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

Verdi wrote:Nor does it help things along if members decline to answer specific questions.  By example, I recently asked a member how they know that NALF are the initials of Mr. Foster from Hampshire but whoever didn't respond.

I wasn't asked but out of curiosity I found out why NALF is Mr Foster.

He is certainly N.A.Foster and that is in the Soberton phone book.

L? Not sure but could be a third christian name or the second letter of his second name to fit some kind of referencing system.

PC Barham who picked up the video and memory cards, dropped them off to DC Martin - and is the one who presumably labeled them NALF/xxx - is a Bishops Waltham/Soberton Policeman, where the Fosters live.

All links for this info were provided earlier in the thread.

I think it's 99% certain, just a slight doubt about the "L".

When the UK 'plod' take a 'statement' in your house, or station, they will 'label' ANY 'evidence', material evidence, or physical evidence, with your initials and a 'number'.

so 'anything' from me would be JM1.

Then JM2

Etc.,

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I think the biggest issue is that even the experts can't decide what constitutes "Photoshopping"! Fascinating debate here between a 'maverick' expert and other experts including PeterMac's one.

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

As a layman, I look past the arguments from both sides and look just at the mouse-over comparison picture and for me that powerful image has been changed dramatically.

Also it must be the case that you can't/shouldn't rely on what you see with the eye. Which I guess is why these experts have developed specific software to detect the telltale signs of manipulation.

Thank you TheTruthWillOut for the hackerfactor site. Very informative. It makes me realise that to just 'step back' and look at the content of the photo for its inconsistencies, which are demonstrable, is the sane way to decide whether the photo is a true photo or one that has been faked.

Independent information (the photos taken by a family in the pool/area, which can be accessed following HelenMeg's posts) show bougainvillea plants with not a single flower is sight. I DO HOPE NO ONE WILL PUT THE PHOTOS ON THE SCREEN. THE FAMILY HAS A RIGHT TO PRIVACY, AND WHAT THEY PUT ON FACEBOOK FOR THEIR OWN FRIENDS IS NOT AN OPEN INVITATION TO CIRCULATE IT ON A FORUM.

The tree photo with Maddie has the same level of plant growth as the independent photos.

Apparently the NALF photos are of PDL at the same time as the McCs, and without a shred of doubt, the PJ will have video and photos of the area amongst which will almost certainly be a sighting of bougainvillea plants which will show whether the plants were in full bloom, or no flower at all, during the McC week. The gardener/s of the time will also know.

I am not concerned about speculation as to whether Maddie must have been photographed on the Sunday, since speculation is all that it is.

It is a date set by "default" since the weather was only sunny enough on that day. It is like the cart being put before the horse. Because the sun was not out enough on 3rd but it was out enough on the Sunday, the photo must have been taken when the sun was out, therefore it has to be the Sunday.

With the bougainvillea being able to be verified by 'independent' photos and as I say, PJ material which is very likely to exist, perhaps the photo as presented, was not taken at all, but created to give the effect of having been taken.

When all is said and done. We are not the courtroom, where the McCs will be tried. It is not we who need to debate and establish a cast-iron case which will not fail in court, so effectively, it is all immaterial, whether the 'expert' supporters wish to force their view that the photo is purely honest and must have been taken on the only sunny enough day, yet acceding to an admission of manipulation extending to date and time change.

The Sunday photo is hypothetical and so far I have seen no convincing 'independent' evidence that can justify such an assumption.

The state of flowering however, of bougainvillea at the time, not in flower in independent photos, but in full radiant bloom in the much delayed 'last photo' can be verified by PJ.

Let us leave it to the real specialists, those who have the photo to hand, and the other independent photos /gardener evidence etc. which will show whether or not the last photo bougainvillea is a truthful reality.

A good reply Bobbin.

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

I don't "Know" Verdi but wouldn't you agree that it is some coincidence his initials seem to fit nicely? Especially given the time sensitive nature of reviewing the pictures, it makes even more sense to me that the DC would use initials. It may be standard practice for all I know.

I wasn't digging you out for the suggestion - I was merely interested to know where the information came from, trying to unscramble my head.

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

I wasn't asked but out of curiosity I found out why NALF is Mr Foster.

I read your comments - haven't ignored them.  The initial claim I thought to be made with certainty, hence my interest in knowing the source.  Clearly it's not a confirmed fact so hasn't helped to clarify my doubts.  As I previously said, it seems an unusual reference system for police computer imaging,  I will however accept the possibility unless some additional information springs forth to indicate otherwise.

It's been one of those subjects - just as I think I've unravelled the confusion in my head, out jumps a big 'BUT' that sends me swiftly back to square one!

bobbin wrote:

Thank you TheTruthWillOut for the hackerfactor site. Very informative. It makes me realise that to just 'step back' and look at the content of the photo for its inconsistencies, which are demonstrable, is the sane way to decide whether the photo is a true photo or one that has been faked.

No they are not.

Read the other threads that have been linked over and over.

Use the search function.

This nonsense was dealt with a year ago.

