The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


FIRST photo

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by aiyoyo on 17.04.15 13:27

Exactly !

Where could the first photo come from, if not Canon Camera?

Assuming it was from a spare m-chip they brought along, it still leaves the question what caused them to choose and decide to use this one rather than a more recent one, the pool photo, only hours old as you said?

(note to self : Oh no, are we being stupid? Of course they can't because the date is wrong. It is not hours old but days old that pool photo)

If the poster photo could not have been done on the Kodak Printer, where was it done?
Not the company's printer at the reception, or AT would have said that.
Someone is lying here about the production of this photo?


avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 324
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by PeterMac on 17.04.15 14:02

@aiyoyo wrote:
Someone is lying here about the production of this photo?
Or someTWO, or Some three or four

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 177
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by aiyoyo on 17.04.15 14:15

@PeterMac wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
Someone is lying here about the production of this photo?
Or someTWO, or Some three or four

Would have to be FOUR, if we do the maths.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 324
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by rustyjames on 17.04.15 17:00

PeterMac - I agree with pretty much all you've said in the previous posts, however I'm interested in the camera that was used and as per my post a few pages back, I don't think anything can be determined with regard to aspect ratio or resolution from the info we have.

I'm just wondering where the aspect ratio information has come from.

rustyjames

Posts : 293
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by PeterMac on 17.04.15 17:16

@rustyjames wrote:PeterMac - I agree with pretty much all you've said in the previous posts, however I'm interested in the camera that was used and as per my post a few pages back, I don't think anything can be determined with regard to aspect ratio or resolution from the info we have.

I'm just wondering where the aspect ratio information has come from.

I believe it was taken from the French press association release. I'll have a look.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 177
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by MRNOODLES on 18.04.15 0:01

Was the pink top with white spots checked to see if it was with M's belonging on holiday?
avatar
MRNOODLES

Posts : 747
Reputation : 296
Join date : 2013-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by Rogue-a-Tory on 18.04.15 0:12

This ties in with the theory that Madeleine disappeared some days before hand. Would have given time to plot a storyline and arrange the necessary resources such as obtaining/printing photos, sorting alibis, contacts to MSM, Sagresman, logistics, clean up etc etc etc.
avatar
Rogue-a-Tory

Posts : 569
Reputation : 410
Join date : 2014-09-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by Angelique on 18.04.15 0:13

PeterMac

Very useful images and instructions for un-teccy people.

You can also put a memory card into some lap tops with a reader and thence into a printer via the lap top.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
avatar
Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by PeterMac on 18.04.15 9:23

@Angelique wrote:PeterMac
Very useful images and instructions for un-teccy people.
You can also put a memory card into some lap tops with a reader and thence into a printer via the lap top.
Good point, and deserves to be mentioned for completeness.  Thank you
Answer
You can these days, with the more modern versions, but we are talking about 2007, when lap tops were much more basic.
There is of course no mention either from AT or ROB that any such thing was done.  
So far as we know there was only one Mc-laptop though they borrowed or rented another one later.
Unless they bought the lap top especially for the holiday it would have to be a 2006 - or even earlier - model whose tech spec we would need to look at.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 177
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by Angelique on 18.04.15 9:31

@PeterMac wrote:
@Angelique wrote:PeterMac
Very useful images and instructions for un-teccy people.
You can also put a memory card into some lap tops with a reader and thence into a printer via the lap top.
Good point, and deserves to be mentioned for completeness.  Thank you
Answer
You can these days, with the more modern versions, but we are talking about 2007, when lap tops were much more basic.
There is of course no mention either from AT or ROB that any such thing was done.  
So far as we know there was only one Mc-laptop though they borrowed or rented another one later.
Unless they bought the lap top especially for the holiday it would have to be a 2006 - or even earlier - model whose tech spec we would need to look at.

Yes - good point about availability at that time.

I will ask a relative who can maybe answer this query later today.


