Re: Another look at the Last photo

by **HiDeHo** 17.10.14 2:47

Firstly a BIG thank you to PeterMac for this thread and for the extensive research. It is a difficult subject to work around but ultimately I believe this information is HUGE! Totally separate to Petermac, I had done some research.

Shadow Direction in the Last Picture
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have always believed that whether the photo was photoshopped or not, that it was taken on Sunday 29th April. The IMPORTANT thing to recognise is that it was to place Madeleine alive on Thursday May 3rd.

Petermac has filled in a LOT of the research that I was not fully aware of to CONFIRM my thoughts.. (Weather etc), but I believe this picture was taken shortly after the cleaner's daughter saw Madeleine leaving the apartment with her family on Sunday as they were going up to the Payne's for lunch.

Statements claim they went to the pool Sunday lunchtime.

I have seen reference to Gerry buying sunglasses after they went to the beach TUESDAY lunchtime but have not seen (in this thread) a theory as to WHY they claim to have bought sunglasses that day...

My belief is that it was PRE-EMPTING to show that it COULD NOT have been taken Sunday as he didn't (supposedly) have the sunglasses on Sunday so MUST have been taken after Tuesday (Wednesday it rained). They needed to DISTRACT from it being taken earlier in the week. (so people would discredit the research (and maybe truth) that PeterMac and myself have claimed.

Photoshopping suggests it was done for a reason and the prevalent reasoning is that Madeleine was not there at that moment....so anyone who suggests it was photoshopping is basicaly suggesting EXACTLY what PeterMac is claiming....that SOMETHING may have happened to Madeleine and the Last picture was the ONLY 'proof' that Madeleine was alive that day.

Whether photoshopped or, as PeterMac and myself believe, it was taken Sunday means it's FORGED and the question has to be asked WHY?

by Carrry On Doctor 17.10.14 6:21

I am in total agreement with all of the above. This issue is indeed huge.

The buying of the sunglasses story may be inserted in order to prove the authenticity of the last photo, which in turn places MBM around on the 3rd.

If the last photo can be proved as false, the party is over.

IMO of course.
.

by Guest 17.10.14 6:59

Carrry On Doctor wrote:If the last photo can be proved as false, the party is over.
IMO of course.

Yes.
The house of cards collapses.

by Snifferdog 17.10.14 7:43

I also think the dates being changed is enough to bring the house of cards down.
I do think the sunglasses were photoshopped in to back up a later kate for Maddies disappearance, all Imo.

Perhaps Philomena Mccanns husband could advise us as to whether the photo has been fiddled with? As I do recall him having certain photoshopping abilities, as shown with the drowning ladies swamp art he enjoys creating.

by **PeterMac** 17.10.14 7:55

Philomena arived PdL 22nd.
Photo sent to AFP 23rd
Photo released 24th

Coincidence, obviously.

by bobbin 17.10.14 8:29

rustyjames wrote:Thanks PeterMac for a great write up.

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

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

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

The fish-eye effect here ...

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

and here

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

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

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

All of this IMO.

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:53 pm

From the photo in PeterMac's opening post on this thread, Gerry's glasses are almost flat, i.e. with virtually no paralax, no curving distortion.
The image in his left lens is vertical and takes up more than half of the lens and itself does not bend, but reflects a true image of the side of the pool, the water in the pool and a little of Amelie's hat.

Your interesting photo above shows whatever was in the horizontal position, to be remaining so, and it includes some attenuation of body along its outer curved line, yet that body stays in the horizontal position, same with the car.

To replicate the effect seen in Gerry's sunglasses, you would have to twist your photographer in the left lens of the upper photo through 90 degrees to get the same effect.

If at any time you can see the horizontal, whether attenuated or flat, in the vertical plane then some 'work' has been done.

I think PeterMac's research has shown the photo to be 'impossible' for the date claimed.

I agree that with Philomena arriving when she did, relative to the 'last photo', that her husband, being a swamp-lady video creator, might be in a better position than mere amateurs to offer some sort of explanation as to why the horizontal line of the pool can find itself twisted through 90 degrees to find itself on Gerry's glasses (which incidentally look as cheap as they probably were in the market) because they sit more ON the right side of his head, well above the right ear, than where sunglasses would normally sit.

They look almost as if they were too small (maybe they only had 'ladies' size) to sit comfortably onto Gerry's right ear.

by Snifferdog 17.10.14 8:30

of course

its just a coincidence PeterMac big grin

Thank you for the excellent analysis

by tiny 17.10.14 8:50

So who is the girl in the tennis photo,as she doesn't look like the girl in the pool photo.

by rustyjames 17.10.14 8:53

bobbin wrote:
To replicate the effect seen in Gerry's sunglasses, you would have to twist your photographer in the left lens of the upper photo through 90 degrees to get the same effect.

