Re: Another look at the Last photo

by Guest 23.12.16 6:13

The truth is the most important thing.

The truth can withstand scrutiny.

It you post theories and ideas expect the wheat to be separated from the chaff and WELCOME it.

That is the only way forward.

It is the only way you are credible.

The unvarnished truth, first last and always.

They can't touch you if you stick to the truth.

by Tony Cadogan 23.12.16 10:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
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.
Thank you very much indeed @ Tony Cadogan for stopping by to give us this very detailed and informative account of why all the multiplicity of 'photoshopping' arguments fail.

It would be wonderful if all those who have persisted with their photoshopping arguments for years, and I include Textusa, would have the good grace to read and digest your post, along with the two experts' opinions obtained by PeterMac, and concede, after all, that they may have been mistaken. Every single one of us has made at least one mistake in our lives.

The job of this forum is to get closer and closer to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

It does absolutely no service to the 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.

In this case, given your analysis, those of PeterMac's experts, and those of other respected experts on the forum, I believe it is reasonable to assume that we have proved absolutely that the Last Photo is a genuine, untouched photograph - and so we can all move on, having established that as a fact.

As for the date the photo was taken, that is not yet a proven fact, but IMO there is overwhelming evidence that points in one particular direction.

“Thank you very much indeed @ Tony Cadogan for stopping by to give us this very detailed and informative account of why all the multiplicity of 'photoshopping' arguments fail.”

Not at all. I have not done nearly enough to deserve such praise.

Yes, “the multiplicity of 'photoshopping' arguments fail” because they are incapable of being substantiated. So far, such arguments have been similar to those that could be made for a likely connection between an image of Cutty Sark, that might be discerned in a cloud formations, and the 19th-century sailing ship in a Greenwich dry dock.

“It would be wonderful if all those who have persisted with their photoshopping arguments for years, and I include Textusa, would have the good grace to read and digest your post, along with the two experts' opinions obtained by PeterMac, and concede, after all, that they may have been mistaken. Every single one of us has made at least one mistake in our lives.”

I cannot comment on ‘Textusa’. I have not read their writings for a long time; when I did, I found myself drowning in the irrelevant.

It goes without saying that in all my posts I offer my opinions, so that my opinions may be challenged and consequently accepted or rejected. It is a fact of life that some readers suffer from indigestion and some writers rely on proof by assertion.

I have not read Peter Mac yet (no disrespect intended).

I have made countless mistakes in my life and continue making them almost daily.

“The job of this forum is to get closer and closer to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.”

Very good. I would like to help as much as I can.

“It does absolutely no service to the 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.”

Or, alternatively, substantiate his/her propositions, even if only tenuously. I agree that a failure to answer a request to substantiate is hardly a way forward in a debate.

"In this case, given your analysis, those of PeterMac's experts, and those of other respected experts on the forum, I believe it is reasonable to assume that we have proved absolutely that the Last Photo is a genuine, untouched photograph - and so we can all move on, having established that as a fact.
Could you kindly let me have a link to the posts of “other respected experts on the forum”."

With respect, your “proved absolutely” and “having established that as a fact” would take me where I would not like to go at present. (I will attempt to clarify this when I reply to your previous post in due course). I can say that I know of no evidence to support the view that the Last Photo has been manipulated to alter materially the ‘anatomy’ of the image. It is indeed sensible to move on in the absence of any substantiation from the ‘it’s photoshopped’ proponents.

“As for the date the photo was taken, that is not yet a proven fact, but IMO there is overwhelming evidence that points in one particular direction.”

I say likewise. Also, this point, if accepted in court, by itself might suffices to establish an unlawful intent.

Please let me know if you would like me to clarify or re-phrase anything I’ve said.

Best wishes for Christmas and 2017.

by Versailles 24.12.16 8:42

Verdi wrote:BHere 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.]

I can see the flowers from the other blouse quite clearly on the pool photo, without blowing up the pic.

I know it us an "established fact" among the posters here that this photo is genuine.
However, these flower patterns tell me otherwise.

And her facial expression, and her mood is the same as in the pic with the blouse.
Now, this fact alone would not have swayed me.

The flower pattern did.

by Guest 24.12.16 8:49

What flower pattern?

There are large flowers sown/printed on the body.

There are no flowers where canada12 is suggesting, only digital artifacts as a result of massively resizing the photo by 400%.

by **Jill Havern** 24.12.16 8:57

Versailles wrote:
Verdi wrote:BHere 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.]
I can see the flowers from the other blouse quite clearly on the pool photo, without blowing up the pic.

I know it us an "established fact" among the posters here that this photo is genuine.
However, these flower patterns tell me otherwise.

And her facial expression, and her mood is the same as in the pic with the blouse.
Now, this fact alone would not have swayed me.

The flower pattern did.

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

Can you see the flowers on this image that PeterMac enlarged on his mac?

by Guest 24.12.16 10:41

The Peter Mac enlargement is the only legitimate way to look at an enlargement of this photo.

It looks blocky.

Because it has retained the original pixel values - there is no computer guessing going on creating artifacts.

That's why I mentioned Windows Paint earlier, it keeps it simple and it does the same thing.

