The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™️ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Page 5 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

I've carefully read the explanation of Textusa's Last Photo theory of the composite of 3 images and I think...

57% 57% 
[ 78 ]
34% 34% 
[ 46 ]
9% 9% 
[ 12 ]
 
Total Votes : 136

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by BlueBag on 17.11.15 8:33

Photographer higher than subject.


The curvature in the horizontal plane makes no difference, you are going see reflections below Gerry's glasses.

Now... imagine those glasses hanging from a shirt - the curvature is now vertical.

Why don't we see the sky or Gerry's chin?
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4323
Reputation : 2116
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.11.15 8:43

After nearly 100 posts have been made on this thread, I think it's time to set out the huge problems with Textusa's theory which, as she concedes, is based on the simple proposition: "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET VERTICAL LINES ON SUNGLASSES". So: 

----------

Problems with Textusa’s theory of the ‘Last Photo’

The theory

1 Someone took a photo of Maddie by the pool on a sunny day
2. Madeleine died after 6pm on 3 May as per Dr Goncal Amaral’s book
3. The McCanns decided they needed a photo of Madeleine with other family members in it
4. They arranged for Gerry and Amelie to be photographed around the Ocean Club on or about Friday 18th May
5. They would have had to: (a) Sit in the exact position required, that is just to the right of where Madeleine was pictured in the photo of her on her own, (b) Make sure the sun was shining, and (c) Wait until the sun was in exactly the right position, so that the shadow lengths on Gerry and Amelie were a 100% match[size=16] with the photograph of Madeleine taken on her own.[/size]
6. A photographer took several photos of Gerry and Amelie, mostly with his sunglasses on, but at least one with his sunglasses tucked into his T-shirt
7. The photographer then used a photo of Gerry and Amelie as a ‘base’ photo, and photoshopped in Madeleine.
8. Unfortunately, this photo had a reflection of the photographer in Gerry’s sunglasses. This wouldn’t do as it showed that someone else other than Kate had taken the photo. 
9. Therefore Gerry’s sunglasses – that is, the sunglasses on his face - were replaced with the ones on a photo of him with his sunglasses tucked into his T-shirt.
10. It was pointed out by a poster on CMOMM that if that had been done (photoshopped in the sunglasses tucked into Gerry’s shirt), then one side of his sunglasses would be missing. Therefore Textusa’s theory would have to be amended by photoshopping in the missing side of the sunglasses.
11. The photo was now ready to show to the world.
12. You can tell the photo is photoshopped because the laws of physics say that you cannot get vertical lines on sunglasses.

18 Obvious problems with the theory

1. It is a highly convoluted theory, involving a special visit of Gerry and Amelie to the Ocean Club, with a photographer.

2. If the aim was to prove that Madeleine was alive on 3 May, all the McCanns had to do was make sure the date stamp read ‘3 May’. And that’s what it did read anyway, by the time it was made public. So why go through all this convoluted game of a special visit by Gerry and Amelie to the pool and all the photoshopping mularky?     

3. There must be doubt as to whether Gerry and Amelie could find exactly the right position to sit in, and the photo would need to be in the sun and taken when the sun was in an identical or near-identical position to when Madeleine was photographed on her own.

4. Textusa’s entire theory hangs on one assumption – namely that it is impossible to get vertical lines on sunglasses.

5. In a video posted on YouTube, Darrren Ware has conclusively proved. by replicating similar conditions in a studio, that it IS possible to get vertical lines on sunglasses. He replicated a circular pool.

6. A top photographic expert, Professor H Farid, carried out forensic evidence on the photo and found no evidence of photoshopping and furthermore that all the shadows in the Last Photo were absolutely consistent throughout the photo.

7. Another top expert reached similar conclusions.

8. Surely if there was any software available to disguise photo shopping, these experts would know it as a possibility and not give a definitive answer?

9. A poster on CMOMM, using an admittedly photoshopped photo of Madeleine on her own, and comparing it with the ‘Last Photo’, demonstrated that the photo of Madeleine on her own was taken FROM the Last Photo and not the other way around.

10. In attempting to prove her point, Textusa tried to repiicate the Last Photo with two people at a small pool. But her case falls because the pool was not of similar size, the sunglasses are of the wrong type, and the photographer is in the wrong position.

11. There is no corroborative evidence of Gerry and Amelie making a special trip to the Ocean Club, after Madeleine was reported missing, accompanied by a photographer.    

