Re: Another look at the Last photo

by rustyjames 09.11.14 20:55

Putting that figure onto a Google Earth map from June 2007 looks reasonable .....

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

by juliet 09.11.14 21:27

What I have noticed (apart from GM's ginormously fat left arm below the elbow!) is the usual lack of interaction between him and the children. He is slumped, hand on hip presumably, not touching or looking at these toddlers. Any normal man would have half an eye on them, lively kids on the edge of the pool, or at least have an arm or hand on a shoulder. But in in so many pics he is grimacing, mouth open, as if pasted in as an afterthought.

by sarliv 09.11.14 22:17

BlueBag wrote:
rustyjames wrote:Lots of comments on this thread since I last looked this morning. I don't have lots of time but my opinion on a few of them.

HelenMeg wrote:
I also find strange that on the photo on page 3 of the thread, the distances between the pool, tree and wall look relatively long - whereas in the photo in your post - there doesnt look to be much distance at
all between pool and tree. That may be just perspective and angle.

Yes - the last photo was taken with a focal length 21.7mm which is the equivalent of 104.2mm on a 35mm camera and is towards the telephoto end. The photo on page 3 was taken with a focal length of 7.9mm on a Sony DSC-200 which has the same sensor size as the Canon and the equivalent would be 37.9mm on a 35mm which is fairly wide angle.

The effect on perspective is shown here ...

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

HANG ON !! Now I understand why it looks so odd - as I write it has just come to me. IN ORDER TO MAKE IT look like a normal posed family photo - Gerry was shunted on to make it look as if he was pointing at the
'photograph taker'.... if he were sitting naturally on the edge of the pool as people do, he would have been pointing at a right angle to the pool edge.

But the pool is round. You would only face at right angles in that case if the photographer was on the far side of the pool.

The number of hours I have wasted with people who think a picture "isn't right" but just don't understand cameras and all the parameters that can be involved.

It goes hand in hand with their usual lack of understanding of compression algorithms and camera internal enhancement software.

Bluebag with this post you have given yourself away as being Tony Bennett.
Game over.

by sarliv 09.11.14 22:49

Tony Bennett wrote:One other very important point to bring out here is the number of ways in which a perfectly genuine photo can look fake - because of a phenomenon known as 'jpeg compression'.

Here's an introduction to this important subject - especially the subject of jpeg compression producing 'artifacts':

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

by ultimaThule 09.11.14 23:06

juliet wrote:What I have noticed (apart from GM's ginormously fat left arm below the elbow!) is the usual lack of interaction between him and the children. He is slumped, hand on hip presumably, not touching or looking at these toddlers. Any normal man would have half an eye on them, lively kids on the edge of the pool, or at least have an arm or hand on a shoulder. But in so many pics he is grimacing, mouth open, as if pasted in as an afterthought.

The simple explanation is that either he, or whatever child/ren he's depicted with, have been pasted in to give the impression of family bliss or he's not a normal man, juliet, and at the present time I see no reason to discount either possibility.

by plebgate 09.11.14 23:14

sarliv wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:One other very important point to bring out here is the number of ways in which a perfectly genuine photo can look fake - because of a phenomenon known as 'jpeg compression'.

Here's an introduction to this important subject - especially the subject of jpeg compression producing 'artifacts':

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

Err, not quite sure what you are saying - Tony Bennet posted this before Blue Bag posted his comments.

Is it not possible that Blue bag read the link Tony posted and was agreeing that people had a lack of knowledge about compression issues?

Maybe I am wrong, but it is a possibility so I can't see how you can state for sure that TB has been busted?

by juliet 10.11.14 0:14

UltimaThule....one of the pictures which is proven photoshopped is GM in a suit, mouth agape, pushed in behind KM and baby Madeleine. KM looks about 10 years younger than in 2007 and is wearing a suit and camisole. Even the pic on the wall is faked according to senior academic experts.

by Guest 10.11.14 8:29

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

I think that this is the photo you mean, Juliet. Do you have a link to it being confirmed as not genuine?

It certainly would throw doubt on other photos if one was proved to be a fake.

I just can't see what would be the point of doctoring (pun fully intended) a photo which has no relevance to Madeleine's disappearance.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.14 9:18

sarliv wrote:
Bluebag with this post you have given yourself away as being Tony Bennett.

Game over.

I think BlueBag will be coming along a bit later to deny that he is me.

But how will anyone know?

Where is the proof that he's not me?

@ BlueBag

BlueBag! Help!

sarliv will never believe me.

Will he, perhaps, believe you?

by juliet 10.11.14 9:59

Thank you Marian. That's the one. You can see that he has been put in too close to the baby and a photoshop expert showed that he was definitely added later. All the pixels or whatever were completely different. I don't know what the point was or why Kate looks 25 and not 35.

by bobbin 10.11.14 10:07

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

I think that this is the photo you mean, Juliet. Do you have a link to it being confirmed as not genuine?

