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

by Grande Finale 18.11.15 1:51

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

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

by TheTruthWillOut 18.11.15 2:41

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

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

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?

by canada12 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:

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

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

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

by Onager 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.

by **Tony Bennett** 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?

by Guest 18.11.15 8:22

Maybe this will end the bollocks about "impossible vertical lines".

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

I'm officially sick of this now.

The TextUsa fans can carry on floggin the dead horse.

I got better things to do.

QED

by **Tony Bennett** 18.11.15 8:39

BlueBag wrote:Maybe this will end the bollocks about "impossible vertical lines".

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

I'm officially sick of this now.

The TextUsa fans can carry on floggin the dead horse.

I got better things to do.

QED

This is indeed proving a most extraordinary thread, one of the most extraordinary ever in the six years CMOMM has been running.

Despite...

1. the clearest possible proofs that vertical lines on sunglasses are possible - 'knitted's' video on YouTube [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and the photo published above just now by BlueBag, for example, and

2. the clear opinion of two acknowledged experts, one of them Professor H. Farid, that they can see no evidence whatsoever of photshopping...

...people on here are willing to swallow, hook line and sinker, Textusa's theory.

Further, I've posted 18 serious objections to Textusa's theory, and not one of those who support the theory has so far come up with an answer to any of them.

This forum is about evidence - evidence of what really happened. I can't think of another thread where clear evidence has been so wilfully disregarded.

Unlike BlueBag, I am (not quite) 'sick' of this. On the contrary, I would welcome debating ANY contribution from ANY member who has a good reply to ANY of the 18 points I've raised up the thread

by TheTruthWillOut 18.11.15 12:31

This is indeed proving a most extraordinary thread, one of the most extraordinary ever in the six years CMOMM has been running.

Despite...

1. the clearest possible proofs that vertical lines on sunglasses are possible - 'knitted's' video on YouTube [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and the photo published above just now by BlueBag, for example, and

It is saying things like the above that really grates, Tony. I, and am sure most here, accept that vertical lines are possible. I'm sure if I was bothered to check I've said so in a previous thread.

Misconstruing what some are disagreeing about is a massive frustration to me and no matter how many times I've tried to explain my POV, it is misunderstood or ignored.

2. the clear opinion of two acknowledged experts, one of them Professor H. Farid, that they can see no evidence whatsoever of photshopping...

I doubt the experts would give a strong opinion unless they had a confirmed first generation, straight off the camera memory card image to look at both visually and technically. If there is a link to a thread here of what was given to and asked of the experts, I would be interested in reading it.

...people on here are willing to swallow, hook line and sinker, Textusa's theory.

I have already stated in this thread (and many times before) that there is a lot theories from Textusa I disagree with.

Further, I've posted 18 serious objections to Textusa's theory, and not one of those who support the theory has so far come up with an answer to any of them.

Why should they/we? It is her theory and I've already suggested you post them in the comments at her blog.

This forum is about evidence - evidence of what really happened. I can't think of another thread where clear evidence has been so wilfully disregarded.

The only real evidence in this case that matters is what is written in the PJ Files. Everything else including every word I've typed on this or any other forum is pure opinion and no doubt will prove to be mostly wrong.

Unlike BlueBag, I am (not quite) 'sick' of this. On the contrary, I would welcome debating ANY contribution from ANY member who has a good reply to ANY of the 18 points I've raised up the thread

Which I'm surprised about, Tony because Textusa states in the opening paragraph it is a non-post and really not directly relevant to the case . Basically created for image purposes (whether by EXIF manipulation or more)

by **Tony Bennett** 18.11.15 13:41

REPLY TO TTWO

---------------------------------

TTWO wrote: “I, and am sure most here, accept that vertical lines are possible”.

REPLY: In that case, you and I, and ‘most here’, reject Textusa’s theory as plain wrong. Her entire case is founded on her article of faith that it is ‘impossible’ to get vertical line on sunglasses. That claim has been torn apart by ‘somni’ with his video and BlueBag who provided another photo with vertical lines on Gerry’s sunglasses.

Textusa has claimed that her knowledge of physics overwhelms this clearest possible evidence, while bobbin resorts in much the same way to a Grade 8 Mathematics textbook.