12. If the aim was to prove that Kate McCann was the photographer, why did the McCanns not arrange for Kate to take the photograph, and have her reflection in Gerry’s sunglasses?       

13. Why did the McCanns bother with the sunglasses at all? Why not take a photo of Gerry without his sunglasses on? 

14. Or why not just use the photo with the sunglasses hanging from Gerry’s T-shirt?

15. If it was meant to be a happily family snapshot, why wasn’t Sean in the photo as well?

16. Why didn’t Kate take the photograph instead of a photographer? 

17. How can Textusa explain the pale skin of Gerry on the ‘Last Photo’ when she says that it was taken as late as 18th May? 

18. Matching the shadows perfectly would be almost impossible. 

I am hoping that those who have voted "Textusa is right" in the poll will come along and explain what their answers to the above 18 problems. HelenMeg, for example, on reading Textusa's revised theory, gushed:

“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    You have certainly read the refutations of Textusa's theory from those of us who fundamentally disagree with it. Can you please help by explaining what your answers are to each of the 18 problems listed above? - it would be very helpful.

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

A note on photos that look fake - by Professor Harry Farid
photographic evidence »
Wednesday, 29th June 2011

That looks fake!
Hany Farid |
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 at 2:45PM

I often receive emails from people asking me to analyze a photo that they are convinced is fake. As evidence of this fakery, they describe artifacts that appear to have been left behind from purported photo tampering. More often than not their analysis is flawed.  One of the most common mistakes made is that of confusing JPEG compression artifacts with the remnants of photo tampering.

The JPEG format is what is termed a lossy compression scheme, which means that some information in the image is thrown away in order to reduce the file size of the stored image. This compression results in a loss of overall image quality and the introduction of specific artifacts that can, at times, be confused with traces of photo tampering. In order to not confuse the two, it is important to first understand how JPEG compression works. 

The JPEG compression of an image typically follows six basic steps: 

1. Each image pixel value is encoded into one component (or channel) that describes the luminance (lightness), and two channels that describe the chrominance (hue). This requires a conversion from the more typical red, green, and blue color channels that a digital camera uses to encode pixel values.
2. Because our visual system is more sensitive to luminance than chrominance, the chrominance channels are scalled down in size by a factor of two to reduce file size. This is the first place in which information is lost.
3. To prepare the file for compression, each channel is partitioned into 8x8 blocks of pixels.
4. The pixel values in each 8x8 block are transformed using a discrete cosine transform (DCT). This step doesn’t result in any loss of information, but it makes it easier to compress the file.
5. The DCT values are quantized, which means that they are all divided by a pre-specified number and rounded to the nearest integer. This is the second place in which information is lost.
6. Lastly, the quantized DCT values are encoded using a lossless compression scheme to reduce the file size even further.  No information is lost in this step.

This compression introduces a number of different artifacts into an image:

1.the partitioning of an image into 8x8 blocks followed by the quantization in step 5 introduces a grid like pattern along the block boundaries;
2. the quantization in step 5 blurs details in the image;
3. color artifacts are introduced due to the reduction in resolution of the chrominance channels in step 2 followed by the quantization in step 5;
4. and, object boundaries can appear jagged.




Shown above, for example, is an image, and shown below is a magnified view with and without compression that highlight these four artifacts.






When viewed at normal magnification, a JPEG image usually looks pretty good. But when magnified, the compression artifacts become pronounced and look a little weird — you can understand why the untrained eye may mistake JPEG compression artifacts for evidence of tampering.

ENDS

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett

Posts : 14675
Reputation : 2816
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by Doug D on 17.11.15 10:21

Bluebag, the false logic is that because the photo of MM on her own was cut from the last photo, as evidenced by the poor cut and paste of the brick wall etc, you seem to imply that this precludes just MM (not bits of wall, ground etc) having been photoshopped in in the first place, although in the scheme of things it really doesn’t matter.
 
As GrandeFinale says:
 
‘The important point is the date of this photograph and according to all sources this is easily altered.’
 
and PeterMac’s weather analysis is about as good as it gets, even if not conclusive, as we are never going to get to definitive exif date from the information available.
 
I have never had a problem with the reflections, shadows etc, which is what Prof Farid is talking about in the article he sent to PeterMac, but I would still love to see exactly how categoric the experts are about ‘no photoshopping’ or just ‘no evidence of photoshopping’.
 
