
That kind of comments are not only stupid, but it takes the attention away from the point I wanted to make.
It was very childisch and I appolagize.

I salute you Sietah. Really. You possess a rare and humbling quality. thanks

by Veritas 12.11.13 19:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
ProfessorPPlum wrote:
"...there's absolutely NOTHING in the 'last pool photo' that indicates to me that it was photoshopped".
Professor Plum,

Just help me on one small point if you would, please.

You are adamant that the pool photo is not photoshopped.

OK, I'll go with that, you profess to be an expert on the subject, I am certainly not.

I think that one of the things that has attracted such great interest with the 'Last Photo' is that there are so few photos of Madeleine on holiday that week - is just just four or five we have, including the tennis balls photo?

Then there is the issue of it having been produced three weeks late - very hard to understand if the camera and the photo were arleady there in Praia da Luz.

Suppose for the sake of argument it was a true photograph, but taken earlier in the week.

It was obviously taken on a bright sunny day, and the sun must have been at its zenith, as the shadows are very short. It must have been taken about 12noon, if it was taken in Praia da Luz in early May - still 7 weeks short of the summer solstice (21 June).

I am not implying anything, but just asking - how easy or difficult would it be for a reasonably good amateur photoshopper to alter the time and date stamp date on the photograph?

The sun's angle of incidence is between 5 and 8 degrees ahead of Gerry, my guess is approximately 1 - 1.30pm.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.13 20:22

Veritas wrote:
The sun's angle of incidence is between 5 and 8 degrees ahead of Gerry, my guess is approximately 1 - 1.30pm.

Thank you, that's very good and interesting.

But can we make this a little more precise please.

Can you help with all the following:

1. When you say that you estimate that the shadows in the picture are 'between 5 deg and 8 deg', just so so that we use the same terminology, the sun is at an angle to the earth of between 82 deg and 85 deg, right?

2. The shadow angles throughout the picture confirm your view that for each individual and for each other part of the photo, the shadow angles always indicate tha the sun is at 82 deg to 85 deg, am I right? Can we be more precise as to 'between 82 deg and 85 deg?

3. In Praia da Luz, at midday (assume the sun is at its zenith at midday, but see next question), what is the angle of the sun on the following dates each year please:

21 March
28 March
5 Apr
12 Apr
19 Apr
26 Apr
3 May
10 May
17 May
24 May
31 May
7 Jun
14 Jun
21 Jun.

4. If the sun reaches its zenith in Praia da Luz before or after 12.00noon, please say when.

5. Let us take, for the sake of argument, 3 May. What is the angle of the sun, in Praia da Luz:

1 hr before and after the zenith
2 hr before and after the zenith
3 hr before and after the zenith
4 hr before and after the zenith
5 hr before and after the zenith
6 hr before and after the zenith

That is all for now, I would be grateful.

If you cannot answer me fully, please direct me to a website where I can explore these questions.

by Guest 12.11.13 20:29

ProfessorPPlum wrote: [...]
And finally, I return to the question I asked several times previously: assuming you're so good at manipulating images that you are able to photoshop Amelie and / or Madeleine into a picture without leaving the slightest trace, why would you then be so slap-dash as to paste cock-eyed reflections in to GM's sunglasses? Just to give the conspiracy theorists something to chew on?
[...]

***
It is, as "we" all agree, a play of smoke and mirrors. So, yes, why not?
It's a photo that wasn't produced until weeks after Madeleine's disappearance, whereas it is supposed to be the last picture taken of her. That alone makes it suspect ...

by ProfessorPPlum 12.11.13 20:43

Châtelaine wrote:
ProfessorPPlum wrote: [...]
And finally, I return to the question I asked several times previously: assuming you're so good at manipulating images that you are able to photoshop Amelie and / or Madeleine into a picture without leaving the slightest trace, why would you then be so slap-dash as to paste cock-eyed reflections in to GM's sunglasses? Just to give the conspiracy theorists something to chew on?
[...]
***
It is, as "we" all agree, a play of smoke and mirrors. So, yes, why not?
It's a photo that wasn't produced until weeks after Madeleine's disappearance, whereas it is supposed to be the last picture taken of her. That alone makes it suspect ...

So the master manipulator puts in something that will undo his/her great work, and blow the cover on the McCann's almost perfect crime resulting in their and his/her imprisonment?