My theory with regard to the reflection is that it's not rotated at all. I'm thinking that what is seen is the right-hand edge of the pool from the photographers viewpoint over the top of Amelie's hat. The '(' shaped curve of the glasses is compensating for the ')' shaped curve of the pool resulting in something that looks like a vertical line. If it was rotated 90 degrees the only thing it could correspond to would be the far side of the pool, but he is not looking in that direction. I also doubt if it was photoshopped that anyone who could do what would be an incredibly neat job of the glasses would fail to get something like a reflection wrong. Just my opinion.

by Guest 17.10.14 8:54

Tiny, I can just about accept that it is the same child in both photos but not that they were taken a day or two apart.

There seems to be a difference in age of at least a year.

by Carrry On Doctor 17.10.14 9:00

"I think PeterMac's research has shown the photo to be 'impossible' for the date claimed".

Yes, I think this is the crux of it. We could be getting too bogged down in over analysis of reflections / angles etc. Peters conclusion is all that is necessary, and is straightforward and simple, and of course quite compelling.

Furthermore, I would have expected OG, using their timeline analysis software (holmes ???), to have extended analysis of movements far beyond the evening of the 3rd (exposed it as a hopeless sham).

So regarding the 'last photo', I think OG may well have concluded the same as Peter already.

Time will tell.

IMO of course.

by aiyoyo 17.10.14 9:17

PeterMac wrote:Philomena arived PdL 22nd.
Photo sent to AFP 23rd
Photo released 24th

Coincidence, obviously.

And, Philomena arriving on the next flight (metaphorically) after that of Gerry's, probably literarily too since there can't be that many flight to PDL a day on budget-carrier.

After Gerry had gone home on an undisclosed mission, met with Pinky and tow him along to PDL.
Another coincidence, obviously.

Photo not given to Police but to AFP to release.
It took them nearly three weeks post the incident to realise the 'last' photo, that they out of the blue 'suddenly remembered they'd, after having told PJ every camera had been handed over.
Nothing sinister, obviously?

by tiny 17.10.14 9:18

Marian wrote:Tiny, I can just about accept that it is the same child in both photos but not that they were taken a day or two apart.

There seems to be a difference in age of at least a year.

sorry that's what I mean,in the tennis photo Madeleine looks a bit battered,ie scruffy hair and scrapes and scratches where as in the pool photo Madleienes skin looks unblemished and her hair looks neat.

by aiyoyo 17.10.14 9:44

rustyjames wrote:
bobbin wrote:
To replicate the effect seen in Gerry's sunglasses, you would have to twist your photographer in the left lens of the upper photo through 90 degrees to get the same effect.

My theory with regard to the reflection is that it's not rotated at all. I'm thinking that what is seen is the right-hand edge of the pool from the photographers viewpoint over the top of Amelie's hat. The '(' shaped curve of the glasses is compensating for the ')' shaped curve of the pool resulting in something that looks like a vertical line. If it was rotated 90 degrees the only thing it could correspond to would be the far side of the pool, but he is not looking in that direction. I also doubt if it was photoshopped that anyone who could do what would be an incredibly neat job of the glasses would fail to get something like a reflection wrong. Just my opinion.

Some very interesting discussions by people adept with the subject.
Hands up I know nothing about angle or lightings etc.
I still tend to believe if alibi is the intent for the manipulation, why photoshopped in a pair of sunglasses to complicate matter and risk giving the tampering away, when doing the basic necessary would suffice. Just my opinion.

Just as adept posters here would study meticulously every detail in the pic to discern photoshopping or not, you would think professionals/experts in the field would do exactly the same before coming to a conclusion.

Could it be the reflection was a freaky fluke from the position the photographer was standing and angle photographer aimed at ?

by plebgate 17.10.14 9:47

Carrry On Doctor wrote:"I think PeterMac's research has shown the photo to be 'impossible' for the date claimed".

Yes, I think this is the crux of it. We could be getting too bogged down in over analysis of reflections / angles etc. Peters conclusion is all that is necessary, and is straightforward and simple, and of course quite compelling.

Furthermore, I would have expected OG, using their timeline analysis software (holmes ???), to have extended analysis of movements far beyond the evening of the 3rd (exposed it as a hopeless sham).

So regarding the 'last photo', I think OG may well have concluded the same as Peter already.

Time will tell.

IMO of course.

for me this post gets a thumbup

by Snifferdog 17.10.14 9:51

Marian wrote:Tiny, I can just about accept that it is the same child in both photos but not that they were taken a day or two apart.