Either way I think Textusa is leading people up the garden path.

Doug D

Posts : 2388
Reputation : 817
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.11.15 10:44

Doug D wrote:Either way I think Textusa is leading people up the garden path.
@ Doug D    Thank you for giving this further consideration.

The experts' opinions have been published before in a few places on the forum, but here they are again. As you'll probably be aware, experts often couch their opinions in cautious, careful language. In the Lee Balkwell case, for example, one very highly regarded engineering expert who has given expert evidence in the courts numerous times over a career of over 50 years, said that the Bromleys' account of how Lee Balkwell died in a cement mixer at 1.00 in the morning was, basically, utter tosh. But when he came to write his professional opinion for the court, he wrote: "I find the Bromleys' account of how the accident happened highly improbable":

-----------

 
1st EXPERT - Professor Harry Farid

"I have taken an initial look at the image. The artefacts alluded to in the pdf document that you sent are simply JPEG compression artefacts (as described here: http://www.fourandsix.com/blog/2011/6/29/that-looks-fake.html ). If you magnify other parts of the image you will see similar artefacts. I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent -- they are. I see no other anomalies in the photo. So, at first glance, I see no evidence of photo tampering.

I will add that it is fairly easy to change dates in an image's metadata or for these dates to be wrong. As such these dates should not be solely relied upon.

Regards,


Professor Farid


2nd EXPERT - Owner/Manager of well-known digital photography business

“From what I saw I couldn't see anything that would lead me to believe beyond reasonable doubt it had been doctored. The fringing mentioned can be caused by auto sharpening used in consumer digital cameras to make 'better' or 'sharper' images. These artefacts can often be made worse from image compression algorithms out of photoshop or other image manipulation software.”


____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett

Posts : 14675
Reputation : 2816
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by sallypelt on 17.11.15 10:52

Tony Bennett wrote:
Doug D wrote:Either way I think Textusa is leading people up the garden path.
@ Doug D    Thank you for giving this further consideration.

The experts' opinions have been published before in a few places on the forum, but here they are again. As you'll probably be aware, experts often couch their opinions in cautious, careful language. In the Lee Balkwell case, for example, one very highly regarded engineering expert who has given expert evidence in the courts numerous times over a career of over 50 years, said that the Bromleys' account of how Lee Balkwell died in a cement mixer at 1.00 in the morning was, basically, utter tosh. But when he came to write his professional opinion for the court, he wrote: "I find the Bromleys' account of how the accident happened highly improbable":

-----------

 
1st EXPERT - Professor Harry Farid

"I have taken an initial look at the image. The artefacts alluded to in the pdf document that you sent are simply JPEG compression artefacts (as described here: http://www.fourandsix.com/blog/2011/6/29/that-looks-fake.html ). If you magnify other parts of the image you will see similar artefacts. I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent -- they are. I see no other anomalies in the photo. So, at first glance, I see no evidence of photo tampering.

I will add that it is fairly easy to change dates in an image's metadata or for these dates to be wrong. As such these dates should not be solely relied upon.

Regards,


Professor Farid


2nd EXPERT - Owner/Manager of well-known digital photography business

“From what I saw I couldn't see anything that would lead me to believe beyond reasonable doubt it had been doctored. The fringing mentioned can be caused by auto sharpening used in consumer digital cameras to make 'better' or 'sharper' images. These artefacts can often be made worse from image compression algorithms out of photoshop or other image manipulation software.”

I don't normally comment on photograph threads, as I haven't got a clue whether a photograph is the genuine photograph or it has been "photoshopped". All I will say about the "last photograph" is, IMO the Madeleine in the first photograph, where she is playing on the grass with her dad and brother, and where she is in the doorway of what appears to be a play house, is a much older looking Madeleine than the one of her taken by the pool in the "last photograph". This could be down to different photographs showing different colouring or resolutions, but I can't help thinking that there is a vast difference in age.

sallypelt

Posts : 3638
Reputation : 802
Join date : 2012-11-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by BlueBag on 17.11.15 10:57

Doug D wrote:Bluebag, the false logic is that because the photo of MM on her own was cut from the last photo, as evidenced by the poor cut and paste of the brick wall etc, you seem to imply that this precludes just MM (not bits of wall, ground etc) having been photoshopped in in the first place, although in the scheme of things it really doesn’t matter.
No I never used that "false logic".

