Re: Another look at the Last photo

by worriedmum 19.12.16 22:07

Tony says ''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.''

As a mum to four I can't imagine giving my full attention to taking a picture/pictures across a pool while my two year old is wandering about near open water. And just because Kate says so in her book it doesn't reassure me...

by **Tony Bennett** 19.12.16 23:37

worriedmum wrote:Tony says ''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.''

As a mum to four I can't imagine giving my full attention to taking a picture/pictures across a pool while my two year old is wandering about near open water. And just because Kate says so in her book it doesn't reassure me...

@ worriedmum

re: "And just because Kate says so in her book it doesn't reassure me..."

REPLY: OK, I take that point

re: "As a mum to four I can't imagine giving my full attention to taking a picture/pictures across a pool while my two year old is wandering about near open water".

REPLY: Who says he was 'wandering about'? Only you I think.

Also, can I ask you, as a 'Mum of four', did you only ever take photographs when all four of your children together? Genuine question.

On this occasion, Kate's explanation seems perfectly feasible. I'm sorry. I really do not understand why some people seem to dwell on it so much when there are so many bigger issues in the case to discuss

by worriedmum 20.12.16 0:01

Tony I'm only trying to answer the question you posed.

Of course I have pictures of my children singly and in groups. The point is, you cannot supervise a toddler of two if one parent is sitting with their feet in a swimming pool with two tots and the other parent is standing looking through the lens of a camera across the other side of the pool. They aren't wearing swimming costumes so I'm assuming Sean isn't wearing inflatable arm bands over his clothes...

by kaz 20.12.16 1:56

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

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.

--------

With respect I see absolutely no reason for the creche records of Sunday at the very least being anything other than a true reflection of events. Why wouldn’t they be ?

I think the time HAS been changed and the fact that Gerry mentions it makes it a sensitive point IMO. If the time on the photo hadn’t been manipulated the true time in Portugal would have been either 2.29 or 3.29 ( depending on whether the time on the camera had been adjusted or not for Springtime)and neither of these times are compatible with the creche sheets for Sunday.

I honestly don’t know how you can say,’’ It is also what Kate says in her book’’ to justify your point of view when we on here have spent years disparaging her version of events in THE book. You can’t have it both ways. On reflection I can concede that Sean may well have been there but as a mother I would have taken a ‘family’ portrait in Kate’s position and taking photos around a pool in charge of a toddler would certainly be a tricky business. Maybe Madeleine is laughing at Sean’s antics and that’s the reason for Gerry’s worried expression.
Thinking more about the twins’ missing creche sheets . It’s possible of course that they are not missing at all. Perhaps they weren’t photocopied by the PJ simply because on the Sunday and Thursday mornings they twins weren’t at the creche . Presumably the PJ wouldn’t be interested in any sheets where their names didn’t appear. Just a thought

by Guest 20.12.16 4:41

Richard IV wrote:
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.

I have a low BS threshold.

There has been LOTS of BS over this photo.

No point in dancing about.

by Richard IV 20.12.16 9:54

BlueBag wrote:
Richard IV wrote:
canada12 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
canada12 wrote:
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.
I have a low BS threshold.

There has been LOTS of BS over this photo.

No point in dancing about.

But Bluebag, surely you realise that`s just your opinion. I just don`t get the need for such hostility. Oh well, never mind, I suppose we`re all a bit edgy this time of year.

by Doug D 20.12.16 11:36

Sliding back over the other side of the fence again!

Flowery blouse:

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

So this next blow up is the actual pattern, not artifacts:

(Sorry, I blew it up but can't get picture across (usual blue box question mark thing), but it very much shows the blouse pattern. Be grateful if someone else could.

Go to

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and you can blow it up yourself)

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

GetemGoncalo’s blow up from P.20 of the this thread:

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

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

If these are just artifacts, it is quite remarkable how they match the pattern of the blouse.

The next two are blow ups of GM’s leg and AM’s left arm. Artifact ‘pattern’ is much more regular and not like the blouse pattern.

