The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


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

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

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 TheTruthWillOut on 20.11.15 1:18

@BlueBag wrote:Dear TruthWillOut,

Is this junk or not?



A simple yes or no will do.

Cheers,

BB

No.

About the "rules" you have imposed on Textusa or anyone who has the opposing view about the reflection? 

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

Why didn't/don't they apply to Sonmi/Darren Ware? If Textusa's effort is "junk" what does that make Darren's by your standards of science?

Cheers.
avatar
TheTruthWillOut

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

View user profile

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 20.11.15 1:51

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@TheTruthWillOut wrote:
What are you saying here? That BlueBag-Sonmi-Darren Ware are one and the same?

Tell me for example how - when Gerry and Amelie were photographed (on 18 May was it?) - their shadows matched the shadows on Madeleine so perfectly that forensic programs run by Prof. H. Farid and another expert revealed that they were an EXACT match.

Or maybe you just can't

Why would I need to? I have already said earlier in this thread (I think. You got me wondering now) that I don't believe it is a composite.

LP taken sometime before May 3rd.
Sunglasses lenses only photoshopped (for whatever reason). Grande Finale showed just how undetectable small changes can be.

I just don't understand Tony when I disagree about just one point of a subject you assume I agree with Textusa's theory completely.
avatar
TheTruthWillOut

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by hogwash on 20.11.15 7:31

@TheTruthWillOut wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@TheTruthWillOut wrote:
What are you saying here? That BlueBag-Sonmi-Darren Ware are one and the same?

Tell me for example how - when Gerry and Amelie were photographed (on 18 May was it?) - their shadows matched the shadows on Madeleine so perfectly that forensic programs run by Prof. H. Farid and another expert revealed that they were an EXACT match.

Or maybe you just can't

Why would I need to? I have already said earlier in this thread (I think. You got me wondering now) that I don't believe it is a composite.

LP taken sometime before May 3rd.
Sunglasses lenses only photoshopped (for whatever reason). Grande Finale showed just how undetectable small changes can be.

I just don't understand Tony when I disagree about just one point of a subject you assume I agree with Textusa's theory completely.
Quote: "Grande Finale showed just how undectable small changes can be". Unquote

Yes, but the two experts weren't shown a photo with the logo photoshopped out, they were shown the original photo which they both said was not manipulated but said it would be easy to change the date. 

The photoshopped logo was undetectable to us because we're not experts and we also weren't using forensic equipment to test it.

Maybe that's the difference between experts and non-experts.
avatar
hogwash

Posts : 209
Reputation : 193
Join date : 2015-09-20

View user profile

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 20.11.15 8:53

@TheTruthWillOut wrote:
@BlueBag wrote:Dear TruthWillOut,

Is this junk or not?



A simple yes or no will do.

Cheers,

BB

No.

About the "rules" you have imposed on Textusa or anyone who has the opposing view about the reflection? 

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

Why didn't/don't they apply to Sonmi/Darren Ware? If Textusa's effort is "junk" what does that make Darren's by your standards of science?

Cheers.

You think this is not junk?

That's all I need to know.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4607
Reputation : 2409
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

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 20.11.15 9:34

@TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Why didn't/don't they apply to Sonmi/Darren Ware? If Textusa's effort is "junk" what does that make Darren's by your standards of science?

You have obviously completely misunderstood the difference between the stated purposes, respectively, of Textusa and somni/Darren Ware.

Textusa stated her purpose in clear terms:  "The idea was to replicate the last photo".

As BlueBag has demonstrated in his usual uncompromisingly blunt language, she did not 'replicate' the 'Last Photo' in at least four major ways. 'Junk science' is a fully appropriate term to use.

somni/Darren Ware set himself a much more modest task: simply to prove that vertical lines could be produced in circumstances broadly similar to those in the Last Photo.

You must surely concede that he has fulfilled that task more than adequately?


Now to your theory:

You wrote: 

QUOTE

1. LP taken sometime before May 3rd.
2. Sunglasses lenses only photoshopped (for whatever reason).
3. Grande Finale showed just how undetectable small changes can be. 

UNQUOTE

So your theory is that the Last Photo was taken before 3rd May, that someone then changed the EXIF date and time data, and on top of that decided to shop in the sunglasses lenses?

I didn't think it was possible to come up with a dafter, more convoluted photoshopping theory than Textusa's, but it looks to me like you have just succeeded!