I implied no such thing.

I pointed out that TextUsa's 3 photo composite which had the elbowless picture was wrong.

However there have been many people in the past on this forum and elsewhere who were pushing the idea that the elbowless picture came first.

Whatever... we are mostly on the same page.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4323
Reputation : 2116
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by Doug D on 17.11.15 13:00

Fair enough BB, but that was my understanding of what was implied and TB seems to have picked up on it in point 9 above.
 
Thank you for posting the expert's opinions Tony. Your filing and searching are far superior to mine.
 
As with most experts they won’t commit themselves, so I’ll stick with my gut feeling about the composition, fairly irrelevant though it may be.
 
The true exif data for the photo is the important thing and I don’t think we will ever really get to the bottom of it, based on what we have available.

The PJ and presumably OG though is a completely different matter

Doug D

Posts : 2388
Reputation : 817
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by BlueBag on 17.11.15 16:48

BlueBag wrote:Photographer higher than subject.


The curvature in the horizontal plane makes no difference, you are going see reflections below Gerry's glasses.

Now... imagine those glasses hanging from a shirt - the curvature is now vertical.

Why don't we see the sky or Gerry's chin?
I think TextUsa has stopped approving posts on that blog entry.

I posted several pointing out the flaw in her theory as above.

Not approved.

Must be embarrassing.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4323
Reputation : 2116
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 17.11.15 18:16

BlueBag wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Photographer higher than subject.


The curvature in the horizontal plane makes no difference, you are going see reflections below Gerry's glasses.

Now... imagine those glasses hanging from a shirt - the curvature is now vertical.

Why don't we see the sky or Gerry's chin?
I think TextUsa has stopped approving posts on that blog entry.

I posted several pointing out the flaw in her theory as above.

Not approved.

Must be embarrassing.

All I will say is that the misunderstandings on both "sides" are embarrassing.

Edit: @BlueBag. Just an aside/query.....Is the image above of Gerry in his sunglasses been altered/photoshopped? (outside of the red arrow and line, obviously)

Edit 2: I see looking back in the thread that Grande Finale posted the cropped image of Gerry. Could I ask Grande Finale the source of that image and the same question as above?

Thanks.
avatar
TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2011-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by BlueBag on 17.11.15 19:49

TheTruthWillOut,

So now we are into photoshopped glasses theories in other photos?

Oh come on!

There are a number of pictures of Gerry wearing those glasses on May 8th pushing the buggy with Kate.



No embarrassment or misunderstanding on this side.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4323
Reputation : 2116
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 17.11.15 19:58

Now I didn't say that did I BlueBag....I just asked a question! But look at the below images and then comment.

Grande Finale's cropped image:



Getty Images' photo dated May 7th 2007: (I believe the original image source)



Spot the difference....
avatar
TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2011-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by BlueBag on 17.11.15 20:06

They are STILL flat glasses in the vertical plane.

So what is your point?

I think the red line was added to show the flatness.

I added a red arrow to mine... that wasn't in the original in case you're not sure.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4323
Reputation : 2116
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 17.11.15 20:18

BlueBag wrote:They are STILL flat glasses in the vertical plane.

So what is your point?

I think the red line was added to show the flatness.

I added a red arrow to mine... that wasn't in the original in case you're not sure.

Well I disagree they are vertically flat but that isn't my point. What is missing from the the Grande Finale image (ignore the added red line) that is present in the Getty Images photo?

I'm not being funny here it just seems so obvious to me.
avatar
TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2011-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by BlueBag on 17.11.15 20:26

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
BlueBag wrote:They are STILL flat glasses in the vertical plane.

So what is your point?

I think the red line was added to show the flatness.

I added a red arrow to mine... that wasn't in the original in case you're not sure.

Well I disagree they are vertically flat but that isn't my point. What is missing from the the Grande Finale image (ignore the added red line) that is present in the Getty Images photo?

I'm not being funny here it just seems so obvious to me.
Not flat? Are you serious? Just look at the original getty image for goodness sake.

Did you also miss the point that the red line is probably there for emphasis?

It doesn't matter what was done with the getty image after... arrows, lines... to make a point.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4323
Reputation : 2116
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 17.11.15 20:39

BlueBag I'm not talking about any lines or arrows added by you or Grande Finale nor whether sunglasses lenses are flat. Please leave these aside.