I don't buy it. Accuse the photo manipulator of carelessness if you like and I will counter it with the unlikelihood given the obvious sophistication of the rest of the 'fake'. But to suggest it's a deliberate 'flaw' when peoples' freedoms (including your own) depend on it?

It's this kind of thinking that I just can't follow - sorry.

by chillyheat 12.11.13 20:50

And there was me thinking all along, PPPs avatar was of Gary Mabbutt. big grin

by Guest 12.11.13 20:51

Professor, If you could give me a decent explanation WHY the last photo was published weeks after Madeleine's disappearance, WHY the same photo wasn't on the camera from which Woolfall downloaded pictures to find pictures, which clearly show Madeleine's face, why it is still not been secured WHO took the tennis photo, and HOW they had postcard-sized glossy photos available of a much younger Madeleine at the night of her "disappearance", I will happily continue the discussion with you yes

You see, IF there IS a master-manipulator, that would be exactly what he'd do. Cause confusion. And confusion is good, as Gerry once said.

by ProfessorPPlum 12.11.13 21:32

Châtelaine wrote:Professor, If you could give me a decent explanation WHY the last photo was published weeks after Madeleine's disappearance, WHY the same photo wasn't on the camera from which Woolfall downloaded pictures to find pictures, which clearly show Madeleine's face, why it is still not been secured WHO took the tennis photo, and HOW they had postcard-sized glossy photos available of a much younger Madeleine at the night of her "disappearance", I will happily continue the discussion with you

You see, IF there IS a master-manipulator, that would be exactly what he'd do. Cause confusion. And confusion is good, as Gerry once said.

Except, as Tony pointed out a while back, Gerry never actually said that. laughat

As for your other questions...I'm sorry I have't a clue.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.11.13 21:41

ProfessorPPlum wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Professor, If you could give me a decent explanation WHY the last photo was published weeks after Madeleine's disappearance, WHY the same photo wasn't on the camera from which Woolfall downloaded pictures to find pictures, which clearly show Madeleine's face, why it is still not been secured WHO took the tennis photo, and HOW they had postcard-sized glossy photos available of a much younger Madeleine at the night of her "disappearance", I will happily continue the discussion with you

You see, IF there IS a master-manipulator, that would be exactly what he'd do. Cause confusion. And confusion is good, as Gerry once said.
Except, as Tony pointed out a while back, Gerry never actually said that.

As for your other questions...I'm sorry I have't a clue.

It seems to be one of my minor missions in life to rescue Dr Gerald McCann from those who would inaccurately summarise his words.

And we cannot have that.

So, for the 94th time...

24 August 2007, Dr Gerald McCann, Scottish TV interview:

“And, in fact, one of the slight positives in all of this is that there is so much rumour about what did and didn't happen, it's actually very difficult, if you're reading the newspapers, watching TV, to know what is true and what's not”.

by Guest 12.11.13 21:47

Sorry, I read that the actual quote is: "One good thing to come out of all of this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true, and what isn't."

But now I've just seen Tony's reply, which is again somewhat different ...

I'm going to look for a dark room to lie down, like NFWTD does. It seems to help big grin

by Guest 12.11.13 21:51

Châtelaine wrote:Sorry, I read that the actual quote is: "One good thing to come out of all of this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true, and what isn't."

But now I've just seen Tony's reply, which is again somewhat different ...

I'm going to look for a dark room to lie down, like NFWTD does. It seems to help

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

by ProfessorPPlum 12.11.13 21:54

There's even confusion about what Gerry said about confusion. Double plus good!

by Daisy 12.11.13 22:04

ProfessorPPlum wrote:There's even confusion about what Gerry said about confusion. Double plus good!

Not really. Both examples of what he said translate to 'confusion is good'

by Beanie 12.11.13 22:21

Photoshopped or not as far as I am concerned is not of importance. The real problem I have with this photo is Madeleine is much younger than a child just short of her 4th birthday. You only have to look at the tennis ball picture to see the difference.

by Lance De Boils 12.11.13 22:53

Erm, sorry to be a bore, but I think this photo discussion should be carried on elsewhere?

by ProfessorPPlum 12.11.13 23:04

Lance De Boils wrote:Erm, sorry to be a bore, but I think this photo discussion should be carried on elsewhere?