In case I have misunderstood you, could you please be good enough to explain your LP theory in more detail - it would help the debate.              

You wrote: "Grande Finale showed just how undetectable small changes can be". 

REPLY:
I fully concede.

But how can you possibly compare adding a tiny bit of black to cover a tiny logo with:

* arranging a whole photo shoot to create a base photo
* lining up Gerry and Amelia in exactly the right position on the poolside...
* and in exactly the same position of the sun as produced the shadows on Madeleine  
* then photshopping Madeleine in, and at the same time completely harmonising...
* the pool water
* the poolside terrace
* the small wall by the lawm
* the grass
* the far wall etc. and then...
* using a computer program to align the shadows
* flipping the sunglasses from Gerry's chest to his face, and finally
* photoshopping in the left side of the sunglasses over Gerry's left ear?    


dontgetit

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14939
Reputation : 3019
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by NickE on 23.11.15 14:40

Snipped from the files:

"18. Using my forensic software I was able to locate 73 pictures files in the unallocated clusters which had been deleted and were no longer accessible to the camera user."

Does the police still have this memory card or did they gave it back?
If they still have it there should be software´s today that can restore these pictures.

____________________
When asked if people will ever learn what really happened, Mr Amaral responded: “Yes, we will, when MI5 opens the case files, we will find out".
avatar
NickE

Posts : 1185
Reputation : 409
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 43

View user profile

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 23.11.15 18:03

NickE:
 
"18. Using my forensic software I was able to locate 73 pictures files in the unallocated clusters which had been deleted and were no longer accessible to the camera user."
 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VIDEO_MEMORY.htm
 
I think we have now fairly confidently ascertained that these were not from the Mc’s cameras, but referenced under NALF, an OC visitor who lives close to D C Martin in Hampshire, so probably of little interest.

Doug D

Posts : 2584
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by j.rob on 23.11.15 19:55

@Doug D wrote:NickE:
 
"18. Using my forensic software I was able to locate 73 pictures files in the unallocated clusters which had been deleted and were no longer accessible to the camera user."
 
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VIDEO_MEMORY.htm
 
I think we have now fairly confidently ascertained that these were not from the Mc’s cameras, but referenced under NALF, an OC visitor who lives close to D C Martin in Hampshire, so probably of little interest.

Is this a reference to the OC guest from Southampton - Nigel Foster? Are the photos from his camera?

I think these photos might be of considerable interest to police if so.

Kate in her book outlines a very peculiar conversation between herself and Russell and a fellow holiday-maker - Nigel from Southampton - apparently during that fateful Thursday lunch-time. 

Notice how Russell has subtly 'sanitized' the version of events from his first police statement.  The video-recorder magically transfers from a member of TM's hands (in the first statement) to Nigel's hands (in the second statement.) 

This is dynamite, surely?

Russell's first statement made on 4th May 2007: 

The deponent remembers only one episode, that for him did not have any importance, but that, given the circumstances, make him relate it. States that between the activities of tennis and others on the beach, he took notice of an individual who he only knows as NIGEL - a British individual, married, and with a daughter of 3 years whose name is Ixxx. He had trivial conversations with him. On the day of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, in the late morning, part of the group, with their children, were next to the tennis courts when NIGEL approached him. They were filming his daughter, with a video camera, and that, questioned, the deponent states that he does not remember seeing anyone with such an apparatus. Considering the current particulars of paedophilia, they conversed and the deponent considered this perfectly normal. Nigel had commented that he felt uncomfortable in having his daughter filmed. The deponent finished by concurring with him and together they spoke about the ridiculous situation and 'the state to which the world has come'. The deponent states that he has no reason to suspect NIGEL, in any circumstances whatsoever, and that he appeared to him a normal citizen, with a normal family. He never again thought about this conversation and only reports it of all the situations of the week, he has no incident to register or relate. 


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm



Russell's second statement made on 10th April 2008:


I recall that Jane had been having a tennis lesson also there was Kate and Rachael.  We were watching some children have their lesson this was before lunch.  I recall that one of the guests a guy from Southampton came over his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture but expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so- he said something similar to feeling like a pervert or a dirty old man when taking a picture of his own child, I do not wish to implicate him.  I recall that the child was of a similar age to Madeleine and Ella.
I recall that Madeleine and Ella had had a similar lesson the day before.
We agreed that in this day and age taking a photograph of your own child you shouldn’t be made to feel uncomfortable, it was a horrible coincident.  I would like to stress that I do not think that this man had any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.  I feel that it was a haunting coincidence.