There are no flowers there.

by **Jill Havern** 24.12.16 12:38

From PeterMac

Whether the photo was or was not photo-shopped is still totally irrelevant.
It was NOT taken on Thursday 3rd May.
Not the photo as it is presented, nor the 'background' photo if Madeleine has been added
That is the issue.
It is a forgery.
It tells a lie about itself.
It purports to have been taken on 3/5/7, and thereby to prove that Madeleine was alive at lunchtime on that day.
But it wasn't.
It was put into the public domain with exactly this message by the McCanns and Mitchell
The main body of the photo - or the whole thing - can ONLY have been taken on Sunday 29th April
The McCanns, their extended family, Mitchell, and the Tapas 7 all know that.
They know. They were there.

Peter

by **Tony Bennett** 24.12.16 13:20

BlueBag wrote:The Peter Mac enlargement is the only legitimate way to look at an enlargement of this photo.

It looks blocky.

Because it has retained the original pixel values - there is no computer guessing going on creating artifacts.

That's why I mentioned Windows Paint earlier, it keeps it simple and it does the same thing.

There are no flowers there.

Thank you @ BlueBag for patiently explaining this point yet again - yet still there are those who say the 'flower pattern' is real. And thank you for all your other endeavours on the forum this year.

It is instructive to see how the issue of the Last Photo is being played out at the moment over in the other place.

One poster writes: "Great research by canada12. Keep up the great work canada! You are rattling cages..."

canada12 replies: "Nice to be in a place where curiosity is not rewarded with bullying and politely agreeing to disagree does not result in banning".

What Blue Bag has demonstrated is the sheer arrogance of canada12's views.

He has pointed out in the clearest possible terms that using 'Windows Paint' to achieve an enlargement does not cause fictitious 'flower pattern' artifacts as has clearly happened with her 400% enlargement using a Mac. Yet she had the temerity to insist, in a very superior way, that the Mac she used was far better than Windows Paint - even to the extent of

(a) sending her fictitious enlargements to Scotland Yard and to the Portuguese Police

(b) saying the first expert consulted by PeterMac was plain wrong

(c) saying that the second expert consulted by PeterMac was plain wrong, and

(d) saying that PeterMac and all the many many others on CMOMM and elsewhere who are now certain that the Last Photo is not faked (apart from the date/time issue) are wrong.

This is a case where someone has elevated her personal belief, which has been clearly exposed here as false, to the truth. In such a clear-cut case of a poster defying the plain evidence we have, and on such an important forensic issue in the case, there is no point in carrying that poster any longer. It is best to leave her to a forum where her wrong beliefs are simply not challenged.

If CMOMM were merely a 'let's all be chums, do share your opinions however daft they are are', kind of a forum, then it would be right to say that the blunt comments of folk like BlueBag and myself could be fairly described as 'rude' and 'bullying'.

But it isn't. It is a forum dedicated to actively seeking the truth. There is no issue, as canada12 makes out, with curiosity. Neither is there an issue with people advancing opinions on the case which they think are right. But where there is simply overwhelming evidence of a factwe have discovered - by the diligent work of forum members here - then people who persist in challenging those facts om baseless evidence serve no purpose here.

@ Richard IV You picked me up the other day by suggesting that in defending the truth of the Last Photo being genuine, I was defending 'my' truth. With respect I think I was defending our truth on here. The truth of the two experts. The truth of the shadows matching the posiiton of the sun in a way that could not be faked. The truth of all those on here, many with relevant expertise, who agreed with the experts. The truth e.g. of member here sonmipapasong/DarrenWare, who made not one but two YouTube videos clearly exposing the sheer madness of bloggers like Textusa and others who maintain that vertical lines on Gerry's sunglasses prove fakery. And so on.

You also pulled me up a year or two back, for what you called a character assassination of Sonia Poulton. No doubt it seemed unkind to you. I did call her a 'pretentious impostor'. Without going over old ground, I will simply suggest that she has never done one single thing to promote the truth about what happened to Madeleine, and indeed she has often done the very reverse...giving platform to nutcases like Birch & Shrimpton...arranging for her friend Hutton to shame our cause by a two-page article in the Sun portraying McCann-sceptics as 'bitches who get a buzz out of squishing the McCanns', and referring to this ever more popular and well-read forum as a 'cesspit'. Should we keep silent about such 'great pretenders'?

Finally. canada12 claims that "politely agreeing to disagree results in banning on CMOMM".

No it doesn't, canada12, and it never has done. That's another false statement you have made. It was your defiant and wilful obstinacy - in the face of overwhelming evidence that your beliefs about the 'flower pattern' were wrong - that led to your ban.

by Guest 24.12.16 13:21

Apropos of the gronz23 very short lived membership on the forum, I quote: "This forum seems to be stuck in very old pattern-thinking from which the majority can't get out.."

Seems there is some truth in that curt statement - there definitely is a minority stuck in old pattern thinking from which they can't get out - a non-existent flowery pattern!

I'm getting confused. Is this the image of Madeleine that's been sewn onto a different body [already very distorted if I might say]?

