Re: The NEW Tennis Balls Photo Thread - 'Photoshopped photo created on 5th May', claims YouTube video

[tiny]

Someone else could have bitten her.

Yes true,the only thing I would say about this the tennis pic is that Madeleine looks a poor little mite.

I'm very suspicious of this photograph.

In what way Ladyinred,photo shopped,or not Madeleine or the real Madeleine or not taken on that holiday?.

[Tony Bennett]

However Kate did actually mention it [the sunburn] in her witness statement...

Concerning Madeleine, she is Caucasian, with quite white skin, aged four (12/05/2003) about 90cm tall. Of slim build, dark blond hair, straight and of shoulder length. Left eye blue-green, right eye also green with a brown spot on the pupil. She had a small brown spot on the skin of her left leg, as well as a small sunburn on her right forearm.

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

@ canada12

The bolded quote above from Dr Kate McCann's statement is very interesting.

However, consider this for a moment.

Suppose that, as some suggest, this is a photo in which Madeleine's head has been photoshopped onto the body of another girl. And suppose again that that girl had a noticeable sunburn on her right arm. Suppose again that the McCanns had planned (say during 4 May) to release the Tennis Balls Photo worldwide via the Press Associaiton, Associated Press etc.

What would Kate say about Madeleine/

ANSWER: She would say: 'Oh, Madeleine had a sunburn on her right arm'.

As a matter of fact, I very much doubt if, that week, Madeleine could possibly have acquired a localised sunburn like that.

That in itself might suggest that the body of the girl in the Tennis Balls Photo is NOT Madeleine.

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

RECAP:

It seems to me that the most important three contributions on this thread so far are these three (especial thanks to rustyjames for your detailed observations:

+++++++++++++++++++++

canada12 


Another of the more interesting details about this large photo [I think you mean the one produced by BlueBag]  is that it has absolutely no EXIF data attached to it. So, I'm afraid I must agree with those further up the thread who've stated that in terms of usefulness, this photo is at the bottom of the list. We still don't have the original photo fresh from the McCann camera. And without that, we have no way of telling how truthful this representation is at all.

+++++++

rusty james


I'd taken a couple of snapshots of the data in that video earlier as I still can't find anything vaguely high resolution or containing exif data. I was going to post them at lunch but ran out of time, and also really want to get the time to go through all the previous posts, however in the meantime a few comments from me:

* The resolution at the top is listed as 300dpi - I'm not certain but that suggests to me something that has been scanned or at least created with a view to publishing

* That's further reinforced by the references to a handout as the source, although there is also the term 'HO' used in the last photo

* This (and the last photo) have a significant amount of XMP and IPTC data. XMP is metadata stored by Adobe and IPTC is metadata stored by the photo agencies to record the captions, headlines and any other information. Adobe will have been used to edit and manage this information.

* In the case of this version of the photo it is set for "Progressive Scans" probably also using Adobe - that's where it is saved in such as way that the photo can be progressively loaded on a webpage - you initially see a poor version that gets better as it loads, but it has the advantage you don't have to wait for it to completely load to see something.

* If it was a scan then it looks as if AP or someone did it on the 5th - note just a date and no time (I'm not sure where references to 9:50am have come from). I don't know why this version has references in the Document History to events on the 10th and then a modify date of the 11th. Possibly picked up from AP and repurposed for wherever it was being published?

* I can't find a proper version of this photo on the AFP ImageForum site - the first one I can see is a cutting tied to railings in Rothley on the 9th

It's also not clear why there is the comment in the special instructions that "UNITED KINGDOM OUT NO SALES NO ARCHIVE - PHOTOGRAPH CAN NOT BE STORED OR USED FOR MORE THAN 14 DAYS AFTER THE DAY OF TRANSMISSION"

+++++++

aquila

The point is, there needs to be provenance of the photograph. It needs to be established when it was taken, who it was taken by, on what camera and importantly on what date and at what time. That's the only thing that matters. Only this will explain why this photograph is so important. I sincerely hope OG have done their job in this respect.

