Re: 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 whatsupdoc 09.11.15 16:30

I agree with HelenMeg. The last photo should have been available straight away and the one used for posters. Just another in the long line of things done and said by the McCanns which I have thought unusual.
I just said about the number of versions which must be around and up pops jeanmonroe with some and then Verdi with a cracker that made me laugh...thanks guys. laugh

I think the horse has long bolted on the subject of the last photo and do we need any more versions (except the funny ones which go into my collection) and experts who may or may not know what they are talking about.

by jeanmonroe 09.11.15 16:34

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

"I'd like to know of any parent whose child went missing not issuing the 'last photo' of that child to help find him / her".
--------------------------------------

I'd like to know of ANY 'parent' whose child went missing, NOT 'co-operating' with a police investigation!

I'd like to know of ANY 'parent' whose child went missing, saying 'we were glad when the police investigation was closed'

I'd like to know of ANY 'parent' whose child went missing, saying 'whether that involves re-opening the investigation, into my child's disappearance. or not, it dosen't matter' (to me)

I'd like to know of ANY parent whose child went missing, who would lie, to relatives, in the UK, about a, blatantly false, 'jemmied and smashed' shutter.

I'd like to know of ANY parents whose child went missing, who would say, publicly, 'there's no evidence to implicate 'us' in her death'

I'd like to know WHY both of Madeleine's Grandmothers were put on the 'Granny Express', back to the UK, within hours of their arrival in Portugal, after 'saying/asking' er, 'something' to a missing child's, their grandaughter, father.

Etc, etc.,

by jeanmonroe 09.11.15 16:55

whatsupdoc wrote:

I think the horse has long bolted...........
-----------------------------

OMG!

I didn't even know there was a horse in PDL on May 3rd 2007!

I know there was 'a big red tractor' in PDL, as the burglator's 'getaway vehicle'

But a HORSE?

If the McS knew of this 'horse' earlier, they could have followed the 'horse s*it' er, 'trail', to the hellish 'lair', nr PDL!

Whlist we, poor us, have only a 'bull s*it' um, y'know, 'trail' to follow! fan

Oh,

Jean!

by Mark Willis 09.11.15 17:34

Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:A long long time ago, on a forum far away, ok, it was 3As, the original massive snap was posted on there.
I spent 2 days scanning that pic and found no alteration of it whatsoever.
No pixel aberrations, nothing.
Not that I needed to.
It's not photoshopped. The only anomaly is the "when" of when it was taken.
Probably several days before the 3rd May, which day I am not sure, but that's about it.
Its purpose was to endorse the idea that M was still around on "the last day", is all.
It matters not how many times this particular photograph is analysed by experts and/or professionals from the real world, the cyber experts will always find something wrong - like a stray leaf or cheap market sunglasses or dodgy arm or missing jug of sangria. The definitive crashing bore!

I think it's all a case of 'in the eye of the beholder'.. Best left to them that know!

Have to say the conspiracies regards the missing elbow in the "shrine" pic are as specious as Metodo3 at Christmas.
Yes, we should leave the swimming pool for Birch to dig up... drama

by Mark Willis 09.11.15 17:38

jeanmonroe wrote:whatsupdoc wrote:

I think the horse has long bolted...........
-----------------------------

OMG!

I didn't even know there was a horse in PDL on May 3rd 2007!

Yep. Shergar. Owned by Lord Lucan, ridden by Crecheman (as far as he can remember), trained by Soinia Poulton to hide any untold stories for as long as an Exton e-Fit..

by Guest 09.11.15 21:34

whatsupdoc wrote:I agree with HelenMeg. The last photo should have been available straight away and the one used for posters. Just another in the long line of things done and said by the McCanns which I have thought unusual.
I just said about the number of versions which must be around and up pops jeanmonroe with some and then Verdi with a cracker that made me laugh...thanks guys.

I think the horse has long bolted on the subject of the last photo and do we need any more versions (except the funny ones which go into my collection) and experts who may or may not know what they are talking about.

