Another look at the Last photo

j.rob wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:If experts views can be wrong, what hope is there for amateurs to be right?

Just because someone calls themself an 'expert' it doesn't mean that they are always right. And people are paid handsomely for coming up with a particular theory or version of events, even if it is untruthful .

Always bear in mind to put it in the right context, j. rob, in the context of this thread that is.

I'm talking about the two experts PM consulted vs the amateurs here who want to go on about photoshop ad infinitum ...

You're not going to convince me the amateurs here are comparable with experts in the field.

Well, I don't agree with the 'experts', I'm afraid! The photo looks photo-shopped. As with nearly all the Mc photos, the body angles are wrong and arms are missing/in the wrong angle/place. I think it is another of the beloved Mc 'composites'. Kate's book is full of them, imo.

But back to the petermac's excellent original post. If if was a fairly cool day and there was a force four wind, then the outfits they are wearing are inconsistent with the weather for that particular day. The wind would be causing hair to blow around and probably hats to blow off. And with those sorts of temperatures and a strong wind, you would be unlikely to need sun-hats. Plus you would be unlikely to be dangling legs in the swimming pool as the water was freezing (according to Kate in her book). 

So what was REALLY happening at 1.29pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007? Where was Gerry? Where was Kate? Where was Madeleine? Where was Amelie? 

I wonder why Sean was not included in this photo? Everything is done for a reason with TM.

j.rob wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

juliet wrote:I don't want to derail this thread. Perhaps you could start another one if you really want to know!

NOPE!  Thank you very much, I don't really want to know, because I can see now where you are leading it, judging by your new thread on Gerry's passport.
So you believe starting a new thread on a non-issue is not derailing ?

Oh Lordy  (excuse me)!

I don't believe anything about this photo either. But why is that derailing the thread? It's about the last photo? 

And why is Gerry's passport photo necessarily a 'non-issue'? 

Confused.

Again, you are taking it out of context.

I would state it clearer just for you, j. rob.
I don't believe the last photo was photoshopped (never did, despite all the shenanigans carry on by amateurs here) but I do believe the metadata was possibly tampered with, and for a good reason.
And, I greatly appreciate PM's excellent research work, shared clearly and to point.

The derailing I talked about refers to the juliet's suggestion (to me) to start a new thread if I really want to know why she thinks the last photo was photoshopped (this is despite PM having told us what the experts view about it was).

She didn't feel it appropriate to discuss photoshop on this thread to avoid derailing PM's thread, therefore the suggestion to start a new thread.
So my point was : why would discussing it in a new thread not be derailing ?  It will be derailing all the same.  Is she specialist or speculating?  The photoshop being done to death.  

Also, I don't find it appropriate that people start thread nilly willy (attention seeking IMO) on topic that isn't even fit for discussion. The derailing I referred to was also about Juliet's thread on "Gerry's fake passport photo".
I mean, come on, is she for real?
Who in their right mind would think Gerry tampered his passport photo to give to Police?
To top it all her response was :  "As for "why would McCann present a false document to the police" - McCann does what he likes as everyone knows."

We all know Gerry is infamous for lying, and probably not beyond producing the odd "tampered" material (to serve his agenda) but this was given to his support team for press release.
But Juliet talks about him giving false document (as in passport with fake photo) to the Police; completely different issue altogether, and a very serious allegation.

Seriously, j. rob you can't tell  me you don't see a problem with that? or that you can't see it is illogical and not plausible debate.

We all know pros criticised the antis, it's what they do, they are pros, and I don't give a flying fig about them. However, it is exactly this kind of silly illogical speculation that begets their mocking.  Do you not see we are asking for it by irresponsible postings ?

j.rob wrote:Well, I don't agree with the 'experts', I'm afraid! The photo looks photo-shopped. As with nearly all the Mc photos, the body angles are wrong and arms are missing/in the wrong angle/place. I think it is another of the beloved Mc 'composites'. Kate's book is full of them, imo.

But back to the petermac's excellent original post. If if was a fairly cool day and there was a force four wind, then the outfits they are wearing are inconsistent with the weather for that particular day. The wind would be causing hair to blow around and probably hats to blow off. And with those sorts of temperatures and a strong wind, you would be unlikely to need sun-hats. Plus you would be unlikely to be dangling legs in the swimming pool as the water was freezing (according to Kate in her book). 

