Textusa releases new statement (6 Nov 2015) on 'The Last Photo' - says it is a photoshopped composite of THREE different photographs, two of which were taken on Friday 18 May 2007

by **Tony Bennett** 06.11.15 12:53

Textusa has released this statement this morning:

We do NOT believe that this photo of Maddie ['The Last Photo'] was taken on Sunday 29 April.

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

We do NOT believe that this photo of Maddie ['The Last Photo'] was taken on Thursday 3 May.

This photo is so evidently fake that we are thinking of calling it “How-not-to-fake-a-photo-photo” instead of last photo.

We believe that this photo is a composite of 2 photos. One taken of Maddie alone, WE DON’T KNOW WHEN, a copy of which appears in the Mockumentary. The other of Gerry with Amelie, which we believe was taken on 18 May [sic]. These 2 photos were then superimposed one over the other resulting in what is this photo.

We also believe a third photo was used, one where Gerry has the sunglasses hanging vertically on his t-shirt. We suppose it was also taken on 18 May [sic] during the session by the pool with Gerry and Amelie.

The lenses of the sunglasses on the composite picture is taken from this 3rd photograph. The reason being that it was the only one where the photographer didn’t appear in the reflection of the sunglasses. In the original it could have been seen that the photographer wasn’t Kate and that detail had to be removed.

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

Textusa's opinion is contrary to the clear opinions of two proven experts in digital photography whom PeteMac consulted last year. They both pronounced it a genuine photo, but possibly had the date and time data altered.

A majority on the 'Last Photo' threads here seemed persuaded from the evidence put forward by PeterMac and others, mostly about the weather conditions that week, that there was a good case for the photo having been a genuine taken on the Sunday, or possibly Monday. But some did not agree.

So for an update on what members now think about the 'Last Photo', I've added another poll

by willowthewisp 06.11.15 13:06

Hi Tony Bennett, ref:Textusa post, Fraud 6 November 2015.
I cannot confirm as to when the proposed last picture of Madeleine at the pool side was taken, but is funny that no other person's appear in the background, especially on a sunny day around a swimming pool?
What few pictures that have been disclosed of Madeleine, at least have other persons in the background?

by **Tony Bennett** 06.11.15 13:20

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Tony Bennett, ref:Textusa post, Fraud 6 November 2015.
I cannot confirm as to when the proposed last picture of Madeleine at the pool side was taken, but is funny that no other person's appear in the background, especially on a sunny day around a swimming pool?
What few pictures that have been disclosed of Madeleine, at least have other persons in the background?

@ willowthewisp

I'm afraid that what you've written above, whether it's by you or by Textusa, is totally wrong.

We have five photos of Madeleine that week:

1. Playground pic - takes a wide sweep of the entire play area and beyond - so, yes, several people in shot

2. and 3. Wendy House pics - ONLY MADELEINE in shot

4. 'Tennis Balls Photo' (arguably photoshopped) - ONLY MADELEINE in shot, and

5. 'The Last Photo' - clearly uses telephoto function and therefore takes a narrow view - just three people in shot.

There's therefore nothing remotely 'funny', odd or unusual about just Gerry and two children being in the 'Last Photo'

by willowthewisp 06.11.15 13:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:Hi Tony Bennett, ref:Textusa post, Fraud 6 November 2015.
I cannot confirm as to when the proposed last picture of Madeleine at the pool side was taken, but is funny that no other person's appear in the background, especially on a sunny day around a swimming pool?
What few pictures that have been disclosed of Madeleine, at least have other persons in the background?

@ willowthewisp

I'm afraid that what you've written above, whether it's by you or by Textusa, is totally wrong.

We have five photos of Madeleine that week:

1. Playground pic - takes a wide sweep of the entire play area and beyond - so, yes, several people in shot

2. and 3. Wendy House pics - ONLY MADELEINE in shot

4. 'Tennis Balls Photo' (arguably photoshopped) - ONLY MADELEINE in shot, and

5. 'The Last Photo' - clearly uses telephoto function and therefore takes a narrow view - just three people in shot.

There's therefore nothing remotely 'funny', odd or unusual about just Gerry and two children being in the 'Last Photo'

Hi Tony,thank you for the reply.
What I wrote was by myself and nothing to do with Textusa.
So out of five pictures selected, two have other people and three do not have anyone but Madeleine.
Notably absent from the last picture, are the pool loungers, all absent of any visable towels, flip flops, sun creams etc?

by guest12345 06.11.15 13:49

@ willowthewisp........

