Re: Gerry McCann's brother-in-law, Tony Rickwood, removes his depraved images of women drowning from an internet site

by Cristobell 24.12.13 21:59

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Cristobell I like the dose of sanity you bring (even if we disagree on the People Voice issue!)

Cheers Professor smilie

it would be an odd sort of place if we all agreed on everything.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.12.13 22:01

gbwales wrote:Just to add my own opinion to the central point of this thread - 'Photoshopping' skills and their relevance - I do not believe Rickwood's technical skills to be sufficient to manage the kind of extremely sophisticated realism required in a manipulation such as that which some believe the "Last Photo" to be.

His quicksand stuff is not technically brilliant or artistically competent by any stretch when it comes to light and shadows etc and fine-tuning of colour matches within a complex and constructed image.

And as to the Last Photo itself, I have worked as a Head of Design and Design Editor in newspapers, magazines, web and digital TV and have worked with Photoshop pretty much day in day out since the mid 1990s, and my extensive time spent examining in minute detail the Last Photo does not suggest to me any kind of manipulation or 'Photoshopping' of the actual image - the bitmapped image of pixels we see. There remains of course the question of the photo's metadata - but that is a separate point. As far as 'Photoshopping' in the sense of digital manipulation of the pixels of an image is concerned I don't believe Rickwood would be up to the job, and neither do I believe the photo to be manipulated in that way.

gbwales, I think if you go back to near the start, the subject of photoshopping skills rather dominated the discussion because Veritas was consumed with the need to prove that the 'Last Photo' wasn't photoshopped and that, in any event, Rickwood's photoshopping on the quicksand festish website wasn't really that good.

That was never the main point - becaue right from the off, I stated my honest opinion that this was a genuine, not photoshopped, photograph. I said it was a genuine photograph of Dr Gerald McCann, Amelie and Madeleine, taken at the Ocean Club some time that week (28 April to 3 May).

As you correctly pointed out (bit in red above), at issue was possible alteration of the metadata (i.e. date and/or time) - a point which Veritas reluctantly conceded could have happened.

Go back to my original 13 points, and we have (summarising):

* Hardly any photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz

* The 'Last Photo' being produced 21 days after it was in the McCanns' camera the very day Madeleine was reported missing (and could therefore have been produced immediately)

* Dr Gerald McCann was in England 20 - 22 May; the 'Last Photo' was first published by AFP on 24 May

* Rickwood knew how to photoshop (admittedly not to Veritas's claimed level of expertise), therefore altering metadata would not be a hard jonb for him (if he was asked to do it for whatever reason)

* Rickwood's wife, Philomena McCann, flew into Faro Airport, Portugal, on the evening of 22 May.

I raised the issue of the potential significance of the above facts. But the thread was soon derailed by Veritas

by Guest 24.12.13 22:01

Châtelaine wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
dromodaire wrote:Glad to see it's okay to poke fun at Philomena's weight on this site; something which ties in very much with the moral high ground taken by many members on this forum.

I think to be fair that 'candyfloss' and the other Mods must have missed the very brief reference up the thread to Philomena's size (bobbin at 8.26am today).

In fact, this forum has never tolerated abusive references to how people look - the McCanns or anyone else - nor has it tolerated swearing and other forms of abuse.
***
Good gracious, are we now poking on dedicated members, like Bobbin. A jest, a joke, anything any of us could have done at any time? I mean, it's actually rather difficult not to jest ... But at the same time, it's allowed to make fierce attacks on `'whoever" and "whatever". You're losing me a bit ...

It was not a spiteful comment, it was just a jest about what was written above the photo, but I have deleted it anyway. As Chatelaine says nothing bad about it really. Bobbin has nothing to worry about, it was only a comment in jest. Gawd, people are so tetchy lately!

by Guest 24.12.13 22:07

How can one have a healthy debate, when having to walk on tiptoe and on eggs [to make it a bit more complicated]
I seriously advise to get back to "normal" and discuss Madeleine's disappearance. Allow some innocent jesting, and just turn away from anything that looks like derailing the discussion. I'm talking from experience winkwink

by **Tony Bennett** 24.12.13 22:11

Châtelaine wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
dromodaire wrote:Glad to see it's okay to poke fun at Philomena's weight on this site; something which ties in very much with the moral high ground taken by many members on this forum.