So what was REALLY happening at 1.29pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007? Where was Gerry? Where was Kate? Where was Madeleine? Where was Amelie? 

I wonder why Sean was not included in this photo? Everything is done for a reason with TM.

Are your talking as an expert or layperson?

Exactly!  Hence the photo must have been taken on a day different to May 3rd overcast windy day.
As their sunny weather outfits suggest it was taken on a better weather condition day ie 29th April sunny day.

Skeptic about the experts or skeptic about the McCanns?

Or are you a layperson who is skeptic about experts in the Field?

Well, I am a skeptic where the Mcs are concerned, but everything must be within reasons.

Sceptics are good.
I am sceptical about almost everything the Mccanns have said and done, and I am a sceptic about absolutely everything Mitchell has ever said.
Sceptics force the issue and by insisting of proof make the case beter and stronger.
It is how Science and Law work.
Neither just rolls over and accepts what is being said.
Each tries to 'falsify' - the word used in philosophy by Karl Popper - in other words to prove the falsity of what is being proposed.

The moon is made of cheese
Pro-Moon lobby "Yes of course it is. We have read a book which says so and everyone accepts it, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise and we have a firm of lawyers who will sue you . . .
Sceptic - I need further proof, and one day I shall organise a trip to bring some back. I shall also in the meantime measure the Albedo, calculate the mass if it were rock compared with the mass if it were Emmental, or Parmeggiano and work out how long a lunar-cheese day would be . . . and so on
Result. It isn't.

Madeleine was Abducted
I am sceptical about that for the following 60 reasons, and then some more.
So I try to ' falsify' each of the aspects which would be necessary for an Abduction . . .

One of the problems of Politics and Senior management in many Services and Industries is that the bosses surround themselves with Yes-Men (and women)m, instead of with sceptics and Devil's Advocates

Thank you PeterMac for your analysis, very clear. The sun and weather charts very useful for reference.
In terms of the experts stating that the photo has not been photoshopped, fine, for the most part of the photograph, that may be true.

The reflection in the sunglasses however is, under the law of physics, quite impossible, even with a strong concave mirror there would necessarily be a curved deflection of image.

In the grand scheme of things, the photo may well be a photo taken on the Sunday, but we would need to accept that perhaps some 'tinkering' had been done, as with 'adding' the sunglasses, to perhaps try to make the scene appear to be more 'credible'.

Until there is a proper explanation for the 90 degree shift in reflection I will have to stick with my own assessment that some photo manipulation/finishing touches took place.

As for professor plum, he is a poster. Some posters are serious, others maybe not so, but he is no professor.

In terms of experts versus the lay person, it is entirely possible that a well studied lay person can be as good as, if not better than, an expert.

An expert will only be expert to the level that he reaches, a lay person may well study further. It therefore cannot be said that an expert is automatically better than a studied lay person.

The reflection in the glasses needs to be given some proper explanation. As it is, the laws of physics prohibit its veracity and point therefore to some sort of manipulation, this leading of course to the concept of 'pre-planning' or 'need to divert' which would fall into the category of intention to pervert the course of justice.

@ Bobbin,
Well reasoned and some very valid points.  But one would have thought experts would have looked at the photo in totality having analysed every single detail in the photo including the reflection of the sunglasses before coming to a conclusion.  One does not become expert in the field without years of proven good experience and good skills and good track records or one will not have credence in that specialised field.
It could well be experts can make error of judgement or overlooked detail, but I find it hard to accept amateurs can be better than experts.  Amateurs may have their merits but as to being better...hmmmm....subjective.  That's why amateur is never used to testify in a Court of Law in any specialised field no matter what.

For argument sake, say, going by the weather for that week in question, the deduction is that the photo was taken on day of arrival rather than day of disappearance, given that the purpose of manipulation of the metadata is assumed to be, to provide alibi that Maddie was well and alive on the 3rd, as well as say maybe also to provide alibi for movements of Gerry & Kate on that day at a particular timeframe in case he was seen with a blue bag somewhere else on that particular time, then one would have to question why the need to photoshop in a pair of sunglasses.  What purpose would that microaction serve to the grand scheme of their agenda?

I tend to believe the photo was either photoshopped, as in each individual character wholesome taken from different photos piecemeal and placed at the pool, or it was not photoshopped.  If detail is important why concentrate on Gerry, why not concentrate on Madeleine, or why not add in the other twin ?

