Re: Another look at the Last photo

by **Tony Bennett** 12.04.16 11:43

JRP wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
JRP wrote:
POST 1: Three images have a hair bead or some decoration. The blue object is a plastic chair. The blue eye shadow photo is photoshopped, the hair near the ears on both sides is painted black. It has also caused a cut in her neck. I think they were taken on the same day, but the 'last picture' is possibly the first of the set.

POST 2: I'm not too hot on hair beads to be honest, but I gather that once in they're hard to remove, so yes, it's beyond coincidence to think it's not the same day. The make up photo is taken in daylight, as there are no catchlights in her eyes from a flash. But it's not harsh sunlight like the one at the poolside, so my guess is that this is early evening. So the Last Photo probably isn't the last photo.
@ JRP Thank you very much for your input here. It is appreciated.

I have a few comments and questions please on the bits I've bolded above.

On the subject of the 'Make-Up Photo', are you aware that following its publication on Jon Corner's video... (a) the McCanns put out a statement that the make-up was 'the result of Madeleine finding and playing with Mummy's make-up box' and (b) there was a considerable amount of controversy about it. Even some mainstream commentators put pen to paper to express disagreement with its publication, saying e.g. that it was 'inappropriate' to publish it.

We have always thought until now that an adult must have applied the make-up, put the necklace on Madeleine, and put the hair bead in etc. How sure can you be that the make-up has been photoshopped rather than actually present around Madeleine's eyes?

Finally, do you have any comment on this suggestion:

'Last Photo' taken lunchtime (around 1.30pm to 2.30pm) in bright sunlight...

...then all these three being taken at some kind of photo shot later the same day: (a) Madeleine with hand in front of her face (the one that canada12 produced and analysed), (b) Make-Up Photo, (c) Ice Cream Photo.

Thanks

The wall behind Madeleine appears to be reasonably sharp, as does her hair. If the camera focused on her face, then why does that not show as much detail as in her hair which is almost on the same plane.
The skin is smooth, probably done with a blur or smudge tool in Photoshop. Then the skin is almost one colour, a flat pancake, possible light almost translucent paint.
The blue eyeshadow is again all one flat colour, if it was real there would be light and shade. Also, the eyeshadow blue covers eyelashes. All of this leads me to believe this is a digital makeover and not something from mummy's box.
The hair on both sides near both ears has been darkened, I think with a burning tool found in photoshop or a simple black spray.
It looks like this has strayed into her neck, but I can't say for sure. But there is a notch which may need some other explanation.

I would say that the Blue Eye Shadow, the Ice Cream Photo were taken on the same day somewhere in Luz. I would think they are part of a photo set/shoot but thats just my own opinion. I hadn't seen the one Canada12 used before so I will reserve judgement for now.

As for the Last Photo. Canada12 's suggestion is interesting. But the difficulty and complexity of making a face from another shoot fit a body sat poolside is a huge ask. There's more to it than just a simple face exchange IMO.

Thank you so much for that very full answer.

Whilst I have absolutely no pretensions at being knowledgeable about digital photos and photoshopping, your analysis seems to harmonise with what our own eyes and common sense tell us about these photos.

by JRP 12.04.16 12:30

The "Last Photograph" has been verified as a genuine, yet it looks odd. I think I question it because it looks... I can't think of a word. Contrived maybe?

Every time I see that photograph I see oddness.
1) The gap between the 2 sisters.
2) Madeleine laughs, looks in a different direction, while Gerry looks sombre
3) Madeleine looks a little large... maybe she's not? Is she?
4) I see Madeleine's face as separate to her body... maybe it's because her face is lighter than her chest. Maybe somebody over lightened her face?

If you had 3 kids would you only take a photo of 2 with Dad... yes we are all different I guess.
I think this is one of those photos when you look at it so long you believe it must be real, it would be so difficult to reconstruct properly.
But then glance away and look back, and you see a head pasted on a body.

Amazing oddness. And it's not the only one either.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.04.16 13:16

JRP wrote:REPLY: Before replying to your specific points below, here is a little bit of background. You may be aware of some of it already - but no harm done if there is a bit of repetition.

Assuming for a moment that this 'Last Photo' was taken on the Sunday, we have two videos and three photographs taken the previous day which explain some of what we see on the Last Photo.

