Re: Another look at the Last photo

by Roidininki 09.04.16 17:47

Shouldn't this, BIB read 28th April?

In Jane Tanner's 10 May 2007 statement she says the following:

'As for the Payne and McCann couples, they journeyed by plane from East Midlands to Faro, having arrived around 11h00. They took a taxi from Faro to Luz arriving at 12h00 also on the 28 May.'

Personally I think anyone having travelled to a holiday resort with three children under five will be far too busy looking at their accommodation , unpacking ,getting something to eat, to be getting the camera out .
But it was worth a "what if ?" I suppose .

by skyrocket 09.04.16 17:58

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

Thanks for pointing out April/May - I've put a caveat in above.

by JRP 11.04.16 12:24

I think we make a mistake if we judge what others do, by what we would do.
We know from KM's book that she and Madeleine were in the pool that afternoon, almost upon arrival, so therefore they didn't spend that time unpacking.

When people begin a sentence with, "personally" they believe that is some sort of standard practice, and it's not.

Personally I wouldn't go on holiday and leave my kids in a creche. Personally if the police wanted my holiday snaps I'd hand over my camera.
Apparently some people do things I personally wouldn't do.

This isn't a dig at anyone, but many times on here, people disbelieve good logic simply because it strays from what they would personally do.

There is logic to all the photos being taken on Saturday afternoon, as much as one being taken on Sunday. As long as the weather provides it's plausibility.

by Roidininki 11.04.16 12:34

JRP you said When people begin a sentence with, "personally" they believe that is some sort of standard practice, and it's not.
As far as I'm concerned when I begin a sentence with Personally , as I did in my last post, I mean it's my own opinion . Nothing to do with how you've described it . However to each his own . Not going to argue on it.

by Guest 11.04.16 15:34

JRP wrote:I think we make a mistake if we judge what others do, by what we would do.
We know from KM's book that she and Madeleine were in the pool that afternoon, almost upon arrival, so therefore they didn't spend that time unpacking.

When people begin a sentence with, "personally" they believe that is some sort of standard practice, and it's not.

Personally I wouldn't go on holiday and leave my kids in a creche. Personally if the police wanted my holiday snaps I'd hand over my camera.
Apparently some people do things I personally wouldn't do.

Au contraire JRP! The use of the word is perfectly acceptable in the English language, it tells what you are saying is a result of personal experience as opposed to second hand experience.

This isn't a dig at anyone, but many times on here, people disbelieve good logic simply because it strays from what they would personally do.

That's a very astute observation from someone who's only been a member for a month. Good work - look forward to your observations of the case generally.

There is logic to all the photos being taken on Saturday afternoon, as much as one being taken on Sunday. As long as the weather provides it's plausibility.

Logic can be applied to most theories, providing the scenario is not beyond reasonable. Logic dictates that the last photograph could have been taken on the Saturday, Sunday or any other day of the week but evidence does not. Looking at all the information available, factual or otherwise, connected to proceedings on the Saturday, there is nothing to prove, indicate or even suggest that the last photograph could have been taken on that day - Saturday. Unless, with your powers of observation, you can spot something everyone else has missed.

by Roidininki 11.04.16 16:32

Verdi wrote:

Logic can be applied to most theories, providing the scenario is not beyond reasonable. Logic dictates that the last photograph could have been taken on the Saturday, Sunday or any other day of the week but evidence does not. Looking at all the information available, factual or otherwise, connected to proceedings on the Saturday, there is nothing to prove, indicate or even suggest that the last photograph could have been taken on that day - Saturday. Unless, with your powers of observation, you can spot something everyone else has missed.

Verdi, I'll go along with you on that .

by skyrocket 11.04.16 16:58

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - is there really any more evidence to suggest it was taken on Sunday as opposed to Saturday (genuine question)? Not sure if you've had a chance to look at my post above, which I think [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is referring to.

Saturday was a warmer day, according to weather records (despite KM's comments about it being 'chilly').

The facts are that Jane Tanner stated that the Mc's arrived at 12pm (in a police statement taken only 7 days after the disappearance), not later at 2.30pm - 3pm; and that the 'Guest List' clearly states that the group will be arriving at noon. I can't explain why that would be, but seems odd that Tanner's statement agrees exactly with information obviously furnished by the Payne/McCann group when they booked.