+++++++
  
The point is that there is always going to be real doubt about this photograph because the Mcanns and their friends can't agree on who took it, amd when it was taken - and the time it is said to have been taken doesn't match the schedule of events for the children that week

@ rustyjames   You asked: "...note just a date and no time (I'm not sure where references to 9:50am have come from)".

REPLY: This was an error of mine in misinterpreting the date shown on the screenshot that BlueBag provided on page 2 of this thread. Those data seem to suggest that the photo was...

CREATED on 5 May 2007

and

AMENDED at 9.50am and 25 secs on 11th (not 5th) May - presumably by the Press Association 




+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Finally with my Moderator's hat on:

Please keep this robust debate polite. Do not attack others, do not denigrate them, do not goad them, and remember that no argument is enhanced by abusing the contributions of others

- T.B. Moderator

[Doug D]

I agree with Canada12 & others that from what we have available, we will never get to the bottom of when the photo was taken from the photograph itself. It will only be the PJ or SY, if anyone, that will be able to get to that information.
 
The bits that we should be able to pull together however are:
 
When was the mini-tennis held that week?
 
Where was the mini-tennis at the OC held for M’s age group? Was it on grass, if so where, or on the hard courts, if so which ones?
 
Where were Gerry’s tennis lessons held? (‘adjoining court’ KH1 p. 57)
 
M’s crèche was ‘the Mini Club for three-to-fives, was based in a light, airy room above the twenty-four-hour reception.’ (KH1 p. 51, with map opposite) which is the 24 hour reception just over the way from the Tapas complex, but looking at the resort map below it shows the Junior & Kidz Club as being right next to the ‘Millenium’ and the three other courts, or is this the facility for the 5 year olds and above?

Is the word ‘based’ just poetic licence to give the impression that the club was actually held there? Logically, would you set up a kids facility locked away in an upstairs room at a holiday resort? Did they use both facilities for her age group or is the map below incorrect?
It shows the 'Mini & Toddler 2's' as being behind the Tapas (6), which is where we are told S & A attended, and 'Baby & Toddler 1's' behind the tennis courts (7).
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
Did they use sponge or ‘proper’ tennis balls?
 
What brand of tennis balls is M. holding? Were they freely available in UK &/or Portugal at that time?
 
I believe the answers to these questions would go a long way to validating (or not) the photo.

[canada12]

However Kate did actually mention it [the sunburn] in her witness statement...

Concerning Madeleine, she is Caucasian, with quite white skin, aged four (12/05/2003) about 90cm tall. Of slim build, dark blond hair, straight and of shoulder length. Left eye blue-green, right eye also green with a brown spot on the pupil. She had a small brown spot on the skin of her left leg, as well as a small sunburn on her right forearm.

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

@ canada12

The bolded quote above from Dr Kate McCann's statement is very interesting.

However, consider this for a moment.

Suppose that, as some suggest, this is a photo in which Madeleine's head has been photoshopped onto the body of another girl. And suppose again that that girl had a noticeable sunburn on her right arm. Suppose again that the McCanns had planned (say during 4 May) to release the Tennis Balls Photo worldwide via the Press Associaiton, Associated Press etc.

What would Kate say about Madeleine/

ANSWER: She would say: 'Oh, Madeleine had a sunburn on her right arm'.

As a matter of fact, I very much doubt if, that week, Madeleine could possibly have acquired a localised sunburn like that.

That in itself might suggest that the body of the girl in the Tennis Balls Photo is NOT Madeleine.

Completely agree with you, TB, and that's solid logic.
Especially since none of the nannies recall a mark like that on the Madeleine they were familiar with - if their statements can be believed to any extent.
Kate also says Madeleine has "slim build". Even with hunched shoulders, a child with "slim build" would not look like the child in this photo (IMO).