The last photograph is more diluted than a carafe of house red down the local Argee Bhajee or a pint of lager down the Pig and Whistle.

by rustyjames 09.11.15 22:50

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Peter said the second expert is Professor Hany Farid and this is his website so anyone can contact him and make their own equiries: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just catching up on this thread, but great to put a name to one of the experts. This is an impressive set of citations for Hany Farid - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is quite interesting too and provided evidence in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.15 23:00

rustyjames wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Peter said the second expert is Professor Hany Farid and this is his website so anyone can contact him and make their own equiries: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just catching up on this thread, but great to put a name to one of the experts. This is an impressive set of citations for Hany Farid - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is quite interesting too.

I'm glad PeterMac felt able to release the name.

It is surely a brave or foolish person who continues to insist that the 'Last Photo' is photoshopped against the professional opinion of such an expert.

And let us also all pause to thank PeterMac for the time and energy he expended in seeklng out Professor Farid - real, valuable and original research on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann - and all the other valuable and original research he's made available here and elsewhere - and sent to Operation Grange at the Met (just in case there should ever be a misconduct investigation into why two top Senior Investigating Officers - DCI Andy Redwood and DCI Nicola Wall - deliberately refused to follow obvious lines of enquiry suggested by PeterMac's research)

yes

by whatsupdoc 10.11.15 1:13

Tony, we can't say what photo the experts had to analyse, or can we?

What we had was what was on the internet which could have been several generations away from the original and have been altered on the way.

Many of us did our best with the material we had.

I don't know the experts Peter knows or their history without checking but I have found it wise not to automatically trust anyone who purports to be an expert even ones who write books.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.15 1:30

whatsupdoc wrote:Tony, we can't say what photo the experts had to analyse, or can we? What we had was what was on the internet which could have been several generations away from the original and have been altered on the way.

NO.

The two experts were able to precisely determine that this was NOT 'several generations' away from the original, that in fact it was NO 'generations' away from the original, and indeed was an ORIGINAL, GENUINE, UNPHOTOSHOPPED photo.

If you want to disagree with both Professor Farid and the other expert on this, with the greatest of respect you are going to have to come up with a much, much better response than that.

by Grande Finale 10.11.15 2:44

I've actually gone full circle on this, (Changed my mind) The last photograph has quite clearly
been manipulated with software. The reflection in the sunglasses is of a vertical pool, now I was
quite willing to accept that 90 deg change in reflection may be due to the proximity of water and
maybe windows which could cause this effect.

So I searched for images on google "Reflections in sunglasses" and out of a hundred sunglasses near
Water or glass or both, 100% had a horizontal reflection, I now know that it is impossible to get a vertical
reflection in sunglasses (Unless you are laid on your side).

So the Photograph has definitely been manipulated, This leads me to question if the Exif data should have
changed for that Image as well and changed the date to when it was altered. Because it still reads May 3rd 2007.

It ABSOLUTELY must have been created as a new image well after the 3rd ???

Long story short the reflection must have been altered to hide the reflection of the actual photographer, also the
fact that the Bougainvillea WASN'T blooming that week in May means that section of the photograph was taken
later. Taking all this into account I can now also see a way of photoshopping Maddie onto the background without the
hair being an issue, which leaves open the possibility that there was a pool photo of Maddie on her own from earlier
that week ???

So In conclusion yes I was wrong, I retract my vote for no alteration and await TextUSA's further analysis.

PS it is apparently very common to change sunglasses reflections in a very complex manner nowadays (See Youtube) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by skyrocket 10.11.15 9:28

@ Grande Finale

I still 'feel' this photo is wrong but I've seen nothing (yet) to prove it. I was the opposite to you, I started a doubter and then changed sides. The image I've been using is 98% quality and is freely available online - I'm sure PeterMacs guys have been using similar or better.

I don't see the logic of taking a photo of MBM alone by the pool earlier in the week with no complications such as bougainvillea or GM's sunglasses reflection in it and then adding complications by photoshopping GM and Amelie into the shot and further photoshopping GM's sunglasses lenses. If, a rotated reflected image is impossible (and presumably an experienced photoshopper would know this), why after going to all the trouble would the photoshopper insert an impossible scenario into the scene, knowing that it would be questioned? Why not just insert a horizontal reflection? And, if the image contained all 3 of them in the first place but the sunglasses reflection was the issue - again why not insert a new horizontal reflection?

