Re: Another look at the Last photo

by **Jill Havern** 30.03.17 8:17

Verdi wrote:Sorry Nina .

"Mummy, I've had the best day ever!"

by **Jill Havern** 30.03.17 8:18

BlueBag wrote:
Constablekid wrote:My question is about the sun glasses. I was really fascinated by the theory on this blog about the possibility of the sunglasses being photoshopped.
Sorry again if this has already been discussed to death.
Yes they were discussed to death.

You need to be a little bit more helpful than that! yes

by Guest 30.03.17 9:00

Oh right....

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

The search function is reall easy to use.

by Phoebe 30.03.17 18:05

Isn't it odd that no pictures have emerged from the famous Tapas High Teas showing all the group's kids tucking in? It was a perfect opportunity for the whole group, who only managed to get together very occasionally, to capture all their kids together at that age for albums of the future. The parents allegedly had to come to collect them daily at a given time, surely a lost photo opportunity. Not even an enterprising nanny thought of it.

by Liz Eagles 31.03.17 11:36

Phoebe wrote:Isn't it odd that no pictures have emerged from the famous Tapas High Teas showing all the group's kids tucking in? It was a perfect opportunity for the whole group, who only managed to get together very occasionally, to capture all their kids together at that age for albums of the future. The parents allegedly had to come to collect them daily at a given time, surely a lost photo opportunity. Not even an enterprising nanny thought of it.

There was, however CCTV footage released of the T7 and their kids at the Paraiso beach restaurant. Madeleine, Gerry and the kids were missing. Kate says something along the lines she was running along the beach and the T7 waved to her and then laments on how Madeleine might have been upset to be left out/uninvited.

by NickE 01.04.17 22:26

I know this with flowers and plants has been discussed before but there is something that doesn´t feel right with this photo and I looked into this a little bit more.

The last photo and the playground photo is supposed to have been taken in the same week(Sunday? acc to the McCann´s on Thursday?)
On this photo we can see that the wall is full of flowers and green leaf.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The "Playground photo" is supposed to have been taken on Saturday, a day or couple of days before the last photo.
(Note the red circle)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is a picture from "Madeleine was here",no green leaf and no flowers.
(Note the red circle, exactly the same spot and the same plant as in the "Playground photo"
(With this picture I just want to point out the exact spot and plant)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This photo below has been taken from distance but we can clearly see, to right of the palm tree,at the exactly same spot as in the picture from "Madeleine was here" and in "the playground photo" that the plant is full of green leaf and we can also see, as in the last photo, see the flowers and green leaf on the wall around the poolarea.
And what do I want to say with this?
How come that there is no green leaf behind Maddie in the "playground photo" when the wall is full of flowers and green leaf in "the last photo" AND, as in the this photo below, where we can clearly see green leaf in the exactly same spot as in background of "Playground photo"?

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

by Guest 01.04.17 23:21

Trust me - tis the nature of the shrub and influenced by the positioning of the plant, the climate and the cultivation/care. A random example..

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

Ask anyone familiar with the plant for confirmation.

Please please let's no go down this road again.

ETA: Another example..

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

by NickE 02.04.17 18:27

Verdi wrote:Trust me - tis the nature of the shrub and influenced by the positioning of the plant, the climate and the cultivation/care. A random example..

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

Ask anyone familiar with the plant for confirmation.

Please please let's no go down this road again.

ETA: Another example..

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

I didn't know that this has been completely invastigated.
Any link please?

by Guest 02.04.17 20:55

The flower is called something like borginia (bourgenia?)

There is a lot of discussion in this forum, including someones garden in PDL taken at the same time and they are flowering.

They do flower at that time.

Once someone gets the right name, use the search.

by **Jill Havern** 02.04.17 21:00

BlueBag wrote:The flower is called something like borginia (bourgenia?)

There is a lot of discussion in this forum, including someones garden in PDL taken at the same time and they are flowering.

They do flower at that time.

Once someone gets the right name, use the search.

bougainvillea

by Guest 02.04.17 21:01

That's it!

Thanks GEG.

by **Jill Havern** 02.04.17 21:02

BlueBag wrote:That's it!

Thanks GEG.

And here's the thread [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Nina** 02.04.17 21:08

BlueBag wrote:The flower is called something like borginia (bourgenia?)

There is a lot of discussion in this forum, including someones garden in PDL taken at the same time and they are flowering.

They do flower at that time.

Once someone gets the right name, use the search.