You may find that other pictures with other people in the background are not able to be published, at the request of the person in the photo (who doesn't want to be judged as a suspect) or by any police force who are investigating all leads....including anyone caught on film.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.11.15 13:54

willowthewisp wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:Hi Tony Bennett, ref:Textusa post, Fraud 6 November 2015.
I cannot confirm as to when the proposed last picture of Madeleine at the pool side was taken, but is funny that no other person's appear in the background, especially on a sunny day around a swimming pool?
What few pictures that have been disclosed of Madeleine, at least have other persons in the background?

@ willowthewisp

I'm afraid that what you've written above, whether it's by you or by Textusa, is totally wrong.

We have five photos of Madeleine that week:

1. Playground pic - takes a wide sweep of the entire play area and beyond - so, yes, several people in shot

2. and 3. Wendy House pics - ONLY MADELEINE in shot

4. 'Tennis Balls Photo' (arguably photoshopped) - ONLY MADELEINE in shot, and

5. 'The Last Photo' - clearly uses telephoto function and therefore takes a narrow view - just three people in shot.

There's therefore nothing remotely 'funny', odd or unusual about just Gerry and two children being in the 'Last Photo'
Hi Tony,thank you for the reply.
What I wrote was by myself and nothing to do with Textusa.
So out of five pictures selected, two have other people and three do not have anyone but Madeleine.
Notably absent from the last picture, are the pool loungers, all absent of any visible towels, flip flops, sun creams etc?

@ willowthewisp

I am really not sure what your point is?

1. There are three loungers in shot.

2. This was late April, not July or August.

3. The pool was very cold, as the McCanns themselves have said.

4. Even at midday with the temperature touching 70F (21C), this was in no way swimming weather or weather for people in swimming trunks to sun-tan themselves.

5. Besides that, we have two acknowledged experts stating that they have carried out forensic tests on the photos and analysed the shadow lengths and found them to be 100% consistent throughout the photograph, something that is impossible to fake.

I am genuinely baffled as to why you've made these two posts, if you could kindly explain please

by **Tony Bennett** 06.11.15 13:55

guest12345 wrote:@ willowthewisp........

You may find that other pictures with other people in the background are not able to be published, at the request of the person in the photo (who doesn't want to be judged as a suspect) or by any police force who are investigating all leads....including anyone caught on film.

...or you may find that there are no photos of Madeleine at all after Sunday that week yes

by worriedmum 06.11.15 13:56

I know this topic has been explored extensively before. Textusa refers to the photo of Madeleine on her own which has then allegedly been added to a composite of two others to create the 'last photo'. I seem to remember that a while ago the background to the 'Madeleine alone' photo was examined and that it consisted of areas of the stone wall which had been copied and pasted to create a new background, so that if you looked carefully you could discern the same patterns of stone blocks, plants etc. (Sorry , I've no technical vocabulary for this so I hope you understand) This suggests strongly that the single image is taken from the larger family shot and NOT the other way around. Does anyone else remember this?

by willowthewisp 06.11.15 14:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:Hi Tony Bennett, ref:Textusa post, Fraud 6 November 2015.
I cannot confirm as to when the proposed last picture of Madeleine at the pool side was taken, but is funny that no other person's appear in the background, especially on a sunny day around a swimming pool?
What few pictures that have been disclosed of Madeleine, at least have other persons in the background?

@ willowthewisp

I'm afraid that what you've written above, whether it's by you or by Textusa, is totally wrong.

We have five photos of Madeleine that week:

1. Playground pic - takes a wide sweep of the entire play area and beyond - so, yes, several people in shot

2. and 3. Wendy House pics - ONLY MADELEINE in shot

4. 'Tennis Balls Photo' (arguably photoshopped) - ONLY MADELEINE in shot, and

5. 'The Last Photo' - clearly uses telephoto function and therefore takes a narrow view - just three people in shot.

There's therefore nothing remotely 'funny', odd or unusual about just Gerry and two children being in the 'Last Photo'
Hi Tony,thank you for the reply.
What I wrote was by myself and nothing to do with Textusa.
So out of five pictures selected, two have other people and three do not have anyone but Madeleine.
Notably absent from the last picture, are the pool loungers, all absent of any visible towels, flip flops, sun creams etc?