There seems to be a difference in age of at least a year.

Yes there definitely is an age discrepancy in the two photos.
I don't discount that photo shopping took place in the pool photo, and perhaps it could be another child sitting on the edge of the pool in place of Maddie.

After all, we are shown photos if her that dont add up:

Hair lengths chopping and changing, from short to longer in too small a time space.

Facial features, some not looking quite "right" when compared to others. Could it be possible that small details were photoshopped, such as specific facial features, in order to confuse people who may have seen Maddie and known her tobe in a specific location(s) before she was - (murdered according to BHH)?

After all we know that the parents have lied, so what is stopping them from lying with photos?
A small change of the placement of an individuals eyes, nose or mouth will change an appearance of a persons face, to become unrecognizable, as it is the most defining aspect of a persons face.
Is this another reason for asking for pictures of Madeleine? To see if anybody really knows what she likes looks like? All my thoughts and opinions.

by Snifferdog 17.10.14 9:51

Marian wrote:Tiny, I can just about accept that it is the same child in both photos but not that they were taken a day or two apart.

There seems to be a difference in age of at least a year.

Yes there definitely is an age discrepancy in the two photos.
I don't discount that photo shopping took place in the pool photo, and perhaps it could be another child sitting on the edge of the pool in place of Maddie.

After all, we are shown photos if her that dont add up:

Hair lengths chopping and changing, from short to longer in too small a time space.

Facial features, some not looking quite "right" when compared to others. Could it be possible that small details were photoshopped, such as specific facial features, in order to confuse people who may have seen Maddie and known her tobe in a specific location(s) before she was - (murdered according to BHH)?

After all we know that the parents have lied, so what is stopping them from lying with photos?
A small change of the placement of an individuals eyes, nose or mouth will change an appearance of a persons face, to become unrecognizable, as it is the most defining aspect of a persons face.
Is this another reason for asking for pictures of Madeleine? To see if anybody really knows what she likes looks like? All my thoughts and opinions.

by aiyoyo 17.10.14 9:55

Carrry On Doctor wrote:"I think PeterMac's research has shown the photo to be 'impossible' for the date claimed".

Yes, I think this is the crux of it. We could be getting too bogged down in over analysis of reflections / angles etc. Peters conclusion is all that is necessary, and is straightforward and simple, and of course quite compelling.

Furthermore, I would have expected OG, using their timeline analysis software (holmes ???), to have extended analysis of movements far beyond the evening of the 3rd (exposed it as a hopeless sham).

So regarding the 'last photo', I think OG may well have concluded the same as Peter already.

Time will tell.

IMO of course.

OG were given the researched material, no reason why they wouldn't pass it to experts associated to them to seek an added independent view of it.

by **PeterMac** 17.10.14 10:08

aiyoyo wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:"I think PeterMac's research has shown the photo to be 'impossible' for the date claimed".

Yes, I think this is the crux of it. We could be getting too bogged down in over analysis of reflections / angles etc. Peters conclusion is all that is necessary, and is straightforward and simple, and of course quite compelling.
Furthermore, I would have expected OG, using their timeline analysis software (holmes ???), to have extended analysis of movements far beyond the evening of the 3rd (exposed it as a hopeless sham).
So regarding the 'last photo', I think OG may well have concluded the same as Peter already.
Time will tell.
IMO of course.
OG were given the researched material, no reason why they wouldn't pass it to experts associated to them to seek an added independent view of it.

OG were sent 8 long pdf documents, in my usual style with everything referenced and quoted to destruction so that either there shall be no mistake,
or so that any mistake can easily be identified.
They go a lot further than I am prepared to put into the public domain at the moment, for obvious reasons.
It included 6 Appendices
The same went to the PJ, to Dr Amaral, and a number of other reliable depositories, in the event that one or other gets whooshed.

I want to thank all those from this forum and from others who assisted, (and who are still assisting ) and there were many, who provided links, clues, interpretations and opinions..
Interesting that the consensus is gradually forming that it doesn't matter whether sunglasses were turned round, it doesn't matter whether Madeleine was on the other side, or not there at all

Keep your eye on the squirrel.
That photo was not taken on 3/5/7
It is a forgery.

(Probably !)

by rustyjames 17.10.14 10:35

The most frustrating thing is only having the afp edited version of the photo and also no other originals from the camera.

The result is not a full set of exif data in the version of "last photo" we have. Additionally it could be studied better in the context of the other photos on the camera - eg. Is the exif data for the automatic file number consistent with those either side of it, can anything be established from the allocated unique id etc?

by worriedmum 17.10.14 10:50

I read again the passage about the unsuccessful trip to the beach, the trip when Gerry bought his sunglasses and the sand was wet..

