Re: Another look at the Last photo

by biker_don 23.05.16 11:54

Funny 'satsuma' Farm is taking the pith on this forum just as he is on another forum.

Their photoshopping thread is hilarious and it seems to be the only area of 'research' they can do, apart from trying to guess who Verdi is.

He's here to disrupt.

by Guest 23.05.16 12:39

BlueBag wrote:
whatsupdoc wrote:

I welcome new posters to join in and comment. I hope you will stay and post when you want to.
I also welcome comments.

Just don't expect pseudo-science to go unchallenged.

The truth is the the truth and has to stand up to scrutiny.

Madeleine McCann is not served well by half-baked theories.

Half-baked theories are ammunition for the "look they're all nutters" crowd.

I agree with you. I am a long time reader here, and all the silly threads about photoshopping, eyeliner, clothes and what have you, are, imo, not good. It might put off new readers. And new readers will be coming,
change is in the air, thanks to all the people chipping away at the mystery. This forum one of the leaders in this, has to keep setting the standard.

by **Jill Havern** 23.05.16 12:54

Juulcy wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
whatsupdoc wrote:

I welcome new posters to join in and comment. I hope you will stay and post when you want to.
I also welcome comments.

Just don't expect pseudo-science to go unchallenged.

The truth is the the truth and has to stand up to scrutiny.

Madeleine McCann is not served well by half-baked theories.

Half-baked theories are ammunition for the "look they're all nutters" crowd.

I agree with you. I am a long time reader here, and all the silly threads about photoshopping, eyeliner, clothes and what have you, are, imo, not good. It might put off new readers. And new readers will be coming,
change is in the air, thanks to all the people chipping away at the mystery. This forum one of the leaders in this, has to keep setting the standard.

The Last Photo has been examined by two independent experts, who are not known to each other, and both say it has not been photoshopped but that the date could have been changed.

Other research on this forum has moved on to when Maddie was last seen and it appears it was much earlier in the week than the McCann's say which suggests the date was changed to fit their faked abduction scenario.

That is where this forum should now be concentrating.

by Versailles 17.12.16 22:58

canada12 wrote: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.

I have secretly smiled of the claims that the photo was photoshopped. Because I saw no reason for it. And sunglasses, tan, shadows, lines and so forth are not important, as these things can differ.

But I stand corrected. The pattern on the top is the same, and the face in the pool pic is one in a series of photos taken of Madeleine, at an earlier time.

Unless you, yourself has done something to either one of these photos (which I do not think you have), this is concrete evidence.

I am a very skeptic person, who does not believe in anything supernatural or alternative. And I always need evidence for any claims. And here it is.

This can not be explained away.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

REPLY BY MOD: Unfortunately, canada12 HAD done something to the photos. Please read back to pages 19 to 21 of this thread, where she admits that she had enlarged one version of the photo by 400%. As several knowledgeable posters pointed out to her, all kinds of artifacts and corruptions arise when one digitally or otherwise manipulates an image. The so-called 'pattern' of a dress/top that canada12 claimed to have seen is indeed merely an artifact.

We have the opinion of respected poster JRP on this thread who, from his knowledge of photography offered this observation:

QUOTE >>

"Most photographs which appear on the Internet have been reduced in size to speed up loading on websites. Even the best high res photographs you see on the net will have degradation purely due to the Internet itself creating algorithms which interpret colour, light and shade etc.

The reduced quality is due to compression of pixels, those little coloured squares which make up a digital photo. They are shunted around and merge and make worm like patterns. Termed as digital artifacts, these become part of an image, embedded in the image data.

If the image is copied, and reissued on the Internet, then this image gains its own artifacts. So artifacts on top of artifacts begin to deteriorate an image.

If an image is grabbed from the Internet and resized, and then republished, it gets worse.

So. The high res version has the least amount of artifacts, and as you go down the chain of copy, copied copy of a reduced copy and so on, more artifacts appear.

I believe that is what has happened here, they are patterns formed by digital artifacts".

>> UNQUOTE

Overwhelming evidence has been produced on this thread and the other main 'Last Photo' thread that the Last Photo is a genuine, unaltered, unphotoshopped photograph. The only issue is WHEN it was taken.