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

If so, what have the photoshoppers done with the biscuit and how did they manage to re-position the head, open the mouth and add a tongue - or was that pilfered from yet another photograph?

Am I being facetious? Hmmm..

by **Tony Bennett** 24.12.16 13:28

Get'emGonçalo wrote:From PeterMac

Whether the photo was or was not photo-shopped is still totally irrelevant.

Not completely irrelevant @ PeterMac.

The constant circulation of the photoshopping nonsense, and the easy way this nonsense can be refuted, harms and diverts from all our other efforts to determine and promote what is true and what is not.

Mind you, if canada12 would like to make a clear statement that she agrees that the Last Photo was taken on the Sunday, that would be most helpful.

That way we could concentrate on the main issue about the Last Photo and leave all the photoshopping claims in a quiet, tucked-away corner, where they belong.

by Guest 24.12.16 15:33

For what it's worth, I can re-affirm BlueBag's laborious persuasion to explain, in the simplest terms possible, that a flowery effect is apparent when the photograph is enlarged is total nonsense. Still don't believe - then try it yourself!

I don't have a Mac (other than a kintosh variety) but I have increased the size of the 'last photograph' by 400% using windows paint - the resultant effect is exactly the same as that produced by PeterMac's Mac, as BlueBag has repeatedly tried to explain.

What is the point of flying in the face of all reason? Is it dogmatic arrogance; stupidity; or downright destructive mockery?

by Guest 24.12.16 15:49

I know I'm blunt and some people see it as rude.

But if you present stuff that doesn't pass scrutiny you are wasting everyone's time.

If the person persists after being shown the problem with what they are saying then you really have to doubt their motives.

The search for the genuine truth is the only motive anyone should have. Getting upset because someone has picked holes in your pet theory is irrelevant.

by Richard IV 24.12.16 19:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:The Peter Mac enlargement is the only legitimate way to look at an enlargement of this photo.

It looks blocky.

Because it has retained the original pixel values - there is no computer guessing going on creating artifacts.

That's why I mentioned Windows Paint earlier, it keeps it simple and it does the same thing.

There are no flowers there.

Thank you @ BlueBag for patiently explaining this point yet again - yet still there are those who say the 'flower pattern' is real. And thank you for all your other endeavours on the forum this year.

It is instructive to see how the issue of the Last Photo is being played out at the moment over in the other place.

One poster writes: "Great research by canada12. Keep up the great work canada! You are rattling cages..."

canada12 replies: "Nice to be in a place where curiosity is not rewarded with bullying and politely agreeing to disagree does not result in banning".

What Blue Bag has demonstrated is the sheer arrogance of canada12's views.

He has pointed out in the clearest possible terms that using 'Windows Paint' to achieve an enlargement does not cause fictitious 'flower pattern' artifacts as has clearly happened with her 400% enlargement using a Mac. Yet she had the temerity to insist, in a very superior way, that the Mac she used was far better than Windows Paint - even to the extent of

(a) sending her fictitious enlargements to Scotland Yard and to the Portuguese Police

(b) saying the first expert consulted by PeterMac was plain wrong

(c) saying that the second expert consulted by PeterMac was plain wrong, and

(d) saying that PeterMac and all the many many others on CMOMM and elsewhere who are now certain that the Last Photo is not faked (apart from the date/time issue) are wrong.

This is a case where someone has elevated her personal belief, which has been clearly exposed here as false, to the truth. In such a clear-cut case of a poster defying the plain evidence we have, and on such an important forensic issue in the case, there is no point in carrying that poster any longer. It is best to leave her to a forum where her wrong beliefs are simply not challenged.

If CMOMM were merely a 'let's all be chums, do share your opinions however daft they are are', kind of a forum, then it would be right to say that the blunt comments of folk like BlueBag and myself could be fairly described as 'rude' and 'bullying'.

But it isn't. It is a forum dedicated to actively seeking the truth. There is no issue, as canada12 makes out, with curiosity. Neither is there an issue with people advancing opinions on the case which they think are right. But where there is simply overwhelming evidence of a factwe have discovered - by the diligent work of forum members here - then people who persist in challenging those facts om baseless evidence serve no purpose here.

@ Richard IV You picked me up the other day by suggesting that in defending the truth of the Last Photo being genuine, I was defending 'my' truth. With respect I think I was defending our truth on here. The truth of the two experts. The truth of the shadows matching the posiiton of the sun in a way that could not be faked. The truth of all those on here, many with relevant expertise, who agreed with the experts. The truth e.g. of member here sonmipapasong/DarrenWare, who made not one but two YouTube videos clearly exposing the sheer madness of bloggers like Textusa and others who maintain that vertical lines on Gerry's sunglasses prove fakery. And so on.

You also pulled me up a year or two back, for what you called a character assassination of Sonia Poulton. No doubt it seemed unkind to you. I did call her a 'pretentious impostor'. Without going over old ground, I will simply suggest that she has never done one single thing to promote the truth about what happened to Madeleine, and indeed she has often done the very reverse...giving platform to nutcases like Birch & Shrimpton...arranging for her friend Hutton to shame our cause by a two-page article in the Sun portraying McCann-sceptics as 'bitches who get a buzz out of squishing the McCanns', and referring to this ever more popular and well-read forum as a 'cesspit'. Should we keep silent about such 'great pretenders'?