[Guest]

REPLY: This was an error of mine in misinterpreting the date shown on the screenshot that BlueBag provided on page 2 of this thread. Those data seem to suggest that the photo was...

CREATED on 5 May 2007

and

AMENDED at 9.50am and 25 secs on 11th (not 5th) May - presumably by the Press Association 

The 5th May is related to the "AP" "FAMILY HANDOUT" source credit.

It is not necessarily when the photo was created.

And more specifically it is not necessarily camera EXIF data.

The photo was embedded in a Family Handout document, how it got there and what processes were involved along the way is anyone's guess.

It appears the photo was in a handout on the 5th of May.

If that is the case and it's photoshopped that's pretty impressive fast work.

Balance of probablities say's it isn't.

There is nothing in the photo that suggests phtoshopping either.

But hey... were're all jumping through hoops again.

Fun for some.

[Guest]

Did anyone think to ask the makers of the video what they used as the source of their photo analysis?

Do they have the handout?

[Liz Eagles]

REPLY: This was an error of mine in misinterpreting the date shown on the screenshot that BlueBag provided on page 2 of this thread. Those data seem to suggest that the photo was...

CREATED on 5 May 2007

and

AMENDED at 9.50am and 25 secs on 11th (not 5th) May - presumably by the Press Association 

The 5th May is related to the "AP" "FAMILY HANDOUT" source credit.

It is not necessarily when the photo was created.

And more specifically it is not necessarily camera EXIF data.

The photo was embedded in a Family Handout document, how it got there and what processes were involved along the way is anyone's guess.

It appears the photo was in a handout on the 5th of May.

If that is the case and it's photoshopped that's pretty impressive fast work.

Balance of probablities say's it isn't.

There is nothing in the photo that suggests phtoshopping either.

But hey... were're all jumping through hoops again.

Fun for some.

I agree with you BB.

If you remove the photo-shopping distraction you're left with claims about the photograph that don't corroborate with statements given to the police and a book.

[canada12]

The photo was embedded in a Family Handout document, how it got there and what processes were involved along the way is anyone's guess.

It appears the photo was in a handout on the 5th of May.

If that is the case and it's photoshopped that's pretty impressive fast work.

Email the photo(s) off to someone who has Photoshop on their computer (instant).
An hour, maybe two hours at the most, to do some quick alterations - it doesn't take much time if you know what you're doing, BB.
Email the altered photo back (instant).

Not much time at all, really.
Could be done in half a day.

[Guest]

The photo was embedded in a Family Handout document, how it got there and what processes were involved along the way is anyone's guess.

It appears the photo was in a handout on the 5th of May.

If that is the case and it's photoshopped that's pretty impressive fast work.

Email the photo(s) off to someone who has Photoshop on their computer (instant).
An hour, maybe two hours at the most, to do some quick alterations - it doesn't take much time if you know what you're doing, BB.
Email the altered photo back (instant).

Not much time at all, really.
Could be done in half a day.

Why would they do this as early as May 5th?

Weren't they busy with the Police and a million other press and people?

Seriously, some of you need to take a step back.

Why don't you go and find out where the video maker got their source data from (why do you believe everything you are told?), then we might have something real to discuss.

Until then I don't see anything anomalous here.

[Liz Eagles]

The photo was embedded in a Family Handout document, how it got there and what processes were involved along the way is anyone's guess.

It appears the photo was in a handout on the 5th of May.

If that is the case and it's photoshopped that's pretty impressive fast work.

Email the photo(s) off to someone who has Photoshop on their computer (instant).
An hour, maybe two hours at the most, to do some quick alterations - it doesn't take much time if you know what you're doing, BB.
Email the altered photo back (instant).

Not much time at all, really.
Could be done in half a day.

Why would they do this as early as May 5th?

Weren't they busy with the Police and a million other press and people?

Seriously, some of you need to take a step back.

Why don't you go and find out where the video maker got their source data from (why do you believe everything you are told?), then we might have something real to discuss.