Give us your top three inconsistencies.

Independent information (the photos taken by a family in the pool/area, which can be accessed following HelenMeg's posts) show bougainvillea plants with not a single flower is sight. I DO HOPE NO ONE WILL PUT THE PHOTOS ON THE SCREEN. THE FAMILY HAS A RIGHT TO PRIVACY, AND WHAT THEY PUT ON FACEBOOK FOR THEIR OWN FRIENDS IS NOT AN OPEN INVITATION TO CIRCULATE IT ON A FORUM.

Once again, "proof" is dodged.

Provide a link.

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

Textusa has posted again today explaining why the photo must have been manipulated. It is a detailed post which, in my view, determines that the Last Photo
has been manipulated. It goes against the Law of Physics, otherwise.

Will people still say it is genuine (albeit with EXIF data altered)? I guess so, but will be interested to hear their explanations.

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

Textusa has posted again today explaining why the photo must have been manipulated. It is a detailed post which, in my view, determines that the Last Photo
has been manipulated. It goes against the Law of Physics, otherwise.

Will people still say it is genuine (albeit with EXIF data altered)? I guess so, but will be interested to hear their explanations.

Our assessment about the photo having being manipulated is only to with the sunglasses. The reflection on them is physically impossible.

Complete and utter BS.

One of the posters here went to a lot of trouble to set up this scenario in the real world and PROVE the reflections are possible.



What is going on lately?

Happy to sit on the fence and admit that I just do not know, although my gut feeling is that it's a real photo of GM & AM into which MM has been inserted.
 
Although we have the experts opinion that there is no evidence of photoshopping, I suspect that with the miniscule size of the pixels, a really good computer programme could cut, paste MM in and blur the edges across the pixels in such a way that no evidence of this would show, but what do I know? Without the memory card, and working just from a photo published on the internet, I am surprised the experts do not cover their opinions a bit more.
 
As for the sunglasses, if they needed turning round, (which I don’t accept), why not just remove them, unless they needed to be seen to justify GM having bought them earlier in the week and so help to ‘date’ the photo in that way? It is not logical to seamlessly insert MM into a photo (if that was done), yet make such a mistake with the reflections in the glasses. I am not convinced by Textusa's latest 'straight/curved edge' thesis, as the curvature of the lenses and the exact position of the pool edge could easily account for this i.m.o.
 
From just looking at the photo, it would make more sense if just GM & AM were in the photo, as they would be central and there is no obvious reason for them not to be. If there was a feature to their right (our left as we look at it), the positioning of the three would make more sense, but there isn’t. However, if there was someone else that would come into shot on our right if the shot of the three was centralized, that could explain it.
 
One thing though with digital cameras is that no one ever takes just one shot any more, ‘just in case’, and so there would have been at least a couple of pretty similar shots taken at the same time, which we (and presumably the PJ) have never seen. I would suggest the same with the tennis photo. Would you really run back to the apartment for such a wonderful photo opportunity and then take one photo. It's just nonsense.
 
One can only ask, as with most things McCann, ‘Why have we not seen the other photos?’. (rhetorical)

@ DougD - with you in that I'm undecided or rather unpersuaded either way. Still leaning towards just a date change but who knows - just imagine what a good barrister would do with all this.

Three questions/thoughts after reading Textusa's blog:

1.Just say that TM had in their possession 2 almost identical photos of GM and AM by the kids pool - one with GM's glasses hanging on his shirt and with the side of the pool and AM's hat reflected, and one with GM wearing glasses with the photographer reflected. Why wouldn't they simply use the photo with the sunglasses hanging on GM's shirt to photoshop MBM into? Why introduce an extra step of complication and increase the risk of discovery? Am I missing something?

2.Is the argument for the 18 May date for the photo being taken of GM and AM based solely on the photos of them wandering around the Ocean Club in the same t-shirt (not the same shorts) and the same pink sun hat (but different clothing) or is there something more concrete?

3.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - if you could give a link to the photo of the pool and bougainvillea wall for the same week that would be really helpful (and damning). I've tried to source it from the details you've given but I'm struggling to find it. Thanks.

skyrocket wrote:1.Just say that TM had in their possession 2 almost identical photos of GM and AM by the kids pool - one with GM's glasses hanging on his shirt and with the side of the pool and AM's hat reflected, and one with GM wearing glasses with the photographer reflected. Why wouldn't they simply use the photo with the sunglasses hanging on GM's shirt to photoshop MBM into? Why introduce an extra step of complication and increase the risk of discovery? Am I missing something?

Don't waste your breath. They'll never give you a reason why on earth the supposed fakers would make things more complex.

3.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - if you could give a link to the photo of the pool and bougainvillea wall for the same week that would be really helpful (and damning). I've tried to source it from the details you've given but I'm struggling to find it. Thanks.

I also tried, you can't find them.


The "privacy" thing is also nonsense. If they are public they are public. Anyway they can be reproduced here with faces blacked out (all I need is a link to them).