If anyone wants to reintroduce the photoshopping argument for this photo they will have to have very powerful evidence for doing so.

canada12 was no doubt doing her best, but was clearly in error as shown by the posts of JRP and others

- Mod

by icanseeyou 18.12.16 4:29

I agree.
Whether or not that picture was or wasn't photo shopped doesn't shed any light on what happened to Maddie. It implies a bit of the 'JonBonet Ramsey syndrome / miss pageant / litte girls as sexualised' theory. That won't go anywhere as even the original case hasn't in 20 years . The date is important. Richard Hall, if memory serves, did some work looking at the met office reports and other pictures taken by others on the same day. I think the conclusion he came to was that it was overcast /dull whereas Gerry McCann's claim of the pictures taken the same date had sunshine and shadows.It would be impossible for both parties to be right. So, the source that Richard Hall used should be researched further in my opinion. If the met office stands by his evidence, the conclusion then speaks out for us.

by canada12 18.12.16 4:56

Versailles wrote:
canada12 wrote: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.
I have secretly smiled of the claims that the photo was photoshopped. Because I saw no reason for it. And sunglasses, tan, shadows, lines and so forth are not important, as these things can differ.

But I stand corrected. The pattern on the top is the same, and the face in the pool pic is one in a series of photos taken of Madeleine, at an earlier time.

Unless you, yourself has done something to either one of these photos (which I do not think you have), this is concrete evidence.

I am a very skeptic person, who does not believe in anything supernatural or alternative. And I always need evidence for any claims. And here it is.

This can not be explained away.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

REPLY BY MOD: Unfortunately, canada12 HAD done something to the photos. Please read back to pages 19 to 21 of this thread, where she admits that she had enlarged one version of the photo by 400%. As several knowledgeable posters pointed out to her, all kinds of artifacts and corruptions arise when one digitally or otherwise manipulates an image. The so-called 'pattern' of a dress/top that canada12 claimed to have seen is indeed merely an artifact.

We have the opinion of respected poster JRP on this thread who, from his knowledge of photography offered this observation:

QUOTE >>

"Most photographs which appear on the Internet have been reduced in size to speed up loading on websites. Even the best high res photographs you see on the net will have degradation purely due to the Internet itself creating algorithms which interpret colour, light and shade etc.

The reduced quality is due to compression of pixels, those little coloured squares which make up a digital photo. They are shunted around and merge and make worm like patterns. Termed as digital artifacts, these become part of an image, embedded in the image data.

If the image is copied, and reissued on the Internet, then this image gains its own artifacts. So artifacts on top of artifacts begin to deteriorate an image.

If an image is grabbed from the Internet and resized, and then republished, it gets worse.

So. The high res version has the least amount of artifacts, and as you go down the chain of copy, copied copy of a reduced copy and so on, more artifacts appear.

I believe that is what has happened here, they are patterns formed by digital artifacts".

>> UNQUOTE

Overwhelming evidence has been produced on this thread and the other main 'Last Photo' thread that the Last Photo is a genuine, unaltered, unphotoshopped photograph. The only issue is WHEN it was taken.

If anyone wants to reintroduce the photoshopping argument for this photo they will have to have very powerful evidence for doing so.

canada12 was no doubt doing her best, but was clearly in error as shown by the posts of JRP and others

- Mod

Hello.

1. I enlarged the photo by 400% and saw the pattern of flowers. They were not random artifacts - they matched exactly the pattern of flowers on a top that Madeleine was wearing in an earlier photograph. They were not random patterns.

2. I enhanced the colour in the photo so the flower pattern stood out more clearly. I didn't create the flower pattern, nor did I alter it. I simply matched it to the flower pattern on the shirt that Madeleine was wearing in an early photo. The shape of the flowers and the pattern of the flowers matched the shape of the flowers and the pattern of the flowers on the shirt Madeleine was wearing in the earlier photo. If they were random artifacts, the pattern would not have matched.

3. I forwarded the information and the supporting swatches and photos to both the Portuguese police and Scotland Yard. I'm satisfied with both the discovery and what I did with it.

Thank you.

by Guest 18.12.16 10:53

canada12 wrote:

1. I enlarged the photo by 400% and saw the pattern of flowers. They were not random artifacts - they matched exactly the pattern of flowers on a top that Madeleine was wearing in an earlier photograph. They were not random patterns.