Kate tells us of her dilemma when Gerry asks her to carry the ice-creams. Five of them. She has to leave the children sitting on a bench on a quiet beach.

Now look again at the' Last Photo'.

One parent sitting with two little girls ,all with their feet in the pool.

The other parent is presumably taking the photo/s from across the pool.

Behind her is the adult pool. Her attention is on the girls and Gerry.

I wonder again,

WHERE IS SEAN?

by HelenMeg 17.10.14 10:54

But that's another story....

This has been a great thread and I agree that the main point is that the photo has shown not to be taken
on 3rd May but much earlier in the week.
Nice to know that all the info has gone to SY, PJ etc . Comforting.
All other discussions, valid or otherwise need to be continued on separate threads - IMO.

by The....truth 17.10.14 11:50

Following intensive practical studies I am sure that the McSunglasses do accurately reflect reality.

I thought it impossible, but the experts cited by PMac and the views of Rusty above are borne out by experiment.

Here is my trusty assistant..

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

Here is the reflection from a curved pool, albeit with a curvature much more marked than that at OC.
This one is 3m diameter curve, steps into a pool.

I note that the curved line of the margin, reflected in the Bear's left lens does in fact pass through the vertical.
The Bear's right lens reflects water.

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

This is cropped and adjusted view taken from the another shot. Water, and other stuff, is reflected in his right lens and the curved margin in the left. The margin passes through the vertical, as seen in the Last Photo, but returns due to sharp radius.

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

I said that Peter's analysis was proof of his point but I had to raise my concern over the reflection.
My concern is misplaced. The Last Photo does not show what I thought to be a blatant error. Instead it is an entirely possible image and for me at least, that is the end of the issue.

As noted above the real issue is when the image was taken, and when and by whom was it brought to light.

by The....truth 17.10.14 11:59

Doh !!

How do I post images from an ipad ?

I copied and pasted without even considering that it would work.

by rustyjames 17.10.14 12:30

Images can't just be uploaded - they need to be hosted somewhere such as via the "Host an image" link in the Post a Reply page or on an external site such as Photobucket and then via the "Insert an image" option.

Can't wait to see the pictures though if they do indeed prove the theory is possible as this has been debated for a long time and it saves me spending the weekend playing with teddy bears and sunglasses smilie

by The....truth 17.10.14 13:11

OK.

Bear with us, there will just be a short paws for technical reasons.

by The....truth 17.10.14 13:18

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

by **HiDeHo** 17.10.14 13:48

worriedmum wrote:I read again the passage about the unsuccessful trip to the beach, the trip when Gerry bought his sunglasses and the sand was wet..

Kate tells us of her dilemma when Gerry asks her to carry the ice-creams. Five of them. She has to leave the children sitting on a bench on a quiet beach.

Another curiosity about the scenario of the FIVE ice creams. Is that ALSO an attempt to place Madeleine at that location and at that time? TUESDAY?

I believe Peter is correct in focusing on the photo being 'faked' whether photoshopped or not, it is about how his research points to a simple scenario...

Something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week...

How could they not raise suspicions?

A photo taken on the day of the abduction?

Not possible if she was not longer with them....Ahhh the one that was taken on Sunday...

Find someone to change the date and....

RELEASE IT 3 WEEKS later when it has been 'fixed'!

'PROOF' that Madeleine was still with them on Thursday....

Now...THAT scenario is so simple but its taken 7 years for it to be discussed...

Maybe their plan has worked until now....but now the cats out of the bag.

THANKS PETER!

by Guest 17.10.14 13:52

Peter,

I would love to know what the various people made of the PDF.

Did you get any response?

by j.rob 17.10.14 14:45

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

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

Ive just listened to this video from a photographer who says he has 40 years of experience with photography and he says why it is a fraudulent photo.
Please take the 10 minutes to watch - please please! Watch until the end. Very good. It has convinced me totally that iot has been photoshopped.
Sorry to quote my own post - but just very keen for those with an interest in whether it has been photoshopped to watch this person 'prove' that it has been photoshopped.
Please watch - only takes approx 10 minutes.
thanks also HelenMeg. very interesting.

Totally agree with everything he has said. The photo looks like a fake. And that's because it is a fake. Given that I believe the tennis ball photo is also a (terrible!) fake, that points towards something having happened to Madeleine prior to Tuesday. So - assuming she was on the holiday in the first place (and the absence of DNA is very weird) something happened on Saturday, Sunday or Monday.