____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
avatar
Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by PeterMac on 18.04.15 10:08

@rustyjames wrote:PeterMac - I agree with pretty much all you've said in the previous posts, however I'm interested in the camera that was used and as per my post a few pages back, I don't think anything can be determined with regard to aspect ratio or resolution from the info we have.

I'm just wondering where the aspect ratio information has come from.

Found it

http://www.imageforum-diffusion.afp.com/ImfDiffusion/Search/Results.aspx?numPage=1&srchMd=8&fsearch=madeleine+mccann&ID_Fulcrum=-1932829919_0&mui=1#numPage=80

is the reference.
This is the photo
" />

Aspect ratio quoted as 1888 x 2350
Compare the Olympus and Canon
" />

And no, I don't know if AFP cropping influenced the ratio.  I am not knowledgable enough, which is why I rely on others.
when I print it, it comes out as 9cm x 11 cm, a ratio of .818181
1538/ 2150 gives .8034, which is close, but I don't know what it implies

I also do not know what causes the graininess  / vertical lines down the photo.  It is unlike ANY of the other photos we have seen.  The Last Photo is clear and sharp, as are most of the others.  This one is in a category of its own.
Incidentally how did it get to AFP ?  Who sent it ?  Was it 'e-mailed' ?  
In 2007 Hotmail would not have been able to handle it at 12mB.  Until very recently their limit was 5 mB

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 177
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.04.15 10:50

For information

Shortly before '60 Reasons' was published, I uploaded a final draft to the old Madeleine Foundation website.

I was strongly challenged on Reason 27 (which dealt with the issue of the photo of Madeleine, 'The First Photo', by a poster on 3As called 'nicked' - who purported to be a bona fide researcher, but was clearly a McCann-supporter. She was from Liverpool and believed to be a relative of Russell O'Brien.

Below is reason 27 from my book, together with 'nicked's response:   


REASON 27. Having a ready supply of pre-printed photographs of Madeleine ready for the police as soon as they arrived on the night of 3rd May.

Within just two hours of Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’, the Doctors McCanns had a ready supply of posters featuring Madeleine’s face. The Doctors McCann claimed that they had produced them on the spot using their digital camera and by getting access to a printing machine at the Ocean Club. But police enquiries at the club did not find any printer that could have produced those particular types of photo posters. This led to the Portuguese police to strongly suspect that they had been pre-prepared earlier in the day, somewhere away from the premises.


reply by 'nicked'

Mr Bennett, have you actually left this paragraph in your book?

We discussed this at length previously - I explained that you are basing the above claim on a flawed 24 horas article and in fact the Official Police Files show that the PJ believe that the photos were printed on Amy Tierney's printer, as she explained in her statement.

eta her printer was a Kodak easyshare G600. It's a printer dock so hardly needs a separate suitcase.


The problem as I see it though, is that TB is relying on media reports to get some of his information, rather than the official Police Files which we now have available.

That 24 horas report was wrong just as many other stories in the media have been wrong.

I did warn TB about this and he still chose to include this photo thing as one of his facts. As I pointed out some time ago, it only needs a couple of errors in amongst these facts to undermine the credibility of what TB is trying to achieve.

One of the tabloids just needs to take one of the mistakes and make a big deal of it to portray "us" (those of us still interested in this case) as nutters talking a load of rubbish when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. We have loads of enviable resources/research but that is not what would be homed in on.

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14939
Reputation : 3019
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by rustyjames on 18.04.15 12:12

Thanks PeterMac - that's where I guessed it came from as the pixel count of 1888x2350 was mentioned in Tigger's posts.

Going back to basics for a minute, the A620 and C50 each had a choice of resolutions to take photos at, giving a compromise between quality and the space taken up on the memory card.