In a short 10-second video taken on an airport transit train/bus, we see, on the left of picture, the two twins comfortably being nestled either side of Kate McCann, with her arms around them each. On the far right, Gerry McCann sits moodily on his own in the corner, His friend calls out: 'Cheer up, Gerry, your're on 'oliday', to which Gerry appears to reply: 'F___ off, I'm not here to enjoy myself'. Maybe he is also brooding about something on this photo, as Gerry does look 'sombre' as you suggest.

Madeleine sits detached between them, not being held or cuddled, swinging her legs.

Gerry does however appear to be happier and more carefree playing with Madeleine on a photo taken at the Ocean Club on the Saturday afternoon.

The "Last Photograph" has been verified as a genuine, yet it looks odd. I think I question it because it looks...I can't think of a word. Contrived maybe?

Every time I see that photograph I see oddness.

1) The gap between the 2 sisters.

REPLY: It is not a large gap. Their legs are fairly close to each other's

2) Madeleine laughs, looks in a different direction, while Gerry looks sombre

REPLY: Madeleine has her feet dangling down into the pool. She sees something funny to her left. What you see, then, is exactly what one would expect in such a situation. She can't turn her legs or trunk. But she can turn her head

3) Madeleine looks a little large... maybe she's not? Is she?

REPLY: She doesn't look 'large' to me. She was of average height so far as we know for sure. She was 9 days short of being 4. Her twin brother and sister were only 2 years, 2 months

4) I see Madeleine's face as separate to her body...maybe it's because her face is lighter than her chest. Maybe somebody over lightened her face?

REPLY: I really can't see this. Her face is of course completely in the shade of her hat. The most serious objection to any claim that there is any photoshopping of Madeleine (or of anyone else) is the perfect alignment of the shadows on madeleine with all the other shadows in the picture. This was I think the main thing that convinced the two experts who were consulted that the picture was not photoshopped

If you had 3 kids would you only take a photo of 2 with Dad... yes we are all different I guess.

REPLY: There are all sorts of reasons why Sean might not have been in that photo. He might have wanted to be with Mummy. He might have been playing with someone, He might not have wanted to have his photo taken just at that time. I suggest it is not profitable to speculate on that, because there are a host of entirely plausible reasons why he was not in shot. Much more profitable I suggest is why we have two videos of the children taken on Saturday, plus three playground photos on the Saturday, the Last Photo...and then (unless you count the dubious tennis balls photo) nothing else.

I think this is one of those photos when you look at it so long you believe it must be real, it would be so difficult to reconstruct properly. But then glance away and look back, and you see a head pasted on a body. Amazing oddness. And it's not the only one either.

REPLY: No, I don't see any oddness in the photo. There is more than a degree of corroboration for it from the detailed statement of the cleaner who saw Madeleine in a pink dress just like the one she was wearing, at lunchtime that very day

by kaz 12.04.16 13:22

A very long time ago I commented on the 'Last Photo' thread that it appeared to be a 'catalogue' picture.
I wasn't sure what I meant by it at the time of writing but that was certainly my initial reaction to it. I think I'm beginning to see now what my unconscious mind was telling me. I feel sick!

by JRP 12.04.16 15:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
JRP wrote:REPLY: Before replying to your specific points below, here is a little bit of background. You may be aware of some of it already - but no harm done if there is a bit of repetition.

Assuming for a moment that this 'Last Photo' was taken on the Sunday, we have two videos and three photographs taken the previous day which explain some of what we see on the Last Photo.

In a short 10-second video taken on an airport transit train/bus, we see, on the left of picture, the two twins comfortably being nestled either side of Kate McCann, with her arms around them each. On the far right, Gerry McCann sits moodily on his own in the corner, His friend calls out: 'Cheer up, Gerry, your're on 'oliday', to which Gerry appears to reply: 'F___ off, I'm not here to enjoy myself'. Maybe he is also brooding about something on this photo, as Gerry does look 'sombre' as you suggest.

Madeleine sits detached between them, not being held or cuddled, swinging her legs.

Gerry does however appear to be happier and more carefree playing with Madeleine on a photo taken at the Ocean Club on the Saturday afternoon.

The "Last Photograph" has been verified as a genuine, yet it looks odd. I think I question it because it looks...I can't think of a word. Contrived maybe?

Every time I see that photograph I see oddness.

1) The gap between the 2 sisters.