IF (and I appreciate it is a big if) the Mc's actually arrived in the resort at noon on the 28th, the 'last photo' could have been taken 2 1/2 hrs later - it is feasible. The events of the afternoon of the 28th, according to the various statements, are very garbled and don't agree on many points.

I don't know whether the 'last photo' was taken on either of the days. I was comfortable with Sunday because of the apparent arrival times; the weather reports; the cleaner's daughter's sighting; etc. However, the more I read the statements the more I wonder why there are so many discrepancies from as soon as the group arrived in Luz.

Can I just clarify - we know that the tennis ball photo was circulated by email on the 7 May at 12.29pm, by Pat Perkins, and it was published in The Mail on 10 May. Were any of the other Luz holiday photos i.e. the playground shots, released anywhere prior to the 'last photo' appearing?

by JRP 11.04.16 17:01

Roidininki wrote:
Verdi wrote:

Logic can be applied to most theories, providing the scenario is not beyond reasonable. Logic dictates that the last photograph could have been taken on the Saturday, Sunday or any other day of the week but evidence does not. Looking at all the information available, factual or otherwise, connected to proceedings on the Saturday, there is nothing to prove, indicate or even suggest that the last photograph could have been taken on that day - Saturday. Unless, with your powers of observation, you can spot something everyone else has missed.
Verdi, I'll go along with you on that .

Point 1 Agreed, and apologies to Roidininki for misinterpreting what you meant.
Point 2 But a long time lurker

Point 3 Yes logic says that the last photo could have been taken on any day of the holiday. Weather conditions I believe say either Saturday or Sunday.
Verdi, what I observe is a very odd photograph, which took 3 weeks to appear.
On another thread I made a post about the dates in EXIF files being easy to change, a post you liked and also commented on as being correct.
However, in Richard Hall's last film, he suggests that the delay could have been that expert help was required, although he also mentions it being an easy task.

by kaz 11.04.16 17:12

skyrocket wrote:The current discussion on the Alex Woolfall thread re: the 'last photo', had me thinking. Bear with me as I work through to the point:

1.In Jane Tanner's 10 May 2007 statement she says the following:

'As for the Payne and McCann couples, they journeyed by plane from East Midlands to Faro, having arrived around 11h00. They took a taxi from Faro to Luz arriving at 12h00 also on the 28 May [sic]'. (note: Tanner obviously meant '28 April' here).

Tanner does not retract this in her rogatory a year later.

2. On 'Guest List 2' in the PJ Files [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_lla_Page_335.jpg it states at the bottom of the Payne/McCann entry that 'the Payne and Mccann family will arrive in resort at midday on Saturday.'

3. In the airport video on the bus Gerry Mccann can be seen to be wearing a light grey/tan T shirt with a small white strip around the edge of the sleeve and the neck.

4. As discussed somewhere here on a thread before, in the 'last photo' GM appears to be wearing the same T shirt.

5. In the thread 'Weather in Praia da Luz' posted by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the first post lists the weather for each day. On Saturday the lunchtime temp rose to 22C.

6. We are told by Kate McCann that both her and MBM ventured into the swimming pool on arrival at the resort.

7. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] commented that Jane Tanner was surprisingly garbled when describing Ella and the creche on Sunday.

8. The T7 statements are also garbled about the outward journey in places - child car seats; etc.

9. Don't forget that Easter 2007 was one of the hottest on record and skin could have got a bit tanned during the hol in Donegal, prior to the hol in Luz.

What if the Mcs were in the resort by midday on the Saturday? What if MBM changed into her new smock to go down to the pool? What if GM threw his shorts on to get a bit of sun (same T shirt). What if the 'last photo' was taken? What if MBM then put a pair of long trousers on because she was cold from the swim (playground photos)?

Any thoughts?

Apologies for the lack/poor links - I'm on a primitive tablet at the moment.