Finally. canada12 claims that "politely agreeing to disagree results in banning on CMOMM".

No it doesn't, canada12, and it never has done. That's another false statement you have made. It was your defiant and wilful obstinacy - in the face of overwhelming evidence that your beliefs about the 'flower pattern' were wrong - that led to your ban.

Oh dear Tony - anyone can appear to be right if they use enough words - legal bods are well known for it - it doesn`t mean they are right. Weren`t you in that profession once?

Someone posted above that it is more than their life`s worth to comment here unless it`s to agree with you or Verdi - doesn`t that worry you or the owner of this forum? canada 12 has been a respected and long term poster here and you refer to her as `defiant and obstinate` just because she disagrees with you - honestly you make her sound like a naughty school girl who has defied the head teacher.

Personally I now keep clear of subject where `the party line must be adhered to` and just focus on news and political topics. I know if I disagree with the party line I will just get a torrent of words.

by **Jill Havern** 24.12.16 19:32

PeterMac is a respected and long term member of this forum and canada12 referred to him as a fake.

She referred to the two experts that PeterMac consulted about the authenticity of the Last Photo as fake.

Peter has done far more for Madeleine that she could ever hope to.

It bothers me not a jot actually that she's gone.

by Guest 24.12.16 20:54

Richard IV wrote:
Someone posted above that it is more than their life`s worth to comment here unless it`s to agree with you or Verdi

Where was that posted? Forgive me as I don't wish to protract a worthless diversion but I must have missed it. I do like to defend my position where necessary as I always try to explain my thoughts on any given topic - hence the aptly applied label, invented by some wise guy - 'wordy Verdi'.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 24.12.16 21:08

Richard IV wrote:
Richard IV wrote:
Oh dear Tony - anyone can appear to be right if they use enough words - legal bods are well known for it - it doesn`t mean they are right. Weren`t you in that profession once?

Someone posted above that it is more than their life`s worth to comment here unless it`s to agree with you or Verdi - doesn`t that worry you or the owner of this forum? canada 12 has been a respected and long term poster here and you refer to her as `defiant and obstinate` just because she disagrees with you - honestly you make her sound like a naughty school girl who has defied the head teacher.

Personally I now keep clear of subject where `the party line must be adhered to` and just focus on news and political topics. I know if I disagree with the party line I will just get a torrent of words.

Oh dear Richard IV, is it not time, especially in this season of goodwill to all men (and women), that you now own up to having been 'Woofer' here in a former life, and have been 'Mimi' on candyfloss's forum since the beginning of MMM, when all the other malcontents left?

Should you not be honest with all your fellow-members here and tell them that you have been one of the loudest and most frequent posters on those seven long CMOMM-bashing threads over there, with some 289 pages of bile on them so far?

Should you not inform us that you posted this OP on MMM yesterday:

QUOTE:

Thank you for this great forum...

Where we can be ourselves and not afraid to post
Are polite to each other (most of the time)
Respect each others' views
Where we can discuss the case rationally
Where we aren't bullied into conceding we are wrong
Where we don't have to follow the party line in fear of being abused or banned
It's great here - it's the most civilised MM forum.

UNQUOTE

Come on, fess up, woman!

Come clean - and we'll let you stay on here

by Richard IV 24.12.16 21:44

"Own up" Tony? You`re going on as if it was a secret.

by Guest 24.12.16 23:15

Richard IV wrote:
Someone posted above that it is more than their life`s worth to comment here unless it`s to agree with you or Verdi - doesn`t that worry you or the owner of this forum? canada 12 has been a respected and long term poster here and you refer to her as `defiant and obstinate` just because she disagrees with you

She was shown facts... FACTS... about pixels.

This isn't a matter of opinion.

She was still pushing a bogus theory after being told why it didn't stack up.

Then she had a go at Peter Mac as a fake... which is pretty unbelievable.

She is not interested in the truth.

by Guest 24.12.16 23:20

Richard IV wrote:
Where we can discuss the case rationally

I'm 100% for that.

I think rational critical thinking is the only way forward.

That's what we got on this thread eventually.

Hard cold thinking.

Bogus theories waste everyone's time.

Surely you would agree with that Richard IV?

You are more interested in the truth then personal sensibilities I hope?

by JohnyT 24.12.16 23:28

I must admit I was on the side of canada12s' r.e. the flowery pattern when enlarged BUT after seeing the original image enlarged it's quite obvious there is no pattern there.
JohnyT

by costello 25.12.16 2:36

Richard IV wrote:"Own up" Tony? You`re going on as if it was a secret.

Mimi earlier tonight on MMM:

" I'm a bit cheeky sometimes - I had to see if I could get back in there without them knowing - but they obviously worked it out at some point."

by Tony Cadogan 25.12.16 6:19

BlueBag wrote:
Richard IV wrote:
Someone posted above that it is more than their life`s worth to comment here unless it`s to agree with you or Verdi - doesn`t that worry you or the owner of this forum? canada 12 has been a respected and long term poster here and you refer to her as `defiant and obstinate` just because she disagrees with you

She was shown facts... FACTS... about pixels.