I think to be fair that 'candyfloss' and the other Mods must have missed the very brief reference up the thread to Philomena's size (bobbin at 8.26am today).

In fact, this forum has never tolerated abusive references to how people look - the McCanns or anyone else - nor has it tolerated swearing and other forms of abuse.
***
Good gracious, are we now poking on dedicated members, like Bobbin. A jest, a joke, anything any of us could have done at any time? I mean, it's actually rather difficult not to jest ... But at the same time, it's allowed to make fierce attacks on `'whoever" and "whatever". You're losing me a bit ...

We shouldn't be 'losing you', Chatelaine. 'candyfloss' has more than once said to members that she does not want anyone to make fun of people being fat, or of other aspects of anyone's appearance, and she's acknowledged that she missed bobbin's post.

Don't make more of this than there is - bobbin's comment was very light-hearted, as such comments go, but I'm with candyfloss here, we can do without personal comments like that.

I would add that the verbal abuse e.g. by Veritas was far far worse, of course, and IMO was allowed to run much longer than it should have been allowed to.

The forum-owner had it right on another thread. The main focus on here is what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

In my humble submission, Rickwood's photomanipulation skills might just be relevant to that issue. I am happy to be argued down if people have good reason to disagree

by chillyheat 24.12.13 22:14

Is it the pic and comment from me that has caused this next (sigh) problem. I will always add the past as a refresher for new viewers. If its not my post then can someone kindly post up the Trip Advisor comment of Philomena who posted just weeks after her niece disappeared.
Just so we can put into context of what her and her curious husband's care of Madeleines whereabouts.

by chillyheat 24.12.13 22:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
dromodaire wrote:Glad to see it's okay to poke fun at Philomena's weight on this site; something which ties in very much with the moral high ground taken by many members on this forum.

I think to be fair that 'candyfloss' and the other Mods must have missed the very brief reference up the thread to Philomena's size (bobbin at 8.26am today).

In fact, this forum has never tolerated abusive references to how people look - the McCanns or anyone else - nor has it tolerated swearing and other forms of abuse.
***
Good gracious, are we now poking on dedicated members, like Bobbin. A jest, a joke, anything any of us could have done at any time? I mean, it's actually rather difficult not to jest ... But at the same time, it's allowed to make fierce attacks on `'whoever" and "whatever". You're losing me a bit ...

We shouldn't be 'losing you', Chatelaine. 'candyfloss' has more than once said to members that she does not want anyone to make fun of people being fat, or of other aspects of anyone's appearance, and she's acknowledged that she missed bobbin's post.

Don't make more of this than there is - bobbin's comment was very light-hearted, as such comments go, but I'm with candyfloss here, we can do without personal comments like that.

I would add that the verbal abuse e.g. by Veritas was far far worse, of course, and IMO was allowed to run much longer than it should have been allowed to.

The forum-owner had it right on another thread. The main focus on here is what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

In my humble submission, Rickwood's photomanipulation skills might just be relevant to that issue. I am happy to be argued down if people have good reason to disagree

Your very shrewd Tony.....I have to give you that titter

by whatliesbehindthesofa 24.12.13 22:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
* Rickwood knew how to photoshop (admittedly not to Veritas's claimed level of expertise), therefore altering metadata would not be a hard jonb for him (if he was asked to do it for whatever reason)

I've posted earlier in this thread how comically easy it is to change the EXIF data. It is not that much more involved than renaming a file. Anybody who would have wanted to have change the date could have done so, had they enough intelligence to be able to google for it. I don't see any connection between being able to 'photoshop' and being able to change the EXIF data. I've worked with hundreds of digital artists in my career, and they generally have excellent photoshop skills, whereas very few would know how to change the metadata of the file. If they had to, they'd just look the information up, same as anyone else.

