Re: Analyzing position of sun in last photo

by j.rob 12.11.14 13:49

BlueBag wrote:
j.rob wrote:I know there has been discussion about this before. But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?
The white tile that has the pool depth written on it.

Why do you think it is the pool marker?

by Guest 12.11.14 13:52

j.rob wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
j.rob wrote:I know there has been discussion about this before. But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?
The white tile that has the pool depth written on it.

It doesn't look like the pool marker.

You're right.

It's the lower black part is either Amelies or Gerry's shadow, the white part is the continuation of the white lip of the pool, the upper black part is something else unidentified.

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

by Guest 12.11.14 13:53

j.rob wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
j.rob wrote:I defy anyone to tell me that Madeleine's head and neck are consistent with her body posture. Her body is facing in one direction and her head is facing in another. In order to achieve this stance, the neck has to twist around quite sharply which causes the tendons to stand out. It causes a noticeable twist to the neck. And bulges to the neck. This is not apparent in the photo. There are no signs that her neck is turning sharply to one sign.

So, as far as I am concerned, Madeleine's head has been stuck onto her (or someone's) body.

But WHY??
I defy you.

It looks ok to me.

It would do though, wouldn't it?! Guess this whole photo-shopping thing is quite a nice little 'hot potato' then?

No.. the photoshopping isn't.

The weather is though.

by Guest 12.11.14 13:54

jeanmonroe wrote:
j.rob wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
j.rob wrote:I know there has been discussion about this before. But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?
The white tile that has the pool depth written on it.

It doesn't look like the pool marker.

It's NOT the pool 'marker'

THAT was several feet to the LEFT of Madeleine to 'where' she was 'sitting'.

I know.

by Guest 12.11.14 13:59

rustyjames wrote:How about this one - black line from closed eye / compression or eyeliner?

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

by Guest 12.11.14 14:04

aquila wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:
aquila wrote:Jeez, this thread has now turned into eyeliner on A**lie's eye, her neck folds and the girth of Gerry's forearm as well as his 'floating' thighs and the introduction of the photograph of Madeleine wearing make-up (I find it very disturbing as to why that particular photo was released).

What next? the shadow of a cross on Gerry's crotch area?
Well I happen to find eyeliner on a two year old a bit odd. Don't you?
and your proof of eyeliner is?

aquila - you said 'eyeliner on A**lie's eye' and I responded accordingly (i.e. as if it was eyeliner on her eye).

I would say that it very definitely looks like eyeliner (how can I prove it?). I am not sure how it got there. It could have been physically present, it could be enhanced by the Mccanns before the photo was relased. It could have been enhanced by photo-editors (as is commonly done) before the photo was released to the world. Could be an artifact of JPEG compression. Could be perfectly innocent.

Just an observation for the record - if you take a look through the photos then a lot of them seem to have this effect present.

Maybe someone knows why or if this is a common feature of publised (i.e .photo-edited pitures) as it is obviously enhancing?

All in my own opinion.

by j.rob 12.11.14 14:08

BlueBag wrote:
j.rob wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
j.rob wrote:I know there has been discussion about this before. But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?
The white tile that has the pool depth written on it.

It doesn't look like the pool marker.
You're right.

It's the lower black part is either Amelies or Gerry's shadow, the white part is the continuation of the white lip of the pool, the upper black part is something else unidentified.

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

As I have written before, and as is demonstrated above, Amelie's left hand is not consistent with her stance and sitting position. You can see above that Madeleine appears to have her hand flat on the edge of the pool, which would be consistent with that sitting position. Amelie has a bent elbow and it looks as though her hand is hanging down, rather than flat. This is not consistent with her sitting position or the rest of her arm. If her hand was hanging down, she would need to hunch up her shoulder, which she is not doing. And I think that given her position it would be impossible for her right arm to be completely obscured. The natural place for it to be would be on Gerry's leg, as they appear to be sitting so close together.

by Guest 12.11.14 14:12

j.rob wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
j.rob wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
j.rob wrote:I know there has been discussion about this before. But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?
The white tile that has the pool depth written on it.

It doesn't look like the pool marker.
You're right.

It's the lower black part is either Amelies or Gerry's shadow, the white part is the continuation of the white lip of the pool, the upper black part is something else unidentified.

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

As I have written before, and as is demonstrated above, Amelie's left hand is not consistent with her stance and sitting position. You can see above that Madeleine appears to have her hand flat on the edge of the pool, which would be consistent with that sitting position. Amelie has a bent elbow and it looks as though her hand is hanging down, rather than flat. This is not consistent with her sitting position or the rest of her arm. If her hand was hanging down, she would need to hunch up her shoulder, which she is not doing. And I think that given her position it would be impossible for her right arm to be completely obscured. The natural place for it to be would be on Gerry's leg, as they appear to be sitting so close together.