If there was an original of only MBM from earlier in the week, why not release that with just the date/time alterations. The 'happy' family shot wasn't essential.

As I understand it from the 'last photo' thread, the vertical reflection could be the natural side of the pool which curves round sharply to MBM's left, creating what appears to be a rotated reflection of a horizontal but which is actually a true reflection of the apparent almost right angle.

Despite my reticence with this photo I am convinced other images have been manipulated.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.15 10:04

Grande Finale wrote:I've actually gone full circle on this, (Changed my mind) The last photograph has quite clearly
been manipulated with software. The reflection in the sunglasses is of a vertical pool, now I was
quite willing to accept that 90 deg change in reflection may be due to the proximity of water and
maybe windows which could cause this effect.

So I searched for images on google "Reflections in sunglasses" and out of a hundred sunglasses near
Water or glass or both, 100% had a horizontal reflection, I now know that it is impossible to get a vertical
reflection in sunglasses (Unless you are laid on your side).

@ Grande Finale

Have you seen this video on YouTube, made by a member of this forum, which demolishes the argument that the images on Gerry's sunglasses have been photoshopped?

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

If you have, what is your opinion on his arguments please?

by HelenMeg 10.11.15 10:58

Grande Finale wrote:I've actually gone full circle on this, (Changed my mind) The last photograph has quite clearly
been manipulated with software. The reflection in the sunglasses is of a vertical pool, now I was
quite willing to accept that 90 deg change in reflection may be due to the proximity of water and
maybe windows which could cause this effect.

So I searched for images on google "Reflections in sunglasses" and out of a hundred sunglasses near
Water or glass or both, 100% had a horizontal reflection, I now know that it is impossible to get a vertical
reflection in sunglasses (Unless you are laid on your side).

So the Photograph has definitely been manipulated, This leads me to question if the Exif data should have
changed for that Image as well and changed the date to when it was altered. Because it still reads May 3rd 2007.

It ABSOLUTELY must have been created as a new image well after the 3rd ???

Long story short the reflection must have been altered to hide the reflection of the actual photographer, also the
fact that the Bougainvillea WASN'T blooming that week in May means that section of the photograph was taken
later. Taking all this into account I can now also see a way of photoshopping Maddie onto the background without the
hair being an issue, which leaves open the possibility that there was a pool photo of Maddie on her own from earlier
that week ???

So In conclusion yes I was wrong, I retract my vote for no alteration and await TextUSA's further analysis.

PS it is apparently very common to change sunglasses reflections in a very complex manner nowadays (See Youtube) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hi
Well here's a link to further interesting discussion on the sunglasses - both worth reading to help you make up your mind

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1670008623243624/

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

by HelenMeg 10.11.15 11:05

Some points regarding the Last Photo

The Exif data takes very little time to change i.e. minutes at the most - so it does not explain the lengthy delay in waiting for this photo to be released.
How has a circular shaped pool and a convex lense turned the triangular piece of AM's hat from being horizontal to vertical?
A convex lens cannot flip a horizontal to a vertical - FACT.

Why is it so important for people to have us believe it is a GENUINE photo with simply the EXIF data changed? It is clear to some of us that the sunglasses reflection had to be changed
in order to hide whoever it was that took the photo (e.g it was not Kate). Why can those who believe it is a genuine photo not just say - 'OK lets agree to differ'?

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.15 12:30

HelenMeg wrote:Some points regarding the Last Photo.

The Exif data takes very little time to change i.e. minutes at the most - so it does not explain the lengthy delay in waiting for this photo to be released.

REPLY: It depends on whether Gerry McCann knew how to alter these data. It also depends probably on discussions held by Gerry with others about how the 'Last Photo' should be handled, if indeed it was (as many suspect) taken on 29 April and not 3 May.

How has a circular shaped pool and a convex lense turned the triangular piece of AM's hat from being horizontal to vertical? A convex lens cannot flip a horizontal to a vertical - FACT.

REPLY: Please attach the video posted on YouTube by a member here which I linked to above.