REPLY: It is not a large gap. Their legs are fairly close to each other's

2) Madeleine laughs, looks in a different direction, while Gerry looks sombre

REPLY: Madeleine has her feet dangling down into the pool. She sees something funny to her left. What you see, then, is exactly what one would expect in such a situation. She can't turn her legs or trunk. But she can turn her head

3) Madeleine looks a little large... maybe she's not? Is she?

REPLY: She doesn't look 'large' to me. She was of average height so far as we know for sure. She was 9 days short of being 4. Her twin brother and sister were only 2 years, 2 months

4) I see Madeleine's face as separate to her body...maybe it's because her face is lighter than her chest. Maybe somebody over lightened her face?

REPLY: I really can't see this. Her face is of course completely in the shade of her hat. The most serious objection to any claim that there is any photoshopping of Madeleine (or of anyone else) is the perfect alignment of the shadows on madeleine with all the other shadows in the picture. This was I think the main thing that convinced the two experts who were consulted that the picture was not photoshopped

If you had 3 kids would you only take a photo of 2 with Dad... yes we are all different I guess.

REPLY: There are all sorts of reasons why Sean might not have been in that photo. He might have wanted to be with Mummy. He might have been playing with someone, He might not have wanted to have his photo taken just at that time. I suggest it is not profitable to speculate on that, because there are a host of entirely plausible reasons why he was not in shot. Much more profitable I suggest is why we have two videos of the children taken on Saturday, plus three playground photos on the Saturday, the Last Photo...and then (unless you count the dubious tennis balls photo) nothing else.

I think this is one of those photos when you look at it so long you believe it must be real, it would be so difficult to reconstruct properly. But then glance away and look back, and you see a head pasted on a body. Amazing oddness. And it's not the only one either.

REPLY: No, I don't see any oddness in the photo. There is more than a degree of corroboration for it from the detailed statement of the cleaner who saw Madeleine in a pink dress just like the one she was wearing, at lunchtime that very day

Tony, I was aware of the video, I've seen it a few times.
I agree that the play area photos were taken on Saturday, everyone looks happy, especially Madeleine.

I'm also aware that the cleaner's daughter gave a statement about seeing all 5 members of the family on Sunday and described what Madeleine was wearing.
So from that description we know what Madeleine was wearing that day and we we can see that outfit here in the Last Photograph. Therefore as the cleaner wouldn't have seen this image, anywhere, I would say her statement must be true.

I said I saw a pasted face on a body, but I also said it's probably because someone has lightened her face, which seems lighter than her chest.
So let's be clear I do not think Madeleine's face has been pasted on to some other child's body. I do however think it looks odd because it's been lightened.

One of the most difficult parts of fitting a new face to another person's head is the hair on the face, getting that to look real would drive you nuts! The hair in Madeleine's fringe and forehead looks real.

One of the most difficult parts of fitting a whole head to another persons body is hair. Wisps of hair blow in the wind. You can see here, Madeleine has wispy hair around her. So I believe that this is Madeleine's whole body, face and head sat at a pool, at the Ocean Club on Sunday 29th April 2007 sometime between 1.30 pm and 2.30 pm.

So, we have a statement of what Madeleine was wearing, and we see her here, wearing that outfit.
Do we have a statement about what Gerry was wearing?

by canada12 12.04.16 15:39

Sorry to throw water on everyone's theories about how difficult it is to paste a new face onto a body as in the LP. But if you go online you can find any number of Photoshop tutorials explaining how to replicate wisps of hair with a fine paintbrush tool, how to lighten facial features to make it look as if a face is in sun, how to do pretty much anything, in fact. It's challenging, but it's not impossible, especially when you have 3 weeks to work on the composite.

by kaz 12.04.16 15:49

JRP wrote:

I'm also aware that the cleaner's daughter gave a statement about seeing all 5 members of the family on Sunday and described what Madeleine was wearing.
So from that description we know what Madeleine was wearing that day and we we can see that outfit here in the Last Photograph. Therefore as the cleaner wouldn't have seen this image, anywhere, I would say her statement must be true.