Until then I don't see anything anomalous here.

  Common sense prevails BB.

[Guest]

[quote="Ladyinred"]Someone else could have bitten her.[/quote]


LIR, you beat me to it.

Now, who would do such a vile thing to such a small child?

Maybe one of the purported burglars on the purported trial run was a cannibal as well?

Shedding a completely new light on the remark: 'find the body & prove we killed her'!

No, seriously. Didn't she have a similar mark on her left knee (visible on the mirrored picture in the Duth newspapers at the time), which mark was mentioned in het passport?

[canada12]

Why would they do this as early as May 5th?

Weren't they busy with the Police and a million other press and people?

If Madeleine was gone, as many suspect, before May 3, then they had a number of days in which to plan this part of the exercise, BB. They were indeed busy with the Police and a million other press and people... but they (Kate and Gerry) didn't do the Photoshopping, did they? They would have passed it on to someone else. So... a few minutes to find the photos they needed... a few more minutes to email them off... then back to the Police and the million other press and people... (one might even be so bold as to suggest that the emailing and the photoshopping were done before May 3, so no police and no press people in sight - yet) - a few hours later, the revised photo is back in their hands... and then sent off and delivered to whoever put together the handout.

[jeanmonroe]

The tennis 'photo', imo, is all BALLSHIT!

[j.rob]

The tennis 'photo', imo, is all BALLSHIT!

Yes indeed. The child on the court does not look like the child in the alleged 'last photo'. Different body shape. And as others have pointed out, where is the coloboma? First she had one and then she didn't, according to her parents. I mean, that's just nuts. She either had one or she didn't.

[MissesWillYa]

Re: the "bite mark," I wanted to say that I was a teacher before I had my children and I worked extensively with special-needs students, ranging in age from preschool to high school (so about 3-18 years old). Self-injury is very common among special needs children, especially those on the autism spectrum. The most glaring example I can recall was a boy about 17 years old, profoundly mentally disabled, who bit his right wrist every time he became frustrated. He had a permanent "dent" in the skin there, from having bitten down on it so hard for so long, and the skin was very discolored there as well. He had pale skin otherwise, and this bitten area was dark reddish-purple, with the skin sort of hardened as well.

I only offer this example because there has been speculation in some threads that Madeleine may have had behavioral or developmental issues. In my own experience, both as a parent and as a teacher, some of her behavior does sound a bit concerning, such as the constant screaming and tantrums that her family members have described. But then again, I'm also the older sibling of twins born soon after I was, and I know how difficult it can be for a child in that situation to get the care and attention she needs. Without access to medical records or, IMO, honest witness statements about her personality or behavioral history, it's impossible to know whether she had special needs or not.

I also wanted to offer an idea about the "body" in the tennis photo; I've noticed that cousin Fiona, John's daughter, looked like a fairly sturdy girl when she was young. I wonder if her body could have been the one substituted in this photo. Maybe the older style of shorts and shoes could play into this as well. I've also wondered about Fiona being the baby in that photo of Kate in a blue hoodie holding a baby advertised as Madeleine, given how young Kate looks. Photos of a niece would be a handy resource for people trying to convey invented situations for their missing daughter.

All IMO.

[j.rob]

I only offer this example because there has been speculation in some threads that Madeleine may have had behavioral or developmental issues. In my own experience, both as a parent and as a teacher, some of her behavior does sound a bit concerning, such as the constant screaming and tantrums that her family members have described. But then again, I'm also the older sibling of twins born soon after I was, and I know how difficult it can be for a child in that situation to get the care and attention she needs. Without access to medical records or, IMO, honest witness statements about her personality or behavioral history, it's impossible to know whether she had special needs or not.


--------


I think this is a key issue in this case. I think the arrival of the twins was a disaster for Madeleine. And given that the Mcs seem highly resistant to forking out for child care, Kate I suspect struggled to cope. Could easily have had depression, for instance. In fact isn't there a quote or interview somewhere from a nursery worker in Holland who thought Kate's behaviour was strange?