Why is it so important for people to have us believe it is a GENUINE photo with simply the EXIF data changed?

REPLY: Er, because that's where two experts and other evidence lead us. The question should rather be put this way: "Why do so many people still labour to imagine all manner of bits photoshopping on a picture which several experts have pronounced as genuine.

It is clear to some of us that the sunglasses reflection had to be changed.

REPLY: (a) Check the video referred to above (b) Look at what Professor H Farid and the other experts consulted by PeterMac say about the lack of photoshopping on this photo.

in order to hide whoever it was that took the photo (e.g. it was not Kate).

REPLY: Unjustified speculation. We know that the camera used for this photo was the Canon camera used by Kate McCann on that holiday. What possible reason is there for anyone to think that someone else might have taken it?

Why can those who believe it is a genuine photo not just say - 'OK let's agree to differ'?

REPLY: Because there is overwhelming evidence that the 'Last Photo' (a) is genuine and (b) was not taken on 3 May 2007.

Regarding to your link to this article: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

...please see below

I cannot understand why you have linked to this very bad article,

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

with all sorts of truly preposterous claims about photoshopping. Here are some extracts from that article and my comments:

QUOTE

Regarding the so called [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] picture forensics show:

The [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] documents the fact, that it was taken on 3rd May and altered using Adobe Photoshop on 24th May 2007: Create Date 2007:05:24 Creator Tool Adobe Photoshop CS Windows, Date/Time Digitized 2007:05:03. From this it is not a question if or if not it was altered after it was taken on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The only discussable question therefore is WHAT was altered in the Photo?

COMMENT:

Complete rubbish. The EXIF date do NOT document the 'fact' that the photo was taken on 3 May, as you yourself admit @ HelenMeg. Similar considerations also apply of course to the claim by Nuno Lourenco that he took a picture of Wojchiech Krokowski's car in Sagres on Sunday 29 April. Almost certainly, that photo was taken later in the week. Common to both stories is how both Gerry McCann and Nuno Lourenco exaggerate the significance of the EXIF data, boith saying: "Look at the EXIF data! That PROVES when I took that photo!"

QUOTE:

We have to remark here, that the shadows at Maddie are less precise, lighter and more blurry. While on Gerry and Amelie there are a lot of precise lokations [sic] of shadows, at Maddie there are only hair's shadows which can be identified precisely.

COMMENT:

Once again, complete rubbish: (a) the outline of her hat for example is clearly visible on her neck and (b) I cannot see any basis for claiming that the shadows on Madeleine are 'less precise'

QUOTE:

Here we have a lot of points which can clearly be connected. Disturbing is the part of the shadow left down in the picture, which on a first view may appear to be the shadow of the right sunglasses edge. But as easily can be seen this can not be the case, as then the second edge is missing (circle). Here we have at least three possibilities: (1) The shadow is produced by pure chance through the complex 3D-folding of the T-shirt only miming a sunglass shadow. (2) It could be another [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] by Gerry, as he forgot to allocate the second edge too. Or (3) it is just a shadow produced by the folded sunglasses hanging at the right part of the collar of his T-shirt in the original photo.

COMMENT: The writer of this article imagines what s/he wants to see. I have looked at the Last Photo, and looked at this article. I see exactly what he two experts see - shadows from a high sun that produce exactly what we would expect. The writer of the article for example claims that there is no shadow for the left side of Gerry's sunglasses. This is more nonsense. It's clear that the shadow of the left side of his sunglasses is subsumed in the shadow of his faced and chin - and that's all there is to it.

QUOTE:

What but is out of any question is that Gerry faked the sunglasses in the “[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]”.

Of course the question arises why Gerry had to do so. The only probable answer is that he had reason not to show his eyes like they really were on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. It is obvious that the reason to hide his eyes by a deliberate fake of evidence can not been attributed just to beauty reasons. Seemingly his (left) eye was in bad condition. Sow [sic] where did this come from? Surely not from just simple reasons (like e.g. illness or accident) which could be told to anybody in the circumstances at the time.

COMMENT: I give up! So Gerry got someone to fake these sunglasses on his face because his eyes were in a bad condition? (I've seen it suggested elsewhere that Kate gave him a black eye!)