@ willowthewisp

I am really not sure what your point is?

1. There are three loungers in shot.

2. This was late April, not July or August.

3. The pool was very cold, as the McCanns themselves have said.

4. Even at midday with the temperature touching 70F (21C), this was in no way swimming weather or weather for people in swimming trunks to sun-tan themselves.

5. Besides that, we have two acknowledged experts stating that they have carried out forensic tests on the photos and analysed the shadow lengths and found them to be 100% consistent throughout the photograph, something that is impossible to fake.

I am genuinely baffled as to why you've made these two posts, if you could kindly explain please

Hi Tony,
According to statements made by the parents I believe, that on a certain day(arrival) that Madeleine and her mum went for a dip in the pool,for give me but if it was so cold, wouldn't you have accessories to dry your children off after swimming?
1 If the picture was taken on the proposed date and time,Thursday 14.29 you could cross reference as to whether or not the children were in the creche at the time the photo was taken, as you cannot be in two places at once on any particular day, can you?
No one doubts the amount of time and effort you have devoted to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and trying to find the Truth. friends

by guest12345 06.11.15 14:35

Tony Bennett wrote:
guest12345 wrote:@ willowthewisp........

You may find that other pictures with other people in the background are not able to be published, at the request of the person in the photo (who doesn't want to be judged as a suspect) or by any police force who are investigating all leads....including anyone caught on film.

...or you may find that there are no photos of Madeleine at all after Sunday that week

That is one other theory yes Tony, although without access tot he case files/evidence (annoyingly for us) we will never know what additional photos (if any) there are scratchhead

by **Tony Bennett** 06.11.15 16:09

guest12345 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
guest12345 wrote:@ willowthewisp........

You may find that other pictures with other people in the background are not able to be published, at the request of the person in the photo (who doesn't want to be judged as a suspect) or by any police force who are investigating all leads....including anyone caught on film.

...or you may find that there are no photos of Madeleine at all after Sunday that week

That is one other theory yes Tony, although without access to the case files/evidence (annoyingly for us) we will never know what additional photos (if any) there are

Don't you think, honestly @ guest12345, that if there was even ONE photo that provided clear proof that Madeleine was alive after Sunday 29 April, that the McCann propaganda machine would have moved heaven and earth to make sure that the public saw it?

It would remove all the 'conspiracy' theories at a stroke, wouldn't it?

None in the McCanns' camera, the Canon, not one save 'The Last Photo' and the three 'playground photos'.

None in the Paynes' camera, the Olympus, not one.

None in anyone else's camera.

One in Philip Edmonds' camera, so he says - but has anyone produced it? - NO.

Please don't tell me honestly that you think that one is sitting in the PJ offices in Portimao, gathering dust of over 8 years, which conclusively proves she was alive after 29 April?

by plebgate 06.11.15 16:18

Ref. OP.

Is this Textusa's personal opinion or have experts been consulted who have come to that conclusion?

Why is this point being made now about the last photo?

Is something afoot - as someone said earlier in the thread, it is hardly a new topic so just wondering why this has come about now?

by Guest 06.11.15 17:06

Not this crap yet again!

There are loads of threads on the "last photo" in this forum.

It's been analysied to death.

The only thing dodgy about it is the claimed date.

Composite of three pictures my backside.

I never trusted Textusa.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.11.15 17:36

BlueBag wrote:Not this crap yet again!

There are loads of threads on the "Last Photo" in this forum.

It's been analysed to death.

The only thing dodgy about it is the claimed date.

Composite of three pictures my backside.

I never trusted Textusa.

Textusa, as I think as is generally known, has set out her stall a long time ago.

This statement, or one very similar, has appeared on her blog for years:

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

MESSAGE to NEWCOMERS

This blog believes that concerning the MADDIE McCANN case the following happened:

- Maddie McCann died in the early evening of May 3^rd, 2007, in the Apartment 5A. We believe the death to have been accidental.

- At the time of Maddie's death the Praia da Luz's Ocean Club was hosting a large swinging holiday in which the McCanns and friends were part of among many others.

- After Maddie's death a cover-up of unseen proportions and scope took place not to hide Maddie's death but with the main purpose of hiding the presence of swinging. To achieve that, Maddie's death had to be hidden.