You're so right. Apologies (and I tried to stop myself getting hooked back in, too)

by TheTruthWillOut 12.11.13 23:15

I have posted in this thread for discussion on the last photo: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Opinions from Knowledgeable Photoshoppers welcome!

by Veritas 12.11.13 23:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
Veritas wrote:
The sun's angle of incidence is between 5 and 8 degrees ahead of Gerry, my guess is approximately 1 - 1.30pm.
Thank you, that's very good and interesting.

But can we make this a little more precise please.

Can you help with all the following:

1. When you say that you estimate that the shadows in the picture are 'between 5 deg and 8 deg', just so so that we use the same terminology, the sun is at an angle to the earth of between 82 deg and 85 deg, right?

2. The shadow angles throughout the picture confirm your view that for each individual and for each other part of the photo, the shadow angles always indicate tha the sun is at 82 deg to 85 deg, am I right? Can we be more precise as to 'between 82 deg and 85 deg?

3. In Praia da Luz, at midday (assume the sun is at its zenith at midday, but see next question), what is the angle of the sun on the following dates each year please:

21 March
28 March
5 Apr
12 Apr
19 Apr
26 Apr
3 May
10 May
17 May
24 May
31 May
7 Jun
14 Jun
21 Jun.

4. If the sun reaches its zenith in Praia da Luz before or after 12.00noon, please say when.

5. Let us take, for the sake of argument, 3 May. What is the angle of the sun, in Praia da Luz:

1 hr before and after the zenith
2 hr before and after the zenith
3 hr before and after the zenith
4 hr before and after the zenith
5 hr before and after the zenith
6 hr before and after the zenith

That is all for now, I would be grateful.

If you cannot answer me fully, please direct me to a website where I can explore these questions.

Oh no, we're not speaking the same language.

I'm being observationally relativistic, and you're being pedantic. My comments were not intended to be taken as a scientific statement of fact. I suspectyou knew that. I suspect you were being obtuse. Smart-alecy even. I even suspect that the reason has something to do with the possibility that (and I don't know because I haven't checked) the EXIF data gives a timestamp in or around my suggested time frame.

The point is that it doesn't require an astrophysicist to make the same conclusion. In May the sun is appoaching Cancer. Quite clearly it is at a high angle in the image. In the last photo GMC is broadly South facing, maybe SSE. From the angle of the broad range of shadows I would say the sun is approximately 5 to say 8 or 10 degrees (relative) to the West of the subjects position. It could be more degrees in real terms, suffice to say it appears to correspond to an hour or so past the noon position in the East West transit. Forget the prejudicial speculationsthat the image has been manipulated or the EXIF creation date falsified, what does the availa bleEXIF data state as the timestamp? Does it corroborate my deductions, and therefore damn me to being declared a heretic?

by aspiedistra 12.11.13 23:50

Tony Bennett wrote:
3. In Praia da Luz, at midday (assume the sun is at its zenith at midday, but see next question), what is the angle of the sun on the following dates each year please:

Before railway timetables, all locations used to call midday (noon, 12am) the time when the sun was at its zenith, i.e. at its highest in the sky. Well, zenith doesn't mean that to astronomers but let's not digress.

The UK and Portugal are on the same time all the year round. They both change to summer time at the end of March. In May, the sun is at its zenith at 1pm at Greenwich, London, due to summer time being in operation.

Praia da Luz is 8.7434 degrees west of Greenwich and so the sun is at its zenith in May is at around 1:35pm.

hth

by Mirage 13.11.13 0:26

Beanie wrote:Photoshopped or not as far as I am concerned is not of importance. The real problem I have with this photo is Madeleine is much younger than a child just short of her 4th birthday. You only have to look at the tennis ball picture to see the difference.

Exactly Beanie . Those of us who have had children know straightaway that there is a major discrepancy in age that trumps all argument. It is so glaringly obvious it's tantamount to a spit in the eye. Period.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.11.13 8:22

Tony Bennett wrote...and Aspiedistra replied:

3. In Praia da Luz, at midday (assume the sun is at its zenith at midday, but see next question), what is the angle of the sun on the following dates each year please:
Before railway timetables, all locations used to call midday (noon, 12am) the time when the sun was at its zenith, i.e. at its highest in the sky. Well, zenith doesn't mean that to astronomers but let's not digress.