Perhaps a study of Madeleine's hair would help in this respect. In the 'Last Photo' ( the pool shot ) she has elastic bands in her hair whilst for the playground pictures and the airport picture she doesn't. To me this rules out Saturday for the 'Final Picture' because once they're in , those elastic bands are hell to get out and I can't see KMC bothering to tell the truth. It's a shame there are no later pictures ( apart from the tennis balls one where her hair is covered ) so we could track them , so to speak.

by kaz 11.04.16 17:32

It's just occurred to me that the pool photo is a 'special' one. The bands in the hair, the pretty clothes is the sort of effort you make at the beginning of the holiday not the end. Especially a Sunday. The intention was obviously there to take some really nice pictures of the holiday but somehow that intention wasn't followed through. I think we can have a pretty good guess why.
The one thing that puzzles me is, yes, I can understand why the date would be changed but why change the time ? Gerry remembers the time of the photo specifically so what's so special about it? To me the time of 2.29 jars badly with the twins' arrival at the crèche.....................barely 6 minutes from pool to being signed into the crèche. Is it possible that whoever altered the date of the photograph believed that Portugal was one hour ahead of the UK and changed that as well resulting in being too clever by half?

by whodunit 11.04.16 18:01

Someone has probably already pointed this out numerous times so forgive me if this is rehashing old news, but there is one solid clue that the 'last photo' was taken at the beginning of the holiday rather than the end. Whether it was Saturday or Sunday hardly matters.

Can you spot the difference?

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

by tinkier 11.04.16 18:57

Yes, GM is very tanned in the second photo compared to the first, this has been mentioned many times.

by whodunit 11.04.16 19:11

For our own purposes, the tans absolutely contradict the claims they were making about the timing of the photo and the data they provided to the authorities, without the authorities having the opportunity to examine it first. They had the means and especially the opportunity to tamper with the exif data. The motive is suggested by the fact of the tampering itself.

by Liz Eagles 11.04.16 19:26

I don't comment often on photograph threads due to the fact I know nothing about photography.

I think a photograph taken at night with flash photography and a photograph taken in full sunlight can show a marked difference in the appearance of a person's complexion. Sitting in glaring sunlight can make even a tanned person look much paler when compared to a photograph taken with flashlight in the evening.

I think the comparison made to prove a point that GM had a tan so the last photo couldn't have been taken on the Thursday is in this respect heavily flawed. For those with fair skin (I'm in this category) I'm always happy to see holiday photos taken at night where at least I know what I'd look like if I had a real tan. It's not a tan, it's lighting.

Just my opinion.

by NickE 11.04.16 19:37

"[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]´s" findings about "the last photo" is very interesting.

Canada12 wrote (Snipped) wrote:Here they are side by side. The similarities in Madeleine's face are closer than any other photo I've seen of Madeleine.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Once I discovered this photo, I had a look at the top Madeleine was wearing. As you can see, it's a full top with a high neckline.

I then had a close look at the neck area in the LP that is in the shadows. I noticed that there is a very faint pattern in the shadowed area. I thought at first that it was artifacts from the digital reproduction. Then I thought it might have been the reflection of the sun going through her sunhat. Then I enhanced the colours and had a closer look.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Once I'd seen the extent of the pattern, I realized it was a regular repeating pattern, not a random one. I enhanced it further.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I then had another look at the blouse Madeleine's wearing in the other photo, and took a swatch of that blouse and superimposed it on the closeup of the enhanced LP.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Note that the pattern matches exactly.

Still not convinced? Here's the swatch with the colours deepened and enhanced.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
My conclusion? Madeleine's head was photoshopped onto the body in the LP. You can cover the edges with wisps of hair. You paint them in with a fine brush in Photoshop. You further conceal the edges with a hat. And you attempt to darken the joins in the neck area so that it looks like shadow.

Except that the pattern still remains and if you enhance it enough you can see the blouse from the source photo.

Very well done "Canada 12" and very interesting. thumbsup

by whodunit 11.04.16 20:26

aquila wrote:I don't comment often on photograph threads due to the fact I know nothing about photography.

I think a photograph taken at night with flash photography and a photograph taken in full sunlight can show a marked difference in the appearance of a person's complexion. Sitting in glaring sunlight can make even a tanned person look much paler when compared to a photograph taken with flashlight in the evening.

I think the comparison made to prove a point that GM had a tan so the last photo couldn't have been taken on the Thursday is in this respect heavily flawed. For those with fair skin (I'm in this category) I'm always happy to see holiday photos taken at night where at least I know what I'd look like if I had a real tan. It's not a tan, it's lighting.

Just my opinion.

I'm also very pale so I know what you mean. But on the other hand, even in sunlight a few days tanning is quite obvious on Gerry's arms and legs whereas his arms and legs in the 'last photo' are very pale.

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

[these fidiots and their jaunty holiday attitudes, I SWEAR.]