- We don't believe there was any sort of negligence involved in the Maddie affair. We don't believe that T9 dined at Tapas Bar from Sunday to Wednesday. We think that on those nights they left their children with professional nannies - as did other guests - to go dine downtown PdL. On Thursday night they did use Tapas but that was simply part of what was to be "negligence" that was required to allow Maddie to be "abducted."

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

@ plebgate

The reason this issue has cropped up again today arises out of my article on CMOMM yesterday which basically praised Textusa for some excellent work she had done in, in a recent blog article titled 'Sagresman', fully exposing the sheer absurdity of Nuno Lourenco's false claims of his daughter nearly having been kidnapped twice at Sagres on Sunday 29 April. It is a thorough piece of work, excellently illustrated with photos and original diagrams of Sagres, albeit that I disagree with some of the conclusions she draws from her analysis.

In my article, I had suggested that the Nuno Lourenco fabrication must have been planned days before Thursday 3 May. It seemed to have required Wojchiech Krokowski's active consent and participation e.g. because Nuno Lourenco went to the police early on Saturday 5 May armed with a photo of Krokowski's hired car AND details of a specific shop he had visited in Lisbon.

In my article I linked the degree of planning there must have been to prepare Lourenco's fabrication with the possibility that the fabled 'Last Photo' might have been taken on Sunday 29 April and not on Thursday 3 May as claimed.

This goes right against one of Textusa's principles set in concrete (see above), namely: "Maddie McCann died in the early evening of May 3", which she shares inter alia with Dr Goncalo Amaral in his book, with criminal profiler Pat Brown and with Johanna Renstein ('Unterdenteppichgekehrt= 'Swept under the Carpet').

No doubt that's why she got fired up to post her theory of a photoshopped 'Last Photo' created by a series of pics taken at a photoshoot on Friday 18 May

by NickE 06.11.15 20:02

Tony Bennett wrote:Textusa has released this statement this morning:

We do NOT believe that this photo of Maddie ['The Last Photo'] was taken on Sunday 29 April.

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

We do NOT believe that this photo of Maddie ['The Last Photo'] was taken on Thursday 3 May.

This photo is so evidently fake that we are thinking of calling it “How-not-to-fake-a-photo-photo” instead of last photo.

We believe that this photo is a composite of 2 photos. One taken of Maddie alone, WE DON’T KNOW WHEN, a copy of which appears in the Mockumentary. The other of Gerry with Amelie, which we believe was taken on 18 May [sic]. These 2 photos were then superimposed one over the other resulting in what is this photo.

We also believe a third photo was used, one where Gerry has the sunglasses hanging vertically on his t-shirt. We suppose it was also taken on 18 May [sic] during the session by the pool with Gerry and Amelie.

The lenses of the sunglasses on the composite picture is taken from this 3rd photograph. The reason being that it was the only one where the photographer didn’t appear in the reflection of the sunglasses. In the original it could have been seen that the photographer wasn’t Kate and that detail had to be removed.

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

Textusa's opinion is contrary to the clear opinions of two proven experts in digital photography whom PeteMac consulted last year. They both pronounced it a genuine photo, but possibly had the date and time data altered.

A majority on the 'Last Photo' threads here seemed persuaded from the evidence put forward by PeterMac and others, mostly about the weather conditions that week, that there was a good case for the photo having been a genuine taken on the Sunday, or possibly Monday. But some did not agree.

So for an update on what members now think about the 'Last Photo', I've added another poll

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I agree,it´s very odd.
Same background,same position,same hat,but different hair length?
eek

by **Tony Bennett** 06.11.15 20:27

NickE wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Textusa has released this statement this morning:

[SNIPPED]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I agree, its very odd.
Same background, same position, same hat, but different hair length?

@ NickE    We have been through this one at least twice before on the forum.

These two pics are the same photograph, the black-and-white one being a very poor copy of the colour one.

The long hair on Maddie's forehead, down to the eyebrows, is clearly visible on her forehead, for example, in the black-and-white image.

Certain features just don't stand out on the black-and-white image, that's all there is to this. The long hair on the right side of her face doesn't show up well, and a few other things don't seem as clear either.

If people really have strong arguments for the Last Photo being the result of photoshopping, let them say what they are, but most of them have been raised on the Last Photo threads here and dealt with effectively I feel by those with more knowledge of digital photography than I have.