They are called Bougainvillea and I have grown them for many years but in Spain.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.04.17 21:22

NickE wrote:I know this with flowers and plants has been discussed before but there is something that doesn´t feel right with this photo and I looked into this a little bit more.

The last photo and the playground photo is supposed to have been taken in the same week(Sunday? acc to the McCann´s on Thursday?)
On this photo we can see that the wall is full of flowers and green leaf.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The "Playground photo" is supposed to have been taken on Saturday, a day or couple of days before the last photo.
(Note the red circle)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is a picture from "Madeleine was here",no green leaf and no flowers.
(Note the red circle, exactly the same spot and the same plant as in the "Playground photo"
(With this picture I just want to point out the exact spot and plant)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This photo below has been taken from distance but we can clearly see, to right of the palm tree,at the exactly same spot as in the picture from "Madeleine was here" and in "the playground photo" that the plant is full of green leaf and we can also see, as in the last photo, see the flowers and green leaf on the wall around the poolarea.
And what do I want to say with this?
How come that there is no green leaf behind Maddie in the "playground photo" when the wall is full of flowers and green leaf in "the last photo" AND, as in the this photo below, where we can clearly see green leaf in the exactly same spot as in background of "Playground photo"?

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

Just look at the top two photos.

These are the only ones that are relevant; the other two were taken on other occasions and we simply don't know the date of either of the last two.

The explanation is dead simple.

On the Last Photo, we see the north wall which is facing due SOUTH and therefore much warmer, and with more advanced flower growth.

What you see on the Playground Photo is the west wall, which faces EAST. That wall only gets the early morning sun so is much cooler than the south-facing wall - therefore the plant growth is significantly less advanced.

It really is as simple as that, and I'm afraid that introducing the other two UNDATED photos simply confuses everyone.

To restate what we have established on the forum a long time ago now:

1. ALL THREE PLAYGROUND PHOTOS - all genuine photos with concrete evidence that they were taken on the SATURDAY

2. LAST PHOTO - overwhelming evidence that this is a GENUINE photo taken on the SUNDAY not the Thursday

3. ALL FOUR PHOTOS GENUINE AND NOT PHOTOSHOPPED

by jeanmonroe 03.04.17 12:33

Did anyone 'come up with' an 'explanation' as to why no 'part' of the 'photographer' (KM?) was 'reflected' in GM's sunglasses, which were at an angle 'above' the 'horizontal plane'?

With GM 'looking' directly at the 'photographer'

'examples'

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

Just 'asking'

by Guest 03.04.17 12:57

jeanmonroe wrote:Did anyone 'come up with' an 'explanation' as to why no 'part' of the 'photographer' (KM?) was 'reflected' in GM's sunglasses, which were at an angle 'above' the 'horizontal plane'?

With GM 'looking' directly at the 'photographer'

Just 'asking'

Dunno about the photographer being reflected in the sunglasses but good old forum member Darren 'knitted' Ware, went to great lengths to cover just about evry question relating to the subject..

by ChippyM 03.04.17 13:00

jeanmonroe wrote:Did anyone 'come up with' an 'explanation' as to why no 'part' of the 'photographer' (KM?) was 'reflected' in GM's sunglasses, which were at an angle 'above' the 'horizontal plane'?

With GM 'looking' directly at the 'photographer'

Just 'asking'

He might be looking at the photographer but the glasses and lenses are at different angles and the lenses are convex, they are not facing the photographer directly.

by worriedmum 03.04.17 21:56

ChippyM wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Did anyone 'come up with' an 'explanation' as to why no 'part' of the 'photographer' (KM?) was 'reflected' in GM's sunglasses, which were at an angle 'above' the 'horizontal plane'?

With GM 'looking' directly at the 'photographer'

Just 'asking'

He might be looking at the photographer but the glasses and lenses are at different angles and the lenses are convex, they are not facing the photographer directly.

The last example of sunglasses appear to be convex too, but the image is horizontal as you might expect...

by **Tony Bennett** 03.04.17 23:35

worriedmum wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Did anyone 'come up with' an 'explanation' as to why no 'part' of the 'photographer' (KM?) was 'reflected' in GM's sunglasses, which were at an angle 'above' the 'horizontal plane'?

With GM 'looking' directly at the 'photographer'

Just 'asking'

He might be looking at the photographer but the glasses and lenses are at different angles and the lenses are convex, they are not facing the photographer directly.
The last example of sunglasses appear to be convex too, but the image is horizontal as you might expect...