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

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

(Sorry again no good)

high def copy of picture you can blow up is at

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

Not definitive of course, but enough imo to not just accept the artifacts explanation. We will have to beg to differ.

by Guest 20.12.16 12:14

Richard IV wrote:
But Bluebag, surely you realise that`s just your opinion. I just don`t get the need for such hostility. Oh well, never mind, I suppose we`re all a bit edgy this time of year.

Then you don't know the history of the continued provable nonsense as regards this picture on this forum.

It's just best to cut to the chase.

There are no flowers in that part of the picture.

If you can't see flowers as the picture is but can see a pattern by resizing the picture by 400% then what you are seeing is the 400% of NEW data that the computer has "guessed" should be there. It uses repeating algorithms to do so.

It's simple.

This picture has a history of wind-up merchants coming here for a laugh or more sinister reasons.

by Guest 20.12.16 13:01

Can't find the particular enlarged image at the moment, nonetheless I ask again. If this has got something to do with a top Madeleine was or wasn't wearing, why then does the same pattern appear on Madeleine's facial features and hair?

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

by Guest 20.12.16 13:14

Verdi wrote: why then does the same pattern appear on Madeleine's facial features and hair?

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

Al Gore rhythms.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.12.16 14:13

Verdi wrote:Can't find the particular enlarged image at the moment, nonetheless I ask again. If this has got something to do with a top Madeleine was or wasn't wearing, why then does the same pattern appear on Madeleine's facial features and hair?

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

canada12 would have us believe that by using her friend's Mac, and enlarging her image x 400%, that the images she found were of such extreme importance that her 'discovery' needed to be immediately communicated with Scotland Yard and the Portuguese police.

Yet @ Verdi the very straightforward and obvious question you have asked does not seem to have even occurred to her.

The answer is staring at her and everyone else in the face: the patterns are produced by her duff magnification via a Mac computer which has newly created all kinds of new extraneous images, or 'artifacts'.

I do not wish to be rude but it is of extreme arrogance for her to claim that her artificially-produced images and her claims of 'photoshopping' overwhelm the clearest possible statements from recognised experts and so many other good amateur experts here that the Last Photo is genuine, without a trace of evidence for photoshopping.

And in the interests of the truth, unevidenced opinions which contradict good quality evidence, and even reason, must be robustly challenged.

As an aside, the whole place where she now posts, without exception, are confirmed believers in the photoshopping theory of the Last Photo - and they are continuing to take up reams (or 'bytes') of webspace, perpertually re-hashing all the old photoshopping nonsense about Amelie's missing arm and Gerry's sunglasses etc. etc. - maybe they read a bit too much of Textusa.

They have, at the last count, several (secret) threads and over 6,000 posts all dealing with their dominant interest: just how bad is CMOMM?i

I never thought that place could deteriorate much further, but now a whole swathe of posters over there have descened into ever-increased lunacy by repeatedly making these and other similar specific claims - and I jest not:

"sharonl is a paid government 'shill' tasked with promoting the early death theory"

"Tony Bennett has done a dirty deal with the McCanns to attack the photoshopping claims and the validity of the Smith sighting," and

"PeterMac has been bought off and become a government 'shill' and is now batting for the McCanns".

It's unfortunate for them over there that once a delusional mindset sets in and takes deep root, it is almost impossible to recover from it

by Guest 20.12.16 15:34

BlueBag wrote:
Verdi wrote: why then does the same pattern appear on Madeleine's facial features and hair?

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

Clever!

by Guest 20.12.16 15:41

Tony Bennett wrote:"sharonl is a paid government 'shill' tasked with promoting the early death theory"

"Tony Bennett has done a dirty deal with the McCanns to attack the photoshopping claims and the validity of the Smith sighting," and

"PeterMac has been bought off and become a government 'shill' and is now batting for the McCanns".

Oh - I think I can go along with that big grin

!