Even Amelie shows up as much more tan than the 'last photo'.

by JRP 11.04.16 20:28

NickE wrote:"[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]´s" findings about "the last photo" is very interesting.

Canada12 wrote (Snipped) wrote:Here they are side by side. The similarities in Madeleine's face are closer than any other photo I've seen of Madeleine.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Once I discovered this photo, I had a look at the top Madeleine was wearing. As you can see, it's a full top with a high neckline.

I then had a close look at the neck area in the LP that is in the shadows. I noticed that there is a very faint pattern in the shadowed area. I thought at first that it was artifacts from the digital reproduction. Then I thought it might have been the reflection of the sun going through her sunhat. Then I enhanced the colours and had a closer look.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Once I'd seen the extent of the pattern, I realized it was a regular repeating pattern, not a random one. I enhanced it further.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I then had another look at the blouse Madeleine's wearing in the other photo, and took a swatch of that blouse and superimposed it on the closeup of the enhanced LP.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Note that the pattern matches exactly.

Still not convinced? Here's the swatch with the colours deepened and enhanced.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
My conclusion? Madeleine's head was photoshopped onto the body in the LP. You can cover the edges with wisps of hair. You paint them in with a fine brush in Photoshop. You further conceal the edges with a hat. And you attempt to darken the joins in the neck area so that it looks like shadow.

Except that the pattern still remains and if you enhance it enough you can see the blouse from the source photo.

Very well done "Canada 12" and very interesting.

So now there's an answer to why this image looks so odd... and with that one in the bag shall we grab some tennis balls?
The same black shading of the hair also appears on the blue eye shadow photo.

by Guest 11.04.16 20:34

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

Point 1 Agreed, and apologies to Roidininki for misinterpreting what you meant.

Thank you from me!

Point 2 But a long time lurker

Yes, I gathered.

Point 3 Yes logic says that the last photo could have been taken on any day of the holiday. Weather conditions I believe say either Saturday or Sunday.

Agreed but archived reports are not necessarily a true depiction of a specific location - as has been stated on many an occasion. For example, a recorded ambient temperature could be, say, 25C which sounds glorious but if there's a freezing north westerly blowing would you strip off for a swim?

Verdi, what I observe is a very odd photograph, which took 3 weeks to appear.

Quite so.

On another thread I made a post about the dates in EXIF files being easy to change, a post you liked and also commented on as being correct.
However, in Richard Hall's last film, he suggests that the delay could have been that expert help was required, although he also mentions it being an easy task.

Easy yes but it doesn't follow that every tom dick and harry has the know how. It's worthy considering the fact that Gerry McCann's sister Philomena and her other half, who just happens to be an expert in such matters, flew out to PdL soon after Madeleine's disappearance and lest we forget - Gerald's trip back to the UK the third week in May to attend to matters of business. Returning with excess baggage in the form of a Clarence Mitchell.

by JRP 11.04.16 20:52

I mainly agree Verdi, it's almost impossible to tie a photo to a certain time or day. Weather reports and logs don't always tell the full story of localised weather.
I also know about our mud artist photoshopper, and I found the post above by Canada12 to be revealing.
It really is an odd photo, I'm drawn back to it, simply because it's just not right.

by Guest 11.04.16 20:52

The primary reason for trying to determine which day the last photograph was taken is to work out the last time Madeleine was definitely seen alive. I doubt anyone but the most fanciful would argue that she (or a substitute if that's your theory) never arrived at the Ocean Club because she was never on the outward flight or something tragic happened en-route.

The time of arrival at the Ocean Club on Saturday 28th is not crucial, it's a fact they arrived early to mid-afternoon. Normally, package deal arrivals and departures are timed according to change-over scheduling; in this case the timing would appear to be midday but this does not mean that departures leave the hotel/complex at midday and arrivals book in at midday. It's an administrative procedure not an accurate timetable of when guests leave and arrive.

According to available information, there is no indication whatsoever to suggest that Madeleine was not alive and well on Saturday 28th - she certainly looked full of beans in the playground photographs. The consensus of opinion is that the cleaner's daughter is a bona-fide witness who claims to have seen the parents, Madeleine and the twins at lunchtime on Sunday 29th. Why complicate matters further?