It's the same as saying:

- I know how to empty rubbish bins, therefore I know how to make a bin out of plastic
- I know how to play computer games, therefore I know how to write them

The skill required to change the 'Date Taken' metadata of an image is small, and unconnected to other skills such as 'photoshopping'. Therefore, I don't see any reason to suspect Mr Rickwood of having done this over and above anyone else - in fact, I would say that Gerry McCann would have been able to do this himself if needed.

ETA - just for information purposes, I agree with you Tony that the photo is probably genuine, and that the 'Date Taken' metadata may have been changed.

by Guest 24.12.13 22:23

Quote Candyfloss [thank you, I agree]: " Bobbin has nothing to worry about, it was only a comment in jest. Gawd, people are so tetchy lately!
***
The above my bolding.

by dromodaire 25.12.13 11:54

I just want to say that in my comment about people critisising Philomena's weight, I wasn't trying to have a go at Bobbin, or indeed Chilly Heat personally, both of whom I like and admire as excellent contributers, and both of whom I wish Merry Christmas.

I was just pointing out the sort of innate hypocrisy we're all guilty of, which is relevant for me, because a lot of people on here take the moral high ground.

A lot of people in the world (not on this forum) have made personal attacks on members of team Mccann, and personally I don't really care -- I think, through their actions, they're fair game, and they've certainly made a lot of people's blood boil.

Ergo, if someone were to create photos of 'peope who've made our blood boil' sinking into mud, I personally would understand where that sentiment comes from: it comes from the rage of being helpless and impudent to counteract the injustice we all see before us.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.12.13 12:32

dromodaire wrote:Ergo, if someone were to create photos of 'peope who've made our blood boil' sinking into mud, I personally would understand where that sentiment comes from: it comes from the rage of being helpless and ~~impudent~~ impotent to counteract the injustice we all see before us.

I think you meant 'impotent'.

Could you explain much more clearly what you mean by the above, please?

You say you 'understand' the 'sentiment' of people who are 'enraged' and feel 'helpless' and thereofre want to 'create photographs' of women drowning by 'sinking into mud'? Have I got that right?

And should we be wary of such people?

by dromodaire 25.12.13 12:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
dromodaire wrote:Ergo, if someone were to create photos of 'peope who've made our blood boil' sinking into mud, I personally would understand where that sentiment comes from: it comes from the rage of being helpless and ~~impudent~~ impotent to counteract the injustice we all see before us.

I think you meant 'impotent'.

Could you explain much more clearly what you mean by the above, please?

You say you 'understand' the 'sentiment' of people who are 'enraged' and feel 'helpless' and thereofre want to 'create photographs' of women drowning by 'sinking into mud'? Have I got that right?

And should we be wary of such people?

Tony, first of all Merry Christmas and second of all well done for all the hard work you've done in all the cold cases you've worked on. Also, let me take this opportunity to say that I happen to be one of the few forum members who agrees with a great deal of what you say, including for what it's worth, your stuff on the Smith sighting.

If someone in Libya several years ago had produced a photo of collenel (spe?) Gaddafi drowning in mud, I will happily say I would understand where the sentiment would have come from in that case. What Tony Rickwoods motives are I have absoluely no idea. I am no fan of his 'work'' I don't care for it or understand it and I'm not saying he doesn't do it for some perverse reason. I simply don't know.

What I was saying is that I don't see this issue as black and white. Someone on this forum imitated Cuddle cat not so long ago and I believe I understand exactly why they did it: it was a form of therapy for them to mock all the injustice that they've been witness to on this case. Some people suggested this was sick humour, though personally I completeley understood the sentiment.

However I don't think we should get into a debate about this here and now, though I'll be happy to continue things another day in private messages.

One final thing I would like to say is in regards to my comment the other day about 'not meeting your heroes'. I personally consider you a hero for having the courage to do what you do, and I know a lot of people think the same; and I'm sure, as you once mentioned, that history will one day look back at you and recognise you as a man who was willing to stick his neck out. So one thing I don't understand is why you get involved in disputes on these forums with people who aren't up to your level of debate. I really don't think it's good for your image and I believe that all your hard work and talent should really be focused on higher things.