Tony wrote: “Further, I've posted 18 serious objections to Textusa's theory, and not one of those who support the theory has so far come up with an answer to any of them”. TTWO wrote: “Why should they/we?”

REPLY: Because this is a forum about finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann, where bad ideas about what happened should be debated and rejected - and good ones accepted. It is very telling indeed that not one person so far can answer any of the 18 points. Debate like this is how good ideas emerge and bad ones are rejected.

TTWO wrote: “The only real evidence in this case that matters is what is written in the PJ Files. Everything else including every word I've typed on this or any other forum is pure opinion…”

REPLY: It’s obvious that a great many statements in the PJ files are, to put it kindly, unreliable. All sorts of new evidence has come to light since they were published.

TTWO wrote: “Textusa states in the opening paragraph it is a non-post and really not directly relevant to the case”.

REPLY: It’s not relevant that the Last Photo might well be a genuine photo - but taken four days earlier than claimed?

by TheTruthWillOut 18.11.15 14:25

Tony Bennett wrote:REPLY: In that case, you and I, and ‘most here’, reject Textusa’s theory as plain wrong. Her entire case is founded on her article of faith that it is ‘impossible’ to get vertical line on sunglasses. That claim has been torn apart by ‘somni’ with his video and BlueBag who provided another photo with vertical lines on Gerry’s sunglasses.

See this is exactly the misunderstanding/misconstruing that I've talked about. It is hard to debate when you state something wrong like this.

by canada12 18.11.15 14:51

Actually Blue Bag didn't provide the sunglasses photo, I did.
And the vertical lines in Gerry's sunglasses are there because the lines of the road and buildings he's looking at, reflected in the lenses, are vertical.
The pool reflected in TFP is round. And yet it is reflected as straight.
Therein lies the essential difference.

by Guest 18.11.15 15:08

canada12 wrote:Actually Blue Bag didn't provide the sunglasses photo, I did.
And the vertical lines in Gerry's sunglasses are there because the lines of the road and buildings he's looking at, reflected in the lenses, are vertical.
The pool reflected in TFP is round. And yet it is reflected as straight.
Therein lies the essential difference.

(sick of this - off)

Ah the moving goal posts.

But Gerrys glasses are curved in the horizontal plane.

So is the pool.

Darren Ware's video is the one to watch.

(sick of this - on)

by Guest 18.11.15 15:29

Why has a secondary pair of sunglasses been introduced into the topic? Isn't it enough to try and unravel the mystery of a Textusa being physic-al without complicating matters further.

I'm more interested to learn, if the latest addition (the photograph) was genuinely taken on 7th May 2007, how did GM manage to acquire what appears to be a chic costly pair of sunglasses as opposed to the pair KM claims he bought earlier the previous week from a local market stall - because he apparently didn't have a pair with him. Come to that - how did he manage to change his skin tone from ghostly white to sun tinged within four days?

by canada12 18.11.15 15:37

Verdi wrote:Why has a secondary pair of sunglasses been introduced into the topic? Isn't it enough to try and unravel the mystery of a Textusa being physic-al without complicating matters further.

I'm more interested to learn, if the latest addition was genuinely taken on 7th May 2007, how did GM manage to acquire what appears to be a chic costly pair of sunglasses as opposed to the pair KM claims he bought earlier the previous week - because he didn't have a pair with him? Come to that - how did he manage to change his skin tone from ghostly white to sun tinged within four days?

Aren't they the same sunglasses though? The ones in the Getty photos and the ones gerry's wearing in the Last Photo? Hardly secondary if they're the same sunglasses, and therefore the lenses should behave in the same way each time?

by **Tony Bennett** 18.11.15 15:48

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:REPLY: In that case, you and I, and ‘most here’, reject Textusa’s theory as plain wrong. Her entire case is founded on her article of faith that it is ‘impossible’ to get vertical line on sunglasses. That claim has been torn apart by ‘somni’ with his video and BlueBag who provided another photo with vertical lines on Gerry’s sunglasses.

See this is exactly the misunderstanding/misconstruing that I've talked about. It is hard to debate when you state something wrong like this.

I do not know what you mean.

It's as plain as a pikestaff that Textusa pins EVERYTHING on the physical impossibility of vertical lines on sunglasses, thus (all extracted from her artlcle):

QUOTE

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

We think it is fake not because of any pixel manipulation but because of physics.