ETA: By example, an hotel or holiday complex such as the Ocean Club will ask guests to vacate their room/s by midday on the day of departure. This allows time for the room/s to be cleaned in preparation for new arrivals. New arrivals might be landing at Faro airport around 3:00pm, so it will be some time before they arrive at the accommodation. Departures might be due to board the aircraft that delivered the arrivals so their flight will be some time after 3:00pm. This makes no difference to the required time for vacating the rooms.

by JohnyT 11.04.16 21:32

whodunit wrote:Someone has probably already pointed this out numerous times so forgive me if this is rehashing old news, but there is one solid clue that the 'last photo' was taken at the beginning of the holiday rather than the end. Whether it was Saturday or Sunday hardly matters.

Can you spot the difference?

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

Second photo is underexposed (look at G's hair) enhancing the tan more IMHO
JohnyT

by Tennison 11.04.16 22:05

NickE wrote:"[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]´s" findings about "the last photo" is very interesting.

Canada12 wrote (Snipped) wrote:Here they are side by side. The similarities in Madeleine's face are closer than any other photo I've seen of Madeleine.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Once I discovered this photo, I had a look at the top Madeleine was wearing. As you can see, it's a full top with a high neckline.

I then had a close look at the neck area in the LP that is in the shadows. I noticed that there is a very faint pattern in the shadowed area. I thought at first that it was artifacts from the digital reproduction. Then I thought it might have been the reflection of the sun going through her sunhat. Then I enhanced the colours and had a closer look.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Once I'd seen the extent of the pattern, I realized it was a regular repeating pattern, not a random one. I enhanced it further.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I then had another look at the blouse Madeleine's wearing in the other photo, and took a swatch of that blouse and superimposed it on the closeup of the enhanced LP.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Note that the pattern matches exactly.

Still not convinced? Here's the swatch with the colours deepened and enhanced.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
My conclusion? Madeleine's head was photoshopped onto the body in the LP. You can cover the edges with wisps of hair. You paint them in with a fine brush in Photoshop. You further conceal the edges with a hat. And you attempt to darken the joins in the neck area so that it looks like shadow.

Except that the pattern still remains and if you enhance it enough you can see the blouse from the source photo.

Very well done "Canada 12" and very interesting.

Very interesting research Canada12. I wonder what this means though for the two experts who claimed the LP was genuine?

by Guest 11.04.16 22:05

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

Point 1 Agreed, and apologies to Roidininki for misinterpreting what you meant.

Thank you from me!

Point 2 But a long time lurker

Yes, I gathered.

Point 3 Yes logic says that the last photo could have been taken on any day of the holiday. Weather conditions I believe say either Saturday or Sunday.

Agreed but archived reports are not necessarily a true depiction of a specific location - as has been stated on many an occasion. For example, a recorded ambient temperature could be, say, 25C which sounds glorious but if there's a freezing north westerly blowing would you strip off for a swim?

Verdi, what I observe is a very odd photograph, which took 3 weeks to appear.

Quite so.

On another thread I made a post about the dates in EXIF files being easy to change, a post you liked and also commented on as being correct.
However, in Richard Hall's last film, he suggests that the delay could have been that expert help was required, although he also mentions it being an easy task.

Easy yes but it doesn't follow that every tom dick and harry has the know how. It's worthy considering the fact that Gerry McCann's sister Philomena and her other half, who just happens to be an expert in such matters, flew out to PdL soon after Madeleine's disappearance and lest we forget - Gerald's trip back to the UK the third week in May to attend to matters of business. Returning with excess baggage in the form of a Clarence Mitchell.

I mainly agree Verdi, it's almost impossible to tie a photo to a certain time or day. Weather reports and logs don't always tell the full story of localised weather.
I also know about our mud artist photoshopper, and I found the post above by Canada12 to be revealing.
It really is an odd photo, I'm drawn back to it, simply because it's just not right.

I mentioned earlier about past discussion on this subject which one would hope would expel any reservations some have about the authenticity of the last photograph - apparently not! There are so many threads relative to photographs, for the second time I've overlooked the screamingly obvious. It is the introductory post to this thread by PeterMac..

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

As a long time lurker, you may or may not have already read this (or perhaps forgotten) which I believe covers just about every angle.

Also, forum member [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has produced some very interesting videos (up thread I believe) to prove this particular photograph content is not fake. The date and time the photograph was taken is of course another issue altogether.

by Tennison 11.04.16 22:08

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

Point 1 Agreed, and apologies to Roidininki for misinterpreting what you meant.

Thank you from me!