If, say, they were stupid enough to photoshop in sunglasses for whatever stupid reason, why that?  What was the significance or relevance of sunglasses on Gerry?  How would that make a difference to their objective?

My belief is the photo was taken on day of arrival, having checked in, unpacked in a hurry to get camera out, hat and sunglasses out, to go to and check out the pool while the sun was shinning.   That's what people do when they arrived at holiday resort with pool, they check out the pool first especially if they have children.

The clothes they were wearing suggest they were not planning on swimming, just to check out the pool and the excitement took over, sit on the pool and take a few shots.   Gerry looks bored in that photo as if obliging the children or Kate. There is a disconnect between him and his children in that photo, not in the mood of things so to speak, IMO.  A very cold half family photo as if that was not what he wanted to do but forced on him, in that "I'm not here to f....king enjoy myself" mood still on him.

aiyoyo wrote:@ Bobbin,
Well reasoned and some very valid points.  But one would have thought experts would have looked at the photo in totality having analysed every single detail in the photo including the reflection of the sunglasses before coming to a conclusion.  One does not become expert in the field without years of proven good experience and good skills and good track records or one will not have credence in that specialised field.
It could well be experts can make error of judgement or overlooked detail, but I find it hard to accept amateurs can be better than experts.  Amateurs may have their merits but as to being better...hmmmm....subjective.  That's why amateur is never used to testify in a Court of Law in any specialised field no matter what.

For argument sake, say, going by the weather for that week in question, the deduction is that the photo was taken on day of arrival rather than day of disappearance, given that the purpose of manipulation of the metadata is assumed to be, to provide alibi that Maddie was well and alive on the 3rd, as well as say maybe also to provide alibi for movements of Gerry & Kate on that day at a particular timeframe in case he was seen with a blue bag somewhere else on that particular time, then one would have to question why the need to photoshop in a pair of sunglasses.  What purpose would that microaction serve to the grand scheme of their agenda?

I tend to believe the photo was either photoshopped, as in each individual character wholesome taken from different photos piecemeal and placed at the pool, or it was not photoshopped.  If detail is important why concentrate on Gerry, why not concentrate on Madeleine, or why not add in the other twin ?

If, say, they were stupid enough to photoshop in sunglasses for whatever stupid reason, why that?  What was the significance or relevance of sunglasses on Gerry?  How would that make a difference to their objective?

My belief is the photo was taken on day of arrival, having checked in, unpacked in a hurry to get camera out, hat and sunglasses out, to go to and check out the pool while the sun was shinning.   That's what people do when they arrived at holiday resort with pool, they check out the pool first especially if they have children.

The clothes they were wearing suggest they were not planning on swimming, just to check out the pool and the excitement took over, sit on the pool and take a few shots.   Gerry looks bored in that photo as if obliging the children or Kate. There is a disconnect between him and his children in that photo, not in the mood of things so to speak, IMO.  A very cold half family photo as if that was not what he wanted to do but forced on him, in that "I'm not here to f....king enjoy myself" mood still on him.

Thanks aiyoyo, I was just trying to incorporate PeterMac's experts' observations with the undeniable inconsistency and impossibility of Gerry's sunglasses having a vertical representation of a horizontal view.

I have been so obsessed with this inconsistency that I have now looked at pages and pages and pages of physics of imaging etc. and neither in real life, nor in film, photography, television, print, nowhere have I been able to find an image where the same discrepancy exists in reflections in lenses as seen on Gerry's face.
Therefore, it has to be accepted that at least SOME photo manipulation has taken place.

To my mind there is very much more that is inconsistent in the photo, leading me to hold a stronger view than PeterMac's experts that photoshopping had taken place.

I am in no doubt, based on the weather, timing purported and the sunglasses, that the picture has been manipulated and for me that means that it was done with an intent to diverge from the truth and this in layman's terms would mean intending to pervert the course of justice.


ETA

Sir Patrick Moore was an 'amateur' and yet he became regarded as the world's leading authority on 'the sky at night'. A truly lovely man by the way, who was as generous with his time as with his enthusiasm in sharing his work with others. He hand-wrote a personal, many paged and delightfully informative reply to our local scout troop who had sent him a letter asking a question.