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

Textusa has posted again today explaining why the photo must have been manipulated. It is a detailed post which, in my view, determines that the Last Photo
has been manipulated. It goes against the Law of Physics, otherwise.

Will people still say it is genuine (albeit with EXIF data altered)? I guess so, but will be interested to hear their explanations.

So we've moved on slightly from.  Not whether that side of the pool is reflected or not.  It comes down to whether the edge of the pool should be convex or concave.

Am I reading Textusa's point correctly?

I think there are things about the photo that look 'weird' and there is a huge lack of engagement between those in the photo which is quite consistent with McCann family photos but that means just what I have written. I find it an unconvincing photo in that it purports to show a happy little family gathering on a day when I suspect there wasn't one.

But - irrespective of any of that - IF the photo was taken earlier on in the week and the McCanns pretended that it had been taken on Thursday 3rd May when in fact it had been taken on an earlier day - some say even the previous Saturday on Sunday - then that is a major deception.

IF it could be proven that the photo - or even components of the photo - was taken on an earlier day then that would prove that the McCanns LIED about the photo.

So WHY would they want to lie about when this photo was taken?

ETA: So - irrespective of whether the photo is photoshopped or not - the photo - if taken on a different day - is deceptive as it purports to show something that happened at a certain time on a certain day when in fact that wasn't what happened.

I have no idea what day the photo was taken on or whether it has been modified. However the fact that TM insist it was taken on Thursday 3rd May suggests to me, at least, that possibly it wasn't.

skyrocket wrote:
3.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - if you could give a link to the photo of the pool and bougainvillea wall for the same week that would be really helpful (and damning). I've tried to source it from the details you've given but I'm struggling to find it. Thanks.

It was HelenMeg!

Unless Madeleine McCann was also in the photograph of the woman's children that hasn't materialized, it indicates - suggests - proves absolutely nothing.

Another good question regarding any photos whatsoever would be this, and it needs a full honest answer.
Tony, how did Philip Edmonds respond to you about photos he had. It's impossible to reply to someone whom they firstly don't know, and also to reply by email to someone they once again don't know and like yourself did not give your email in correspondence, so come on tell us how he plucked your email address out of nowhere.
It would be a benefit to come up with an honest answer.
Seriously, it would  

Make use of your limited time here, Pheasantplucker, the clock is ticking.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Make use of your limited time here, Pheasantplucker, the clock is ticking.

Why ?
It's a question of concern
Why the haste to shrug it off ?

Pheasantplucker wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Make use of your limited time here, Pheasantplucker, the clock is ticking.

Why ?
It's a question of concern
Why the haste to shrug it off ?

Because of your posts on the Dog's thread. You're not here for good reasons.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Pheasantplucker wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Make use of your limited time here, Pheasantplucker, the clock is ticking.

Why ?
It's a question of concern
Why the haste to shrug it off ?

Because of your posts on the Dog's thread. You're not here for good reasons.

Perhaps concerns of mine should be answered. It's about justice isn't it ?
Surely

Pheasantplucker wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Pheasantplucker wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Make use of your limited time here, Pheasantplucker, the clock is ticking.

Why ?
It's a question of concern
Why the haste to shrug it off ?

Because of your posts on the Dog's thread. You're not here for good reasons.

Perhaps concerns of mine should be answered. It's about justice isn't it ?
Surely

Why attack aquila and PeterMac? Get on with it or get out.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Pheasantplucker wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Make use of your limited time here, Pheasantplucker, the clock is ticking.

Why ?
It's a question of concern
Why the haste to shrug it off ?

Because of your posts on the Dog's thread. You're not here for good reasons.

I'm here like you For the truth, no matter where it may lead. I'm not trouble.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Pheasantplucker wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Pheasantplucker wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Make use of your limited time here, Pheasantplucker, the clock is ticking.

Why ?
It's a question of concern
Why the haste to shrug it off ?

Because of your posts on the Dog's thread. You're not here for good reasons.

Perhaps concerns of mine should be answered. It's about justice isn't it ?
Surely

Why attack aquila and PeterMac? Get on with it or get out.

I will get on with it then
Hi all

Pheasantplucker wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Pheasantplucker wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Make use of your limited time here, Pheasantplucker, the clock is ticking.

Why ?
It's a question of concern
Why the haste to shrug it off ?

Because of your posts on the Dog's thread. You're not here for good reasons.

I'm here like you For the truth, no matter where it may lead. I'm not trouble.

Yeah, right, we'll see. You have not made a great start. Like I said, you have limited time here so make the best of it.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Pheasantplucker wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Pheasantplucker wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Make use of your limited time here, Pheasantplucker, the clock is ticking.

Why ?
It's a question of concern
Why the haste to shrug it off ?

Because of your posts on the Dog's thread. You're not here for good reasons.

I'm here like you For the truth, no matter where it may lead. I'm not trouble.

Yeah, right, we'll see. You have not made a great start. Like I said, you have limited time here so make the best of it.

I'm not quite sure what I've done wrong. I'm sorry if my question came across wrongly