Once one realises the photo shows a physical impossibility then it means it has been manipulated. That simple. Prove the reflection they show to be impossible then manipulation is proved.

UNQUOTE

And so on.

You agreed that vertical lines WERE possible. Which proves Textusa wrong.

As did 'somni' in his video

by Guest 18.11.15 16:04

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

We think it is fake not because of any pixel manipulation but because of physics.

Physics Textusa style:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
----------------
All wrong - glasses type, pool and photographer position.

This is not science.

It's a travesty.

by MRNOODLES 18.11.15 16:12

With all the bull**** textusa has planted into some posters' minds. What else were posters expecting to see reflected in Jez's glasses? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically...? laughat

by **Jill Havern** 18.11.15 16:19

MRNOODLES wrote:With all the bull**** textusa has planted into some posters' minds. What else were posters expecting to see reflected in Jez's glasses? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically...?

I used to love Basil Fawlty too big grin

by Dr What 18.11.15 16:41

So, if I understand Canada12 correctly, the vertical lines in Gerry's glasses in the Getty photo are there because they are a true reflection of what he is looking at.
If they are the same glasses that Gerry was wearing in the last photo, then why isn't the reflection in them whilst sitting by the pool an accurate reflection of what he is looking at?

Why are the reflections true in the Getty photo but in the last photo the reflection is not true?

by canada12 18.11.15 16:42

Dr What wrote:So, if I understand Canada12 correctly, the vertical lines in Gerry's glasses in the Getty photo are there because they are a true reflection of what he is looking at.
If they are the same glasses that Gerry was wearing in the last photo, then why isn't the reflection in them whilst sitting by the pool an accurate reflection of what he is looking at?

Why are the reflections true in the Getty photo but in the last photo the reflection is not true?

My point exactly.

by Guest 18.11.15 16:58

canada12 wrote:
Dr What wrote:So, if I understand Canada12 correctly, the vertical lines in Gerry's glasses in the Getty photo are there because they are a true reflection of what he is looking at.
If they are the same glasses that Gerry was wearing in the last photo, then why isn't the reflection in them whilst sitting by the pool an accurate reflection of what he is looking at?

Why are the reflections true in the Getty photo but in the last photo the reflection is not true?

My point exactly.

You ignored my point it seems.

Here's an idea.

Get Textusa to do a real analysis instead of the current cockeyed one.

Use:

Correct glasses
Correct camera with correct settings for focal length, magnification etc
Correct pool size
Correct photographer position

You know... exactly unlike the junk pseudo-science she has currently used

And then we can have a real discussion about real science.

by TheTruthWillOut 18.11.15 17:41

Tony Bennett wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:REPLY: In that case, you and I, and ‘most here’, reject Textusa’s theory as plain wrong. Her entire case is founded on her article of faith that it is ‘impossible’ to get vertical line on sunglasses. That claim has been torn apart by ‘somni’ with his video and BlueBag who provided another photo with vertical lines on Gerry’s sunglasses.

See this is exactly the misunderstanding/misconstruing that I've talked about. It is hard to debate when you state something wrong like this.
I do not know what you mean.

It's as plain as a pikestaff that Textusa pins EVERYTHING on the physical impossibility of vertical lines on sunglasses, thus (all extracted from her artlcle):

QUOTE

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

We think it is fake not because of any pixel manipulation but because of physics.

Once one realises the photo shows a physical impossibility then it means it has been manipulated. That simple. Prove the reflection they show to be impossible then manipulation is proved.

UNQUOTE

And so on.

You agreed that vertical lines WERE possible. Which proves Textusa wrong.

As did 'somni' in his video

How you are wording things and cherry picking words in a quote makes it come across as Textusa is saying vertical lines/reflections are impossible, full stop. Surely you realise she is only talking about the reflection in the LP?

Just look at the image she created herself that BlueBag just posted again.

Two objects in the reflection: 1, the pool that is correctly curved and 2, the person taking the picture standing correctly upright/vertical. Reflected in the same curved lens (which only as a subtle effect at worse, anyway)

I just wish one of the number of people that visited the Ocean Club over the years and photographed that toddler pool didn't think to take a picture of someone sitting there in sunglasses. Would have saved a lot of time and hair.

