Another look at the Last photo

j.rob wrote:I think the photo looks like a very bad cut and paste job.

REPLY: Not to the majority of us here. And certainly not to two world-recognised photographic experts consulted by PeterMac. They were clear; there was not a trace of photoshopping on the 'Last Photo' - and both conducted forensic tests, e.g. on the shadows, which confirmed that this was a genuine photo with no photoshopping. Just like some did on the 'Playground Photo' thread, saying 'my eyes tell me this', or 'my eyes tell me that'. I don't think most of us need you to take us backwards, when by common consent this is a genuine photograph but with strong evidence that it may have been taken on the Sunday, or possibly the Monday. And that harmonises with other evidence about the events of that week.

As is so often the case with dodgy TM photos

REPLY: Who says there are lots of 'dodgy TM photos'? Only a handful of people who elevate the impressions of their eyes above all else. No convincing case has been made that ANY of the McCanns' photos have been photoshopped, though there are a considerable number of us who have still have major queries about the 'Tennis Balls Photo'  

there is no cohesion within the group being photographed. Neither of the children are engaged with the photographer at all. Why not? Often the photographer will try to alert everyone's attention. Madeleine is seemingly engaged by something or someone off to the right while Amelie looks into the pool. Despite the three seemingly sitting close together there is no interaction or engagement between them. No focus of attention which you tend to get with genuine group shots.

The only person engaging with the photographer is Gerry

REPLY: So all photographs have to have:
* 'cohesion within the group'?
* 'children being 'engaged with the photographer''?
* 'no interaction or engagement between people on the photograph''?
* 'no focus of attention'?
For a photograph to be 'genuine', in your view, it needs these features?
Sorry - but this is utter nonsense.

and imo his expression tells volumes. He moodily stares at the lens with a look that combines sullenness with what I think is desperation as he hides his eyes behind sunglasses. This is not a happy holiday snap that is for sure.

I wonder why Sean is not featured? According to Kate in her book all five of them were there so it is a somewhat strange omission. I presume that despite what kate and Gerry claim he was somewhere else at the day and time that photo was allegedly taken. And this may be verifiable by third parties.

REPLY:  Give me patience. Er...because he's out of shot somewhere. probably with Kate, who took the photograph. Look at the Playground Photo, and Amelia isn't on that. Again, so what? She is probably playing somewhere else.

So what was really happening at 2.29pm on that fateful Thursday? I dread to think.

REPLY: Clearly, if the Last Photo was taken on the Sunday, we don't know, because we haven't been told the truth about what the McCanns were doing at 2.29pm on 3rd May 

BlueBag wrote:j.rob has been around this circle with us before.

It's boring.

skyrocket wrote:@j.rob - don't listen to them!

There are 2 camps here with the photoshopping argument - from all the posts, neither is in a particular minority I would hasten to add.

You and I are in one. You know the ones in the other.

I have (fair) comments to make but I have a feeling they will be moderated out - so how to get the point across, mmmmm?!

I am still waiting to see any 'expert' or 'forensic' evidence for us all to see and judge. That would end the discussion wouldn't it - simple. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but no one suitably qualified has answered all my doubts yet. I like to learn new skills. So basically, it's stalemate. But, that shouldn't negate anyone being allowed to express their opinions without the fear of, what comes across as but I accept may not be, a concerted verbal onslaught. The doubters don't appearing to be jumping down anyones throats.

I think @j.rob, we will have to put with being ridiculed; patronised and having sarcasm thrown at us. I know what I call it.

skyrocket wrote:@ Aquila

You've lost me. Don't get the link either. As the comment was dirctly linked to my comment could you just clarify. Thanks

skyrocket wrote:@j.rob - don't listen to them!

There are 2 camps here with the photoshopping argument - from all the posts, neither is in a particular minority I would hasten to add.

You and I are in one. You know the ones in the other.

I have (fair) comments to make but I have a feeling they will be moderated out - so how to get the point across, mmmmm?!

I am still waiting to see any 'expert' or 'forensic' evidence for us all to see and judge. That would end the discussion wouldn't it - simple. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but no one suitably qualified has answered all my doubts yet. I like to learn new skills. So basically, it's stalemate. But, that shouldn't negate anyone being allowed to express their opinions without the fear of, what comes across as but I accept may not be, a concerted verbal onslaught. The doubters don't appearing to be jumping down anyones throats.

I think @j.rob, we will have to put with being ridiculed; patronised and having sarcasm thrown at us. I know what I call it.

I have taken an initial look at the image.
The artifacts eluded to in the pdf document that you sent are simply JPEG compression artifacts
(as described here: http://www.fourandsix.com/blog/2011/6/29/that-looks-fake.html).
If you magnify other parts of the image you will see similar artifacts.
 I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent -- they are.
I see no other anomalies in the photo.
So, at first glance, I see no evidence of photo tampering. 

I will add that it is fairly easy to change dates in an image's metadata or for these dates to be wrong.
As such these dates should not be solely relied upon.

regards,
* * * * *
Professor
* * * * *  College

skyrocket wrote:@PeterMac
Thank you very much for that - very interesting. Much more concrete information. I think some of the problem may be that newcomers like myself may not always pick up on all of the info from previous threads, despite efforts to read through carefully. Heck of a lot has been said over the years.
A response such as yours above (content and manner) is what I'd hoped to receive. I feel like sending you one of these for restoring my faith  !

PeterMac wrote:

skyrocket wrote:@PeterMac
Thank you very much for that - very interesting. Much more concrete information. I think some of the problem may be that newcomers like myself may not always pick up on all of the info from previous threads, despite efforts to read through carefully. Heck of a lot has been said over the years.
A response such as yours above (content and manner) is what I'd hoped to receive. I feel like sending you one of these for restoring my faith  !

Another issue is that this is the first time I have published that particular response on the forum.
Much has been done over the past 8 years away from the forum for obvious reasons, and has been sent to Grange, the PJ and Dr Amaral, amongst others.

skyrocket wrote:@PeterMac

Thank you very much for that - very interesting. Much more concrete information. I think some of the problem may be that newcomers like myself may not always pick up on all of the info from previous threads, despite efforts to read through carefully. Heck of a lot has been said over the years.

A response such as yours above (content and manner) is what I'd hoped to receive. I feel like sending you one of these for restoring my faith  !

skyrocket wrote:@Verdi - yes, @Ladyinred came to the same conclusion re: the vertical line/cross! Thank you for that.

Re: the photographic experts info from @PeterMac - I prefer to make my own decisions about things and this helped a lot. As I stated, I'm very grateful for his post earlier. Yes TB did bring up the point of the experts but it was rather a case of this is how it is, accept it.

I agree, the fact that TM felt it necessary to stress the time and date is very intriguing, but can I just add that one person's perception of status quo is not always anothers.

Re: 'Just as long as you now understand' now let me see, do I - come on, you can't be serious!

ROSA wrote:The last photo.  Both Gerry and Amelie have tans and look like they have spent time in the sun, and they look very hot and sweaty.   But Maddie has quite a cool look about her and she is very pale .