The A620's available resolutions were:

3072 x 2304 (i.e. 7077888 - camera described as 7.1 mega pixels)
2592 x 1944
2048 x 1536
1600 x 1200
640 x480

The C50's were:

2560 x 1920 (i.e. 4915200 - camere described as 5 mega pixels)
2048 x 1536
1600 x 1200
1280 x 960
1024 x 768
640 x 480

However note in all cases, the aspect ratio, (i.e. the ratio between long edge and short edge), is 4/3 or 1.33333 recurring.

This is generally the case for all compact cameras, whereas DSLRs and old 35mm film have a ratio of 3/2 or 1.5.  More info from "What Digital Camera" here.  The G600 printer manual does suggest that a Kodak camera can be changed to 3:2 ratio to avoid cropping when printing on 6x4 paper, but an uncropped image would still always be one of these two ratios.

I'm pretty certain there is no camera that natively produces a 2350 x 1888 image, and a google search for "1888 x 2350" throws up just 10 results of which two are about the "first photo", or 17 results for "2350 x 1888".

If we had something claiming to be an original unedited image from one of those cameras it would have to match one of the resolutions above, although could simply be resized to a valid pixel count.

The AFP photo is therefore cropped, which we know anyway from the shop window versions which seem to have retained the most content.  The pixel count and ratio just represent the proportions of the edited version.

My view is that the original image has not been released to press agencies etc.  If that is the case, and the only versions we have available were initially produced on the Kodak printer, the printer would crop when printing to a 6x4 ratio, (although the printer does have an option of printing multiple images on one sheet of paper which would allow for two 3x2 photos to be printed on a single sheet).

The AFP version was from the 4th May and I would guess from the quality it's either been scanned or is a photo of a photo, the original of which is of poor quality.

So in summary unfortunately I can't see a way of determining which camera the image was produced on, unless there is an original image available.

rustyjames

Posts : 293
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by Guest on 18.04.15 14:07

@PeterMac wrote:
I also do not know what causes the graininess  / vertical lines down the photo.

As rustyjames says, it could be some kind of second generation copy - either a scan, or a photo of a photo. I've suspected the use of a scanner in one or two of their other photos too.

I would say that the printer was running out of ink but I would expect the print head to move across the shorter dimension - ie. the missing lines would then be horizontal. I hope I'm explaining that OK.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by jeanmonroe on 18.04.15 14:29

Who 'cares'?

People at OC, PDL, would be 'searching' for, the 'girl' in the photo the first photo 'released'.

(Younger, very different hair 'style'.)

THAT 'girl' did NOT 'exist' as a person, in OC, PDL, in May 2007.

People 'might' have 'recognised' Madeleine from the 'last' photo, (pool)

"Oh, i saw THAT girl, in the play area, by the kiddie pool, at the creche, YESTERDAY, etc.,"

The McCann's 'had' THAT one, 'available' from KM's camera.

THEY DID NOT USE IT!

People were NOT 'looking' for the 'girl' in the 'last' photo!

Because they had been 'given' a photo of a 'different' girl, to 'search' for!

eg: "That girl looks 'like' the girl we're searching for"

"Er , no, the girl we're searching for, and in the photo they gave us, and on posters, has much shorter hair, and looks very much  younger"

"you're right, that's not her"

WHY 'they' witheld the very 'last' photo, of Madeleine, by pool, 'available' on 3rd/4th May 2007, for THREE WHOLE WEEKS, is very RED 'flaggish'!

It was 'available' but NOT USED!

WHY NOT?

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Reputation : 1665
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by Guest on 18.04.15 14:48

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
I also do not know what causes the graininess  / vertical lines down the photo.

As rustyjames says, it could be some kind of second generation copy - either a scan, or a photo of a photo. I've suspected the use of a scanner in one or two of their other photos too.

I would say that the printer was running out of ink but I would expect the print head to move across the shorter dimension - ie. the missing lines would then be horizontal. I hope I'm explaining that OK.