I disagree.

by Guest 12.11.14 14:15

BlueBag wrote:
rustyjames wrote:How about this one - black line from closed eye / compression or eyeliner?

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

by jeanmonroe 12.11.14 14:18

BlueBag wrote: But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?
-------------------------------------------------------

It's the lower black part is either Amelies or Gerry's shadow, the white part is the continuation of the white lip of the pool, the upper black part is something else unidentified.

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

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

Nobody, i repeat NOBODY, afaik, has EVER been able to 'explain' the 'dark line' between Amelie's wrist and body.

Not even photo 'experts'!

IIRC, the 'pro's' at one time 'tried' to pass off the 'unexplained' black 'LINE' as 'oh, that's the pool marker, 'tile'

WRONG!

Istbc.

by Guest 12.11.14 14:22

jeanmonroe wrote:
BlueBag wrote: But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?
-------------------------------------------------------

It's the lower black part is either Amelies or Gerry's shadow, the white part is the continuation of the white lip of the pool, the upper black part is something else unidentified.

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

Nobody, i repeat NOBODY, afaik, has EVER been able to 'explain' the 'dark line' between Amelie's wrist and body.

Not even photo 'experts'!

Istbc.

Does that mean it's sinister or just unexplained?

There's a chance it's the foreshortened shadow of end of Gerry's elbow.

by Smokeandmirrors 12.11.14 14:23

Without wishing to offend anyone with regards to the alleged photoshopping of the pool photograph, because people are entitled to draw their own inferences from their gut feelings or what they perceive to be in the photo, the matter has already been put to bed by two of the fields leading experts, from different backgrounds, and their findings passed on to Operation Grange. It is the time and date that is the material issue with the photograph, as both experts concluded there was no tampering with anything else.

It is also illogical to assume any significant tampering with the photos, as if the McCanns had done so they know that this would be revealed by forensic examination and would therefore be effectively sabotaging their own efforts at duplicity. It just doesn't make sense. What does make sense is if the metadata of other photos had also been tampered with, then it could demonstrate a plan to falsify a timeline.

Coupled with the phone records, apparently falsified creche sheets and lack of credible witness testimony as to Madeleines precise location at any given time, is the more important issue of where was she between 29th April and 3rd May. There seems to be no concrete, definitive corroborating witness testimony to establish this. This has led to suggestions of a substitute Madeleine (I really don't buy this as a theory), Madeleine being deceased before 2/3rd of May, Madeleine having an undisclosed mystery disease the McCanns wished to conceal (don't buy this either), and any other number of theories.

I would ask you to consider the possibility that she was not necessarily dead earlier than the night of the 2nd, but possibly in another location. Consider if you will the blue eyeshadow picture, the instant claims of pedophile gangs, the curious involvement of Murat, Malinka (who was recently re-interviewed), other "interesting" guests at the OC resort, the almost immediate involvement of Gordon Brown and consular interference, and the current expose of Westminster pedophile rings, PLUS the colourful background of MANY high profile individuals who involved themselves from the start. A quick Google will reveal quite an eyebrow raising number of dots to be connected between PACT, Missing People, the "personalities" involved and the current crackdown on elite pedophile rings. IMO this is why the apparent cover up in this case. Not because of the McCanns themselves, but the wider picture that could be exposed as a result of this high-profile disappearance. Also IMO, Madeleine and her disappearance is not the central aspect of this cover-up, but rather an event that served as a possible catalyst for a far more important issue.

by rustyjames 12.11.14 14:24

And to make things harder with regard to body posture it is a snapshot of a moment in time. It appears she or possibly Madeleine has just kicked up some water.

by Guest 12.11.14 14:26

BlueBag wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
BlueBag wrote: But what is the white patch with a dark line above it between Amelie's left arm/wrist and her body?
-------------------------------------------------------

It's the lower black part is either Amelies or Gerry's shadow, the white part is the continuation of the white lip of the pool, the upper black part is something else unidentified.

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

Nobody, i repeat NOBODY, afaik, has EVER been able to 'explain' the 'dark line' between Amelie's wrist and body.

Not even photo 'experts'!

Istbc.
Does that mean it's sinister or just unexplained?

There's a chance it's the foreshortened shadow of end of Gerry's elbow.

Actually no!!

It's the shadow of the RAISED white lip of the pool.

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

by Guest 12.11.14 14:28

OR... the shadow of Gerry's arm that is beyond the raised white lip (more likely).

by Guest 12.11.14 14:34

BlueBag wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
rustyjames wrote:How about this one - black line from closed eye / compression or eyeliner?

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

Where are these photos from BB? How do you know that they haven't been enhanced? If they are from stock photos found on the internet, especially those for sale I would say that there is a good chance that they have been enhanced/altered to make them more visually attractive. They are meaningless unless we know 100% that they have not been enhanced.