Really?

So in that case, why were his eyes in perfect condition the following night, when he gave his TV interview.

And @ HelenMeg - If as this writer suggests, Gerry wasn't wearing his sunglasses when this photo was taken, then why the elaborate tale in Kate McCann's book about the sunglasses having been bought on the afternoon of Tuesday 1 May (page 58 of 'madeleine': "Gerry needed a new pair of sunglasses...". It has been repeatedly suggested that this story has been placed in the book to help promote the claim that the Last Photo was taken later in the week on the Thursday, rather than much earlier in the week. If indeed Gerry didn't need a new pair of sunglasses and had indeed been wearing them on that warm sunny Sunday, that immediately explains (a) why the date and time stamp data may have been altered and (b) why there is that passage in the book about Gerry buying the sunglasses on the Tuesday.

________________

@ HelenMeg     You've been with us for quite a while now. You can do much better than to paste up links here to bad articles like that one

by bobbin 10.11.15 12:31

The inconsistencies in this photo are more than the reflection in the sunglasses. I appreciate the kind effort to which the expert went and hope the toilet paper was not wasted but used for cleaning windows or something.
However, if, as at 1.40 on the video the family were sitting just east of north, and the date was supposedly 3 May then the shadow under Gerry’s chin is not possible. The sun is falling directly onto his forehead and nose, but not onto his chin. Therefore, to make such a long shadow, the sun would have to be coming from above his head and a very small amount from behind.
In the northern hemisphere this angle of sun and seating position is not possible.
If however he were sitting at the edge of a straight sided pool, e.g. the ‘adult pool’ with the straight side near his left side, and with the sun just slightly behind him, e.g. as if he were sitting at, say, post midday, somewhere along the west side of a straight sided pool, then the reflection in his glasses would be compatible with the long angle of shadow.
I do not see any curvature on his lens that would be expected from a curved pool, given that it was not as large as shown in the expanded photo which someone had apparently kindly handed in, to Jill’s forum.
I am not dismissing the kind expert’s efforts to show that a pool side, travelling away from a pair of sunglasses, would give a vertical reflection, so in that, his efforts with toilet paper and heavy weight from Gallipoli are valid.
I do argue however that the shadow down Gerry’s T shirt front, and the tight curvature of the baby pool (which is seen in the birds-eye view at 1.40) are inconsistent with the possible position of the sun in the northern hemisphere, especially as it was May 3 and not yet June 21, therefore not even at its full height.
Even at its full height, in the northern hemisphere, the sun does not travel behind a photographed subject sitting in the north of the frame.
So context is also important, not just trying to detect photo-shopping signs from a photo.
Now the argument from Textusa, (and from what now appears to be 64/45 on the poll) believes that the photo is a composite.
Looking at the wider picture to include ‘contextual discrepancies’, even without considering the bougainvillea, Gerry’s position, relative to the sun, and in accordance with the kind expert’s demonstration, shows a shadow which would put him more likely on the edge of a straight sided pool, with the sun at a different position than the one shown in the ‘last photo’ by the kiddies’ pool.
For such ‘inconsistencies’ to be explained satisfactorily, one needs to accept that the last photo is a composite, for whatever reason Gerry McCann may think necessary.
Madeleine’s face (if it is Madeleine, we do not even know that for sure) is visibly more elfin like, slender, slighter, her teeth a little more gappy, than in the ‘tree and playhouse photos’, where her features seem more full, more rounded, of what would appear to be an older/ more aged child.
For this it is possible to imagine that a younger version of Maddie has been either incorporated into the last photo or that Gerry and/or Amelie have been inserted.
There are many more inconsistencies which have been discussed, often put down with ridicule by those whose interest it is to do so.
The fact remains (see the poll) that many people believe, from their own judgement and analysis of what they know they are seeing, that the photo is a composite.

by whatsupdoc 10.11.15 13:17

Tony Bennett wrote:
...snipped...
@ Grande Finale

Have you seen this video on YouTube, made by a member of this forum, which demolishes the argument that the images on Gerry's sunglasses have been photoshopped?