See, I knew this happen. But at least the 'experts' have not arrived in force.

It is clear that there are two 'lightning conductors' subjects on this forum which have in the past triggered massive response by expert arguementers. They are the photo, and of course Smithman.

It is clear too that PeterMac's analysis is unquestionable and unignorable. 

What I am going to do, as soon as time and weather permits, is take photos of a model (probably a teddy bear) wearing reflective sunglasses in full sun with horizontal and then vertical markers behind the photographer. I will post the results and then we will see.  I again point out that Mr Leyland's sunglasses above, appear to be unable to replicate the amazing McTrick of image rotation.

What a bossy madam aiyoyo is! She needs to be reminded that many of us believe the Last Photo is photoshopped from here to next week. She also needs to be reminded that many of us are not of Pat Brown's simplistic belief that it was a simple but unfortunate holiday accident, nothing else to see, move along you sad fools.

I think it is significant that Sean is not in the photo. It is Gerry with his two daughters. One of whom was, if we are to believe the Mc version of events,  just eight and a half hours later to be stolen from her bed.

Also significant that this photo did not appear until weeks after Madeleine went missing.

Allegedly taken by Kate at 1.29 pm on Thursday 3rd May. By which time, imo, poor little Madeleine was not enjoying a lovely holiday at the Ocean Club. 

So, by the time this photo was released, Gerry only had one daughter who had not mysteriously 'gone missing'.  

Why on earth would you release a photograph of your remaining daughter when the (paedophile) abductor who has stolen your other daughter is still on the loose, clearly has a penchant for blonde British girls, and is, according to TM, 'out there' and could pounce again?

A photograph of your remaining daughter so she can be identified by the 'abductor' who can then come back and steal Amelie too?

What a bunch of cretins.

So cynical, so stupid, so PSYCHO. 



Never gave a stuff about their children, imo.

Thetruth.
 
‘……. take photos of a model (probably a teddy bear) wearing reflective sunglasses in full sun with horizontal and then vertical markers behind the photographer.’
 
I think people expect a horizontal reflection on the basis he is looking across the pool to the other side. He is not. He is sitting slightly sideways, looking towards the nearby edge of a curved pool and I am pretty sure with that angle you can get the vertical reflection as shown.
 
Somebody must have carried out this experiment at the Ocean Club over the last seven years, but I have never seen any results published. Probably need to send PeterMac back for a re-visit before the water gets too cold!

juliet wrote:What a bossy madam aiyoyo is! She needs to be reminded that many of us believe the Last Photo is photoshopped from here to next week. She also needs to be reminded that many of us are not of Pat Brown's simplistic belief that it was a simple but unfortunate holiday accident, nothing else to see, move along you sad fools.

Do people also need to be reminded we have a loony here suggesting Gerry photoshopped his passport photo, turning this forum into laughing stock?

The last photo has been the discussion of photoshop and other manipulation.  I accept that photoshop may be a possibility but so far this has caused divide from posters who professed to be experts and from posters who are amateurs with keen well in-depth studied interest to amateurs who just shoot off their gob recklessly just to jump on the gravy train because they are skeptical of the Mccanns, so it is a truly open and debatable topic this last photo thing, fair enough.

As for Gerry's fake passport photo, well ........?  Who's the fool here ?

Doug D wrote:Thetruth.
 
‘……. take photos of a model (probably a teddy bear) wearing reflective sunglasses in full sun with horizontal and then vertical markers behind the photographer.’
 
I think people expect a horizontal reflection on the basis he is looking across the pool to the other side. He is not. He is sitting slightly sideways, looking towards the nearby edge of a curved pool and I am pretty sure with that angle you can get the vertical reflection as shown.
 
Somebody must have carried out this experiment at the Ocean Club over the last seven years, but I have never seen any results published. Probably need to send PeterMac back for a re-visit before the water gets too cold!

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

Two videos. First one, photo-shopping reflections onto sunglasses.
Video two, placing sunglasses onto a face.
Many videos of photo-shopping available on youtube.
I am a bit surprised that a slight sitting angle near a curved pool can give a straight line vertical effect. More likely a rushed job by a 'not so competent', taking some sunglasses off one photo and placing them on the eyes in another photo. It looks like a 'ham' job.
Who knows why. Perhaps someone had been crying at the frustration of having his wife and kids busting in on his 'boy time golf holiday' and was too vain to let the world see his tear stained anger. What did his wife? sister? call him, tiny tears. IMO

nil carborundum illegitimi

bobbin wrote:

Doug D wrote:Thetruth.
 