Not strictly true . Yes the cleaner gave a description of what Madeleine was wearing that day but it doesn't necessarily correspond to the 'last Photo' outfit. The cleaner noticed Madeleine wearing 'tennis shoes ' and a 'skirt' whereas in the photo by the pool she appears to be wearing a pink dress and the type of shoe is not shown. If , as some people think , there were several photographs taken of her on that same day with quick dress changes in between ( presumably ) is it possible that the tennis shoes and skirt are being worn on one of the other photographs taken at an earlier time to the so called 'last Photo' on that day?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.04.16 16:24

canada12 wrote:Sorry to throw water on everyone's theories about how difficult it is to paste a new face onto a body as in the LP. But if you go online you can find any number of Photoshop tutorials explaining how to replicate wisps of hair with a fine paintbrush tool, how to lighten facial features to make it look as if a face is in sun, how to do pretty much anything, in fact. It's challenging, but it's not impossible, especially when you have 3 weeks to work on the composite.

You have mentioned just two specific things that can be done with Photoshop = 1 'replicating wisps of hair' and 2 'lightening facial features'.

Of course I and others here will accept these things can be done.

But then you go on to make a giant 'leap of faith' and claim that 'pretty much anything' can be done.

You have not addressed at all the issue of how any photoshopper could possibly add consistent, detailed shadows which match each other throughout the photograph - and so much so as to thoroughly deceive two acknowledged experts - Prof Harry Farid and the manager of a digital photoshopp[ingh business. I will reproduce below the list of problems with your claim that Madeleine's head has been photoshopped on to the Last Photo from one or more other photos. You have not specifically addressed all the specific points which I've outlined in red.

We have good quality expert opinion i.e. good evidence that the Last Photo is not photoshopped.

We have the weather evidence that this was a genuine photo but taken on the Sunday.

We have all the evidence from the clothing worn on this very warm day (70F, 21C) that this was the day the Last Photo was taken.

More corroboration exists from Gerry wearing sunglasses and the sheen of perspiration on his forehead.

And given that we know that a date and time stamp can be relatively easily altered, what would be the point of going through an elaborate photoshopping procedure.

Besides that, and partly thanks to your finding this additional photo for us, we have another scenario to consider which apparently harmonises with the available evidence: namely that we now have no fewer than THREE separate photos, all of which are clearly posed photographs (unlike the very 'natural' Last Photo), and which could well all have been taken on the Sunday as well.

To sum up, you would need overwhelmingly persuasive evidence that the Last Photo was photoshopped to overcome the clear evidence of the two experts who used a range of forensic tests and who both found no evidence of photoshopping. And we have other photographic experts on here whop agree with them, like 'Knitted'.

In short, the burden of proof lies fairly and squarely on anyone who now wants to assert that the Last Photo is photoshopped. And that will require very convincing and actual evidence.

Here's my list once again (the references to Photo A re of course redundant now that you've said you think some other photo of Madeleine's head has been photoshopped on to the Last Photo):

++++++++++++++++++++++

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.

by canada12 12.04.16 16:52

Thank you Tony.
How do you explain the pattern in the shadows underneath Madeleine's neck?

by **Jill Havern** 12.04.16 17:02

canada12 wrote:Thank you Tony.
How do you explain the pattern in the shadows underneath Madeleine's neck?

I should add at this point that I have sent your post to PeterMac and said he might send it to Professor Farid as he found it "interesting".

He also said "BUT Occams razor says keep it simple. The background photo still has to be taken at midday on the Sunday.
Or much later - in May perhaps, but before 22nd"

by **Tony Bennett** 12.04.16 17:14

canada12 wrote:Thank you Tony.
How do you explain the pattern in the shadows underneath Madeleine's neck?

I am not an expert in digital photography, but I think if there is such an expert looking in on this thread, s/he would be explaining it as some kind of product of the enlargement of parts of a digital photograph - a kind of 'special effect' gained by repeated enlargement of the pixels.

Here is the photo again:

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

Now, I have given you my explanation to the best of my technical ability.

Could you please give us your explanation for why the identical pattern is also to be found...

1. Around the left side edge of Madeleine's face - where it the edge is shown against her neck

2. On Madeleine's lips

3, And even on her tongue.

And could you also please explain exactly how any photoshopping program known to you could possibly have arranged the sunlight and shadows on Madeleine to harmonise 100% perfectly with the shadows on Gerry McCann and Amelie?