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

If you have, what is your opinion on his arguments please?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've just watched it and I think it was well set out and proved the point that you can get the vertical image reflected as shown in the sunglasses off the side of a round pool.

Can people listen to what he says between 0.30 and 0.55 ?
I thought he said the photo was taken on the first full day of the holiday, i.e. Sunday, and not 3rd May ......and proves Madeleine was alive on the 3rd May. Was this just a slip of the tongue?

If the photo was in one of the McCann cameras, why was there such a delay in producing the photo. Time is of the essence in the case of missing people. What was produced? ...an old picture with a big reference to a coloboma which , even if true, wouldn't be spotted at a distance.

It is now 8 years on and only now we learn of 2 experts who say the Last Photo is genuine.

Is it possible for the photo that the experts examined to be released?

by Guest 10.11.15 13:26

Reading through some of these highfaluting theories about the last photograph is truly an eye opener - pardon the pun, for example the perpetual sun glasses debacle. My immediate thought - if it was necessary to alter (very badly) the image to remove a reflection of the photographer or some other daft reason, why wear sunglasses in the first place? Do people out there think his wife gave him a shinner or he was wacked by a wayward tennis ball?

Lo and behold - there it is for all to see @TonyBennett nicked from facebook, I think..

..Of course the question arises why Gerry had to do so. The only probable answer is that he had reason not to show his eyes like they really were on 3rd of May. It is obvious that the reason to hide his eyes by a deliberate fake of evidence can not been attributed just to beauty reasons. Seemingly his (left) eye was in bad condition. Sow [sic] where did this come from? Surely not from just simple reasons (like e.g. illness or accident) which could be told to anybody in the circumstances at the time..

I nearly fell off the chair laughing when I read that - just when you think things can't sink any lower on the ridiculous stakes, there's always someone out there to take things to a new level.

So, for reasons of clarity, let's ignore the experts in the field with years of experience and rely totally on what the inexpert naked eye reveals - and await the next theory presented by Textusa and her sisterhood whom I'm sure are well qualified to pontificate on the subject?

aaagh

!!!

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.15 13:27

bobbin wrote:The fact remains (see the poll) that many people believe, from their own judgement and analysis of what they know they are seeing, that the photo is a composite.

And that, @ bobbin, is the crux of the argument that you and the other 'pro-photoshopping' posters here are putting forward - that you, with your judgments, intuitions, ideas, imaginations, analysis and knowledge, all of it non-expert, are prepared to come up with all manner of self-contradictory explanations of how the photo was photoshopped - I have counted over 50 separate ideas so far, sunglasses, people shopped in and out, composite, wrong angles, blurry shadows, bougainvilliea, etc., etc., you name it, it's been suggested - and are willing to say that the top experts are talking rubbish and that all your contradictory ideas about how it's been photoshopped should be preferred.

+++

You also wrote this:

"The inconsistencies in this photo are more than the reflection in the sunglasses. I appreciate the kind effort to which the expert went and hope the toilet paper was not wasted but used for cleaning windows or something".

REPLY: Nice...not

by whatsupdoc 10.11.15 13:30

Bobbin, just read your post and I did spend quite a long time looking and trying to visualise the position of the Sun to give the shadows down the front of Gerry. I thought it very puzzling. You could probably work out the angle of the Sun from looking at the shadow a sunbed leg makes.
Basically, when people tell lies, you can't trust a word they say. Throwing an odd truth your way does add some confusion to the mix.

by jeanmonroe 10.11.15 13:55

Tony Bennett wrote:
rustyjames wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Peter said the second expert is Professor Hany Farid and this is his website so anyone can contact him and make their own equiries: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just catching up on this thread, but great to put a name to one of the experts. This is an impressive set of citations for Hany Farid - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is quite interesting too.
I'm glad PeterMac felt able to release the name.

It is surely a brave or foolish person who continues to insist that the 'Last Photo' is photoshopped against the professional opinion of such an expert.