‘……. take photos of a model (probably a teddy bear) wearing reflective sunglasses in full sun with horizontal and then vertical markers behind the photographer.’
 
I think people expect a horizontal reflection on the basis he is looking across the pool to the other side. He is not. He is sitting slightly sideways, looking towards the nearby edge of a curved pool and I am pretty sure with that angle you can get the vertical reflection as shown.
 
Somebody must have carried out this experiment at the Ocean Club over the last seven years, but I have never seen any results published. Probably need to send PeterMac back for a re-visit before the water gets too cold!

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

Two videos. First one, photo-shopping reflections onto sunglasses.
Video two, placing sunglasses onto a face.
Many videos of photo-shopping available on youtube.
I am a bit surprised that a slight sitting angle near a curved pool can give a straight line vertical effect. More likely a rushed job by a 'not so competent', taking some sunglasses off one photo and placing them on the eyes in another photo. It looks like a 'ham' job.
Who knows why. Perhaps someone had been crying at the frustration of having his wife and kids busting in on his 'boy time golf holiday' and was too vain to let the world see his tear stained anger. What did his wife? sister? call him, tiny tears. IMO

Maybe just to support the story he bought the sunglasses at the open market stall on beach day with the children. Just saying. But I still don't see the point of photoshopping in glasses when alibi is what they intended the photo for, and not to show off Gerry modelling sunglasses.

bobbin wrote:
As for professor plum, he is a poster. Some posters are serious, others maybe not so, but he is no professor.

Well, I'm sure he isn't a Professor, any more than I'm a wooden duck .

But he is a very credible poster who, I've no reason to doubt for a second, posted that picture in good faith.

How do you explain it? The hoizontal deck is reflected vertically in the guitar:

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

I know a little about refraction and polarisation, and I'd guess if the conditions were right, it's a possible and furthermore,, probably a fairly common effect.

Dee Coy wrote:

bobbin wrote:
As for professor plum, he is a poster. Some posters are serious, others maybe not so, but he is no professor.

Well, I'm sure he isn't a Professor, any more than I'm a wooden duck .

But he is a very credible poster who, I've no reason to doubt for a second, posted that picture in good faith.

How do you explain it? The hoizontal deck is reflected vertically in the guitar:

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

I know a little about refraction and polarisation, and I'd guess if the conditions were right, it's a possible and furthermore,, probably a fairly common effect.

This was already discussed on another thread where tigger pointed out that the knot of wood in the reflection couldn't have come from underneath the ribbed decking. PP didn't come back with a reply when it was suggested that perhaps there was some other wood above which it was reflecting.
And now for 'something completely different'.

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

There is only ONE photo amidst all the other pictures of 'sunglasses with reflections' which fits the 'vertical image on a horizontal plane'. See if you can spot it.

Does aiyoyo always getso frantic over other people's posts? Perhaps she can explain, without having hysterics, why McCann has cavernous upturned nostrils and big teeth on his passport photo when his normal features are completely different.

aiyoyo wrote:

juliet wrote:What a bossy madam aiyoyo is! She needs to be reminded that many of us believe the Last Photo is photoshopped from here to next week. She also needs to be reminded that many of us are not of Pat Brown's simplistic belief that it was a simple but unfortunate holiday accident, nothing else to see, move along you sad fools.

Do people also need to be reminded we have a loony here suggesting Gerry photoshopped his passport photo, turning this forum into laughing stock?

The last photo has been the discussion of photoshop and other manipulation.  I accept that photoshop may be a possibility but so far this has caused divide from posters who professed to be experts and from posters who are amateurs with keen well in-depth studied interest to amateurs who just shoot off their gob recklessly just to jump on the gravy train because they are skeptical of the Mccanns, so it is a truly open and debatable topic this last photo thing, fair enough.

As for Gerry's fake passport photo, well ........?  Who's the fool here ?

The passport photo is a photograph of a photograph, not a Jpeg or Tiff of the original - the smile is unusual, if only because we're not used to such a jolly one from that quarter - I don't think it's faked.. In fact in the photograph taken in Mallorca 2005 I believe, G looks much the same, errrm complete with braces on his teeth which I fancy I can see in the passport photo too.