2. I enhanced the colour in the photo so the flower pattern stood out more clearly. I didn't create the flower pattern, nor did I alter it. I simply matched it to the flower pattern on the shirt that Madeleine was wearing in an early photo. The shape of the flowers and the pattern of the flowers matched the shape of the flowers and the pattern of the flowers on the shirt Madeleine was wearing in the earlier photo. If they were random artifacts, the pattern would not have matched.

3. I forwarded the information and the supporting swatches and photos to both the Portuguese police and Scotland Yard. I'm satisfied with both the discovery and what I did with it.

Thank you.

You just haven't been listening have you.

Enlarging a digital photo by 400% means the computer has to fill in the 400% more data - it has to invent it. It does it by guessing at what is around an original pixel (if it was an original and not the product of some other resize).

The enlarging and guessing uses an algorithm that itself is likely to product repeated patterns/artifacts in the new data.

by Doug D 18.12.16 11:07

Adding support to canada12 here.

Whilst the artifacts argument is regularly raised with regard to photos and clearly does have a bearing on distortions etc, what she is looking at is the underlying pattern when the photos are blown up, which matches in the two photos.

Does any ‘pinky’ colour, when blown up always create that sort of apparently identical pattern? Highly unlikely I would have thought.

If someone could produce another photo and blow it up to produce the same identical pattern, which following the artifacts argument should be pretty much random, maybe I could be convinced otherwise, but from the postings so far, whilst trying to explain it away as merely artifact distortions, does not explain why the patterns are the same, and I do not think are good enough arguments to completely dismiss this possibility.

by kaz 18.12.16 11:12

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

To be fair, I don't think [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is disputing your technical information. I think her point is that random artifact patterns are unlikely to duplicate exactly a pattern worn previously by Madeleine. I would agree with that observation but not having seen the original postings I couldn't make an informed judgement.

by JRP 18.12.16 13:58

When this topic was raised, I spent the best part of a morning trying to find this flower pattern in the hi-res version of this image, without success.
I wrote about not being able to replicate this pattern, and also suggested it was digital artifacts.

Surely if this pattern shows up quite easily for canada12, by simply magnifying the image to 400%, then it should show for everyone. It doesn't show on my screen, which I find strange, so it would be interesting if someone else could find this flower pattern in the hi-res version.

by roz 18.12.16 15:00

To me, in the 'eating biscuit at home' photograph and the 'skirting board' photo- Madeleine seems to be wearing the same top. (white at front with raised flowers)

by Guest 18.12.16 15:46

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

To be fair, I don't think [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is disputing your technical information. I think her point is that random artifact patterns are unlikely to duplicate exactly a pattern worn previously by Madeleine. I would agree with that observation but not having seen the original postings I couldn't make an informed judgement.

Seeing something in a digital photo only by increasing it's size by 400% means what you now see has been PUT THERE by the resizing process.

This is NOT like a magnifying glass on an old fashioned analogue picture.

It's a computer using a program to guess the extra information.. and it might be using a repeating pattern when generating the information.

4 pixels out of every 5 has been guessed by the computer.

by Guest 18.12.16 16:05

People need to get a grip.

This is canana12's claim:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is the highest res version of the picture on the net - size unchanged:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The artifacts are just not there.

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

by Guest 18.12.16 16:15

What is more, if you open the large image in Windows Paint and use "zoom in", you retain the pixel values - the picture becomes more blocky but the pixel values are retained as an increasing sized block. The computer is not using any algorithm to guess data.

There is no flower pattern there in the picture.

by canada12 18.12.16 19:37

BlueBag wrote:What is more, if you open the large image in Windows Paint and use "zoom in", you retain the pixel values - the picture becomes more blocky but the pixel values are retained as an increasing sized block. The computer is not using any algorithm to guess data.

There is no flower pattern there in the picture.

Hello
1. I used the original gestalt photo as it was originally presented many eons ago.
2. I opened the photo on a Mac, which has much higher graphic qualities than a PC
3. The program I used to open the photo was not Windows Paint, it was a Mac-based graphics program
4. I invite you to find the original gestalt photo as it was originally posted. Please open it on a Mac, which has higher resolution graphics than PCs. Please use a reliable graphics program which professionals use, not Windows Paint. You will see the flowers.