It is almost beyond belief that any longstanding member of CMOMM could raise, once again, the subject of the reflections on Gerry's sunglasses.

The subject has been done to death on the 'Last Photo' threads on the forum - and the following cannot be said too often:

1. There is zero evidence that Last Photo has been photoshopped in any way, and

2. The reflection in Gerry's sunglasses has been easily explained by several people, including, notably, by our very own Darren Ware in his video upthread, which Verdi reposted.

Where, with great respect, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] went wrong was to make this statement:
"With GM 'looking' directly at the 'photographer". He may not have been looking 'directly' at the photographer at all. What I think [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] meant to say was: "Gerry's sunglasses were exactly 180 degrees opposite the lens of Kate McCann's camera". And, as ChippyM observed, we simply cannot say that about the Last Photo.

Moreover, there is another very obvious difference between the three photos submitted by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and the Last Photo. In @jeanmonoe's three photos, the photographer has obviously taken close-up pictures and has been very close to the subject. By contrast, in the Last Photo, Kate McCann was on the opposite side of the pool, probably some 20-30 feet away. It is not a close-up.

As for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], she seems to have missed ChippyM's points altogether. Which were these: He said "[Gerry's]...glasses and lenses are at different angles...his glasses...are not facing the photographer directly". (Which is also what Darren Ware was saying in his two videos). ChippyM also pointed out that the camera lens was convex, whereas [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] was referring to something different: "The sunglasses appear to be convex".

It was over his series of errors about the reflections in Gerry's sunglasses that poor old Textusa fell into such laughable error when he came to the absurd conclusion that Gerry must have (a) waited over two weeks after he had reported Madeleine missing, then (b) waited for a sunny days, then (c) visited the Ocean Club pool with Amelie, then (d) got a photographer to take a photo of himself and Amelie by the pool (e) with shadows the exact same length that they would have been on 3 May and finally (f) gone straight to a photographic studio and used an old photo of Madeleine to 'shop' into the photo of him and Amelie. And to do that, the photographer would either have to have found a pic of Madeleine with exactly the same shadow lengths as were on Gerry and Amelie, or used some weird and wonderful photoshop program to co-ordinate the shadow lengths on Madeleine with those Gerry and Amelie.

And as PeterMac's two top digital photography experts pointed out, to fake those shadows would be virtually impossible. Both experts said that the shadow lengths were consistent throughout the photograph.

In short, there is nothing mysterious whatsoever about the reflections in Gerry's sunglasses.

by jeanmonroe 04.04.17 1:39

@TB

I did actually say in my post....................'just asking'.

by Guest 04.04.17 9:19

Tony Bennett wrote:In short, there is nothing mysterious whatsoever about the reflections in Gerry's sunglasses

If anyone wonders about the exasperation that people like Tony, Verdi and myself express over this issue it's because it - the photo, the sunglasses, the shrubs, flower pattern, the angle of the sun, the missing arm, the ghost dog (yes) and lots more - have been thrashed to death, thrashed some more, then thrashed for good measure, then turned over and given a good kicking over a very long period.

There are at least two immense threads about it all on this forum.

by ChippyM 04.04.17 9:57

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:In short, there is nothing mysterious whatsoever about the reflections in Gerry's sunglasses

If anyone wonders about the exasperation that people like Tony, Verdi and myself express over this issue it's because it - the photo, the sunglasses, the shrubs, flower pattern, the angle of the sun, the missing arm, the ghost dog (yes) and lots more - have been thrashed to death, thrashed some more, then thrashed for good measure, then turned over and given a good kicking over a very long period.

There are at least two immense threads about it all on this forum.

I find it exasperating too, when most of these 'anomalies' exist in pre-photo shop era photos. It's basic stuff about photography and angles, not proof of something untoward.

Furthermore it's adding another layer of complexity to any conspiracy In that people are accepting that a team of 'photo-shoppers' are involved, not only has someone covered up a death and hidden a body but they are recruiting digital artists to alter photos for no particular reason, when it is much simpler and less risky just to use an existing photo and present it as from a certain day.

by ChippyM 04.04.17 10:11

worriedmum wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Did anyone 'come up with' an 'explanation' as to why no 'part' of the 'photographer' (KM?) was 'reflected' in GM's sunglasses, which were at an angle 'above' the 'horizontal plane'?

With GM 'looking' directly at the 'photographer'

Just 'asking'

He might be looking at the photographer but the glasses and lenses are at different angles and the lenses are convex, they are not facing the photographer directly.
The last example of sunglasses appear to be convex too, but the image is horizontal as you might expect...