Hi
just becoming a little interested in the reflection of G's sunglasses and the laws of physics..mentioned by posters above.

Nice link here which may help. I'm imagining I'm someone who has been asked to add sunglasses to Gerry on the photo..

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

this link is interesting - trying to prove why the last photo is photoshopped.

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

Ive just listened to this video from a photographer who says he has 40 years of experience with photography and he says why it is a fraudulent photo.
Please take the 10 minutes to watch - please please! Watch until the end. Very good. It has convinced me totally that iot has been photoshopped.

juliet wrote:Does aiyoyo always getso frantic over other people's posts? Perhaps she can explain, without having hysterics,  why McCann has cavernous upturned nostrils and big teeth on his passport photo when his normal features are completely different.

Go ahead and show yourself up, I don't give a freaking monkey if you want to continue in the same vein discussing Gerry's nostrils entrails whatever or Kate's knickers or some stupid nonsense  that you seemed so obsessed with, but don't drag my name in.  It's totally tasteless, baseless, unnecessary and ludicrous, not to mention showing a certain level of IQs.

I don't wish to engage with you anymore if you don't mind.

HelenMeg wrote:this link is interesting - trying to prove why the last photo is photoshopped.

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

Ive just listened to this video from a photographer who says he has 40 years of experience with photography and he says why it is a fraudulent photo.
Please take the 10 minutes to watch - please please! Watch until the end. Very good. It has convinced me totally that iot has been photoshopped.

Sorry to quote my own post - but just very keen for those with an interest in whether it has been photoshopped to watch this person 'prove' that it has been photoshopped.
Please watch  - only takes approx 10 minutes.

Thanks HelenMeg. Absolute fake he says, which he points out brings the integrity of the whole case into question - which is the reason EVERY photo ( including the bizarre passport pic) is pored over. Is there any McCann photo which is straightforward?? As for aiyoyo, I resent being called a loony and a fool and berated in such an unpleasant and bullying manner by a woman who is now talking wildly about "Gerry's entrails and Kate's knickers".

HelenMeg - somewhere (on one of the McCann videos?) there was a photo which was very very like the last Maddie photo, Maddie alone but with the hat and the clothes looking noticeably different. It was odd and I don't know if it was ever explained. BTW I have huge respect for PeterMac but cannot see why he is saying the last photo is real.

HelenMeg wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:this link is interesting - trying to prove why the last photo is photoshopped.

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

Ive just listened to this video from a photographer who says he has 40 years of experience with photography and he says why it is a fraudulent photo.
Please take the 10 minutes to watch - please please! Watch until the end. Very good. It has convinced me totally that iot has been photoshopped.

Sorry to quote my own post - but just very keen for those with an interest in whether it has been photoshopped to watch this person 'prove' that it has been photoshopped.
Please watch  - only takes approx 10 minutes.

thanks also HelenMeg. very interesting.

Thanks PeterMac for a great write up.

I'm trying not to get drawn too heavily into this topic again as it's one everyone seems to have a strong opinion on and the arguments go around in circles.   I've spent far too much time on this photo since the 3A's days and as an "amateur" my view is consistent with the pros PM has quoted.

All the elements in the photo whether it be shadows or anything else seem to me to be consistent and I can't see signs of photoshopping.  I'm not sure why in that video a poorly photoshopped and relatively low resolution image is being compared with the original that is at the full resolution of the camera.  You can even see what appears to be droplets of water kicked up by Amelie when zoomed in - that would be some attention to detail.

The one thing I admit is harder to explain is the sunglasses reflection, but I suspect this is because it is being thought of as rotated through 90 degress.  I think the fact the right hand curve of the pool, (from the photographer's point of view), is being reflected in the left side of the right hand lens, is straightening the way it looks through a fish-eye effect.  In the bottom of the lens there is a tiny bit of what is probably Amelie's hat.

The fish-eye effect here ...

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

and here

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

Reflections in concave and convex surfaces do some funny things - just take a look at the upside down or stretched image of yourself in the front/back of a spoon.  I need to have a play with a pair of sunglasses.

That then leaves the Exif data - if that has been deliberately manipulated to change the date and/or time then any other questions about the integrity of the photo pales into insignificance.

All of this IMO.