This isn't a matter of opinion.

She was still pushing a bogus theory after being told why it didn't stack up.

Then she had a go at Peter Mac as a fake... which is pretty unbelievable.

She is not interested in the truth.

“She was shown facts... FACTS... about pixels.”

You are not in a position to say this since you don’t know enough about pixels. You are simply relying on the authority of others.

“This isn't a matter of opinion.”

In your case it is, since you don’t know enough about pixels.

“She was still pushing a bogus theory after being told why it didn't stack up.”

You have done likewise more than once. Both ‘she’ and yourself do not know much about pixels but argue as if you do.

I have no reason to doubt that both of you are sincere but wrong about pixels, each in their own pig-headed way.

To borrow a couple of lines:

“But there is only one authority
And that’s the authority on High”

A Merry Christmas to you, sincerely.

by **Jill Havern** 25.12.16 6:59

costello wrote:
Richard IV wrote:"Own up" Tony? You`re going on as if it was a secret.

Mimi earlier tonight on MMM:

" I'm a bit cheeky sometimes - I had to see if I could get back in there without them knowing - but they obviously worked it out at some point."

Not sure what your proxy-posting game is but having spoken to the real 'costello' on facebook a few weeks ago she's adamant she has been cloned - as has 'dannii', another member of MMM, who joined here on the same day.

Clearly someone from MMM is causing mischief here again and telling their own members that we are cloning their members in an effort to discredit CMOMM.
Now, who do we know who usually trip-traps over here in the early hours of the morning...?
Obviously you really are a member of MMM to be able to bring us Mimi/Richard IV's post.
Sorry, but we've got better things to do than host these silly mind games.
Goodbye, but please do have yourself a Merry Christmas while you're at it.

by **Jill Havern** 25.12.16 7:32

While I'm on the subject of MMM trying to discredit CMOMM again, canada12 is now saying that PeterMac has done a turnaround and is now agreeing that the "Last Photo is a composite and Madeleine was added afterwards".

This is simply not true.

PeterMac is of the belief that the Last Photo was taken on Sunday 29th as he has written in his e-book which is on the internet for everyone to read, and which has been submitted as evidence to the Prime Minister, Sir B H-H and Operation Grange. He does not believe there are any flowers as he has shown in the image I posted here for him.

In a further email to me yesterday, Peter clarified canada12's theory by saying that "even if Madeleine had been photoshopped IN" (which is canada12's theory) the photo still dates from Sunday 29th and, either way (if you believe canada12 or PeterMac) it is still a forgery....and, therefore, an attempt to pervert the course of justice, which is what Peter is working on 'in the background'.

I have emailed him this morning to ask for permission to post his last email, or whether he could write one last comment on this issue, but hopefully this post may suffice for him. He may not respond as it is Christmas Day.

Here is a relevant chapter of Peter's e-book [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

------------

eta: Peter has just replied with this (thank you Peter):

Better wording ?
Go ahead

When I say it is irrelevant, I mean that it is irrelevant to the point of whether the photo was taken on 3/5/7 - which it clearly wasn't
Even if Madeleine had been photoshopped IN, the 'original base' photo still dates from 29/4/7, and the McCanns, and Mitchell (inter alia) know this.
It is still a forgery
Its intention is still to show that Madeleine was alive at lunchtime on 3/5/7
In fact it tends far more to Evidence of Absence, and may be clear evidence of conspiracy to pervert . . .

It is of course relevant to show how an irrelevant and clearly invented detail is being blown up to try to divert people's attention from the central fact, without in any way refuting that fact, by people who have a clear mission to do so - for whatever reason.
A tactic we are only too familiar with.

by Guest 25.12.16 8:06

Tony Cadogan wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Richard IV wrote:
Someone posted above that it is more than their life`s worth to comment here unless it`s to agree with you or Verdi - doesn`t that worry you or the owner of this forum? canada 12 has been a respected and long term poster here and you refer to her as `defiant and obstinate` just because she disagrees with you

She was shown facts... FACTS... about pixels.

This isn't a matter of opinion.

She was still pushing a bogus theory after being told why it didn't stack up.

Then she had a go at Peter Mac as a fake... which is pretty unbelievable.

She is not interested in the truth.

“She was shown facts... FACTS... about pixels.”

You are not in a position to say this since you don’t know enough about pixels. You are simply relying on the authority of others.

“This isn't a matter of opinion.”

In your case it is, since you don’t know enough about pixels.

“She was still pushing a bogus theory after being told why it didn't stack up.”

You have done likewise more than once. Both ‘she’ and yourself do not know much about pixels but argue as if you do.

Put up or shut up.

Please don't go on about the increase as you well know I was talking about a 400% increase in area as opposed to your 400% increase in resolution.

It seems a strange thing to pick a fight with me about.

Believe me I know about pixels.

So show us where I was wrong.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.12.16 10:19

I am afraid that, while I am sure he was doing his very best, PeterMac has inadvertently and unintentionally given further encouragement those who insist that Madeleine's head (or parts of her or the whole of her) was photoshopped onto the Last Photo.