To clarify, I mean the glasses and lenses themselves are wrap-around i.e.. they fit around the curve of the head, they are not the same as a pair of glasses where the lenses are on a straight frame sitting on a 90 degree line.

So they are not two flat lenses, pointing at the photographer....they are in effect pointing at positions to either side of the photographer, therefore they are not going to reflect that photographer.

That's the last post I'm making about lenses for all those who are a bit exasperated big grin

by **Tony Bennett** 04.04.17 11:22

ChippyM wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:In short, there is nothing mysterious whatsoever about the reflections in Gerry's sunglasses

If anyone wonders about the exasperation that people like Tony, Verdi and myself express over this issue it's because it - the photo, the sunglasses, the shrubs, flower pattern, the angle of the sun, the missing arm, the ghost dog (yes) and lots more - have been thrashed to death, thrashed some more, then thrashed for good measure, then turned over and given a good kicking over a very long period.

There are at least two immense threads about it all on this forum.

I find it exasperating too, when most of these 'anomalies' exist in pre-photo shop era photos. It's basic stuff about photography and angles, not proof of something untoward.

Furthermore it's adding another layer of complexity to any conspiracy In that people are accepting that a team of 'photo-shoppers' are involved, not only has someone covered up a death and hidden a body but they are recruiting digital artists to alter photos for no particular reason, when it is much simpler and less risky just to use an existing photo and present it as from a certain day.

Thank you very much [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for your concise and forthright comments.

We have been presented in this case with three deeply mysterious photographs:

The Last Photo
The Make Up Photo and
The Tennis Balls Photo.

Many people on CMOMM have worked hard to unravel the mystery of the Last Photo - and the forum has reached a conclusion about it. We have many new visitors, guests etc. here these days and frankly it is doing them a disservice if we keep dragging up sunglasses reflections, photoshopped flower patterns, a whole host of frankly ludicrous photoshopping theories and stuff like Textusa's unevidenced claim that the Last Photo was taken over two weeks after 3rd May. The issue of the Last Photo has been settled.

As for the sinister Make Up Photo, was it taken on that very holiday in Praia da Luz? There are indications that it was. And if so, that raises many other questions.

The Tennis Balls Photo is claimed to have been taken by two different people on two different days on two different cameras. Besides that, the account given by Kate McCann as to how it came to be taken is, to say the least, unconvincing. We must continue to try to explain it, although PeterMac has certainly done a great demolition job on all the many contradictions surrounding it, in the latest chapter of his ever-expanding e-book

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

by mootle 04.04.17 11:46

I wonder whether any techniques such as this have been used to identify whose camera took which picture

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

by **Tony Bennett** 04.04.17 12:05

mootle wrote:I wonder whether any techniques such as this have been used to identify whose camera took which picture

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

Well, work has already been done on this photo, but NOT yet using the advanced techniques you mention.

If you analyse Kate McCann's photos, she clearly knows how to use the 'close-up'/telephoto function on her camera. Take a look at the three playground photos from Saturday 28th April and the Last Photo from Sunday 9th April as good examples of this.

But then when we look at the Tennis Balls Photo, we see something entirely dfferent. We see a tiny girl against the vast background of an entire tennis court (sorry, I can't find the full picture just now, can anyone help please?).

That is just one indication among very many that the Tennis Balls Photo, like the Last Photo and maybe the Make Up Photo as well, is a very long way away from what it purports to be.

ETA: Could any of our photography experts on here offer to analyse The Tennis Balls Photo, using the above or similar techniques, to see if there is evidence that the photo was taken on a camera other than Kate's?

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

eta: photo/link - Admin

by Guest 04.04.17 12:15

Tony Bennett wrote:
ETA: Could any of our photography experts on here offer to analyse The Tennis Balls Photo, using the above or similar techniques, to see if there is evidence that the photo was taken on a camera other than Kate's?

Wouldn't you need the equipment, i.e. a camera, to follow the fingerprint trail?

by JRP 04.04.17 22:00

The largest version of the Tennis Balls Photo on the internet measures 1067 x 800 pixels as far as I can find. The one on this tread has been reduced further to 640 x 480 pixels. If you expand either of those figures you will find they equal 3072 x 2304.
3072 x 2304 pixels is the resolution of the McCanns Canon A620, it is also the same size as The Last Photo.
I believe the Tennis Balls Photo was taken on the McCanon.