Bad form replying to my own post but, having given it further consideration, I think this image might have started out as the cropped centre section of a physical, landscape format photo, which has then been scanned and reprinted "normal" size.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by lj on 18.04.15 15:56

@PeterMac wrote:
@Angelique wrote:PeterMac
Very useful images and instructions for un-teccy people.
You can also put a memory card into some lap tops with a reader and thence into a printer via the lap top.
Good point, and deserves to be mentioned for completeness.  Thank you
Answer
You can these days, with the more modern versions, but we are talking about 2007, when lap tops were much more basic.
There is of course no mention either from AT or ROB that any such thing was done.  
So far as we know there was only one Mc-laptop though they borrowed or rented another one later.
Unless they bought the lap top especially for the holiday it would have to be a 2006 - or even earlier - model whose tech spec we would need to look at.
Didn't the PJ give them a laptop in loan, but it was not good enough in Gerry's opinion? 

I think they were really afraid of what the PJ would find after they gave it back. We know in the right hands nothing is really completely deleted on a computer.

I still don't understand the reason why all the meddling with photos. At that time, if there was no abduction, there were 2 likely possibilities of Madeleine to be found: as a dead body or wandering alone. In both cases you really don't need a photo. Any dead body of a child, and any toddler wandering alone was likely Madeleine. You don't need photos for that. The only scenario you would need a photo is when an abductor is trying to get away with a child. Then, however,you would need a photo where Madeleine is very recognizable, not these outdated shots in which she is barely recognizable. So why??

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/
avatar
lj

Posts : 3327
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by PeterMac on 18.04.15 17:10

@lj wrote: In both cases you really don't need a photo. Any dead body of a child, and any toddler wandering alone was likely Madeleine. You don't need photos for that. The only scenario you would need a photo is when an abductor is trying to get away with a child. Then, however,you would need a photo where Madeleine is very recognizable, not these outdated shots in which she is barely recognizable. So why??

Precisely so.
It is not likely that someone would walk past a 3 year old girl wandering around, and then say "I didn't think it was Madeleine because she wasn't wearing the polka dot dress, she was in pyjamas . . . so I didn't do anything . . ."
Or ignore a little crumpled body by the side of a road because the hair colour was too dark . . .
Ludicrous.
So the photo is ONLY of use if someone discovers someone carrying a child, or has one in his / their car, and claim that she is their own . . .
In which case, as you say the up-to-date one, taken earlier that day (hmmmm !) would surely have been the one to use.
But they didn't
They saved that for two whole WEEKS before showing it to the world.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 177
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by j.rob on 18.04.15 18:33

@PeterMac wrote:
@rustyjames wrote:PeterMac - I agree with pretty much all you've said in the previous posts, however I'm interested in the camera that was used and as per my post a few pages back, I don't think anything can be determined with regard to aspect ratio or resolution from the info we have.

I'm just wondering where the aspect ratio information has come from.

Found it

http://www.imageforum-diffusion.afp.com/ImfDiffusion/Search/Results.aspx?numPage=1&srchMd=8&fsearch=madeleine+mccann&ID_Fulcrum=-1932829919_0&mui=1#numPage=80

is the reference.
This is the photo
" />

Aspect ratio quoted as 1888 x 2350
Compare the Olympus and Canon
" />

And no, I don't know if AFP cropping influenced the ratio.  I am not knowledgable enough, which is why I rely on others.
when I print it, it comes out as 9cm x 11 cm, a ratio of .818181
1538/ 2150 gives .8034, which is close, but I don't know what it implies

I also do not know what causes the graininess  / vertical lines down the photo.  It is unlike ANY of the other photos we have seen.  The Last Photo is clear and sharp, as are most of the others.  This one is in a category of its own.
Incidentally how did it get to AFP ?  Who sent it ?  Was it 'e-mailed' ?  
In 2007 Hotmail would not have been able to handle it at 12mB.  Until very recently their limit was 5 mB

Is this even Madeleine McCann? Certainly not as she looked at nearly four. It could be a composite or even a different child.

In any event, as others have pointed out, it would not have helped 'find' Madeleine McCann. So why release it at all?