I believe canada12's claim is that the McCanns used the 'Biscuit Photo' (below) to photoshop it on to the Last Photo.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

PeterMac made these two comments which have unwittingly, I believe, sown further confusion:

"…nor the background photo if Madeleine has been added"

and

"The main body of the photo - or the whole thing..."

It looks as though he has tried to accommodate the views of those who believe that Madeleine’s head has ben photoshopped in order to sustain his claim that the Last Photo was definitely taken on 29 April.

If I may take the very great liberty of suggesting what PeterMac may have meant to say, I think it would have run like this:

“I don’t for one moment see any evidence whatsoever that Madeleine, or part of her, was photoshopped onto the Last Photo - and that indeed is the clear evidence of the two experts I consulted - but even in the extremely unlikely event that anybody could possibly demonstrate that she was photoshopped in, it would not alter the fact that all the other indications from the Last Photo show that it was taken on Sunday 29 April”.

-------------------------------

I refer back now to canada12’s main conclusion as stated back up this thread:

QUOTE canada12:

My conclusion? Madeleine's head was photoshopped onto the body in the LP. You can cover the edges with wisps of hair. You paint them in with a fine brush in Photoshop. You further conceal the edges with a hat. And you attempt to darken the joins in the neck area so that it looks like shadow.
Except that the pattern still remains and if you enhance it enough you can see the blouse from the source photo.

UNQUOTE

This is what I said upthread in reply to canada 12at the time, and which I stand by today:

QUOTE Tony Bennett:

In relation to canada12's claims, they must I suggest be rejected for all the following reasons:

1. Photo A has not been taken in any direct sunlight. Either it's been taken in cloudy weather or inside.

2. Contrary to canada12's claims, it would be utterly impossible to photoshop direct sunlight and a very strong shadow on to Photo A

3. Besides that Madeleine's face is partly obscured by a hand on Photo A

4. In addition, though the shape of her face and pose are very similar to each other on the two photos, they are clearly NOT the same shape and pose if you take a close look

5. Madeleine is clearly wearing different attire on the two photos - it's more like a shawl on Photo A

6. The pattern that canada12 claims to have found repeated on the Last Photo, form Photo A, appears not only on a sliver of her neck but also on the bottom left side of her face. This strongly suggests to me that what we are seeing is what a number of photo experts quoted on this forum have described as a 'compression artifact'

7. To claim that Madeleine's face has been photoshopped on to the Last Photo would involve a photoshopper having to accomplish ALL of the following:
(a) alter the shape of Madeleine's face
(b) convincingly photoshop out Madeleine's right hand, which is hiding part of the right side of her face
(c) completely re-arrange the way her hair is falling - the way the strands are falling is quite different on the two photos
(d) in addition make some of her fall on the skin of her left arm
(e) add direct sunlight on part of her face
(f) add shadows to her face
(g) add her white hat
(h) in addition to that, completely fake the shadows so that they fall exactly in line with the hat she is wearing and the two main strands of hair that fall on the right side of her face
(i) and on top of that, fake the shadows on Gerry McCann, Amelie and all the other shadows in the photo so accurately that they all exactly match the very high position of the sun at the moment the Last Photo was taken, and finally
(j) this truly staggering amount of impossible photoshopping has been carried out so brilliantly that it has deceived two leading world photographic experts who could see no sign whatsoever of photoshopping and one of who said specifically that the shadows all completely matched each other - something in itself that is impossible to fake.

UNQUOTE

The recent history of this thread is very interesting. It had lain dormant since May. It was revived on 17 December. Since then three people from another place, all with suspect motives, have attempted to derail it.

When I ‘outed’ Richard IV last night, even members in the other place couldn’t believe it, and thought I must be in error. Until Woofer/Mimi/Richard IV admitted her deception in the other place.

Just for the record, it was not until yesterday that I was made aware of this deception. Whilst in her persona as ‘Richard IV’ over here, she has been systematically running down CMOM in the other place and generally making mockery and sport of the good things that go on here. And in doing this, she had been supported by the forum-owner over there, her Moderators, and many of their members.

-----------

Finally, a technical issue which, not being a 'tecchie', I must leave to the experts to discus. And then we poor laymen have to do our best to interpret what they say.

I simply ask this question about the 'Biscuit Photo' upon which canada12 relies for her analysis.

Has that photo itself been enlarged, or otherwise been enhanced, or otherwise modified, whether on a Mac computer or otherwise, before being placed on this forum? Or is it the original photo?

by **Jill Havern** 25.12.16 12:18

Tony Bennett wrote:

Has that photo itself been enlarged, or otherwise been enhanced, or otherwise modified, whether on a Mac computer or otherwise, before being placed on this forum? Or is it the original photo?

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

I don't know Tony, but if you enlarge it 400% you can see flowers on her neck big grin

by **Tony Bennett** 25.12.16 14:04

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Has that photo itself been enlarged, or otherwise been enhanced, or otherwise modified, whether on a Mac computer or otherwise, before being placed on this forum? Or is it the original photo?

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

I don't know Tony, but if you enlarge it 400% you can see flowers on her neck

@ Get'emGoncalo Wow! You are certainly on the ball this Christmas Day!