BlueBag wrote:Get Textusa to do a real analysis instead of the current cockeyed one.

Use:

Correct glasses

Correct camera with correct settings for focal length, magnification etc

Correct pool size

Correct photographer position

So I take it you yourself have had access to and performed the above and proved that the LP reflections are legit? If you have already done a step by step rebuttal of what Textusa has said I'd love a link to read it.

by NickE 18.11.15 19:22

Today I asked a guy who works as a photo editor here in Sweden two questions about "the last photo"
He took a look at the photo and came back with this answers.

1: Question: "Is this photograph photoshoped or somehow manipulated?"
1: Answer: "No!"

2: Question: "The pool is formed like a circle, do you see something strange with the reflection,like the vertical pooledge from the man's sunglasses?"
2: Answer: "No,I know how you think but he is looking to the left and you can see the left pooledge in the sunglasses,and it´s vertical,that´s because the left pooledge "goes away" from him".

by Guest 18.11.15 19:24

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

So I take it you yourself have had access to and performed the above and proved that the LP reflections are legit? If you have already done a step by step rebuttal of what Textusa has said I'd love a link to read it.

I'm not the one making the extra-ordinary claim.

The burden of proof is on those making the claim.

I have merely shown why the claim as stated is rubbish.

I'm sure you would agree that the correct glasses, camera, camera setting, pool size, subject position/inclination and photographer position all have an important part to play?

Yes?

I'm sure you agree that so far Textusa has not got any of the above right?

Yes?

I'm sure you agree that what Textusa has done is junk?

by **Tony Bennett** 18.11.15 19:44

NickE wrote:Today I asked a guy who works as a photo editor here in Sweden two questions about "the last photo"
He took a look at the photo and came back with this answers.

1: Question: "Is this photograph photoshopped or somehow manipulated?"
1: Answer: "No!"

2: Question: "The pool is formed like a circle, do you see something strange with the reflection, like the vertical pool edge from the man's sunglasses?"
2: Answer: "No, I know how you think but he is looking to the left and you can see the left pool edge in the sunglasses, and it´s vertical, thats because the left pool edge "goes away" from him".

Common sense and an expert photo editor all rolled into one!

At last!

Thanks very much @ NickE

by Guest 18.11.15 19:52

canada12 wrote:
Verdi wrote:Why has a secondary pair of sunglasses been introduced into the topic? Isn't it enough to try and unravel the mystery of a Textusa being physic-al without complicating matters further.

I'm more interested to learn, if the latest addition was genuinely taken on 7th May 2007, how did GM manage to acquire what appears to be a chic costly pair of sunglasses as opposed to the pair KM claims he bought earlier the previous week - because he didn't have a pair with him? Come to that - how did he manage to change his skin tone from ghostly white to sun tinged within four days?

Aren't they the same sunglasses though? The ones in the Getty photos and the ones gerry's wearing in the Last Photo? Hardly secondary if they're the same sunglasses, and therefore the lenses should behave in the same way each time?

No, I don't think they are ..
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Do you?

by canada12 18.11.15 20:00

Verdi wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Verdi wrote:Why has a secondary pair of sunglasses been introduced into the topic? Isn't it enough to try and unravel the mystery of a Textusa being physic-al without complicating matters further.

I'm more interested to learn, if the latest addition was genuinely taken on 7th May 2007, how did GM manage to acquire what appears to be a chic costly pair of sunglasses as opposed to the pair KM claims he bought earlier the previous week - because he didn't have a pair with him? Come to that - how did he manage to change his skin tone from ghostly white to sun tinged within four days?

Aren't they the same sunglasses though? The ones in the Getty photos and the ones gerry's wearing in the Last Photo? Hardly secondary if they're the same sunglasses, and therefore the lenses should behave in the same way each time?
No, I don't think they are ..
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Do you?

I certainly do. Right down to the little white logo in the top left lens of the sunglasses.
What makes you think they're not the same sunglasses?

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

by **Tony Bennett** 18.11.15 20:08

canada12 wrote:
I certainly do. Right down to the little white logo in the top left lens of the sunglasses.

What makes you think they're not the same sunglasses?