Thank you.

by Guest 18.12.16 20:21

The only thing I can identify with the 'last photograph' posted on this thread, so grossly over magnified, is the fact that Madeleine's top shoulder strap is plain, not patterned, as opposed to the shoulder, hair and face that show what could be likened to a floral pattern - but not the shoulder strap.

If this is the only reason to again question the authenticity of the last photograph, all I can say is - bang goes another theory!

The authenticity of the photograph is important when trying to determine the approximate time that Madeleine McCann 'disappeared' - this has been discussed extensively in the past, as can be seen by the many threads on the subject, leading to the only evidenced conclusion that the date and time the 'last photograph' was taken has been manipulated.

PeterMac did a considerable amount of research into the weather conditions around Praia da Luz during the week 28th April/3rd May 2007, also to be seen on this forum.

I can't understand why people continue to look for anomalies in this photograph when the simple and easiest explanation is a change in the date and time. The McCanns even admitted that the time was incorrect..

by kaz 18.12.16 20:49

Verdi wrote:The only thing I can identify with the 'last photograph' posted on this thread, so grossly over magnified, is the fact that Madeleine's top shoulder strap is plain, not patterned, as opposed to the shoulder, hair and face that show what could be likened to a floral pattern - but not the shoulder strap.

If this is the only reason to again question the authenticity of the last photograph, all I can say is - bang goes another theory!

The authenticity of the photograph is important when trying to determine the approximate time that Madeleine McCann 'disappeared' - this has been discussed extensively in the past, as can be seen by the many threads on the subject, leading to the only evidenced conclusion that the date and time the 'last photograph' was taken has been manipulated.

PeterMac did a considerable amount of research into the weather conditions around Praia da Luz during the week 28th April/3rd May 2007, also to be seen on this forum.

I can't understand why people continue to look for anomalies in this photograph when the simple and easiest explanation is a change in the date and time. The McCanns even admitted that the time was incorrect..

This is another aspect of the ‘last photo’ that puzzles me. The McCanns admit that the time shown of 2.29 could be wrong since they couldn’t remember if the Summertime forwarding of one hour had been done or not on the camera . If it had been changed the time shown of 2.29 would be correct. If it hadn’t been changed then the time in Portugal would have been 3.39 which certainly doesn’t tie up with the shadows etc. Since the shadows appear to be showing a photograph taken around noon I can only presume that the timing had been manipulated probably by someone who thought that , like much of Europe, Portugal was one hour ahead of the UK.
The crèche records for Sunday show the twins arriving from the pool at 14.35 and Madeleine at 14.45. Given that Gerald McCann states they (he , Madeleine and Amelie ) were dangling their feet IN the water a photoshoot time of 2.29 doesn’t allow them to dry off , shoes on and make the journey to the crèche in the time allowed. Bearing in mind that at this point on Sunday Madeleine was believed to be well and happy there would have been no need to alter the crèche records. To me it appears that the time on the photograph has been changed

by Doug D 18.12.16 20:56

Canada12,

Blown up the photo to maximum on my Mac and I get a similar pattern on the shadowy part of Amelie’s left arm, just below her orange sleeve. Please can you play with the contrast in the same way you did with MM’s neck area and see what it brings up?

Same with where her shadow falls on GM’s thigh.

Sorry, but falling off the fence a bit towards the artifact’s side now.

by canada12 18.12.16 21:26

Doug D wrote:Canada12,

Blown up the photo to maximum on my Mac and I get a similar pattern on the shadowy part of Amelie’s left arm, just below her orange sleeve. Please can you play with the contrast in the same way you did with MM’s neck area and see what it brings up?

Same with where her shadow falls on GM’s thigh.

Sorry, but falling off the fence a bit towards the artifact’s side now.