That was exactly my point!

How do we know that canada12 hasn't (whether deliberately or inadvertently) compared her false enhancement/enlargement/manipulation of the Last Photo with some kind of similar kind of enhancement/enlargement/manipulation of the 'Biscuit Photo'?

Comparing one false image with another false image?

Besides that, on canada12's enlargement of the Last Photo, you can even see the 'dress flower pattern' on Madeleine's lips!

laughat

by Doug D 25.12.16 18:05

Sorry, bitten my tongue for long enough and this stupid argument is going the way of the McCann twitter thread in it’s ridiculousness, which no doubt is just what TM would want.

TB:

I believe canada12's claim is that the McCanns used the 'Biscuit Photo' (below) to photoshop it on to the Last Photo.

No it wasn’t.

Canada12’s suggestion was that these photos were the nearest photos facially to that of MM in the last photo, and that a photo taken at the same time could have been used in the last photo, if indeed that was the case.

No nonsense about cutting the biscuit out, turning the face etc. Simply another photo, taken at the same time but that has never been released, could have been used.

PeterMac’s challenge as to the validity of the date the photo was taken is certainly correct, but may not go far enough. Again it’s a matter of opinion and based on the evidence available to us cannot be resolved with 100% certainty.

His two experts finding no evidence of photoshopping, is exactly the evidence an expertly photoshopped picture (which could have taken three weeks to prepare) should reveal, but the usual get-out clause from these type of people (not that I am aware any such statement was made in this case) is:

‘There is nothing in the file metadata that indicates this file has been edited. Careful editors can fix the data and erase their tracks though, so this means you'll have to look at the photo and decide if it looks correct and not edited.’

thereby throwing the last-resort test back on the eye.

However for the ‘gestalt’ high def. photo, which as far as I am aware is the earliest ‘original’ anyone has access to and does seem to have the ‘original’ ‘Family Handout’ and exif data etc, (although the suggestion obviously is that this may have been tampered with), as far as the picture being edited, the computer says ‘Yes’:

Yes

gestalt-3AsTheKTPHorg.jpg

Image edited with Adobe Photoshop CS Windows

Photo has been modified since it was created. Modified: 2007:05:24 17:41:22

Photo has Adobe editing tags

image created 2007:05:03 13:29:51

Exif and image data can tell if an image has been edited, but not how much. You'll need to look closer at the image to decide how much it has been edited.

Raw Image Metadata (exif)