This is not per chance THE other place is it? No wonder it's secreted.

by charlie endell 20.12.16 18:21

Deleted.

by Doug D 20.12.16 18:35

Hopefully managed to get the blow-ups on here now.

Verdi:

‘If this has got something to do with a top Madeleine was or wasn't wearing, why then does the same pattern appear on Madeleine's facial features and hair?’

I don’t think it does. Much squarer pixel block type pattern to MM’s face. Few dark patches but not that match the blouse pattern

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

The blouse:

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

Two blouse blow ups with different colour saturations, but still very much showing the blouse pattern:

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

Get'emGoncalo's blow up:

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

I think the blouse pattern is evident in there, as well as the square blocks, but the 'artifactists' are never going to agree.

Two more blow-ups of unpatterned skin, again showing the regular squared pixel colour pattern, but no sign of the supposed 'blouse pattern artifacts'

Shadow below sleeve of AM's left arm:

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

AM's shadow on GM's leg:

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

Don't think we are ever going to agree, but can't win them all.

by Guest 20.12.16 18:42

Doug D wrote:Don't think we are ever going to agree, but can't win them all.

Gerry's leg now... what's wrong with his teeth? (Old nonsense).

by Guest 20.12.16 20:42

Here is the enlarged photograph - again..

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

Now please tell me how the apparent distortion running down the side of the face, the nose, the lips, the hair and even the teeth, differs from the shoulder towards the neck - apart from being more pronounced in the darker area shaded by the hair?

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

by Guest 20.12.16 20:53

Think I'll throw this in again for good measure - just to maintain the momentum..

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

It's all there to play around with - the abductor (Smithman Tannerman Crecheman, whatever takes your fancy), shadows, bougainvillia, arms, legs, sunglasses, donglers, floppy hats. Even the mystery dog has made an appearance.

by dannii 20.12.16 21:22

Deleted - and the member banned. Yes, there are still malicious people out there who wish to disrupt the ongoing work of CMOMM.

Sad - Mod

by charlie endell 20.12.16 22:50

And another disrupter. I wonder where they are coming from? - Another member banned - Mod

by **Tony Bennett** 20.12.16 23:02

Verdi wrote:Here is the enlarged photograph - again..

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

Now please tell me how the apparent distortion running down the side of the face, the nose, the lips, the hair and even the teeth, differs from the shoulder towards the neck - apart from being more pronounced in the darker area shaded by the hair?

An artifactist writes...

Precisely...once again showing that canada12's enlargements have unfortunately led us up and down the garden path again too many times.

by Guest 20.12.16 23:43

t

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:Here is the enlarged photograph - again..

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

Now please tell me how the apparent distortion running down the side of the face, the nose, the lips, the hair and even the teeth, differs from the shoulder towards the neck - apart from being more pronounced in the darker area shaded by the hair?
An artifactist writes...

Precisely...once again showing that canada12's enlargements have unfortunately led us up and down the garden path again too many times.

Indeed! It's not leading anywhere - a waste of time that could be spent on important issues.

by Guest 21.12.16 7:26

Verdi wrote:Think I'll throw this in again for good measure - just to maintain the momentum..

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

It's all there to play around with - the abductor (Smithman Tannerman Crecheman, whatever takes your fancy), shadows, bougainvillia, arms, legs, sunglasses, donglers, floppy hats. Even the mystery dog has made an appearance.

I blew this picture up 1000% and I can see a burglar breaking into a flat reflected in Gerry's sunglasses and also the Virgin Mary which is a bit strange.

by Doug D 21.12.16 8:19

Verdi:

‘Now please tell me how the apparent distortion running down the side of the face, the nose, the lips, the hair and even the teeth, differs from the shoulder towards the neck - apart from being more pronounced in the darker area shaded by the hair?’

I have tried to above. The pixelated artifact pattern showing in your blow up does not bring out the blouse pattern below the chin line which becomes apparent once the colour saturation is enhanced and this blouse pattern does not develop on the face. This is certainly worthy of proper examination by someone with more sophisticated equipment and this was not even a suggestion when Petermac’s experts had their look, so they would not have been looking specifically for it.

Probably my last post on the subject and standing with canada12 on this one, as it’s a pointless discussion when ‘we are wrong, - end of.’ I think we have looked at it reasonably and shown evidence to support the suggestion.

We may well be wrong, but just dismissing it as ‘it’s just artifacts’ and ‘a waste of time’ I’m afraid in my book doesn’t win the argument here, especially when not supported by counter evidence. How is using the less sophisticated 'windows paint' program to show there is no blouse pattern there supposed to help? We need someone with something more sophisticated, not less, to have a proper look.

Adding stupid pictures also adds nothing to the debate.

We will have to agree to differ on this one.

No more to be said.

by skyrocket 21.12.16 9:23

For what it's worth, and as it stands, I am with @DougD/canada12 on this one.

On my MacBook using 'iphoto', the area on MBM's neck appears to be patterned rather than merely pixelated. The apparent pattern/colours does seem to be very similar to the top in question. (adjustment settings: sharpness 100%; de-noise 100%; contrast 100%; exposure +0.89). Other areas do not seem to appear the same way.

Whether this is a coincidental effect or something more warrants consideration (IMO) and I believe [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] did the right thing in forwarding their findings.

The tone in which some of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (I have no idea if there is any back-history with this poster) and @DougD's opinion/comments have been responded to bothers me. Theorizing and debate are valid pursuits, IMO. I have no more to add so please don't be offended if I decline to respond to anything directed my way.

Merry Christmas and all the very best for 2017.

by Pyrite 21.12.16 9:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:Can't find the particular enlarged image at the moment, nonetheless I ask again. If this has got something to do with a top Madeleine was or wasn't wearing, why then does the same pattern appear on Madeleine's facial features and hair?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
canada12 would have us believe that by using her friend's Mac, and enlarging her image x 400%, that the images she found were of such extreme importance that her 'discovery' needed to be immediately communicated with Scotland Yard and the Portuguese police.

Yet @ Verdi the very straightforward and obvious question you have asked does not seem to have even occurred to her.

The answer is staring at her and everyone else in the face: the patterns are produced by her duff magnification via a Mac computer which has newly created all kinds of new extraneous images, or 'artifacts'.

I do not wish to be rude but it is of extreme arrogance for her to claim that her artificially-produced images and her claims of 'photoshopping' overwhelm the clearest possible statements from recognised experts and so many other good amateur experts here that the Last Photo is genuine, without a trace of evidence for photoshopping.

And in the interests of the truth, unevidenced opinions which contradict good quality evidence, and even reason, must be robustly challenged.

As an aside, the whole place where she now posts, without exception, are confirmed believers in the photoshopping theory of the Last Photo - and they are continuing to take up reams (or 'bytes') of webspace, perpertually re-hashing all the old photoshopping nonsense about Amelie's missing arm and Gerry's sunglasses etc. etc. - maybe they read a bit too much of Textusa.

They have, at the last count, several (secret) threads and over 6,000 posts all dealing with their dominant interest: just how bad is CMOMM?i

I never thought that place could deteriorate much further, but now a whole swathe of posters over there have descened into ever-increased lunacy by repeatedly making these and other similar specific claims - and I jest not:

"sharonl is a paid government 'shill' tasked with promoting the early death theory"

"Tony Bennett has done a dirty deal with the McCanns to attack the photoshopping claims and the validity of the Smith sighting," and

"PeterMac has been bought off and become a government 'shill' and is now batting for the McCanns".

It's unfortunate for them over there that once a delusional mindset sets in and takes deep root, it is almost impossible to recover from it

It's called "Cognitive Dissonance" - when it so hard to change your mind, even if its based on verifiable evidence it becomes too uncomfortable.

I've encountered many people that suffer with this.

I can also confirm TB has done no such deals lol - but then, I am an MI5 agent. laughat

This forum has so much good info on it, shame we have to put up with BS.

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

by Guest 21.12.16 9:55

Doug D wrote:
The pixelated artifact pattern showing in your blow up does not bring out the blouse pattern below the chin line which becomes apparent once the colour saturation is enhanced and this blouse pattern does not develop on the face.

The enhancement is changing of data.

Also you are enhancing a picture that has already had 400% new data added to it by a computer algorithm.

Let's be clear on this.
For every one original pixel... FOUR have been added by the computer in a "guess what is around the original pixel" mode.

Any analysis after this is completely bogus.

If it's not there in the original picture it's just not there.

Please stop the pseudo-science.

by Tony Cadogan 21.12.16 11:57

BlueBag wrote:
Doug D wrote:
The pixelated artifact pattern showing in your blow up does not bring out the blouse pattern below the chin line which becomes apparent once the colour saturation is enhanced and this blouse pattern does not develop on the face.
The enhancement is changing of data.

Also you are enhancing a picture that has already had 400% new data added to it by a computer algorithm.

Let's be clear on this.
For every one original pixel... FOUR have been added by the computer in a "guess what is around the original pixel" mode.

Any analysis after this is completely bogus.

If it's not there in the original picture it's just not there.

Please stop the pseudo-science.

'BlueBag'

Please reconsider what you’ve said and find an arithmetical error, among others

by Tony Cadogan 21.12.16 12:05

Never mind the ‘experts’, particularly those who are unavailable for answering question as to their opinions.

Let’s start with the basics.

‘canada12’ has so far posted no argument/s against what is said in the following two posts:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

One may presume therefore that ‘canada12’ accepts her/his having been mistaken with regard to file transfer/copy. Such a basic lack of knowledge should have been enough to realise that ‘canada12’ had been arguing from ignorance.

Copious references to the superior qualities of Macs’s graphics as compared to those of PCs running Windows are also based on nothing but ignorance of the current state of affairs in image manipulation.

Please have a look at the following link for instance (it has taken no more than 20sec to google):
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Most of the ‘technical’ discussion on this topic has been akin to a lecture on the Number Theory by someone lacking understanding of the basic Arithmetic.

So far therefore:

The arguments for the ‘last photo’ having been taken on day other than Thursday prevail.

The arguments for ‘the last photo’ having been’ photoshopped’, other than having been opened in Photoshop with the purpose of adding some metadata necessary for online distribution, have so far not been put forward. The arguments that have been put forward have not been justified. I have not been able to find anything in the image that could give rise to even the slightest doubt as to its authenticity.

The date the image was created could have been adjusted without leaving any forensic trace. No Photoshop is necessary. Moreover, with the possible benefit of foresight, the desired (false) date could have been set in the camera prior to the photograph been taken and readjusted thereafter, again leaving no forensic trace.

Unless ‘canada12’ and those who find her/his opinions of value are prepared to answer questions as to the merits of their various statements, any further discussion of their propositions seems likely to remain unproductive.

In conclusion, I would like to assure all holding the opposing views of my good will. I will not, however, be inclined to participate in the ‘technical’ discussion of ‘the last photo’ if the questions arising from the info at the links above are not answered by ‘canada12’ or those supporting ‘canada12’s’ erroneous views.

Peaceful Christmas and a great New Year to all.

by Guest 21.12.16 12:12

BlueBag wrote:Please stop the pseudo-science.

I wouldn't even call it pseudo-science, more like what the naked eye sees, transmits to the brain then goes into overdrive with astounding 'eureka' moments of artistic licence. You know what they say about so-and-so being in the eye of the beholder.

A little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing - leave the technical side to the experienced professionals in the field, which is precisely what PeterMac did in the first place which is again being argued ad-infinitum.

Cut to the chase - what would the McCann team gain by creating a photographic scene a la Frankenstein, when all they need do is change the date and time of an existing photograph. That I believe is the long journey traveled thus far by this one image, why continue to look for something that's simply not there only to satisfy a notion perceived by the naked eye and a copious sprinkling of wild imagination.