Point 2 But a long time lurker

Yes, I gathered.

Point 3 Yes logic says that the last photo could have been taken on any day of the holiday. Weather conditions I believe say either Saturday or Sunday.

Agreed but archived reports are not necessarily a true depiction of a specific location - as has been stated on many an occasion. For example, a recorded ambient temperature could be, say, 25C which sounds glorious but if there's a freezing north westerly blowing would you strip off for a swim?

Verdi, what I observe is a very odd photograph, which took 3 weeks to appear.

Quite so.

On another thread I made a post about the dates in EXIF files being easy to change, a post you liked and also commented on as being correct.
However, in Richard Hall's last film, he suggests that the delay could have been that expert help was required, although he also mentions it being an easy task.

Easy yes but it doesn't follow that every tom dick and harry has the know how. It's worthy considering the fact that Gerry McCann's sister Philomena and her other half, who just happens to be an expert in such matters, flew out to PdL soon after Madeleine's disappearance and lest we forget - Gerald's trip back to the UK the third week in May to attend to matters of business. Returning with excess baggage in the form of a Clarence Mitchell.

I mainly agree Verdi, it's almost impossible to tie a photo to a certain time or day. Weather reports and logs don't always tell the full story of localised weather.
I also know about our mud artist photoshopper, and I found the post above by Canada12 to be revealing.
It really is an odd photo, I'm drawn back to it, simply because it's just not right.
I mentioned earlier about past discussion on this subject which one would hope would expel any reservations some have about the authenticity of the last photograph - apparently not! There are so many threads relative to photographs, for the second time I've overlooked the screamingly obvious. It is the introductory post to this thread by PeterMac..

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

As a long time lurker, you may or may not have already read this (or perhaps forgotten) which I believe covers just about every angle.

Also, forum member [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has produced some very interesting videos (up thread I believe) to prove this particular photograph content is not fake. The date and time the photograph was taken is of course another issue altogether.

How do you explain Canada12's post though showing the pattern on M's neck showing the same pattern as on her other top?

by Guest 11.04.16 22:23

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: How do you explain Canada12's post though showing the pattern on M's neck showing the same pattern as on her other top?

I don't - nor do I intend to contemplate the notion. Frankly, no disrespect to canada12, I've seen so many highfalutin theories about this photograph and a few others, unless someone can produce a convincing argument that any one photograph is fake, to coin a phrase - 'I'm not going to comment on that.'

by **Tony Bennett** 11.04.16 22:33

NickE wrote:"[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]´s" findings about "the last photo" is very interesting.

Canada12 wrote (Snipped) wrote:Here they are side by side. The similarities in Madeleine's face are closer than any other photo I've seen of Madeleine.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Once I discovered this photo, I had a look at the top Madeleine was wearing. As you can see, it's a full top with a high neckline.

I then had a close look at the neck area in the LP that is in the shadows. I noticed that there is a very faint pattern in the shadowed area. I thought at first that it was artifacts from the digital reproduction. Then I thought it might have been the reflection of the sun going through her sunhat. Then I enhanced the colours and had a closer look.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Once I'd seen the extent of the pattern, I realized it was a regular repeating pattern, not a random one. I enhanced it further.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I then had another look at the blouse Madeleine's wearing in the other photo, and took a swatch of that blouse and superimposed it on the closeup of the enhanced LP.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Note that the pattern matches exactly.

Still not convinced? Here's the swatch with the colours deepened and enhanced.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
My conclusion? Madeleine's head was photoshopped onto the body in the LP. You can cover the edges with wisps of hair. You paint them in with a fine brush in Photoshop. You further conceal the edges with a hat. And you attempt to darken the joins in the neck area so that it looks like shadow.

@ canada12 and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I cannot possibly go along with the claims that the above photo on the left (Madeleine with her hands in front of her clutching something) - I will call that 'Photo A' - has been photoshopped onto the Last Photo - and in fact I think it's thoroughly misleading to suggest so.

However, I do think that NickE makes a valid point in relation to similarities between the Last Photo and the 'Eyeshadow Photo'.

These are my reasons.