The possibility that Nuno Lourenco's snap of Krokowski's rented car was re-dated from 3 or 4 May to 29 April, whilst at the same time and the Last Photo was re-dated from 3 May to 29 April, is much much more interesting and I think a much more profitable line of research

yes

by Guest 06.11.15 22:49

Is Textusa's opinion based on technical expertise, or how she and her sisterhood perceive the photograph?

by Guest 07.11.15 14:00

NickE wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Textusa has released this statement this morning:

We do NOT believe that this photo of Maddie ['The Last Photo'] was taken on Sunday 29 April.

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

We do NOT believe that this photo of Maddie ['The Last Photo'] was taken on Thursday 3 May.

This photo is so evidently fake that we are thinking of calling it “How-not-to-fake-a-photo-photo” instead of last photo.

We believe that this photo is a composite of 2 photos. One taken of Maddie alone, WE DON’T KNOW WHEN, a copy of which appears in the Mockumentary. The other of Gerry with Amelie, which we believe was taken on 18 May [sic]. These 2 photos were then superimposed one over the other resulting in what is this photo.

We also believe a third photo was used, one where Gerry has the sunglasses hanging vertically on his t-shirt. We suppose it was also taken on 18 May [sic] during the session by the pool with Gerry and Amelie.

The lenses of the sunglasses on the composite picture is taken from this 3rd photograph. The reason being that it was the only one where the photographer didn’t appear in the reflection of the sunglasses. In the original it could have been seen that the photographer wasn’t Kate and that detail had to be removed.

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

Textusa's opinion is contrary to the clear opinions of two proven experts in digital photography whom PeteMac consulted last year. They both pronounced it a genuine photo, but possibly had the date and time data altered.

A majority on the 'Last Photo' threads here seemed persuaded from the evidence put forward by PeterMac and others, mostly about the weather conditions that week, that there was a good case for the photo having been a genuine taken on the Sunday, or possibly Monday. But some did not agree.

So for an update on what members now think about the 'Last Photo', I've added another poll

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I agree,it´s very odd.
Same background,same position,same hat,but different hair length?

Total and utter crap.

This was shown as such about 2 years ago on this forum.

The "short hair" picture was cherry-picked from pixelated frames on a YouTube video.

The frames before and after were perfectly OK.

You'll find it all in this forum.

Why is this garbage being resurrected?

by Guest 07.11.15 14:07

Remember user "floating leaf"?

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

Tosh.

by skyrocket 07.11.15 15:34

I'm also intrigued to know on what evidence Textusa bases her claim.

Despite thinking initially that this photo was just odd - in composition and several other points, including the sunglasses reflection (which has been explained logically and scientifically as far as I'm concerned), there is nothing in the exif data (data attached to the image) nor anything which can be picked up by forensic analysis (I've plugged it into several forensic software programmes) to indicate that the 'last photo' is photoshopped in the sense of the word being used here. The photo was opened in Lagos in Adobe Photoshop CS Windows on 24 May 2007, the day it was made available to the media. The data shows only that the exposure was adjusted slightly to darken it a fraction (nothing sinister in that action). We know the exif data also shows a create date and digitized date of 3 May (both the same, as the image was stored in digital format the instant it was taken). The time is shown as both 13.29 pm and 13.29 +1 pm (i.e. 14.29pm) - which as far as I'm aware has not been fully explained. Bare in mind, it is a fairly simple matter to alter/falsify any of the attached data.

The analyses I did were only for my own benefit - PeterMac's professionals will have looked at the photo in much greater detail. They, I understand, could find no problems with the image itself but made it clear that the date/time could be easily manipulated.
I believe the photo was taken on Sunday 29 May, after lunch and after the cleaner's daughter had seen the 5 members of the McCann family in the apartment block on their way up to 5G for lunch at 13.15pm (MBM 'wearing a skirt').

So, I ask again, on what is Textusa basing her claim of 3 separate images being combined? Where does the 18 May come in to it (what evidence is there for this date)? Also, as a side point, Textusa has always stood by her belief that early evening 3 May is the critical point in the week so why is she now discrediting 'proof' which supports the theory that MBM was still around at 14.29 pm on that day?

by bobbin 08.11.15 9:29

It will be clear that I understand nothing about the 'art' of computer imaging re photography but I have one question.

if exif data is 'missing' from the 'last photo', what sort of exif data would show if a camera took a 'photo of the last photo', and that new photo is the one that people are analysing.