It certainly would throw doubt on other photos if one was proved to be a fake.

I just can't see what would be the point of doctoring (pun fully intended) a photo which has no relevance to Madeleine's disappearance.

Jeez, cover the blonde's eyes up and it looks like 'pumpkin's' mouth and how long is Gerry's left jacket sleeve ?
As for the length of the shoulder, little boy in big man's suit perhaps. So where does he keep his right shoulder when a young child is jammed up against his jacket right lapel ?

by worriedmum 10.11.14 10:08

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

I think that this is the photo you mean, Juliet. Do you have a link to it being confirmed as not genuine?

It certainly would throw doubt on other photos if one was proved to be a fake.

I just can't see what would be the point of doctoring (pun fully intended) a photo which has no relevance to Madeleine's disappearance.

Surely a photoshopper would have tidied up Gerry's belt ?

by ultimaThule 10.11.14 10:12

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

I think that this is the photo you mean, Juliet. Do you have a link to it being confirmed as not genuine?

It certainly would throw doubt on other photos if one was proved to be a fake.

I just can't see what would be the point of doctoring (pun fully intended) a photo which has no relevance to Madeleine's disappearance.

Omg! That is a seriously scary shiny suit which is remarkably similar to those the Krays wore... affraid

by juliet 10.11.14 10:16

Her hair is odd...either very fuzzy or very strange shadows. This pic has been discussed before and the pixel ( or whatever) anomalies clearly shown. It was probably on this forum. Will go looking.

by ultimaThule 10.11.14 11:00

I knew I'd seen the lamp before - it's sat beside Philomena in one of the group of photos on this thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Could Kate be holding Uncle John's wee ginger haired laddie while on a trip to her future in-laws c1998/99?

by Guest 10.11.14 11:08

There are various other photos with Madeleine as a baby looking as she does in this photo; perhaps the McCanns were visiting Philomena though?

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

by juliet 10.11.14 11:44

Great spotting ultimathule! The same lamp and living room.It does seem to be Kate from years ago with a more contemporary Gerry pasted in. The pix Marian linked to show a black and white pic quite far down on the right that cd be same occasion.

by j.rob 10.11.14 14:06

juliet wrote:What I have noticed (apart from GM's ginormously fat left arm below the elbow!) is the usual lack of interaction between him and the children. He is slumped, hand on hip presumably, not touching or looking at these toddlers. Any normal man would have half an eye on them, lively kids on the edge of the pool, or at least have an arm or hand on a shoulder. But in in so many pics he is grimacing, mouth open, as if pasted in as an afterthought.

This is true of every single photo which includes Gerry and his daughters. I have been unable to find a single one where there is an 'normal' interaction between father and daughter/s. This, combined with the creepy 'family' scenes from the 'Madeleine was Here' documentaries, and his skulking demeanor while sitting next to his children of the airport bus, leads me to conclude that there is/was not any 'normal' fatherly relationship between Gerry and either of his daughters.

It's quite sad, really.

But probably consistent with the personality ~~disorders~~ traits that I do believe Gerry possesses. And Kate too, up to a point.

by Guest 10.11.14 14:27

sarliv wrote:Bluebag with this post you have given yourself away as being Tony Bennett.
Game over.

And you have given yourself away as not very bright.

Admin has my real e-mail address and knows my ip address.

I am not Tony Bennet although I wish I could sing like him.

by plebgate 10.11.14 16:34

It's getting more like I am Spartacus every day. It even seems as though some are questioning whether Jill still owns the site or whether it has transferred to Tony.

I don't know why they don't go and play elsewhere and stay there.

by Guest 10.11.14 16:53

We're all Tony Bennett in some philosophies.

And Tony Bennett is all of us.

We are stardust.

We are golden.

(Tony would never write a post like this)

(Or would he?)

by ultimaThule 10.11.14 17:07

Marian wrote:There are various other photos with Madeleine as a baby looking as she does in this photo; perhaps the McCanns were visiting Philomena though?

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

There are also various other photos which are allegedly of Madeleine as a baby where she doesn't look a bit like the clearly ginger haired infant Kate is holding, Marian, and the same applies to photos which purport to show her at varying stages of her development from toddler to almost four years old.

by Guest 10.11.14 17:19

ultimaThule wrote:
Marian wrote:There are various other photos with Madeleine as a baby looking as she does in this photo; perhaps the McCanns were visiting Philomena though?

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

There are also various other photos which are allegedly of Madeleine as a baby where she doesn't look a bit like the clearly ginger haired infant Kate is holding, Marian, and the same applies to photos which purport to show her at varying stages of her development from toddler to almost four years old.

On another thread several months ago I commented on baby M's red hair and was corrected that it was normal for hair colour to change in young children. However, I do not believe a child's hair colour changes so markedly.

by Guest 10.11.14 17:23

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

There's definitely a red hair trait (as well as red eye unfortunately!) in the family.

Amelie started off with red hair but was very blonde in 2007.

P.S. Just remembered that there was a topic (not recent) where some people thought - from an ambiguous quote of Eileen McCann's - that Madeleine spent Christmas 2005 alone with her, while the rest of the family stayed at home.

This photo proves otherwise.

by j.rob 10.11.14 19:01

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

I think that this is the photo you mean, Juliet. Do you have a link to it being confirmed as not genuine?

It certainly would throw doubt on other photos if one was proved to be a fake.

I just can't see what would be the point of doctoring (pun fully intended) a photo which has no relevance to Madeleine's disappearance.

I think this looks like a composite too. I think the idea is to create an illusion of a happy family. When they weren't one. It could be that Kate had bad post natal depression, for instance. Or that Madeleine was fostered out for some time. Or the couple were estranged at some stage. There could be all sorts of reasons why a happy family life was eluding them.

Having young children is a huge strain on a marriage and having tried for 5 long years (I think I read somewhere) it could well be that the reality of having children did not match the fantasy.

In any event, I think they are both narcissistic.

GM does not strike me as a family man. Marriage may not have been much to his liking either. (Very odd that there are no formal photos from their wedding, imo)

by juliet 10.11.14 19:15

I read that Kate spent months of her second pregnancy in bed. I don't know what happened to Madeleine then. This came from a woman friend in Amsterdam iirc.

by j.rob 10.11.14 22:32

juliet wrote:I read that Kate spent months of her second pregnancy in bed. I don't know what happened to Madeleine then. This came from a woman friend in Amsterdam iirc.

Yes. Kate describes in her book how she had terrible morning sickness and then at 24 weeks there was a scare and she was pretty much on bed rest after that. So family life would not exactly have been a picnic. And, as you say, who was looking after Madeleine then? Kate describes how her dad came over to help, then her mum, then Gerry's mum and 'a relay of friends and relatives who came out from the UK'.

Then, after the twins were born, Kate describes how difficult it was feeding the twins when Madeleine wanted attention. However, it would appear that Madeleine went to a day care nursery after the twins were born.

Then Kate started work again part-time when the twins were one.

But there is so little in her book about the realities of how challenging all this must have been.

Instead, we get: "We were living the family life we'd always wanted and it was everything we'd dreamed it would be."

I just don't believe a word that either she or Gerry says I am afraid.

by Pete WDHCo 30.11.14 2:18

I Havent been through every post but. You do realise you do not need all that flaffing to make a recorded dated pic ?

Let me try and explain .

Ok so you have a picture like the Dodgy , give me a alibi one.

1. You can just set your camera date and time to what you want, have the picture up on screen of a good sharp Monitor and take a snapshot, to all and intense the date stamp of the camera is as you wanted.
2. For sharper clarity, you could also, set your PC time date clock to whats required allowing a minute or 2 for getting the pic up on screen etc, use a screen capture and snapshot, the results will be the same. reset your PC time clock and the date stamp will show the wanted date, so that picture for all intent and purpose isnt worth a light in Court.

by canada12 30.11.14 8:39

Pete WDHCo wrote:I Havent been through every post but. You do realise you do not need all that flaffing to make a recorded dated pic ?

Let me try and explain .

Ok so you have a picture like the Dodgy , give me a alibi one.

1. You can just set your camera date and time to what you want, have the picture up on screen of a good sharp Monitor and take a snapshot, to all and intense the date stamp of the camera is as you wanted.
2. For sharper clarity, you could also, set your PC time date clock to whats required allowing a minute or 2 for getting the pic up on screen etc, use a screen capture and snapshot, the results will be the same. reset your PC time clock and the date stamp will show the wanted date, so that picture for all intent and purpose isnt worth a light in Court.

Exactly. I think a lot of us have been arguing this all along - that you can take a picture of a picture, and it becomes irrelevant in terms of proving anything, least of all the actual time and date details that show up on the photo.

by plebgate 24.06.15 23:09

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

I do not recall having seen this transciption of the 2011 interview.

Near the start of the transcript it says:

"Gerry McCann: There’s a photo of her that afternoon that was taken at 2:29 (laughs) I think, we’ve got it recorded on the digital camera and er she was just sitting by the pool er with myself and we’ve both got our feet just paddling and she’s so happy."

I certainly do not recall ever reading that before. If the transcript is correct was this picure ever released?