Anyway I hope the New Year brings the luck that you so richly deserve for all your efforts.

by aiyoyo 25.12.13 13:09

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
* Rickwood knew how to photoshop (admittedly not to Veritas's claimed level of expertise), therefore altering metadata would not be a hard jonb for him (if he was asked to do it for whatever reason)

I've posted earlier in this thread how comically easy it is to change the EXIF data. It is not that much more involved than renaming a file. Anybody who would have wanted to have change the date could have done so, had they enough intelligence to be able to google for it. I don't see any connection between being able to 'photoshop' and being able to change the EXIF data. I've worked with hundreds of digital artists in my career, and they generally have excellent photoshop skills, whereas very few would know how to change the metadata of the file. If they had to, they'd just look the information up, same as anyone else.

It's the same as saying:

- I know how to empty rubbish bins, therefore I know how to make a bin out of plastic
- I know how to play computer games, therefore I know how to write them

The skill required to change the 'Date Taken' metadata of an image is small, and unconnected to other skills such as 'photoshopping'. Therefore, I don't see any reason to suspect Mr Rickwood of having done this over and above anyone else - in fact, I would say that Gerry McCann would have been able to do this himself if needed.

ETA - just for information purposes, I agree with you Tony that the photo is probably genuine, and that the 'Date Taken' metadata may have been changed.

It's not beyond realm of possibility Gerry's one of those who would not know how to change metadata.
Without PC/Internet connection, or fear of evidence trail on PC would be enough reason for him to give it to someone in the family do it.
Possibly he was reminded of TR's skill by Philo hence the sudden trip home to personally deliver the good and got it personally delivered back by no other than Phil herself all done in secrecy, under the guise he went home to look through old photos, met with Pinky etc.

Wasn't it reported he helped a passenger, and also got his wallet stolen during this trip?
All diversion tactics to deflect attention away from his movements.

by Guest 25.12.13 13:25

aiyoyo

The trip with the sick passenger was Gerry's 2nd trip ending June 20th. That's the same trip as the stolen wallet and the drunk lying in the street on return. Kate's remark was "haven't we all been there".

kindest regards & Merry Christmas

parapono

by aiyoyo 25.12.13 13:26

parapono wrote:
aiyoyo

The trip with the sick passenger was Gerry's 2nd trip ending June 20th. That's the same trip as the stolen wallet and the drunk lying in the street on return. Kate's remark was "haven't we all been there".

kindest regards & Merry Christmas

parapono

TY. Kindest regards & Merry Christmas to you too.

by Curioser 26.12.13 0:47

dromodaire wrote:I would just like to stick up for Veritas. He may have come across as rude and insulting, but so did others and they weren't banned. Indeed, there seems to be a way of insulting people on this forum in a snide way, that is within the laws of the forum. This is the kind of underhand thing Carter Ruck would be proud of. As is picking people's words apart, when it's clear that language can be misconstrued and misinterpreted, especially on an internet forum.

There are lots of reasons to admire this forum; from the extensive in depth research to the fair-handedness of many posters and moderators. However I believe there is also a clique side to it as well. That is of course entirely fair and understandable. This is essentially a private forum and some members have done more, and thus have more rights to be here. There's also a bitchiness: but this is inevitable whenver intellectual heavyweights collide.

Anyway such thoughts are not really at home here. However, I will hopefully be starting a video blog sometime in the New Year and one topic I will probably be addressing (in fairness (and with my own biased take on matters)) is this forum and its members.

For the moment one famous quote comes to mind: never meet your heroes. On this forum you can.

Veritas was banned? That is a great loss imho.

by plebgate 26.12.13 13:56

People know the rules - if they attack the person and not the post they will be banned after a warning. Why are posters who are relatively new or have under 200 postings so dismayed when new members are banned?

It seems they only post to say how unfair the site is and how awful Tony is. Posters who have been around for a while know the "format" and take no notice and those who lurk also see the same pattern over and over.

Give it up -nobody cares imo.