Hello
Alas, I can't. As I explained when I posted the original messages about this photo, I did this work a number of years ago when I had a job where I worked on a Mac. I no longer have that job or the Mac. Many apologies. Do you find a "similar" pattern, or exactly the same pattern? The arguments that are raised about artifacts is that they are similar. They are not exactly the same as the pattern on the shirt that Madeleine is wearing in the "source" photo that I used.
The best way for you to approach this is for you to find my original posting on this matter and study the original photograph with the flowered shirt which I included for comparison. Then look at the swatches from that shirt which I compared to the flowers in the shadows of Madeleine's neck. Then compare the flowered shirt pattern and the swatches with the artifact patterns you're seeing in The Last Photo and see if they are "similar" or match exactly.
Thank you.

by **Nina** 18.12.16 22:08

kaz wrote:
Verdi wrote:The only thing I can identify with the 'last photograph' posted on this thread, so grossly over magnified, is the fact that Madeleine's top shoulder strap is plain, not patterned, as opposed to the shoulder, hair and face that show what could be likened to a floral pattern - but not the shoulder strap.

If this is the only reason to again question the authenticity of the last photograph, all I can say is - bang goes another theory!

The authenticity of the photograph is important when trying to determine the approximate time that Madeleine McCann 'disappeared' - this has been discussed extensively in the past, as can be seen by the many threads on the subject, leading to the only evidenced conclusion that the date and time the 'last photograph' was taken has been manipulated.

PeterMac did a considerable amount of research into the weather conditions around Praia da Luz during the week 28th April/3rd May 2007, also to be seen on this forum.

I can't understand why people continue to look for anomalies in this photograph when the simple and easiest explanation is a change in the date and time. The McCanns even admitted that the time was incorrect..

This is another aspect of the ‘last photo’ that puzzles me. The McCanns admit that the time shown of 2.29 could be wrong since they couldn’t remember if the Summertime forwarding of one hour had been done or not on the camera . If it had been changed the time shown of 2.29 would be correct. If it hadn’t been changed then the time in Portugal would have been 3.39 which certainly doesn’t tie up with the shadows etc. Since the shadows appear to be showing a photograph taken around noon I can only presume that the timing had been manipulated probably by someone who thought that , like much of Europe, Portugal was one hour ahead of the UK.
The crèche records for Sunday show the twins arriving from the pool at 14.35 and Madeleine at 14.45. Given that Gerald McCann states they (he , Madeleine and Amelie ) were dangling their feet IN the water a photoshoot time of 2.29 doesn’t allow them to dry off , shoes on and make the journey to the crèche in the time allowed. Bearing in mind that at this point on Sunday Madeleine was believed to be well and happy there would have been no need to alter the crèche records. To me it appears that the time on the photograph has been changed

Gerry going on about the timing on the camera. Portugal is exactly the same re time as the UK, as we well know.However there may still be folk who don't.

by **Jill Havern** 18.12.16 22:25

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Comprehensive research by Retired Police Superintendent PeterMac re: The Last Photo

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

by Guest 18.12.16 23:05

The mention of the photograph timing I think could be that element of truth that the McCanns have, over the years, managed to insert into the middle of their web of deceit - possibly in the hope that if they provide a simple little explanation of any given discrepancy, then prying eyes won't bother to look any further. If you get my drift.

None of this of course explains the reason why this photograph did not see the light of day until after Gerry McCann returned to the UK around the 21st May 2007, returning to Praia da Luz laden with excess baggage in the form of a pillow case, photographic memorabilia and a stuffing great government spin doctor.

I see no logical reason for the McCanns publishing a photoshopped image of Madeleine only to prove she was alive on Thursday 3rd May 2007. They had one or two images (or more) of Madeleine at the Ocean Club - simple solution was to change the date and time. Clearly they didn't bargain for critical examination of the day in question anymore than they bargained for release of a portion of the PJ files into the UK public domain. That, in my opinion, was their downfall. Their focus was and has since been, to demolish any demonizing press reports that could so easily be disputed - to try and demolish a factual account of an official police investigation is another matter altogether.

by Guest 19.12.16 9:30

canada12 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:What is more, if you open the large image in Windows Paint and use "zoom in", you retain the pixel values - the picture becomes more blocky but the pixel values are retained as an increasing sized block. The computer is not using any algorithm to guess data.

There is no flower pattern there in the picture.
Hello
1. I used the original gestalt photo as it was originally presented many eons ago.
2. I opened the photo on a Mac, which has much higher graphic qualities than a PC
3. The program I used to open the photo was not Windows Paint, it was a Mac-based graphics program
4. I invite you to find the original gestalt photo as it was originally posted. Please open it on a Mac, which has higher resolution graphics than PCs. Please use a reliable graphics program which professionals use, not Windows Paint. You will see the flowers.