The UK and Portugal are on the same time all the year round. They both change to summer time at the end of March. In May, the sun is at its zenith at 1pm at Greenwich, London, due to summer time being in operation.

Praia da Luz is 8.7434 degrees west of Greenwich and so the sun is at its zenith in May is at around 1:35pm.

hth

Many thanks. So, minimum shadow length is at around 1.35pm in late April/early May in Portugal.

What I want to know, if anyone can help, is things like:

What is the precise angle of the sun at its zenith i.e. at 1.35pm in Praia da Luz, late April/early May. Clearly that will get a little higher every day from 21 December to 21 June.

And I'd like to know what it is, say, 1 hour after that, 2 hours after and so on.

And then I would like to know about the length of a shadow.

Take for example a 6-foot tall bloke - or pole. Say the sun at its zenith at 1.35pm is at 80 deg. to the vertical. What is the precise length of the shadow it would cast at this point? - probably just 2" or 3".

Is there an astronomer in the house?

veritas wrote:

Oh no, we're not speaking the same language. I'm being observationally relativistic, and you're being pedantic. My comments were not intended to be taken as a scientific statement of fact. I suspect you knew that. I suspect you were being obtuse. Smart-alecy even.

REPLY: None of that, but, hey, let's carry on.

I even suspect that the reason has something to do with the possibility that (and I don't know because I haven't checked) the EXIF data gives a timestamp in or around my suggested time frame.

REPLY: I can't recall it now, though the point may be important, but there was something about the date and time stamp being 1.29pm on 3 May but that that represented 2.29pm 'because the time clock hadn't been adjusted for British/Portuguese summer time'.

The point is that it doesn't require an astrophysicist to make the same conclusion. In May the sun is appoaching Cancer. Quite clearly it is at a high angle in the image.

REPLY: When you referred to 5 deg to 8 deg I geniunely thought you were referring to the vertical angle of the sun, I apologise for any misunderstanding.

In the last photo GMC is broadly South facing, maybe SSE. From the angle of the broad range of shadows I would say the sun is approximately 5 to say 8 or 10 degrees (relative) to the West of the subject's position.

REPLY: Maybe I am being dense here - please help. Surely the only reason that we can say anything about whether Gery and the children are so many degrees east or west of due south etc. is if we already know exactly which way they are facing? And we do not know that. Suppose they are all facing S.W. And suppose we already know that. Then (and only then) can we say they are 'x degrees' to the east or west of that. I hope I have made my point. All I am interested in (which Aspiedistra has addressed) is what the photograph tells us about the vertical position of the sun at the time the photograph was taken.

It could be more degrees in real terms, suffice to say it appears to correspond to an hour or so past the noon position in the East West transit.

REPLY: I am not interested in the east-west data, I am interested only in what the photograph tells us about the vertical position of the sun.

Forget the prejudicial speculations that the image has been manipulated or the EXIF creation date falsified, what does the available EXIF data state as the timestamp? Does it corroborate my deductions, and therefore damn me to being declared a heretic?

REPLY: As stated above, I think IIRC that the date and time stamp says '3 May, 1.29pm'. I am interested in whether the photograph confirms that - or not. There could of course (though I am no expert) be all sorts of reasons for, say, the time to be inaccurate e.g. it wasn't set properly in the first place.

by ProfessorPPlum 13.11.13 9:08

Tony there's only one big fat old palm in that position at the ocean club pool so I think with a bit of google image searching (for OC promo shots, holiday maker shots etc), some Google maps / earthing you one could state fairly confidently the direction they're facing.

Unfortunately I'm not your man to do it. Perhaps you should consider sending this to the university department / whoever it was that not so long ago used shadows to prove who got to the North Pole first.

ETA: however it just occurred to me that unless you have a reliable horizontal surface with shadows on it in the picture or a surfaces whose angle of inclination you know, then I don't think you'll get far. Trying to reach a conclusion from the light of shadow on GM's shirt (positioned at an angle we don't know exactly) would be difficult resulting in 'best guesses' that would never get very far in court.

by plebgate 13.11.13 9:09

@ Lance DB

I agree, this has been a very interesting thread which now seems to have become about the last photo and photoshopping.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.11.13 9:11

plebgate wrote:@ Lance DB

I agree, this has been a very interesting thread which now seems to have become about the last photo and photoshopping.

But the thread is about a photoshopper!

And one who is very very close to the McCann Team