I will try and look at my own photos later to see if I can see a similar effect (with child of the same hair colouring etc).

No offence - there are obviously two opposed camps in the photoshopping debate.

I would treat both arguments with some caution as we do not know how the photos were altered by media photo-editors before publication (and this would include the bewk) - don't forget these pictures would sell newspapers so the more attractive they looked the better. I don't really believe anything I see in the media. Not sure how prevalent pshopping etc was in 2006 - probably still quite widespread I would imagine.

All in my own opinion.

by Guest 12.11.14 14:39

Where are these photos from BB?

Google images.

There are lots to choose from.

Some children have dark, thick long eyelashes, even blonde children.

by Guest 12.11.14 14:42

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

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

by rustyjames 12.11.14 14:43

The first one I posted was a bit of a trick question. I know 100% that there was no photoshopping other than obviously cropping, and there was definitely no eyeliner involved. The reason I know is it's my daughter who was fair haired at the time and sat on a beach in a similar pose, albeit facing the opposite direction.

by Guest 12.11.14 14:56

rustyjames wrote:The first one I posted was a bit of a trick question. I know 100% that there was no photoshopping other than obviously cropping, and there was definitely no eyeliner involved. The reason I know is it's my daughter who was fair haired at the time and sat on a beach in a similar pose, albeit facing the opposite direction.

I haven't looked at them in detail yet rj I am just saying that if we don't know their provenance then it's pointless even looking at them as stock images are likely to be enhanced.
Will take a proper look at your unaltered one later, also my own personal ones that I know have not been altered.

by jeanmonroe 12.11.14 15:02

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

Now, WHICH 'picture' (above) do you think that the holiday makers in PDL from 28th april-3rd May 2007 would be most 'likely' to 'recognise' on the 4th May 2007?

The 'pool' one taken the very day Madeleine went 'missing' OR the 'cutesy' one taken months BEFORE Madeleine was even in PDL?

The 'short' haired Madeleine, photographed months BEFORE, OR the 'longer' haired Madeleine by the pool, photographed the very day, so we are told by her parents, by the pool the actual day she 'disappeared'?

I think people in PDL that 'week' would 'associate' with the 'latter', don't you?

Yet, strangely, not 'released' until 21 days 'later' when most of the holiday makers, that 'week' would have 'left/returned' home.

Having 'seen' been 'shown' ONLY had the 'short' haired/red dress 'photo' whilst they were there.

Resembling nothing like the 'longer' haired Madeleine who was 'there' the week they were.

Perhaps the 'searchers' were ONLY 'looking for' the 'short' haired 'child.

"That looks like that 'missing' child'

'no, can't be, her hair's too long, the 'missing' child in the photo we were given, by the parents and their friends, has much shorter hair than her'

thinking

by rustyjames 12.11.14 15:04

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
rustyjames wrote:The first one I posted was a bit of a trick question. I know 100% that there was no photoshopping other than obviously cropping, and there was definitely no eyeliner involved. The reason I know is it's my daughter who was fair haired at the time and sat on a beach in a similar pose, albeit facing the opposite direction.
I haven't looked at them in detail yet rj I am just saying that if we don't know their provenance then it's pointless even looking at them as stock images are likely to be enhanced.
Will take a proper look at your unaltered one later, also my own personal ones that I know have not been altered.

I used my own for that precise reason of knowing its provenance. Well lit looking down with eyes mostly closed does seem to me to give similar results.

by jeanmonroe 12.11.14 15:10

Actually no!!

It's the shadow of the RAISED white lip of the pool.
-------------------------------------------------------

Then where are the rest of the 'shadows' of all the other raised white 'tiles/lip' of the pool?

Or is it a 'magic' tile and the ONLY ONE able to 'cast' a shadow? winkwink

by Guest 12.11.14 15:13

jeanmonroe wrote:Actually no!!

It's the shadow of the RAISED white lip of the pool.
-------------------------------------------------------

Then where are the rest of the 'shadows' of all the other raised white 'tiles/lip' of the pool?

Or is it a 'magic' tile and the ONLY ONE able to 'cast' a shadow?

Did you read my next post?

by Smokeandmirrors 12.11.14 15:14

The huge "search" and media circus was orchestrated IMO as a smokescreen to divert attention AWAY from where it should have been focussed. The photos, again just IMO were not supposed to be helpful or otherwise, but create an illusion, a cloud of hysteria under which curtain individuals could exit the stage, whilst at the same time send the eye of the police and the public elsewhere. Creating a cacophony of noise enabled or created opportunities for action/commumication to occur that would normally stand out like a sore thumb in a quite resort. An absolute detailed description and a whole raft of images would have been released at the same time and in an organised way if this had been a serious "search" operation. Releasing dribs and drabs of questionable information over a period of weeks was designed to be confusing misinformation.

Log in for more topics