Thank you.

I don't care what you did.

It's just wrong.

For all the reasons that others and myself have stated.

Edit
------------

which professionals use, not Windows Paint.

The thing about windows paint is that simpler is better in this case.

There is no algorithm processing happening with "zoom in" - pixel values are not changed

What you see is what it is.

No flowers!

by canada12 19.12.16 10:10

BlueBag wrote:
canada12 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:What is more, if you open the large image in Windows Paint and use "zoom in", you retain the pixel values - the picture becomes more blocky but the pixel values are retained as an increasing sized block. The computer is not using any algorithm to guess data.

There is no flower pattern there in the picture.
Hello
1. I used the original gestalt photo as it was originally presented many eons ago.
2. I opened the photo on a Mac, which has much higher graphic qualities than a PC
3. The program I used to open the photo was not Windows Paint, it was a Mac-based graphics program
4. I invite you to find the original gestalt photo as it was originally posted. Please open it on a Mac, which has higher resolution graphics than PCs. Please use a reliable graphics program which professionals use, not Windows Paint. You will see the flowers.

Thank you.
I don't care what you did.

It's just wrong.

For all the reasons that others and myself have stated.

Edit
------------

which professionals use, not Windows Paint.
The thing about windows paint is that simpler is better in this case.

There is no algorithm processing happening with "zoom in" - pixel values are not changed

What you see is what it is.

No flowers!

Hello Blue Bag
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I will not change my position, and I don't expect you to. I've stated my case, I've submitted my findings to the people who are in a position to investigate independently, and I've shared my findings with this group.
Thank you.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.12.16 10:42

canada12 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
canada12 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:What is more, if you open the large image in Windows Paint and use "zoom in", you retain the pixel values - the picture becomes more blocky but the pixel values are retained as an increasing sized block. The computer is not using any algorithm to guess data.

There is no flower pattern there in the picture.
Hello
1. I used the original gestalt photo as it was originally presented many eons ago.
2. I opened the photo on a Mac, which has much higher graphic qualities than a PC
3. The program I used to open the photo was not Windows Paint, it was a Mac-based graphics program
4. I invite you to find the original gestalt photo as it was originally posted. Please open it on a Mac, which has higher resolution graphics than PCs. Please use a reliable graphics program which professionals use, not Windows Paint. You will see the flowers.

Thank you.
I don't care what you did.

It's just wrong.

For all the reasons that others and myself have stated.

Edit
------------

which professionals use, not Windows Paint.
The thing about windows paint is that simpler is better in this case.

There is no algorithm processing happening with "zoom in" - pixel values are not changed

What you see is what it is.

No flowers!

Hello Blue Bag
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I will not change my position, and I don't expect you to. I've stated my case, I've submitted my findings to the people who are in a position to investigate independently, and I've shared my findings with this group.
Thank you.

@ canada12 When I responded to your post two or three days back, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I wrote that "no doubt you were doing your best".

In view of your post above and the one before, I no longer think you are doing your best.

'Blue Bag' posted this above:

"Seeing something in a digital photo only by increasing its size by 400% means what you now see has been PUT THERE by the resizing process".

Your wanton refusal to accept this very plain and obvious fact comes over to me as being unwilling to assist in the search for the truth about Madeleine, which is the prime purpose of this forum.

'Get'emGoncalo' quite rightly drew attention above to the enormous work done by PeterMac on this issue. He took the time and trouble to seek out and contact two recognised authorities on digital photograpsh who both said that there was no evidence of photoshopping - and moreover stated that the position of all the shadows on the photograph was consistent throughout and therefore powerful evidence that it is was a genuine photograph.

The work on this forum overwhelmingly established that the 'Last Photo' was genuine and unaltered, with the debate having now moved to WHEN it was taken - with a lot of evidence pointing to Sunday 29 April. It wasn't only PeterMac's opinion. Several other respected opinion.