Thanks

by Spacecowboy 12.04.16 17:43

kaz wrote:
JRP wrote:

I'm also aware that the cleaner's daughter gave a statement about seeing all 5 members of the family on Sunday and described what Madeleine was wearing.
So from that description we know what Madeleine was wearing that day and we we can see that outfit here in the Last Photograph. Therefore as the cleaner wouldn't have seen this image, anywhere, I would say her statement must be true.

Not strictly true . Yes the cleaner gave a description of what Madeleine was wearing that day but it doesn't necessarily correspond to the 'last Photo' outfit. The cleaner noticed Madeleine wearing 'tennis shoes ' and a 'skirt' whereas in the photo by the pool she appears to be wearing a pink dress and the type of shoe is not shown. If , as some people think , there were several photographs taken of her on that same day with quick dress changes in between ( presumably ) is it possible that the tennis shoes and skirt are being worn on one of the other photographs taken at an earlier time to the so called 'last Photo' on that day?

I'm not saying this is the reason why Fatima Maria Serafim da Silva thought Madeleine wore a skirt, but if Madeleine wore a jumper, zipped jacket or any top which covered half to 3 quarters of her dress then I understand why Fatima may have been mistaken. Madeleine was stood up and walking towards the stairs leading up to David Payne's apartment when Fatima saw her, so if Madeleine did wear a top which covered half to 3 quarters of her dress then Fatima would only have seen a quarter to a half of the bottom part of Madeleine's dress (unfortunately Fatima didn't say what Madeleine wore above her waist) which could be one reason why Fatima thought Madeleine wore a skirt.

A photo (from google images ) of someone stood up and wearing an unzipped jacket and a dress.

If I saw this woman walking down the street wearing a slightly longer zipped jacket and her dress on, then it would be difficult for me to ascertain whether she wore a skirt or a dress underneath her zipped jacket.

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

by **Hobs** 12.04.16 17:54

Tony Bennett wrote:
canada12 wrote:Thank you Tony.
How do you explain the pattern in the shadows underneath Madeleine's neck?

I am not an expert in digital photography, but I think if there is such an expert looking in on this thread, s/he would be explaining it as some kind of product of the enlargement of parts of a digital photograph - a kind of 'special effect' gained by repeated enlargement of the pixels.

Here is the photo again:

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

Now, I have given you my explanation to the best of my technical ability.

Could you please give us your explanation for why the identical pattern is also to be found...

1. Around the left side edge of Madeleine's face - where it the edge is shown against her neck

2. On Madeleine's lips

3, And even on her tongue.

And could you also please explain exactly how any photoshopping program known to you could possibly have arranged the sunlight and shadows on Madeleine to harmonise 100% perfectly with the shadows on Gerry McCann and Amelie?

Thanks

They look like artifacts.
This is caused by digital cameras compressing the image.
The better the quality of the camera the less 'noise' can be seen in an image.

It can be caused by the camera adjusting for light, just the way it compresses the image, noise or even dustor any number of other reasons.
When a picture is viewed normally, the artifacts can be invisible or barely noticeable.
The more you zoom in on the image the blockier the picture becomes and artifacts become more noticeable, in really bad cases and with a close enough zoom the picture just becomes blocks of color.

In the picture of Maddie shown, there are ample examples of artifacts on her face, and her neckline.
This is where the camera has tried to deal with the various light and shade contrasts and doing a not bad job in the original picture, only becoming more apparent in the zoomed in picture.

There is nothing nefarious about the unusual pattern/marks that are seen on the side of her face, mouth and neckline. it is just the result of compression of the image by the camera (especially low end point and shoot) and the camera trying to deal with strong light and shade.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 12.04.16 18:26

Hobs wrote:
They look like artifacts.

This is caused by digital cameras compressing the image. The better the quality of the camera the less 'noise' can be seen in an image.

It can be caused by the camera adjusting for light, just the way it compresses the image, noise or even dustor any number of other reasons. When a picture is viewed normally, the artifacts can be invisible or barely noticeable. The more you zoom in on the image the blockier the picture becomes and artifacts become more noticeable, in really bad cases and with a close enough zoom the picture just becomes blocks of color...

Thank you very much @ Hobs for this clear explanation of what has caused these enlarged images to look like they do.

I was going to suggest to canada12 that these were 'compression artifacts' but she (or someone else) might have come back and asked me what exactly they were and how they worked - and then I would have been stuck for an explanation.