In relation to canada12's claims, they must I suggest be rejected for all the following reasons:

1. Photo A has not been taken in any direct sunlight. Either it's been taken in cloudy weather or inside.

2. Contrary to canada12's claims, it would be utterly impossible to photoshop direct sunlight and a very strong shadow on to Photo A

3. Besides that Madeleine's face is partly obscured by a hand on Photo A

4. In addition, though the shape of her face and pose are very similar to each other on the two photos, they are clearly NOT the same shape and pose if you take a close look

5. Madeleine is clearly wearing different attire on the two photos - it's more like a shawl on Photo A

6. The pattern that canada12 claims to have found repeated on the Last Photo, form Photo A, appears not only on a sliver of her neck but also on the bottom left side of her face. This strongly suggests to me that what we are seeing is what a number of photo experts quoted on this forum have described as a 'compression artifact'

7. To claim that Madeleine's face has been photoshopped on to the Last Photo would involve a photoshopper having to accomplish ALL of the following:
(a) alter the shape of Madeleine's face
(b) convincingly photoshop out Madeleine's right hand, which is hiding part of the right side of her face
(c) completely re-arrange the way her hair is falling - the way the strands are falling is quite different on the two photos
(d) in addition make some of her fall on the skin of her left arm
(e) add direct sunlight on part of her face
(f) add shadows to her face
(g) add her white hat
(h) in addition to that, completely fake the shadows so that they fall exactly in line with the hat she is wearing and the two main strands of hair that fall on the right side of her face
(i) and on top of that, fake the shadows on Gerry McCann, Amelie and all the other shadows in the photo so accurately that they all exactly match the very high position of the sun at the moment the Last Photo was taken, and finally
(j) this truly staggering amount of impossible photoshopping has been carried out so brilliantly that it has deceived two leading world photographic experts who could see no sign whatsoever of photoshopping and one of who said specifically that the shadows all completely matched each other- something in itself that is impossible to fake.

I am sorry to see such a poor argument brought here on the Last Photo - which revives all the ghastly photoshopping nonsense we've endured in the past on this forum and when I think we must regard the issue of whether the Last Photo was photoshopped or not as thoroughly disproved.

As for NickE's ideas on the Last Photo and the Eye Shadow Photo being taken on the very same day, I tend to agree - but for a wholly different reason.

My working hypothesis is that all the following photos were taken on the same day:
A. Last Photo
B. Eyeshadow Photo, and
C. Photo of Madeleine on the floor by floorboards looking upwards to camera.

My reason is that each of these three photos contains a very useful common feature.

Perhaps someone could very kindly put up all three photos side by side and that will enable members and guests here to work out what that common feature is.

I'll wait and see who gets there first...

by canada12 11.04.16 22:36

Just a point of clarification. I never stated that that exact flowered top photo was the one used in the LP.

What I stated (on the other forum) was that I believed several photos were taken in that particular session, and one of those photos from that session, where she is wearing the flowered top, was used to create the face in the LP. Not that exact photo. But a different photo that has a clear image of Madeleine's face looking to the left.

by canada12 11.04.16 22:41

Tennison wrote:
NickE wrote:"[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]´s" findings about "the last photo" is very interesting.

Canada12 wrote (Snipped) wrote:Here they are side by side. The similarities in Madeleine's face are closer than any other photo I've seen of Madeleine.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Once I discovered this photo, I had a look at the top Madeleine was wearing. As you can see, it's a full top with a high neckline.

I then had a close look at the neck area in the LP that is in the shadows. I noticed that there is a very faint pattern in the shadowed area. I thought at first that it was artifacts from the digital reproduction. Then I thought it might have been the reflection of the sun going through her sunhat. Then I enhanced the colours and had a closer look.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Once I'd seen the extent of the pattern, I realized it was a regular repeating pattern, not a random one. I enhanced it further.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I then had another look at the blouse Madeleine's wearing in the other photo, and took a swatch of that blouse and superimposed it on the closeup of the enhanced LP.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Note that the pattern matches exactly.

Still not convinced? Here's the swatch with the colours deepened and enhanced.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
My conclusion? Madeleine's head was photoshopped onto the body in the LP. You can cover the edges with wisps of hair. You paint them in with a fine brush in Photoshop. You further conceal the edges with a hat. And you attempt to darken the joins in the neck area so that it looks like shadow.

Except that the pattern still remains and if you enhance it enough you can see the blouse from the source photo.

Very well done "Canada 12" and very interesting.
Very interesting research Canada12. I wonder what this means though for the two experts who claimed the LP was genuine?