Look at Gerry's head/sunglasses in both pictures only and there is one difference which suggests someone has edited the image. I don't care by who or why, I just happened to notice it.

If anyone else here can see any difference please post what.
avatar
TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2011-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by BlueBag on 17.11.15 20:44

Yes the logo is blacked out.

No idea why and I don't care much.

However it is irrelevant, the original Getty IMAGES show the logo.

The glasses are flat in the vertical plane.

That is the point.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4323
Reputation : 2116
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 17.11.15 21:53

BlueBag wrote:Yes the logo is blacked out.

No idea why and I don't care much.

However it is irrelevant, the original Getty IMAGES show the logo.

The glasses are flat in the vertical plane.

That is the point.

I don't understand why you post so angry BlueBag. I just thought it interesting that in a thread about photoshopping no one noticed a fairly obvious bit of photoshopping when I posted both images. Blacked out is doing it a disservice. 'blacked out' would look like what Textusa did with her pool image. I would like to know the source for the image Grand Finale posted though (or if he/she edited it)

Also BlueBag you may have already seen but Textusa has responded and challenged you in the comments over there about your post earlier.
avatar
TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2011-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by Dr What on 17.11.15 22:02

So, the image has been altered...and if TruthWillOut had not pointed it out, no-one would have been any the wiser.Just goes to show that one can not believe everything that one is asked to see.

You might not care about it BlueBag, but this whole thread has been about the 'honesty' of photos.

Now, I'm sure I am going to be told that this logo altering has absolutely nothing to do with anything important and that it is another futile attempt to muddy the waters over the veracity of the last photo.That may well be so.

However, I do not wholly put my faith in anyone who is so certain about the honesty of the 'last photo' or indeed the dishonesty of the 'last photo' and certainly not in anyone who is desperate to prove his/her point of view to others, such that they become rude or dismissive of other viewpoints.

Dr What

Posts : 246
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2012-10-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.11.15 22:14

Dr What wrote:So, the image has been altered...and if TruthWillOut had not pointed it out, no-one would have been any the wiser. Just goes to show that one cannot believe everything that one is asked to see.

You might not care about it BlueBag, but this whole thread has been about the 'honesty' of photos.

Now, I'm sure I am going to be told that this logo altering has absolutely nothing to do with anything important and that it is another futile attempt to muddy the waters over the veracity of the last photo. That may well be so.

However, I do not wholly put my faith in anyone who is so certain about the honesty of the 'last photo' or indeed the dishonesty of the 'last photo' and certainly not in anyone who is desperate to prove his/her point of view to others, such that they become rude or dismissive of other viewpoints.
Still not one person so far who has been able to respond to the 18-point list of obvious problems with Textusa's theory. I hope that changes, otherwise we must assume that no-one is capable of answering them. 

I acknowledge @ Dr What your last point - and hope, with you, that as we struggle to understand the significance of the Last Photo and what bearing it has (if any) on what really happened to Madeleine McCann, that we can all remain courteous to each other

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett

Posts : 14675
Reputation : 2816
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 17.11.15 23:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
Dr What wrote:So, the image has been altered...and if TruthWillOut had not pointed it out, no-one would have been any the wiser. Just goes to show that one cannot believe everything that one is asked to see.

You might not care about it BlueBag, but this whole thread has been about the 'honesty' of photos.

Now, I'm sure I am going to be told that this logo altering has absolutely nothing to do with anything important and that it is another futile attempt to muddy the waters over the veracity of the last photo. That may well be so.

However, I do not wholly put my faith in anyone who is so certain about the honesty of the 'last photo' or indeed the dishonesty of the 'last photo' and certainly not in anyone who is desperate to prove his/her point of view to others, such that they become rude or dismissive of other viewpoints.
Still not one person so far who has been able to respond to the 18-point list of obvious problems with Textusa's theory. I hope that changes, otherwise we must assume that no-one is capable of answering them. 

I acknowledge @ Dr What your last point - and hope, with you, that as we struggle to understand the significance of the Last Photo and what bearing it has (if any) on what really happened to Madeleine McCann, that we can all remain courteous to each other

Tony, your second sentence comes across to me as a tacit acknowledgement as to why no one has bothered to answer your first. The chance of being jumped on, ridiculed and shamed if you agree with any part of Textusa's theories is unfair.

This isn't to say I agree with everything in Textusa's posts like the abduction was fabricated to cover up swinging for example.  