To be honest, on the long original 'Last Photo' thread we had any number of digital photography experts gently pointing out to everyone that some curious little anomalies on the ':Last Photo' were exactly that - 'compression artifacts'.

Yet the diehard 'photoshoppers' would insist that 'there is a small white rectangle where there shouldn't be one' or 'I see a notch - what is that, it shouldn't be there', and so on and so forth.

I know canada12 thinks she is on to something, but, really, hours of effort and research on our various 'Last Photo' threads - and the valuable assistance of two acknowledged digital camera experts - have surely settled this issue for members and guests here, namely...

The Last Photo is NOT photoshopped...

by Doug D 12.04.16 20:13

Personally, I am pleased to see that Jill has sent canada12’s observations to PeterMac in order that he can forward it to his ‘no evidence of photoshopping’ experts.

Canada12 is clearly not suggesting that the left hand photo has been photoshopped onto the last photo, but that the pattern on the blouse MM is wearing in the left hand photo, which can be clearly seen without blowing the photo up, is not ‘compression artifacts’, yet the identical material pattern can be found in the neckline of the ‘last photo’, which we seem to be dismissing as just artifacts.

The pixel ‘identical pattern’ on face, lips and tongue is artifacts, but this is not the same pattern from the blouse canada12 is talking about.

When the experts originally looked at the last photo, they would not have had this photo to examine and compare the blouse to and it is certainly worth asking them to have another look.

If there were a few photos taken of MM in that blouse, there is absolutely no way that the Mc’s would have released one where MM was looking in the same direction as the last photo. They are not completely daft.

I think this was certainly worth bringing up canada12.

The high definition photo can be found here:

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

by JRP 12.04.16 20:21

canada12 wrote:Sorry to throw water on everyone's theories about how difficult it is to paste a new face onto a body as in the LP. But if you go online you can find any number of Photoshop tutorials explaining how to replicate wisps of hair with a fine paintbrush tool, how to lighten facial features to make it look as if a face is in sun, how to do pretty much anything, in fact. It's challenging, but it's not impossible, especially when you have 3 weeks to work on the composite.

I looked at your post, photos and evidence last night, and made some comments.
I've been a professional photographer for 31 years. I've swapped hundreds of heads, hundreds of faces usually because somebody in a group shot blinked.

Photoshopping a face on to another person, when the donor body has a different shaped face, different size of head etc is a nightmare, even if you have the old head and new head facing in the right direction.
Hair is a problem, it's noticeable if it's cut off, and painting in strands can look like painted strands. This is wispy thin childs hair, its thinner than the small brush in photoshop. Difficulty can vary because one image can be easier than another.

I think your point about the pattern is interesting.
However I think the body, head and face belong to Madeleine, that doesn't mean I think it's a genuine photo, I just think slightly different than you do.
I'd be very happy to be wrong.

by Guest 12.04.16 20:27

JRP wrote:The "Last Photograph" has been verified as a genuine, yet it looks odd. I think I question it because it looks... I can't think of a word. Contrived maybe?

Every time I see that photograph I see oddness.
1) The gap between the 2 sisters.
2) Madeleine laughs, looks in a different direction, while Gerry looks sombre
3) Madeleine looks a little large... maybe she's not? Is she?
4) I see Madeleine's face as separate to her body... maybe it's because her face is lighter than her chest. Maybe somebody over lightened her face?

If you had 3 kids would you only take a photo of 2 with Dad... yes we are all different I guess.
I think this is one of those photos when you look at it so long you believe it must be real, it would be so difficult to reconstruct properly.
But then glance away and look back, and you see a head pasted on a body.

Amazing oddness. And it's not the only one either.

Sorry to be brusque but you are talking absolute nonsense. I can only suggest before commenting further on this subject that you read back over the many threads and comments concerning the last photograph - have a thorough re-think and then come back with a tangible argument if you still consider the photograph to be fake. As a newcomer come long time lurker, perhaps you've missed something along the way.

All this ridiculous nonsense has been thrashed out before on many an occasion ending with the consensus of rational opiniates that the only anomaly with this so called last photograph is the date and time recorded. Why go the excruciating trouble of sticking false heads and limbs on people, shadow dancing, playing with nature to prove a situation when all you need do is adjust the timing.