Hmmmm

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 234
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by aiyoyo on 18.04.15 21:12

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
I also do not know what causes the graininess  / vertical lines down the photo.

As rustyjames says, it could be some kind of second generation copy - either a scan, or a photo of a photo. I've suspected the use of a scanner in one or two of their other photos too.

I would say that the printer was running out of ink but I would expect the print head to move across the shorter dimension - ie. the missing lines would then be horizontal. I hope I'm explaining that OK.

Bad form replying to my own post but, having given it further consideration, I think this image might have started out as the cropped centre section of a physical, landscape format photo, which has then been scanned and reprinted "normal" size.

The grainy one with vertical lines is released by AFP.  Depends how AFP received the photo?  Photo sent over email (as scanned attached copy) when reproduced will be very poor in quality.  
PeterMac raised some interesting points.  Maybe it was sent by fax as that was still widely used back in 2007.
On top of that I would like to add when and why did they send it to AFP (Agence France-Presse, international new agency headquartered in Paris).  

Why France Presse?
What would be the relevance of releasing it to AFP when the Mcs early days proactive search campaign didn't extent to France.  It was mostly done in Spain.
The Last Photo was also given to and issued via AFP by team Mccann PR machinery if IIRC.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 324
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by Knitted on 18.04.15 21:32

As an aside... It looks to me the photo of Madeleine might have been taken of her on the same sofa as shown in the below pic, (albeit at a different time).  If so then this further suggests the pic wasn't taken in Apt5a, (which is no surprise, as I think everyone agrees she appears younger than she was in May 2007!). Does anyone know whose house this was? If so is that in any way relevant?

" />

____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.
avatar
Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by rustyjames on 18.04.15 21:35

I don't think anyone specifically "released" it to AFP.  The description refers to "an undated handout picture", so the press may have been given copies or just as likely they took a second generation copy from one pinned up somewhere.

rustyjames

Posts : 293
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by Guest on 18.04.15 21:41

I think the pic on the left was taken at the MCs as I recall seeing the rug in other pics.  istbc on this.

I don't recall anyone claiming the one on the right was taken in 5A.

Note that MBM (if that is her sitting on GM) is not carrying Cuddlecat.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by PeterMac on 18.04.15 21:55

@Tony Bennett wrote:For information
Shortly before '60 Reasons' was published, I uploaded a final draft to the old Madeleine Foundation website.
I was strongly challenged on Reason 27 (which dealt with the issue of the photo of Madeleine, 'The First Photo', by a poster on 3As called 'nicked' - who purported to be a bona fide researcher, but was clearly a McCann-supporter. She was from Liverpool and believed to be a relative of Russell O'Brien.
Below is reason 27 from my book, together with 'nicked's response: 

Fascinating.
We have wondered for many years what it was about the 60 Reasons which caused them so much stress. Most of it was fairly mundane (sorry, but you know what I mean) dispute over the entry they describe, windows not forced, shutters not broken and so on.

But clearly something in it really caused them alarm and panic, to the extent that the big guns were wheeled out, you had to be silenced, and the booklet "banned"

Was this it ? Right from the start, the First Photo could be proved to be a LIE ?
I don't know, obviously, I just ask.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 177
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: FIRST photo

Post by Guest on 18.04.15 22:04

@Knitted wrote:As an aside... It looks to me the photo of Madeleine might have been taken of her on the same sofa as shown in the below pic, (albeit at a different time).  If so then this further suggests the pic wasn't taken in Apt5a, (which is no surprise, as I think everyone agrees she appears younger than she was in May 2007!). Does anyone know whose house this was? If so is that in any way relevant?

" />
Just looked at Pamalam photos of MBM and there are two featuring brown sofa, with Aunty Trish, another female, twins and MBM.

Another one with kids sitting on rug in front of fireplace, MBM wearing a red dress.  Looks like Christmas time.

Unable to c/p, using tablet.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum