Another look at the Last photo

Tony Cadogan wrote:

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

skyrocket wrote: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.

Tony Cadogan wrote: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.

Richard IV wrote:@ Tony Bennett "It does absolutely no service to the truth (YOUR Truth ) to allow unevidenced and plainly wrong opinions to be continuously debated - and that was my issue with canada12. She was unable to concede that she might have been mistaken."


Another forum has a thread on The Last Photo and someone has written that you have banned canada12 from this forum. Please tell me this isn`t true.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

On the 'other forum' you will have read what she, and others, have said about PeterMac and how he is "a well placed fake" who is "not genuine" and how his "experts" (all in quotation marks) can be dismissed...canada12 is better placed on the MMM forum than here.

BlueBag wrote:

Tony Cadogan wrote:

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

0% increase = still 1 original pixel.
100% increase = now 2
200% increase = now 3
300% increase = now 4
400% increase = now 5

1 original and 4 new.

"among others".... like?

BlueBag wrote:Tony C.

Semantics.

What I said is correct.

Merry Christmas.

Tony Cadogan wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Tony C.

Semantics.

What I said is correct.

Merry Christmas.

“Semantics.”

Is that all?

“What I said is correct.

Let’s wait and see, shall we?

For now, let others think for themselves what is right since you appear to hsve decided to join the ranks of those who are ’right’(not) and therefore decline to comment when faced with something they do not understand and/or do not want to understand.

No offence and a Merry Christmas to you once again.

Tony Cadogan wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Tony C.

Semantics.

What I said is correct.

Merry Christmas.

“Semantics.”

Is that all?

“What I said is correct.

Let’s wait and see, shall we?

For now, let others think for themselves what is right since you appear to hsve decided to join the ranks of those who are ’right’(not) and therefore decline to comment when faced with something they do not understand and/or do not want to understand.

No offence and a Merry Christmas to you once again.

gronz23 wrote:This forum seems to be stuck in very old pattern-thinking from which the majority can't get out. New insights are said to be nonsense. 
In that case you will never find out what exactly happened. 
You have too many assumptions.

Tony Bennett wrote:canada12's latest pronouncement in the other place on the Last Photo, reproduced without comment:


"I still question why it’s vitally important to disprove why the Last Photo is a fake. When was it taken? Look over here, not over there.  I will continue to look over there, because the constant re-examination of when it was taken continues to be a diversion from the greater question".

Verdi wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:canada12's latest pronouncement in the other place on the Last Photo, reproduced without comment:

"I still question why it’s vitally important to disprove why the Last Photo is a fake. When was it taken? Look over here, not over there.  I will continue to look over there, because the constant re-examination of when it was taken continues to be a diversion from the greater question".

I don't usually bother to visit these tittle-tattle places, unless one has been mentioned for some specific reason - like now!

If it's the 3 Ms, I've looked through the limited topics on the forum but can't see anything (other than a few familiar names) relating to the 'last photograph' - is it hidden behind closed doors?  If so, what is the point of maintaining a forum relating to Madeleine McCann's disappearance if you're not going to discuss the actual subject matter?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:canada12's latest pronouncement in the other place on the Last Photo, reproduced without comment:

"I still question why it’s vitally important to disprove why the Last Photo is a fake. When was it taken? Look over here, not over there.  I will continue to look over there, because the constant re-examination of when it was taken continues to be a diversion from the greater question".

I don't usually bother to visit these tittle-tattle places, unless one has been mentioned for some specific reason - like now!

If it's the 3 Ms, I've looked through the limited topics on the forum but can't see anything (other than a few familiar names) relating to the 'last photograph' - is it hidden behind closed doors?  If so, what is the point of maintaining a forum relating to Madeleine McCann's disappearance if you're not going to discuss the actual subject matter?

@ Verdi   To answer your earlier post today first, re new member gronz23, you observed in response to his/her caustic comment on the forum: 

"Sorry you feel like that after only 24 hour membership on the forum".

What gronz23 wrote was:

"This forum seems to be stuck in very old pattern-thinking from which the majority can't get out. New insights are said to be nonsense.  In that case you will never find out what exactly happened. You have too many assumptions".

It will not surprise you, nor other members and guests here, that the Moderators have likewise identified him/her as an obvious disruptor and s/he has been banned.

Incidentally, this is the third incident in as many days where a disruptor has had to be banned, The evidence suggests that these disruptors emanate from basically the same source; further evidence may enable us to name who or what is behind this.    

Dealing with the claim that CMOMM is "stuck in very old pattern-thinking from which the majority can't get out", the exact opposite is the truth. 

Consider by contrast the Textusa blog:

Since the beginning he has maintained this statement on his website:

"Maddie McCann died in the early evening of May 3^rd, 2007, in the Apartment 5A".

He is stuck with that and can't move away from it. He simply cannot consider something serious happening happened to Madeleine any earlier in the week.

Likewise he is wholly committed to the claim by Martin Smith (a) that he really saw anyone at all and (b) that it was Gerry McCann. And that's despite all the obvious contradictions in  and problems with the Smiths' evidence - and despite Martin Smith having switched to helping the McCann Team for exactly the last nine years.

Likewise he is stuck on the all the nonsense about the alleged photoshopping of the Last Photo. Not content with the 101+ versions of what has been photoshopped, promoted by dozens of people, has even added his own crazy version, possibly the most extreme of all the photoshopping theories. Textusa's centrepiece was the vertical image in Gerry's sunglasses, which it took a CMOMM member, sonmi papasong/Darren Ware, to disprove, in a brilliant but light-hearted demonstration (here:

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

Textusa even claimed that Gerry McCann had revisited the Ocean Club with his two children two weeks after he had reported Madeleine missing, taken new photographs there - only taking them when the sun and shadows were 'in exactly the right position' - and gone into a nearby photographic studio to get the 'Last Photo' photoshopped there and then. It really doesn't get madder than that, though canada12's theory is a close second .

So (1) which forum was it that was NOT 'stuck in very old pattern-thinking'? (2) Which forum had as one of its members a committed ex-police officer who went to the trouble of contacting two recognised experts to check if there was any possibility that the Last Photo might have been photoshopped? (3) Which forum had two long Last Photo threads with many members devoting their time and energy to the NEW theory that the Last Photo may have been taken on Sunday?  Answers: (1( CMOMM (2) CMOMM and (3) CMOMM.

Where has the attack on the validity of the 'Smithman' sighting come from? From here - at a time when most people believed DCI Redwood was telling the truth!

We have the advantage here of open memberships. New blood joins. We get fresh (and well-evidenced) ideas. It is a vital, vibrant forum, unafraid to entertain new ideas, but also unafraid to challenge bad ideas.  

Some other Madeleine forums took a decision a long time ago to close their books. Consequently their viewer numbers have steadily declined, and they lack the injection of fresh thinking.

Coming back to candyfloss's forum, the '3Ms', I get feedback now and then from some of those members here who are also members over there. I make a habit if not commenting, but when I received a report that canada12 was continuing her attack on the genuineness of the Last Photo - and was being supported by practically all the members over there, who all seem to be confirmed photoshoppers (albeit mostly disagreeing about what has been photoshopped in or out) - I did bring it here.

You are dead right, most of the discussion about what happened to Madeleine over there is for members only, but even those threads are overwhelmingly dominated by the literally hundreds of pages devoted to CMOMM - which is obviously their major interest.

icanseeyou wrote:This thread's spinning all over the place.
If I may offer an opinion...
Coming back down to earth, I think we all need to remember a thing or two regarding this or any blog /site concerned with the mystery.

rose1234 wrote:I've often wanted to comment on topics or join in discussion but always decide against it for fear of either my opinions being scorned or another poster being rude or personal, as I've seen too often on here. 

Sometimes I think that members who are 'friendly' with each other would be better sharing phone numbers and calling each other for a chat rather than ganging up on a public forum.

rose1234 wrote:I've often wanted to comment on topics or join in discussion but always decide against it for fear of either my opinions being scorned or another poster being rude or personal, as I've seen too often on here. 

Sometimes I think that members who are 'friendly' with each other would be better sharing phone numbers and calling each other for a chat rather than ganging up on a public forum.