[MissesWillYa]

I only offer this example because there has been speculation in some threads that Madeleine may have had behavioral or developmental issues. In my own experience, both as a parent and as a teacher, some of her behavior does sound a bit concerning, such as the constant screaming and tantrums that her family members have described. But then again, I'm also the older sibling of twins born soon after I was, and I know how difficult it can be for a child in that situation to get the care and attention she needs. Without access to medical records or, IMO, honest witness statements about her personality or behavioral history, it's impossible to know whether she had special needs or not.


--------


I think this is a key issue in this case. I think the arrival of the twins was a disaster for Madeleine. And given that the Mcs seem highly resistant to forking out for child care, Kate I suspect struggled to cope. Could easily have had depression, for instance. In fact isn't there a quote or interview somewhere from a nursery worker in Holland who thought Kate's behaviour was strange?

I think I have seen a quote to that effect, but I don't remember where.

It actually seemed to me that Madeleine was spending a lot of time in childcare before she disappeared. I thought I'd read in the PJ Files that she attended a nursery for three very long days each week, though her mother only worked outside the home one day each week. I have always wondered whether the twins were home with Kate on those other days or if she had all three in daycare on those days too.

Okay, I found some information in the PJ Files, from teacher Sharon Lewin:

When she was two and a half she joined the group supervised by me, I think it was in 2006, and she remained there for about 6 months. Madeleine attended on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
 
She would be dropped off between 08.00 and 08.30 and would return home at about 17.00.

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

So she was in care three days a week from 8 am to 5 pm. That's a long day for a little one. People do it if they have to, of course, but wasn't Kate on maternity leave for a long time? And only worked the one day when she did go back. It seems like she could have kept her home more. But again, I know that caring for her as well as twins would have been a lot for Kate, and she doesn't seem all that well-equipped for the job, IMO.

[Guest]

No, I do not. But you should know that I DO keep a record of my children's basic stats (height, weight, immunizations) with me at all times. I have it in two places, on my phone and written on a note that I keep in my wallet. My children have been fingerprinted. I take no chances when it comes to the possibility that one of them could go missing. The possibility may be slim, but it does happen and I would want to be prepared.

And all mothers do this?

Nope and I never said they did. I feel like you're putting words in my mouth and I wish you'd stop.

The concerned mothers I know do have records of their kids' growth. Many mothers I know carry this information on them. Most people I know have had their children fingerprinted; it's a free service offered by civic clubs at virtually every large outdoor festival or fair where I live, and it's a simple, quick matter to do it in the police station too. The women I know would actually be very similar to Kate in terms of education, career choice, etc., and usually, you can't get them to stop going on about topics like this. Just one more reason why I'm surprised at the McCanns' choices in this area.

All my children had growth charts , the ones that hang on the wall. We measured then regularly, they were always excited to see who had grown the most.

So did we... my son's one is still on the side of his white wardrobe.

But we didn't measure every day or week or month... we did it randomly when it was a bit of fun and probably 10 times over 7 or 8 years (it gets a bit cluttered otherwise don't ya think).

[Guest]

As I stated before - 114cm tennis photo; 108cm this photo; 97/98cm playhouse photo. 

REPLY: That is a powerful argument that there may be something badly wrong with the 'Tennis balls Photo'. But not with this one. 

The idea that you can get a figure of 114cm (no more no less) from the tennis balls photo is hilarious.

Cameras distort, especially angled photos.

[Guest]

Madeleine is actually 84cm tall in the tennis ball photo.

An example of psuedo-science.

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

[Guest]

Meanwhile... we forget that this is the original photo:

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

How high up was this person who took the photo?

Were they in an Umpire's chair or on a roof?

Standing here maybe, but then there is a fence.

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

Maybe the fence this side is chest height so you could take a picture unobscured, it's a drop down the other side.

Anyway....

114cm no more no less.