They never looked at the pattern in the shadows?

by **Jill Havern** 11.04.16 22:48

Tony Bennett wrote:
NickE wrote:"[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]´s" findings about "the last photo" is very interesting.

Canada12 wrote (Snipped) wrote:Here they are side by side. The similarities in Madeleine's face are closer than any other photo I've seen of Madeleine.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Once I discovered this photo, I had a look at the top Madeleine was wearing. As you can see, it's a full top with a high neckline.

I then had a close look at the neck area in the LP that is in the shadows. I noticed that there is a very faint pattern in the shadowed area. I thought at first that it was artifacts from the digital reproduction. Then I thought it might have been the reflection of the sun going through her sunhat. Then I enhanced the colours and had a closer look.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Once I'd seen the extent of the pattern, I realized it was a regular repeating pattern, not a random one. I enhanced it further.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I then had another look at the blouse Madeleine's wearing in the other photo, and took a swatch of that blouse and superimposed it on the closeup of the enhanced LP.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Note that the pattern matches exactly.

Still not convinced? Here's the swatch with the colours deepened and enhanced.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
My conclusion? Madeleine's head was photoshopped onto the body in the LP. You can cover the edges with wisps of hair. You paint them in with a fine brush in Photoshop. You further conceal the edges with a hat. And you attempt to darken the joins in the neck area so that it looks like shadow.
@ canada12 and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I cannot possibly go along with the claims that the above photo on the left (Madeleine with her hands in front of her clutching something) - I will call that 'Photo A' - has been photoshopped onto the Last Photo - and in fact I think it's thoroughly misleading to suggest so.

However, I do think that NickE makes a valid point in relation to similarities between the Last Photo and the 'Eyeshadow Photo'.

These are my reasons.

In relation to canada12's claims, they must I suggest be rejected for all the following reasons:

1. Photo A has not been taken in any direct sunlight. Either it's been taken in cloudy weather or inside.

2. Contrary to canada12's claims, it would be utterly impossible to photoshop direct sunlight and a very strong shadow on to Photo A

3. Besides that Madeleine's face is partly obscured by a hand on Photo A

4. In addition, though the shape of her face and pose are very similar to each other on the two photos, they are clearly NOT the same shape and pose if you take a close look

5. Madeleine is clearly wearing different attire on the two photos - it's more like a shawl on Photo A

6. The pattern that canada12 claims to have found repeated on the Last Photo, form Photo A, appears not only on a sliver of her neck but also on the bottom left side of her face. This strongly suggests to me that what we are seeing is what a number of photo experts quoted on this forum have described as a 'compression artifact'

7. To claim that Madeleine's face has been photoshopped on to the Last Photo would involve a photoshopper having to accomplish ALL of the following:
(a) alter the shape of Madeleine's face
(b) convincingly photoshop out Madeleine's right hand, which is hiding part of the right side of her face
(c) completely re-arrange the way her hair is falling - the way the strands are falling is quite different on the two photos
(d) in addition make some of her fall on the skin of her left arm
(e) add direct sunlight on part of her face
(f) add shadows to her face
(g) add her white hat
(h) in addition to that, completely fake the shadows so that they fall exactly in line with the hat she is wearing and the two main strands of hair that fall on the right side of her face
(i) and on top of that, fake the shadows on Gerry McCann, Amelie and all the other shadows in the photo so accurately that they all exactly match the very high position of the sun at the moment the Last Photo was taken, and finally
(j) this truly staggering amount of impossible photoshopping has been carried out so brilliantly that it has deceived two leading world photographic experts who could see no sign whatsoever of photoshopping and one of who said specifically that the shadows all completely matched each other- something in itself that is impossible to fake.

I am sorry to see such a poor argument brought here on the Last Photo - which revives all the ghastly photoshopping nonsense we've endured in the past on this forum and when I think we must regard the issue of whether the Last Photo was photoshopped or not as thoroughly disproved.

As for NickE's ideas on the Last Photo and the Eye Shadow Photo being taken on the very same day, I tend to agree - but for a wholly different reason.

My working hypothesis is that all the following photos were taken on the same day:
A. Last Photo
B. Eyeshadow Photo, and
C. Photo of Madeleine on the floor by floorboards looking upwards to camera.

My reason is that each of these three photos contains a very useful common feature.

Perhaps someone could very kindly put up all three photos side by side and that will enable members and guests here to work out what that common feature is.

I'll wait and see who gets there first...