Record of Russell's tape recorded interview. Wow!   bomb
1578    “Okay.  So I shall take out ‘I recall that Jane was having a tennis lesson’'”
 Reply    “It’s just ‘After Jane’s tennis lesson’”.  And then you can actually delete ‘Madeleine was playing tennis, they were having a lesson’, because that, well it wasn’t Madeleine that day at all.  Erm, it says ‘After Jane’s tennis lesson’, I’ll try and preserve it as much as possible, ‘I recall that one of the guests’, erm, ‘a man from Southampton came up’ full-stop.  ‘His daughter’, it was his three year old daughter, ‘his young daughter was having a’, this, it may be word perfect, ‘was having a’, erm”

1578    “We have got ‘His daughter was playing tennis’'”
 Reply    “Well, yeah, his, his daughter was having a tennis lesson, you know, a kid’s tennis lesson, I mean, she was only, she was probably the same age as Ella and Evie, they were in the same, they were all at the same clubs but they had, there were, there were a certain number of children so they had them in two groups, so they didn’t always do the same thing, you know, Beavers and the Lobsters or something.  Erm, and, yeah, she was having a, a sort of, well kind of a kiddies tennis lesson”.

1578    “Yes”.
 Reply    “And the question about Madeleine then, this is exactly the same as Madeleine and Ella had done the day before.  Erm, and that’s where that very famous picture of Madeleine with the tennis balls was taken, so.  But it wasn’t Madeline on this day, Madeleine and Ella were in the same group and I think they’d been done on, you know, the Tuesday or the Wednesday, they had come up, so they all, there were two kind of mini kid groups, mini club kid groups and they did, you know, they were on like a rota and they did things at different times and on different days.  So Madeleine was not there at that point at all.  And I think that’s important, particularly, because of what the man said, if Madeleine was potentially being photographed by anyone, it was absolutely clear that Madeleine and Ella were not there that day.  It says ‘I recall that a guy from Southampton came up, his daughter was playing tennis, he wanted to take a picture’, erm, ‘but casual’, maybe ‘casually expressed to us how uncomfortable he felt in doing so’”.

1578    “’But casually expressed’'”
 Reply    “Yeah, you know, he wasn’t, he just.  And it might be worth saying that, you know, he said that the, you know, something like, you know, ‘These days you feel like a pervert’ or maybe just extending that, you know, ‘You feel like a dirty old man taking a picture of your own daughter’ maybe just to make it a bit more explicit, because that’s what he said, you know, he didn’t just come up and say ‘Oh I feel like a dirty old man’, you know, sort of, you know, ‘In this’, you know, ‘The way things are these days’, erm, you know, ‘you feel like a criminal’ or ‘a dirty old man taking a photo of your own kid’”.

1578    “’The way things are these days you feel like a’'”
 Reply    “Yeah, you know, it, it was, it was a, it wasn’t just a ‘Oh I feel a bit dirty taking this’”.

1578    “Did he use the word ‘pervert’'”
 Reply    “Huh, we had a whole conversation about this and whether those were his first words or whether this was what, you know, because there was Kate, there was myself, Jane, Rachael, him, there was a small group, you know, around, and I think he felt a little self-conscious because he was walking past another group of parents taking a photograph of several kids at the net of the tennis”.

1578    “Yeah”.
 Reply    “I don’t know if he used the word ‘perv’, but the conversation went round on this and, you know, that, that society, you know, makes, can make normal parents feel uncomfortable doing what ten, twenty, thirty years ago would have been considered an entirely innocent thing, like taking a photograph.  Erm, I think it would be ‘a dirty old man’, ‘feel a bit of a perv’, phew, I don’t know what his first words were.  But then we actually had a conversation and I think, you know, we, probably as a group, kind of said, you know, said ‘It’s ridiculous isn’t it, you know, you take a picture of your own kid and you’re made to feel like you’re a pervert’ or something like that.  Erm, and I don’t like the next paragraph the way it is, I think its, erm”.