Hilarious.

[skyrocket]

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

Don't make the mistake of attributing the 114cm height in the tennis ball photo to me. I had no hand in it.

This was aparently worked out a while ago based on the known diameter of tennis balls.

It has been posted on this thread and elsewhere.

I believe the tennis ball photo is more widely accepted as being faked (it has been stressed on this thread sveral times by others) - particularly with the apparent confusion over who had taken it.

The playhouse height - someone found the make/model and it gave the door height at 1m.

The playground height - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] stood the pink figure up by splitting the image and re-instating the top half vertically on top of the legs. There was a concensus that the resultant figure came upto GM's waist or just above. I then calculated GM's waist height at 108cm (60%) of total height (178cm/5'10"), therefore the figures height.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] believed the playground photo to be taken with a telephoto lens, hence the pink figure appearing larger than it actually was. I disagreed, arguing that the families used compacts with only small zoom capabilities and that there was little size distortion caused 'in camera', and that there would be no point in standing miles away to take it. (I mentioned that I'd had my own professional studio/darkroom in a previous life only to give my observations credibility).

So, take a look back and find the originator and perhaps take it up with them.

[skyrocket]

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

I like the tennis ball tower! Not sure why it stopped at the ankle - peronally I would have included another ball there.

BUT - it just goes to show how different interpretations can be put on things. None of these methods are particularly scientific. Needs looking at properly.

The thing is - visually the tennis photo does look ok to me, although it has been accepted on here as being probably fake. Whereas the playground photo, which I still think looks wrong, has caused a lot of disagreement!

[skyrocket]

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

Final point - as you've pointed out re: the tennis photo, the position of the photographer is a problem. Raises the point that has been made before of where the photo might have been taken. I have also read reference to the court surface not beig the same one as in Luz. I'm sure all this must have been discussed on other threads.

[Guest]

I believe the tennis ball photo is more widely accepted as being faked (it has been stressed on this thread sveral times by others) - particularly with the apparent confusion over who had taken it.

I believe I just figured out where it was taken.

I never saw that discussed before.

I don't see why it is fake.

It was taken high up behind the fence at the PDL tennis courts (see previous picture).

[Guest]

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

I like the tennis ball tower! Not sure why it stopped at the ankle - peronally I would have included another ball there.

That's the middle position of her body, the tennis balls are being held centrally.

But hey... it's all psuedo-BS anyway.

The thing is - visually the tennis photo does look ok to me, although it has been accepted on here as being probably fake. 

Not by me.

In fact I have found a reason to believe it's genuine.

[Guest]

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

Final point - as you've pointed out re: the tennis photo, the position of the photographer is a problem. Raises the point that has been made before of where the photo might have been taken. I have also read reference to the court surface not beig the same one as in Luz. I'm sure all this must have been discussed on other threads.

See previous photo of tennis courts.

It's not a problem if the picture was taken from there.

Madeleine is behind the marked base-line in the full picture and that is the perfect position for a picture from that lofted position.

[skyrocket]

@ BlueBag

Not quite with you.

Do you mean high up on the apartment side of the courts?

If so, she would have to be standing at the far end of the court or the wire fence would obscure and wouldn't the picture then have green foreground/line/red background i.e. the reverse of what the photo shows?

Doesn't she have to be this end of the courts - or the photographer would have to be on the court at the tree end, which wouldn't work either as there is a definite height difference between camera and subject.

Sorry if I've misunderstood.

[Guest]

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

The tennis court is below the level of the grass area.

The fence looks about chest height from this side - or there may not be a fence on the extreme right of the court - hard to tell, steps down?

Madeleine is absolutely standing at the end of a court behind a base-line.

It all fits.

[DaTroof]

I agree with you apart from the height of the fence which is clearly above head height as is normal for nets round tennis courts.

Could the photo have been taken through an open gate in the fence? 

Has anyone tried to reproduce the photo by going to PdL & trying to take same shot?