And let us also all pause to thank PeterMac for the time and energy he expended in seeklng out Professor Farid - real, valuable and original research on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann - and all the other valuable and original research he's made available here and elsewhere - and sent to Operation Grange at the Met (just in case there should ever be a misconduct investigation into why two top Senior Investigating Officers - DCI Andy Redwood and DCI Nicola Wall - deliberately refused to follow obvious lines of enquiry suggested by PeterMac's research)

Are OG, the ONLY police 'investigation' team, in the UK's 'history'...............that have NOT 'ACTED' on 'information/intellegence' 'RECEIVED'?

by bobbin 10.11.15 14:16

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

Apart from the impossibility of the shadow on Gerry's T shirt being consistent with the acclaimed position of the photo, I had also immediately picked up on the view that the tiles to Gerry's right of leg did not consequently coincide with the tiles between his legs.
I have now found something I had not seen before, Stevo's 'moving' video above.

I think Stevo has done a remarkable amount of credible work for Madeleine and I put his video above that of the expert for conciseness of presentation.

It is filmed in situ, showing the true sequence of tiles, their size, width, sequence.

The tile sequence can be seen to jump when Gerry's legs are super-imposed, with a shift of one vertical edge of tile towards our right, (towards Gerry's left knee), and then back again to the actual pool edge tiling.

There is no doubt that the work done by the composer of the last photo is very close, but still not close enough.
I was able to detect the difference in tiles, those being between Gerry's knees as appearing 'closer' than the tiles to his right, with my own bare eyes.

Some people may be tone deaf, unable to hear some of the higher notes that others can hear, and the same with eyesight. Some can see minute discrepancies and those whose need for glasses, etc. may not be able to detect such nuances.

Those who cannot see should not adopt a position of righteous indignation if someone else can see, nor should they try to impose ridicule on those that can see, just because they can't. That is truly unintelligent and unchristian.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.15 14:21

whatsupdoc wrote:Bobbin, just read your post and I did spend quite a long time looking and trying to visualise the position of the Sun to give the shadows down the front of Gerry. I thought it very puzzling. You could probably work out the angle of the sun from looking at the shadow a sunbed leg makes.

There's a simpler way.

2.29pm in Portugal is 1.29pm Greenwich Mean Time.

The sun is at its maximum height in late April/early May in Portugal at 1.35pm, or 12.35pm Greenwich Mean Time.

If the photo was taken any time between, say, 1.35pm and 2.29pm Portuguese time, we have these three considerations

1. The sun would be at due south at 1.35pm, gradually moving a little bit westwards

2. It would be very high IIRC about 72 degrees, diminishing ever so slightly between 1.35pm and 2.29pm, and

3. Gerry is basically facing more or less due south.

All the shadows on the photo - Gerry, Amelie, Madeleine, sunloungers, trees etc. - are perfectly in harmony with points (1), (2) and (3).

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.15 14:23

bobbin wrote:Those who cannot see should not adopt a position of righteous indignation if someone else can see, nor should they try to impose ridicule on those that can see...

Was it you, bobbin. who wrote this? >>

I appreciate the kind effort to which the expert went and hope the toilet paper was not wasted but used for cleaning windows or something".

by bobbin 10.11.15 14:27

Tony Bennett wrote:
whatsupdoc wrote:Bobbin, just read your post and I did spend quite a long time looking and trying to visualise the position of the Sun to give the shadows down the front of Gerry. I thought it very puzzling. You could probably work out the angle of the sun from looking at the shadow a sunbed leg makes.
There's a simpler way.

2.29pm in Portugal is 1.29pm Greenwich Mean Time.

The sun is at its maximum height in late April/early May in Portugal at 1.35pm, or 12.35pm Greenwich Mean Time.

If the photo was taken any time between, say, 1.35pm and 2.29pm Portuguese time, we have these three considerations

1. The sun would be at due south at 1.35pm, gradually moving a little bit westwards

2. It would be very high IIRC about 72 degrees, diminishing ever so slightly between 1.35pm and 2.29pm, and

3. Gerry is basically facing more or less due south.

All the shadows on the photo - Gerry, Amelie, Madeleine, sunloungers, trees etc. - are perfectly in harmony with points (1), (2) and (3).