Tony mentions that Kate McCann knew how to use the zoom feature of her/their camera.
I would say the same, only in a different way, I would say she knew how to compose a photo. Not only did she fill the frame with Madeleine in the Playground photos, Mrs Mc has also come down to Madeleines level.
That is something the Playground photos have in common with the Make Up Photo. The Make Up photo is also taken from Madeleine's level, but the head tilt makes the angle it was taken from look lower than it actually is.

The Tennis Balls Photo doesn't seem to match the care which was taken in the other photos attributed to Kate McCann, it isn't as well composed, or exposed. It stands out from the others by it's lack of care in composition.

by JRP 05.04.17 13:04

Looking at the spec of the McCanon A620, I noticed it has a tilt function on the rear screen which is a nice idea. I've seen a recent Nikon have this function and it's quite handy in certain conditions.
This would mean that taking low level photos would be easy. You could hold the camera at waist level, flip the rear screen outwards and upwards and look down at it. Makes taking toddler level shots a whole lot easier, non of that crouching down to get to their level.

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

It answers a question I saw about how Kate kept an eye on Sean while taking the Last Photo, she wasn't pearing through a face level camera, it's lower down so she can see the screen and Sean at the same time.

The Make-Up photo, we've all been wondering how low the photographer was... easy peasy with a flip screen.

Just a thought.

by Trevorjjj 10.07.17 17:04

skyrocket wrote:@ Amy Dean

Quite interesting - a couple of shots I hadn't seen before, including MBM on bicycle next to GM.

This was given by Albym as the original source of the high definition 'last photo'. The link given no longer works and the current version of the 'last photo' on the TheKTPH.org Flikr site does not have any of the meta data still in place.

The only photo I have found so far with any metadata still showing is the 3 Mc children lying on the bed (this is another one that looks very dodgy to me). Even this one only has a couple of lines of data, nothing like the full set of exif/signatures etc available on the high def version of the 'last photo', which is still available to look at in detail.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (or anyone else in the know) - do you know if there is a record of what the Mc's actually stated about the time discrepany on the 'last photo'? I'm trying to get at whether they said the camera time was set incorrectly or whether they stated that the time was out because of a +01.00 hour difference due to time zones i.e. that the camera was correct for UK time, but not Portugal. I realise there is no time zone difference between Portugal and the UK.
Thanks

People offer up meaningless, trivial and extraneous tit-bits to try and give the impression that they're being totally honest and forthcoming. Even when advised that the information is of no value, this will not stop them repeating the exercise with a totally different individual.

This is especially true of those who have had their answers or honesty questioned, either officially, or in a public forum, newspaper etc.The naive hope is that such worthless offerings will somehow negate or offset those answers deemed unreliable, and where quantity becomes important and any number of completely unhelpful nonsense is trotted out as if a score is being kept against which they must balance the numbers.

Alternatively, in a situation where a suspect is being deeply 'devious' (and they see themselves as the arbiters of just how clever they're being) they'll imagine all kinds of significance or connections that they need be prepared with answers to. It's difficult to predict what such a person might imagine they may be confronted with, because often they construct bizarre scenarios based in some part on elements of the truth, but at such extremes that no experienced investigator would even contemplate such a possibility.

It's clear to me that TM from VERY early on believed themselves to have the upper hand - Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum springs to mind, as well as knowing looks exchanged between them and even SMIRKS - the latter have been pointed out by far more experienced operators than me, but these became so frequent that I found myself becoming angry with them, I couldn't see how others missed these gestures and expressions, so frequent and obvious they were.

The fishing for the directions of the inquiry were also couched in their unique and oh so clever machinations. 'When did we kill her?, where did we hide the body? How could we have..........?' The Police will not fall so easily into such a trap, but Joe Public might see it as a challenge and offer up possible answers to these questions. In so doing they provide scenarios to be addressed, at worst they are intended to deliver on a platter to our clever conspirators exactly where their theories are headed.

There's little doubt in my mind that TM consider themselves way too clever for Mr Plod, so confident are they that they make a game of it and try to provoke responses as just described.

We can but hope that they have been offered enough rope, or that someone is keeping score, or better still a record of their utterances and body language in unguarded moments, because we can be sure that guilt will not lead to any breakthroughs - not unless a way can be found to give KM free rein with her guilty emotions such as her 'dream' of seeing Madeleine dead on a hillside, during a time when her husband was away and she left with herself and her thoughts alone for company.