I think after you've put up the two images of the sunglasses that we should all really be able to agree that they are one and the same.

I tend to think, though, that they look more like a pair bought in one of Leicester's premier shopping malls before they left England, than bought 'on an open-air, market-style stall' on the beach front at Praia da Luz, as claimed on page 58 (hardback ed.) of 'madeleine', by Dr Kate KcCann

yes

by TheTruthWillOut 18.11.15 20:23

BlueBag wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:

So I take it you yourself have had access to and performed the above and proved that the LP reflections are legit? If you have already done a step by step rebuttal of what Textusa has said I'd love a link to read it.
I'm not the one making the extra-ordinary claim.

I knew you would say that.

The burden of proof is on those making the claim.

Her whole post is her theory/"proof". You disagree so now it is on you to rebut it point by point. I'm all eyes.

I have merely shown why the claim as stated is rubbish.

Would you mind listing/showing a few points in detail how/why she is wrong about the reflection then? I've tried looking on Google images for years without finding a reflection like it, but stop short of dismissing it as impossible.

I'm sure you would agree that the correct glasses, camera, camera setting, pool size, subject position/inclination and photographer position all have an important part to play?

Yes?

Not particularly. Any brand digital camera and similar sunglasses should demonstrate it. Camera settings could be experimented with and the pool size was the same according to Textusa. I thought the position of the subjects and photographer in Textusa's example favoured the outcome showing a straight vertical line compared to the LP if anything.

I'm sure you agree that so far Textusa has not got any of the above right?

Yes?

Like I've said previously the only thing about the LP that I'm still not convinced about is the reflection. I disagree with Textusa that the LP is a composite.

I'm sure you agree that what Textusa has done is junk?

No. I disagree with her about multiple things but think it rude to dismiss this with the word junk especially when I've seen no detailed rebuttal along the lines of the effort Textusa has put in (unless I've missed it?)

Like I've said I'm quite willing to be convinced that the reflection is perfectly legit if someone is equally willing to show an example picture from Google (that I have failed to find) or otherwise demonstrate it with pictures.
Darren Ware's videos leave me unconvinced at this point, FWIW.

by Guest 18.11.15 20:44

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:

So I take it you yourself have had access to and performed the above and proved that the LP reflections are legit? If you have already done a step by step rebuttal of what Textusa has said I'd love a link to read it.
I'm not the one making the extra-ordinary claim.

I knew you would say that.

The burden of proof is on those making the claim.

Her whole post is her theory/"proof". You disagree so now it is on you to rebut it point by point. I'm all eyes.

I have merely shown why the claim as stated is rubbish.

Would you mind listing/showing a few points in detail how/why she is wrong about the reflection then? I've tried looking on Google images for years without finding a reflection like it, but stop short of dismissing it as impossible.

I'm sure you would agree that the correct glasses, camera, camera setting, pool size, subject position/inclination and photographer position all have an important part to play?

Yes?

Not particularly. Any brand digital camera and similar sunglasses should demonstrate it. Camera settings could be experimented with and the pool size was the same according to Textusa. I thought the position of the subjects and photographer in Textusa's example favoured the outcome showing a straight vertical line compared to the LP if anything.

I'm sure you agree that so far Textusa has not got any of the above right?

Yes?

Like I've said previously the only thing about the LP that I'm still not convinced about is the reflection. I disagree with Textusa that the LP is a composite.

I'm sure you agree that what Textusa has done is junk?

No. I disagree with her about multiple things but think it rude to dismiss this with the word junk especially when I've seen no detailed rebuttal along the lines of the effort Textusa has put in (unless I've missed it?)

Like I've said I'm quite willing to be convinced that the reflection is perfectly legit if someone is equally willing to show an example picture from Google (that I have failed to find) or otherwise demonstrate it with pictures.
Darren Ware's videos leave me unconvinced at this point, FWIW.

I have given a detailed rebuttal throughout this thread. It boils down to this:

Incorrect glasses.
Incorrect camera and settings
Incorrect pool
Incorrect subject position and inclination
Incorrect photographer position

Everything is wrong - surely you must agree.

That's why it's junk.

It's called pseudo-science.

Oh and "and similar sunglasses should demonstrate it"

It's a shame they are not similar - as I have demonstrated over and over.

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

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