Your opinion that your own resizing, using a Mac, of the Last Photo reveals a 'secret' pattern is as daft and as unevidenced as Textusa's utterly ridiculous theory that Gerry McCann returned with an unknown photographer and Sean and Amelie to the Ocean Ciub, about two weeks after Madleine was reported missing, to 'retake' the Last Photo, only to later photoshop Madeleine into the photo.

I am no longer of the opinion that you are really trying to help our work here.

by JRP 19.12.16 12:48

If we look at the image which canada12 is claiming to be a donor head you will see a halo of light on Madeleine's hair (top front of head), this probably comes from an indoor ceiling light. I know canada12 says the image used in this "transition" is one we have never seen, but she claims it's from the same set, so I would presume the light source wouldn't change.

The poolside photo has more complex lighting, Madeleine's face is part in shadow, a shadow cast by hat she wears, there is sunlight which hits the tip of her nose, but there is also a shallow light on her lower face.
So, where does this secondary light come from? It comes from the water. Sunlight hitting the water reflected up into Madeleine's lower face.

We have a donor face lit from a completely different angle from the face we see sitting by the poolside.

I don't think a photo bodger would be take the water reflections into account, and that (along with other details in the photo) is why I believe the "Last Photo" is genuine.

by kaz 19.12.16 15:50

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

Not sure where I’m going with this one but please indulge me . First of all I do believe that the so called ‘Last Photo ‘ was taken on the Sunday. I’m still trying to get my head around WHY the necessity to change the time on the camera. The date could have been changed for obvious reasons but WHY the time as well? What does that bring to the table? If we take it that the photo was indeed taken on the Sunday around noonish the time of 2.29 cannot be correct since no way could the children have made it to the crèche by 14.45 / 14.35. Remember Gerry says he , Madeleine and Amelie were dangling their feet IN the water so to get the children ready ( feet dried, shoes on, all gathered up ) and at the crèche 6 minutes later in the case of the twins. It can’t possibly have been 3.29 which it would have been if the camera ‘s time hadn’t been adjusted for Springtime. The children were all ensconced in their respective crèches by then.

The times work better for Thursday. The camera’s clock had been adjusted , it actually WAS 2.29 and crèche times of 14.50/14.45 are tight but possible. However we know that the weather is telling us it was Sunday when the photograph was taken. So why would they bother to change the time? Is it possible that in fact the time was changed to make it seem later than it actually was and for a reason ?

It’s always puzzled me that the last photo doesn’t include Sean. Where was he? The creche record for the twins on Sunday morning is missing so we don’t know what time the twins left it at lunchtime. Is it possible that the photograph was of Amelie and Madeleine only because Sean was still in the crèche? Is this why it has ‘disappeared?’

Strangely enough of all the twins’ crèche records both Sunday’s and Thursday’s morning sessions appear to be missing.

by JRP 19.12.16 17:03

The Last Photo was probably taken on Sunday, but the Mc's want us to believe it was taken on Thursday, so the date was changed, and the time 2.29 fits with the creche time slot.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.12.16 17:24

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

Not sure where I’m going with this one but please indulge me . First of all I do believe that the so called ‘Last Photo ‘ was taken on the Sunday. I’m still trying to get my head around WHY the necessity to change the time on the camera. The date could have been changed for obvious reasons but WHY the time as well? What does that bring to the table? If we take it that the photo was indeed taken on the Sunday around noonish the time of 2.29 cannot be correct since no way could the children have made it to the crèche by 14.45 / 14.35. Remember Gerry says he , Madeleine and Amelie were dangling their feet IN the water so to get the children ready ( feet dried, shoes on, all gathered up ) and at the crèche 6 minutes later in the case of the twins. It can’t possibly have been 3.29 which it would have been if the camera ‘s time hadn’t been adjusted for Springtime. The children were all ensconced in their respective crèches by then.

The times work better for Thursday. The camera’s clock had been adjusted , it actually WAS 2.29 and crèche times of 14.50/14.45 are tight but possible. However we know that the weather is telling us it was Sunday when the photograph was taken. So why would they bother to change the time? Is it possible that in fact the time was changed to make it seem later than it actually was and for a reason ?

It’s always puzzled me that the last photo doesn’t include Sean. Where was he? The creche record for the twins on Sunday morning is missing so we don’t know what time the twins left it at lunchtime. Is it possible that the photograph was of Amelie and Madeleine only because Sean was still in the crèche? Is this why it has ‘disappeared?’