File Size	1826 kB
File Type	JPEG
MIME Type	image/jpeg
JFIF Version	1.02
Exif Byte Order	Little-endian (Intel, II)
Make	Canon
Camera Model Name	[url=http://www.amazon.com/s/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&field-keywords=Canon PowerShot]Canon PowerShot A620[/url]
Orientation	Horizontal (normal)
X Resolution	180
Y Resolution	180
Resolution Unit	inches
Software	Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
Modify Date	2007:05:24 17:41:22
Y Cb Cr Positioning	Centered
Exposure Time	1/1000
F Number	4.0
Exif Version	0220
Date/Time Original	2007:05:03 13:29:51
Create Date	2007:05:03 13:29:51
Components Configuration	Y, Cb, Cr, -
Compressed Bits Per Pixel	2
Shutter Speed Value	1/1002
Aperture Value	4.0
Exposure Compensation	0
Max Aperture Value	3.5
Metering Mode	Multi-segment
Focal Length	21.7 mm (35 mm equivalent: 104.2 mm)
Flashpix Version	0100
Color Space	sRGB
Exif Image Width	3072
Exif Image Height	2304
Interoperability Index	R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
Interoperability Version	0100
Related Image Width	3072
Related Image Height	2304
Focal Plane X Resolution	10816.90141
Focal Plane Y Resolution	10816.90141
Focal Plane Resolution Unit	inches
Sensing Method	One-chip color area
File Source	Digital Camera
Custom Rendered	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Compression	JPEG (old-style)
Thumbnail Offset	1164
Thumbnail Length	8182
Current IPTC Digest	7ebdfddc52f03fb0d41c2e046da672d1
Object Name	CORRECTION-PORTUGAL-BRITAIN-CRIME
Category	CLJ
Supplemental Categories	Crime
Special Instructions	CORRECTING SOURCE IN IPCT
Date Created	2007:05:24
Time Created	15:21:29+00:00
By-line Title	HO
City	Lagos
Country-Primary Location Code	PRT
Country-Primary Location Name	Portugal
Headline	-
Credit	AFP
Source	FAMILY HANDOUT
Copyright Notice	ImageForum
Caption-Abstract	CORRECTING SOURCE IN IPCT:..Picture released by the McCann family 24 May 2007 and was taken 03 May 2007, the same day Madeleine McCann (R) went missing from the family's holiday apartment in the southern Algarve region. The photo also shows Madeleine's father Gerry and sister Amelie. Madeleine was abducted as she slept with her brother and sister in a hotel apartment at the Ocean Club Resort while her parents dined at a nearby restaurant. AFP PHOTO/HO
Writer-Editor	lfb
Language Identifier	EN
XMP Toolkit	XMP toolkit 3.0-28, framework 1.6
About	uuid:367c54b9-0a0d-11dc-b952-be0bcc6c30e7
Date/Time Digitized	2007:05:03 13:29:51+01:00
Flash Fired	False
Flash Return	No return detection
Flash Mode	Auto
Flash Function	False
Flash Red Eye Mode	True
Metadata Date	2007:05:24 17:41:22+01:00
Creator Tool	Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
Derived From Document ID	adobe:docid:photoshop:f6b0285f-0a0a-11dc-b952-be0bcc6c30e7
Derived From Instance ID	uuid:63e9333c-0a0c-11dc-b952-be0bcc6c30e7
Document ID	adobe:docid:photoshop:367c54b5-0a0d-11dc-b952-be0bcc6c30e7
Format	image/jpeg
Profile CMM Type	Lino
Profile Version	2.1.0
Profile Class	Display Device Profile
Color Space Data	RGB
Profile Connection Space	XYZ
Profile Date Time	1998:02:09 06:49:00
Profile File Signature	acsp
Primary Platform	Microsoft Corporation
CMM Flags	Not Embedded, Independent
Device Manufacturer	IEC
Device Model	sRGB
Device Attributes	Reflective, Glossy, Positive, Color
Rendering Intent	Perceptual
Connection Space Illuminant	0.9642 1 0.82491
Profile Creator	HP
Profile ID	0
Profile Copyright	Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company
Profile Description	sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Media White Point	0.95045 1 1.08905
Media Black Point	0 0 0
Red Matrix Column	0.43607 0.22249 0.01392
Green Matrix Column	0.38515 0.71687 0.09708
Blue Matrix Column	0.14307 0.06061 0.7141
Device Mfg Desc	IEC [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Device Model Desc	IEC 61966-2.1 Default RGB colour space - sRGB
Viewing Cond Desc	Reference Viewing Condition in IEC61966-2.1
Viewing Cond Illuminant	19.6445 20.3718 16.8089
Viewing Cond Surround	3.92889 4.07439 3.36179
Viewing Cond Illuminant Type	D50
Luminance	76.03647 80 87.12462
Measurement Observer	CIE 1931
Measurement Backing	0 0 0
Measurement Geometry	Unknown (0)
Measurement Flare	0.999%
Measurement Illuminant	D65
Technology	Cathode Ray Tube Display
DCT Encode Version	100
APP14 Flags 0	[14]
APP14 Flags 1	(none)
Color Transform	YCbCr
Image Width	3072
Image Height	2304
Encoding Process	Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample	8
Color Components	3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling	YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
Aperture	4.0
Date/Time Created	2007:05:24 15:21:29+00:00
Flash	Auto, Did not fire, Red-eye reduction
Image Size	3072x2304
Shutter Speed	1/1000
Circle Of Confusion	0.006 mm
Field Of View	19.6 deg
Hyperfocal Distance	18.82 m

……………………………………..

Adobe photoshop would not be needed just to change the date, so something has happened. This could have been just a small correction/adjustment for the newspapers or something more sinister.

I do not know if PeterMac’s two experts highlighted these facts in their reports, but imo they should have done so, as a rider, when expressing their opinions.

PeterMac’s pixel photo of MM’s arm does not help as regards to dissing canada12’s 'flowers' suggestion, as it does not show the area in question, that being above the shoulder, but as this suggestion has been summarily dismissed on here anyway, is basically irrelevant.

One thing I am certain of though is that the statement ‘we have proved absolutely that the Last Photo is a genuine, untouched photograph - and so we can all move on, having established that as a fact.’ cannot and will never be able to be stated as an absolute proof based on the available information. Sorry Tony.

What we can just about all agree on and move on from is that the photo stinks, composition, date and time taken, weather and state of sun tans etc. Quite what is actually wrong does not matter and as PeterMac says:

‘It is still a forgery
Its intention is still to show that Madeleine was alive at lunchtime on 3/5/7
In fact it tends far more to Evidence of Absence, and may be clear evidence of conspiracy to pervert . . .’

As a New Years resolution for all, please can we try to cut out the constant sniping and piss-taking that has recently reached endemic proportions on here as it does nothing but devalue this forum’s basic cause and is laying itself open to as much ridicule as the McCann twitter thread.

by Guest 25.12.16 19:56

@DougD

So now yet another photograph is being introduced, one that has never been seen, to explain how an imaginary floral pattern appears on just one enlarged image of 'the last photograph' - when using one persons Mac as opposed to another persons Mac?

How much evidence do you want before conceding that a persistant claim made by one Canada12, who appears to be taking the myths, is an imaginary effect created, again it would appear, just to make mischief.

If a New Years resolution is to be made then I strongly suggest cut to the chase and stop banging on about flowery patterns that just don't exist - and even if they did, amount to beggar all as regards when 'the last photograph' was taken. Personally I think it's the propagation of a nonsense theory that leaves the forum wide open to ridicule, not a touch of levity here and there. The pattern theory is at best risible so I ask that you excuse my being facetious at times - I can't 'elp it! OK is doesn't help but neither does inventing nonsense that leads nowhere other than the bottom of the garden with the fairies.