The inconsistencies within the picture-composition would remain, (and the poll above shows that more people believe that the last photo has inconsistencies than who do not, ratio at present 3/2) however, the 'specialists' have been working with which photo ? the actual original photo and camera, or whatever was provided for the rest of us to be looking at, namely the one which arrived via questionable means involving sister Philomena and possibly her 'art-manipulating' husband, which could be a photo of a compiled photo.

by Guest 08.11.15 9:40

bobbin wrote:The inconsistencies within the picture-composition would remain

There are no inconsistencies that haven't been explained ad nauseam on this forum.

by bobbin 08.11.15 9:51

BlueBag wrote:
bobbin wrote:The inconsistencies within the picture-composition would remain
There are no inconsistencies that haven't been explained ad nauseam on this forum.

Thank you for your reply BlueBag.
I am asking a question which your reply has not answered. As I said, more people than not think there are inconsistencies.
Forcing 'explanations' onto people who are equally entitled to their own views and observations does not make the 'explanations' become 'acceptable'.
People can agree to differ, and in civilised discussion, this is what would be expected.
I am hoping someone with credible knowledge of exif data formation will be able to answer my question.

by Guest 08.11.15 9:59

Bobbin, there are long discussions on the last photo threads. I'm not able to help you, sorry, as I don't understand the technicalities.

by Guest 08.11.15 10:02

bobbin wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
bobbin wrote:The inconsistencies within the picture-composition would remain
There are no inconsistencies that haven't been explained ad nauseam on this forum.
Thank you for your reply BlueBag.
I am asking a question which your reply has not answered. As I said, more people than not think there are inconsistencies.
Forcing 'explanations' onto people who are equally entitled to their own views and observations does not make the 'explanations' become 'acceptable'.
People can agree to differ, and in civilised discussion, this is what would be expected.
I am hoping someone with credible knowledge of exif data formation will be able to answer my question.

Go on then... give us your best "inconsistency".

Forcing 'explanations' onto people who are equally entitled to their own views and observations does not make the 'explanations' become 'acceptable'.

People are entitled to wrong opinion.

Others are entitled to show why it is wrong.

I think that's the scientific method.

That's how you get nearer what is true.

Otherwise you give the opposition "look at those conspiracy nutters" ammunition.

Logic and critical thinking is going to win the day.

by Carrry On Doctor 08.11.15 10:05

And the overall statistic (currently) is that 80% of people who voted consider that the 'last photograph' is a fake, using the correct definition of the word.

Personally, I voted 3 in the pole, but like many I am no expert. PM's experts offer a better explanation IMO.

Just on a wider note, there seems to be criticism of TextUSA as a poster, and it was good to see TB praising TextUSA's research recently. I would like to echo that praise, and to the many others who are gradually unravelling this mystery and getting closer to the truth.

I have long agreed with TextUSA on the reason and scale for the cover up as swinging, and not Paedophilia (the fact TM's are pointing us in that direction should be reason enough alone for it to be ruled out) but I don't agree with her theory about death on the 3rd as there seems to be strong arguments by others for something happening much earlier.

So to echo HiDeho's sentiments, we are all pushing for the same thing, which is the truth. We should be receptive to all research and opinion until it can be ruled out with certainty.

by Guest 08.11.15 10:22

@CarryonDoctor

So to echo HiDeho's sentiments, we are all pushing for the same thing, which is the truth. We should be receptive to all research and opinion until it can be ruled out with certainty.

by Guest 08.11.15 10:43

Between PeterMac's experts and the various members of the forums who use photo manipulation in their daily tasks all of whom have stated no photoshopping is good enough for me. Although Textusa does some sterling work I think they are wide of the mark with both this and the swinging theory. What makes her / them believe the 18th May date?

by Guest 08.11.15 10:44

So.. this swinging thing... was that the same deal with the previous Gasper holiday?

Definitely not!

I have yet to see any evidence of swinging.

I also find it difficult to believe you would take so many children on a swinging holiday.

by Guest 08.11.15 10:45

HKP wrote:Between PeterMac's experts and the various members of the forums who use photo manipulation in their daily tasks all of whom have stated no photoshopping is good enough for me. Although Textusa does some sterling work I think they are wide of the mark with both this and the swinging theory. What makes her / them believe the 18th May date?

If Textusa is using the "short hair" nonsense as evidence that she couldn't be more wide of the mark.

That stuff was deliberate disinformation.