Wouldn't it be better/easier to post your 18 point list in the comments on Textusa's blog for her/they to answer or is there a reason why you haven't?
avatar
TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2011-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by Grande Finale on 18.11.15 1:51

@Thetruthwillout

For clarity, the image I posted was used under the fair usage policy cropped from one of the series of
Getty Images from 7th May as you mentioned.

The logo was photoshopped out in case of come back by the manufacturer.

The red line was added (as bluebag deduced) to draw attention to the area I was posting about.

10 out of 10 for spotting the above
avatar
Grande Finale

Posts : 139
Reputation : 61
Join date : 2013-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 18.11.15 2:41

Grande Finale wrote:@Thetruthwillout

For clarity, the image I posted was used under the fair usage policy cropped from one of the series of
Getty Images from 7th May as you mentioned.

The logo was photoshopped out in case of come back by the manufacturer.

The red line was added (as bluebag deduced) to draw attention to the area I was posting about.

10 out of 10 for spotting the above

Thanks for the reply.

I'm a bit surprised you would photoshop a publicly available image. Plus those sunglasses (if they are the same as the LP ones) were purchased from a market stall on the beach front per Kate and I doubt they are a recognised brand.

I can't even read what the logo says and doubt whomever made them (somewhere in China?) would have resources for lawyers to sue! 

It does raise the question: Could an expert (never mind rank amateurs like me) tell that had been photoshopped if randomly presented with that cropped (or even the full) image?
avatar
TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2011-09-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by canada12 on 18.11.15 3:51

Here are some excellent photos of Gerry wearing the same sunglasses he wore in The Last Photo, and looking straight ahead.

Perhaps we could enlarge them and see whether the reflection in the lenses is rotated 90 degrees?
Logically, if the sunglasses are identical, the lenses should behave identically in these photos, and in The Last Photo.

Here are the full pictures:

http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/gerry-and-kate-mccann-walk-back-to-their-resort-hotel-with-news-photo/74091735

http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/gerry-and-kate-mccann-parents-of-the-abducted-british-three-news-photo/74093699

And here are the enlarged sunglasses.
Right click on the photo below and select View Image to see the whole thing over on Photobucket...




canada12

Posts : 1461
Reputation : 199
Join date : 2013-10-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by Onager on 18.11.15 4:38

Whilst I understand, and agree, with the findings of the video re the vertical lines... what happens when the camera is lowered to a position similar to Gerry's eyeline?

If the sunglasses worn are as per the 'Getty' pics, and they appear to be, I agree with BlueBag that they have little if any vertical curvature.

However, in the 'last photo', if the camera was taken at a level similar to Gerry's eyeline... it appears to me, the lenses are presented in an almost vertical plane.... and as such, the reflection doesn't quite hold...

Why a vertical plane? In the 'Getty' pic, Gerry's head is lowered, and to replicate the pose of the 'last photo' he would need to lift his head up, thus changing the angle of the lenses. To verify this, though not prove it, I drew a line across his face on the 'last photo' level with the bridge of his nose/point of contact of glasses to establish a reference with his ears... if you use these two points of reference on the 'Getty' pic, you end up with a line almost perpendicular to the vertical plane of the glasses. SO unless he's wearing them differently...?

As for the height of the camera for the 'last photo'. Not only does Gerry appear to be looking straight on at the photographer (whoever it is), the perspectives of the sun loungers behind him - their backs also appear consistent with a not too dissimilar height - but it was the view under Amelie's pink hat which is most revealing. The visibility of her hair and ear suggest the camera height was not signifcantly much higher.

Where do I stand on Textusa? It does seem a somewhat convoluted means of producing evidence Maddie was alive on the 3rd... but I guess, as with all things, context is so important.

Onager

Posts : 14
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-10-14
Location : South West, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.11.15 8:01

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Plus those sunglasses (if they are the same as the LP ones) were purchased from a market stall on the beach front per Kate and I doubt they are a recognised brand.
And you accept that as proven fact?

You don't think that possibly that story was placed in the book to back up the claim that the (genuine) 'Last Photo' was taken afterwards, on 3rd May, instead of earlier (29th April) - as much circumstantial evidence suggests?

And that those high quality sunglasses were in fact purchased in England?

The account of the beach visit (pp. 57-8 of 'madeleine', by Kate McCann) doesn't even agree with the crèche records for that day.

Does it?

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett

Posts : 14675
Reputation : 2816
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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