Please please, if only for the reputation of the forum, try to be a little sensible. Question everything yes but it helps to keep within the bounderies of reality - don't you agree?

by JRP 12.04.16 20:36

I didn't say it was fake Verdi I said it looks odd. If you can find the word fake then please let me know.
I was pointing out why I think it's an odd photograph and my reasons why. If it brings the whole reputation of the forum crashing down then the moderators can remove it.

by Guest 12.04.16 20:42

Then I apologize! The way I read your post, every point you made suggested to me that you think the photograph could be fake.

I still think it might be helpful for you to read back and fully acquaint yourself with the subject matter.

by JRP 12.04.16 20:45

Verdi wrote:
JRP wrote:
Verdi wrote:
JRP wrote:The "Last Photograph" has been verified as a genuine, yet it looks odd. I think I question it because it looks... I can't think of a word. Contrived maybe?

Every time I see that photograph I see oddness.
1) The gap between the 2 sisters.
2) Madeleine laughs, looks in a different direction, while Gerry looks sombre
3) Madeleine looks a little large... maybe she's not? Is she?
4) I see Madeleine's face as separate to her body... maybe it's because her face is lighter than her chest. Maybe somebody over lightened her face?

If you had 3 kids would you only take a photo of 2 with Dad... yes we are all different I guess.
I think this is one of those photos when you look at it so long you believe it must be real, it would be so difficult to reconstruct properly.
But then glance away and look back, and you see a head pasted on a body.

Amazing oddness. And it's not the only one either.
Sorry to be brusque but you are talking absolute nonsense. I can only suggest before commenting further on this subject that you read back over the many threads and comments concerning the last photograph - have a thorough re-think and then come back with a tangible argument if you still consider the photograph to be fake. As a newcomer come long time lurker, perhaps you've missed something along the way.

All this ridiculous nonsense has been thrashed out before on many an occasion ending with the consensus of rational opiniates that the only anomaly with this so called last photograph is the date and time recorded. Why go the excruciating trouble of sticking false heads and limbs on people, shadow dancing, playing with nature to prove a situation when all you need do is adjust the timing.

Please please, if only for the reputation of the forum, try to be a little sensible. Question everything yes but it helps to keep within the bounderies of reality - don't you agree?

I didn't say it was fake Verdi I said it looks odd. If you can find the word fake then please let me know.
I was pointing out why I think it's an odd photograph and my reasons why. If it brings the whole reputation of the forum crashing down then the moderators can remove it.
Then I apologize! The way I read your post, every point you made suggested to me that you think the photograph could be fake.

I still think it might be helpful for you to read back and fully acquaint yourself with the subject matter.

I will do that.
I have also made a pretty good case for the photo being genuine today, so perhaps it's just the way I write :-)

[ The so-called 'Last Photo' is a piece of evidence in the case. It might prove to be very significant, even crucial. Let us bring the facts to this discussion, let us bring what we think is evidence, and let us sift what we think is good or not-so-good evidence in a spirit of mutual enquiry and helpfulness to each other. May the truth win out on this point and eventually on what really happened to Madeleine McCann. All points of view are welcome but let us focus please on actual evidence - Mod ]

by Guest 12.04.16 20:52

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: I will do that. I have also made a pretty good case for the photo being genuine today, so perhaps it's just the way I write

Then I guess you are either undecided or totally confused. I'm sure reading back will help you put things into perspective.

by Guest 12.04.16 21:00

JRP wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:

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

Pink strap on the suntop?
@ Get'emGoncalo      Thank you very much for your swift reproduction of these three photos.

Most unfortunately - and especially as this issue is of great importance - I misled you about the 'skirting board' photo - my fault.

The photo I had in mind was actually this one, which has generally been called 'The Ice Cream Photo':

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

Now, with the aid of the above photo, if that is put alongside the both the Last Photo and the Make-Up Photo, it might be easier to see what I am driving at.

No, it's not any pink strap in the suntop. It's something else that's common to all four photos.

P.S.   Let me also make this additional observation. Both the Make-Up Photo and the Ice Cream Photo have a bright blue object of identical colour in the background.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]                    ?

I know we've been this way before, maybe - maybe not. Who in their right mind would publish these atrocious images of their own child when connected with her disappearance?

I think we have to bear in mind that nobody disappeared, but yes they're very adult in style. I think the eye shadow is photoshopped, her skin has been smoothed and the hair near her ears is either painted black, or burned darker.
It's one harrowing image that's for sure.