Keeeep posting about something members care about, not how they view Tony and other researchers. It looks like hissy fits which gets them nowhere.

by loopzdaloop 26.12.13 23:00

I wonder if Dr Nigel Oldfield is a relation of Matthew.

About him from the telegraph http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100009678/the-sex-offender-so-brazen-hes-sharing-a-link-to-my-blog-post-about-him/

Nigel Leigh Oldfield is a convicted sex offender. He is the worst kind. An unrepentant one. He is the man behind The OSC (Online Sex-Offender Community) the Twitter account and blog I wrote about earlier this week. He served 12 months in jail for downloading over 11,000 indecent images of children including babies in 2002. Though there are nests of pro-abuse activists online, Oldfield is isolated. He runs a “community” in name only. I am told by those who have studied this sick subculture that even some paedophiles consider him an embarrassment.
The pseudo-intellectual Oldfield is a former chemistry teacher. He styles himself as “Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield” and has popped up several times on national radio and television. His most notable appearance was on Newsnight in 2007 pompously defending his repellent views. Over and over again he made excuses for viewing images of children being abused. He is the ugly agony uncle of the online child sexual abuse community giving tips on avoiding prosecution and defending the indefensible.

Then more: http://ffkfightingforkids.weebly.com/peadophile-nigel-oldfield.html

and here is his twitter and blog.

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

by Guest 26.12.13 23:14

loopzdaloop wrote:I wonder if Dr Nigel Oldfield is a relation of Matthew.
[...] ]

***
IMO you shouldn't wonder, but do some research and be sure before posting. No offense, but there are many, many people with the surname Oldfield [Mike Oldfield to start with ....].

by loopzdaloop 27.12.13 1:09

Châtelaine wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:I wonder if Dr Nigel Oldfield is a relation of Matthew.
[...] ]
***
IMO you shouldn't wonder, but do some research and be sure before posting. No offense, but there are many, many people with the surname Oldfield [Mike Oldfield to start with ....].

This is clearly an example of the nasty attitude that I have observed to have been reported around here recently.

by Guest 27.12.13 7:36

This is not a nasty attitude, Loopzdaloop, simply a direct response to your post. I notice you placed an identical post on another thread with links to this perverts blog and twitter. Why would anyone want to look at those?

by suep 27.12.13 8:03

Châtelaine wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:I wonder if Dr Nigel Oldfield is a relation of Matthew.
[...] ]
***
IMO you shouldn't wonder, but do some research and be sure before posting. No offense, but there are many, many people with the surname Oldfield [Mike Oldfield to start with ....].

You're right, Chatelaine, its wrong to jump to conclusions. I just did a quick check on findmypast for the names Nigel Leigh Oldfield and Matthew David Oldfield. The former was born in 1960 in Sheffield and the latter in 1969 in Leeds. I've no credits left and no time this morning to rectify that so I couldn't check further for mother's maiden names. So all we can say with certainty is that they were both born in Yorkshire.

by canada12 27.12.13 8:23

Two Nigel L Oldfields born in Jul-Aug-Sep 1960 in Sheffield - one with mother maiden name Allen, the other with mother maiden name Barrett.

Matthew David Oldfield born in Jan-Feb-Mar 1969, Leeds - mother maiden name Hanson.

If these are the people in question, then there's no relationship through the mother.

by suep 27.12.13 8:30

canada12 wrote:Two Nigel L Oldfields born in Jul-Aug-Sep 1960 in Sheffield - one with mother maiden name Allen, the other with mother maiden name Barrett.

Matthew David Oldfield born in Jan-Feb-Mar 1969, Leeds - mother maiden name Hanson.

If these are the people in question, then there's no relationship through the mother.

Thanks, canada12. That settles it...end of (non)story,

by loopzdaloop 27.12.13 22:47

Ladyinred wrote:This is not a nasty attitude, Loopzdaloop, simply a direct response to your post. I notice you placed an identical post on another thread with links to this perverts blog and twitter. Why would anyone want to look at those?

Deleted this is pure speculation with no proof of connection, and could be libellous

Gerry McCann's brother-in-law, Tony Rickwood, removes his depraved images of women drowning from an internet site