Strangely enough of all the twins’ crèche records both Sunday’s and Thursday’s morning sessions appear to be missing.

@ kaz

Dealing with your 3 main points:

1. The crèche records. These are almost universally considered to be extremely unreliable. That therefore creates severe difficulties for any argument, like yours, which assumes as a fact that the crèche records are accurate (but see my 'Creche Times' chart below).

2. Changing the time. I do not think anyone is suggesting that the time of the photo has been changed. On the contrary, most people have figured out that the DATE was changed, NOT the time. I am open to correction, but all I am aware of is that Gerry suggested that the time had not been adjusted for Portuguese time. There, as you say, he fell into error, because actually Portuguese time is the same as Greenwich Mean Time and British Summer Time. I THINK what Gerry MAY have intended to convey was that possibly the photo was taken at 1.29pm, because it hadn't been 'corrected' for a different time zone. Carefully considering all the possibilities, I think it is POSSIBLE - though there is no direct evidence of it - that the time may have been changed from 1.29pm to 2.29pm. I am open to correction on this point. However, I do not think it of much importance EXCEPT THAT Gerry banging on about time zones does at the least look very curious.

3. I cannot really cannot fathom why anybody raises the question: "Where is Sean?" Probably he was with Kate. Amelie was happy being with Gerry and Kate. Sean wanted to be with Mummy and was there when she took the photo. That seems a perfectly natural explanation to me. It is also what Kate says in her book.

--------

CRECHE TIMES

I have done a chart which I think it is of interest. It's a bit hard to transfer it properly into here, but I will have a go. I will explain it further if necessary. It is based on the assumption that in the morning the route would have been:

G5A >> Tapas bar (twins) >> Ocean Club reception (Madeleine)...

...and of course the reverse on the way back:

-----

Crèche timings

Normal procedure would be:

Mornings:

Drop-off: TWINS first, then MADELEINE

Collection MADELEINE first, then TWINS

Afternoons:

Drop-off: TWINS first, then MADELEINE

Collection: MADELEINE first, then TWINS

Maddie S & A Who was collected first? By how many minutes?

Sun

9.45 -

12.15 -

14.45 14.35 TWINS 10

17.30 17.10 TWINS 20

Mon

9.30 9.20 TWINS 20

12.10 12.20 MADELEINE 10

15.15 15.25 MADELEINE 10

15.30 17.20 MADELEINE 10

Tuesday

9.30 9.20 TWINS 10

12.20 12.20 Same

14.30 14.30 Same

- 17.20

Weds

9.20 9.10 TWINS 10

12.30 12.25 TWINS 5

14.45 14.40 TWINS 5

17.30 17.20 TWINS 10

Thurs

9.10 -

12.25 -

14.50 14.45 TWINS 5

17.30 17.25 TWINS 5

by Richard IV 19.12.16 20:16

canada12 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
canada12 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:What is more, if you open the large image in Windows Paint and use "zoom in", you retain the pixel values - the picture becomes more blocky but the pixel values are retained as an increasing sized block. The computer is not using any algorithm to guess data.

There is no flower pattern there in the picture.
Hello
1. I used the original gestalt photo as it was originally presented many eons ago.
2. I opened the photo on a Mac, which has much higher graphic qualities than a PC
3. The program I used to open the photo was not Windows Paint, it was a Mac-based graphics program
4. I invite you to find the original gestalt photo as it was originally posted. Please open it on a Mac, which has higher resolution graphics than PCs. Please use a reliable graphics program which professionals use, not Windows Paint. You will see the flowers.

Thank you.
I don't care what you did.

It's just wrong.

For all the reasons that others and myself have stated.

Edit
------------

which professionals use, not Windows Paint.
The thing about windows paint is that simpler is better in this case.

There is no algorithm processing happening with "zoom in" - pixel values are not changed

What you see is what it is.

No flowers!

Hello Blue Bag
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. I will not change my position, and I don't expect you to. I've stated my case, I've submitted my findings to the people who are in a position to investigate independently, and I've shared my findings with this group.
Thank you.

Hi canada12 - good on you for remaining decent and polite in the face of rudeness.