Beg pardon - you jest? A little girl, on the eve of her fourth birthday, went on a weeks holiday with her parents and brother and sister, never to be seen or heard of again? Whatever the circumstances I call that disappearing.

by tinkier 12.04.16 21:22

JRP wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
JRP wrote:
Three images have a hair bead or some decoration.
Bingo!

Surely the very same pink hair bead is found on

A The Last Photo
B The Make Up Photo and
C The Ice Cream Photo.

That is surely beyond coincidence, and especially so when - so far as I can recall - I have never seen that same pink hair bead on any other image of Madeleine
I'm not too hot on hair beads to be honest, but I gather that once in they're hard to remove, so yes, it's beyond coincidence to think it's not the same day.
The make up photo is taken in daylight, as there are no catchlight's in her eyes from a flash. But it's not harsh sunlight like the one at the poolside, so my guess is that this is early evening.
So the last photo probably isn't the last photo.

Re the hair bead….it's called a hair bead clicker, a great fashion accessory at the time. https://thecolourchronicles.com/2015/11/24/regal-rose-hair-clickers/ if you enlarge the pool side photo you will see it's the same thing. There were reativley easy to remove.

by JRP 12.04.16 22:25

Verdi wrote:
JRP wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:

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

Pink strap on the suntop?
@ Get'emGoncalo      Thank you very much for your swift reproduction of these three photos.

Most unfortunately - and especially as this issue is of great importance - I misled you about the 'skirting board' photo - my fault.

The photo I had in mind was actually this one, which has generally been called 'The Ice Cream Photo':

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

Now, with the aid of the above photo, if that is put alongside the both the Last Photo and the Make-Up Photo, it might be easier to see what I am driving at.

No, it's not any pink strap in the suntop. It's something else that's common to all four photos.

P.S.   Let me also make this additional observation. Both the Make-Up Photo and the Ice Cream Photo have a bright blue object of identical colour in the background.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]                    ?

I know we've been this way before, maybe - maybe not. Who in their right mind would publish these atrocious images of their own child when connected with her disappearance?

I think we have to bear in mind that nobody disappeared, but yes they're very adult in style. I think the eye shadow is photoshopped, her skin has been smoothed and the hair near her ears is either painted black, or burned darker.
It's one harrowing image that's for sure.
Beg pardon - you jest? A little girl, on the eve of her fourth birthday, went on a weeks holiday with her parents and brother and sister, never to be seen or heard of again? Whatever the circumstances I call that disappearing.

I'd call it trying to make us believe she disappeared, as in, she has been abducted and nobody knows where she is, but that's not the case. They I believe released these photos on a commemorative video while knowing exactly what happened and where she is.

by kaz 13.04.16 9:13

tinkier wrote:
JRP wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
JRP wrote:
Three images have a hair bead or some decoration.
Re the hair bead….it's called a hair bead clicker, a great fashion accessory at the time. https://thecolourchronicles.com/2015/11/24/regal-rose-hair-clickers/ if you enlarge the pool side photo you will see it's the same thing. There were reativley easy to remove.

Sorry, looks like an elastic band wound round and round to me . I used to do the same thing for my girls AND they are HELLISHLY difficult to remove . I used to just snip them with the scissors so you only remove them when the hair is washed.

by pendragon2007 13.04.16 10:48

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

I have posted a composite of two photos of the Regal Rose Hair clipper (from the link provided above) next to Madeleine "Last Photo" clip. I hope this is helpful in deciding what the item is.

by tinkier 13.04.16 12:02

Thanks [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], if you enlarge the photo of Maddie above even more you will see it's not an elastic band. It's a child version of the one on the left. I have three daughters and one of them had exactly the same, she was around 11-12 it was the fashion at the time, lots of her friends had them too. I'm sure it was made of a type of plastic.

by pendragon2007 13.04.16 12:48

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

Hope these clips from Regal Rose website help.

by worriedmum 13.04.16 15:23

Nope , can't agree. Looks loike an elastic band with a bead on it, wound round and round the hair, to me. Still amazed that there were no hairs on the band that could have been used for a DNA match...

by whodunit 13.04.16 19:31

Didn't Kate actually say in her book that she had to take the 'beads' out of Madeleine's hair?

At first glance it does appear to be a plain elastic band in her hair but upon closer inspection I think it looks like two pale pink 'beads' fastened close together.