1578    “Just a moment.  And present at that conversation were'”
 Reply    “Well certainly myself, Jane, Kate and Rachael, erm, I don’t know if there was any, erm, I think it was kind of generally a sort of women’s tennis lesson that had gone on, there may have been a partner of one of the other, of the other guests, there were a couple of people who were, who Kate and Rachael and Jane had played with, I, I forget the names. I’ve got this vague recollection there was a lady who, probably in her mid-forties, blonde hair, who may have been there as well, I, I never really spoke to her really.  But there may have been one person like in the group as well who had been playing tennis.  And this chap who, who, erm, whose name is in my original statement, I’m afraid I’ve forgotten what it was, erm, but he, as I say, he lives in Southampton, he was there with his wife and a young kid and, erm, and had lived in Exeter about fifteen years before, which was one of the conversations we had, erm, at that point.  Erm, but, yeah, those are, those, certainly Rachael, Kate and myself, Jane and this man”.

1578    “Okay”.
 Reply    “And the next paragraph just doesn’t, I know it’s been cobbled together, it doesn’t read, erm, actually I think, erm”.

1578    “’I found this most uncomfortable’'”
 Reply    “Well, no, I think, not”.

1578    “Or are we going down to Ella'”
 Reply    “No, no, no, ‘I found this most’, I mean, huh, it’s my recollection that at the time it seemed, erm, like, huh, a slightly lamenting conversation about the state of modern day, you know, Britain, you know, so maybe, erm.  I think it might be worth just to clarify, we then, you know, something like ‘We then had a conversation about the seemingly’, erm, ‘ludicrous nature of’, erm”.

1578    “Okay”.
 Reply    “’Of, you know, ‘that you couldn’t take photographs of your own children’”.

1578    “’We then had a conversation’'”
 Reply    “Yeah, that ‘the ludicrous pressure on parents that they can’t take photographs of their own children’, because I think that was the essence of it.  And certainly the other, the other aspect of the conversation that was made, which kind of, you know, is, huh, is doubly haunting, was that, you know, we said that, you know, ‘You’re far’, you know, ‘You’re far more likely to get clobbered by your uncle or your neighbour than some’, you know, ‘random stranger’.  Erm, which in light of the way that the Police investigation has gone, erm, it feels like, you know, erm, a real kick in the nuts”.

1578    “’Far more like to get clobbered by’'”
 Reply    “You know, you’re far more likely to have, you know, you know, to have a problem with somebody, from somebody you know, and we actually said, and that was actually sort of said, you know, we all worry about, you know, a small number of fairly kind of sick perverts”.

1578    “Rather than a stranger'”
 Reply    “Rather than a stranger, yeah, but, huh, erm, which of course, you know, of course statistically is true, erm.  And the bit here that says ‘I found this most uncomfortable’, is that, you know, since, since this happened, you know, ten or eleven hours before, before Madeleine was abducted, it just seemed a really, it’s really, you know, a very, very uncomfortable coincidence, you know, ever since I found this, you know, this whole pile of things that are nast, you know, are really kind of unpleasant, but the fact that we actually had this conversation, you know, within twelve hours of her going missing was, was, erm, well, haunting, you know, that men were, erm.  You know, it’s just, erm, I mean, it is just a coincidence, it’s not as if, within the space of a year in Britain, you know, you don’t hear of, you know, a school banning cameras and, you know, it’s quite, it’s not an uncommon conversation I think for, you know, for parents with young children these days to think, you know, you know, has it gone too far, you know, is there too much, is there too much kind of worry and protection and are we, you know, damaging children’s upbringing, by by not allowing them to, you know, to, to run free a little.  Erm, and I think, yeah, and the last statement, I definitely want that there.  I mean, as far as I was concerned, this was, this was an entirely reasonable comment from this man, he’d just walked past a few parents, some of whom he probably didn’t know, erm, and he was taking photographs of his daughter, who was on this tennis court, but there were adjacent children in, in, you know, in shot.  Erm, and I can, you know, particularly as a, as a man, can particularly understand how he might have felt going up there because clearly, erm, you know, this is, this is something that, you know, you need to be aware of.  And my dad, you know, we’ve had a conversation about this since, you know, when I was little and growing up, in the street he would freely talk, he would freely talk with my friends and people going by and he says, you know, just, you know, these days you just, you just ignore people, you ignore children because you wouldn’t want anyone to sort of think that you were, you know, you were kind of, erm, trying to entertain them with an ulterior motive.  So this did not feel bad and I would hate to think that me saying this that anyone would think that I was trying to implicate this man, I do not think that there was anything untoward in it”.

1578    “Okay”.


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 234
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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