No they are not.

by HelenMeg 10.11.15 14:29

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

Apart from the impossibility of the shadow on Gerry's T shirt being consistent with the acclaimed position of the photo, I had also immediately picked up on the view that the tiles to Gerry's right of leg did not consequently coincide with the tiles between his legs.
I have now found something I had not seen before, Stevo's 'moving' video above.

I think Stevo has done a remarkable amount of credible work for Madeleine and I put his video above that of the expert for conciseness of presentation.

It is filmed in situ, showing the true sequence of tiles, their size, width, sequence.

The tile sequence can be seen to jump when Gerry's legs are super-imposed, with a shift of one vertical edge of tile towards our right, (towards Gerry's left knee), and then back again to the actual pool edge tiling.

There is no doubt that the work done by the composer of the last photo is very close, but still not close enough.
I was able to detect the difference in tiles, those being between Gerry's knees as appearing 'closer' than the tiles to his right, with my own bare eyes.

Some people may be tone deaf, unable to hear some of the higher notes that others can hear, and the same with eyesight. Some can see minute discrepancies and those whose need for glasses, etc. may not be able to detect such nuances.

Those who cannot see should not adopt a position of righteous indignation if someone else can see, nor should they try to impose ridicule on those that can see, just because they can't. That is truly unintelligent and unchristian.

You have keen eyes. I watched the tile 'jump' and you are right it certainly shifted - though I would not have observed it without you pointing it out.
If anyone cares to observe this then just stare between Gerry's knees at the blue tiles and especially at the white 'grout ' lines between the tiles - you will see the line shift sideways.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.15 14:31

bobbin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
whatsupdoc wrote:Bobbin, just read your post and I did spend quite a long time looking and trying to visualise the position of the Sun to give the shadows down the front of Gerry. I thought it very puzzling. You could probably work out the angle of the sun from looking at the shadow a sunbed leg makes.
There's a simpler way.

2.29pm in Portugal is 1.29pm Greenwich Mean Time.

The sun is at its maximum height in late April/early May in Portugal at 1.35pm, or 12.35pm Greenwich Mean Time.

If the photo was taken any time between, say, 1.35pm and 2.29pm Portuguese time, we have these three considerations

1. The sun would be at due south at 1.35pm, gradually moving a little bit westwards

2. It would be very high IIRC about 72 degrees, diminishing ever so slightly between 1.35pm and 2.29pm, and

3. Gerry is basically facing more or less due south.

All the shadows on the photo - Gerry, Amelie, Madeleine, sunloungers, trees etc. - are perfectly in harmony with points (1), (2) and (3).
No they are not.

Which ones, specifically, do you say are not in harmony?

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.15 14:36

bobbin wrote:Those who cannot see should not adopt a position of righteous indignation if someone else can see, nor should they try to impose ridicule on those that can see, just because they can't. That is truly unintelligent and unchristian.

This put me in mind of this passage in Matthew 23 where Jesus Christ condemned the religious leaders of the day for being blind and unable to see the truth:

Matthew 23

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Thou blind Pharisees, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

--------------------------------
Pretty unchristian language, don't you think?

by bobbin 10.11.15 14:38

Tony Bennett wrote:
bobbin wrote:Those who cannot see should not adopt a position of righteous indignation if someone else can see, nor should they try to impose ridicule on those that can see...
Was it you, bobbin. who wrote this? >>

I appreciate the kind effort to which the expert went and hope the toilet paper was not wasted but used for cleaning windows or something".

Yes, I am hyper ecological. I use paper towel to dry my hands in the kitchen and then put it by the fire to dry so I can use it to light the next fire.

I appreciate the expense and effort the kind researcher went to, to help explain the 'vertical image' and I accepted that in my post by suggesting that because it had no curve on the glasses, and the pool is quite round and not large, that the possibility of a straight edged pool may explain the vertical image on the sunglasses.

In accepting his good efforts there, I do however prefer the rigorous presentation of Stevo, showing a shift in the tile formation, leading me to see that the picture is more likely a composite, in line with textusa's premise above.

I do hope the paper from the toilet roll was put to good use and not just thrown into the bin. It was very kind of him to go to the personal expense to show how the vertical image could be explained.