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

by bobbin 14.11.15 15:07

BlueBag wrote:
bobbin wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Where did they photoshop the arms of the glasses from?

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

What is TextUsa's theory for the arms of the glasses?

One of the most stupid theories going and doesn't stand up to more that a few seconds thinking about.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] "Where did they photoshop the arms of the glasses from?"

Now that you've drawn everyone's attention to it, did they in fact photo-shop 'arms' in.

I can see the bulbous plastic of the right hand arm sitting snugly on Gerry's right ear, but I cannot see an arm sitting on Gerry's left ear, just his ear, and a void with the wall and grassy knoll behind.

Yes, it is quite laughable isn't it, verging on the ridiculous, if only it weren't so serious. All to prove that their disappeared little four year old daughter must have been enjoying a lovely sunny day, on holiday, sitting at the pool with her loving family.
Why are you doing this?

Is this fun for you?

"Grassy knoll"?

Nice touch.

Hilarious.

No, It is absolutely not fun. Since day 1, the loss of Madeleine has show every sign of being a huge cover up. How much 'politics' is involved we do not know.

I see you have been following the 'Paris' tragedy and note your words. There are many Muslims in my community and they are lovely, kind, generous and peaceful people. 'Politics' is showing grief for an attack on one party whilst all of the thousands and thousands dying in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan are just recounted as 'numbers' of dead. The real people, Muslim or not, are being attacked by partisanship and politics.

The raised grass behind the pool has been referred to in the past as the grassy knoll, possibly to express the fact that so much 'political interference/framing' seems to be part of what should be a search for a little girl but which in fact has been hindered, with police work openly obstructed and Gonçalo Amaral treated abysmally.

No, I think it is pivotal to the 'truth of the lie' to be able to demonstrate that if a photo is a fake it be seen as that. That is why serious posters are working so hard to try to get to the bottom of this tragedy.

by notlongnow 14.11.15 15:49

Shame there isn't a "Don't care" option.

by Guest 14.11.15 16:30

bobbin wrote:

No, I think it is pivotal to the 'truth of the lie' to be able to demonstrate that if a photo is a fake it be seen as that. That is why serious posters are working so hard to try to get to the bottom of this tragedy.

Serious posters are.

Unlike the ones continually posting easily debunked nonsense about this picture.

[ Thread locked for a short period. There is an intense debate about whether the Last Photo is a 'fake' or 'forged' and, if so, in what way. When we resume this important debate, can we please on all sides stick to making evidential points with courtesy, and not personalising this by making accusations or other ad hominem attacks: see the forum rules. Thank you - Mod ]

[ UNLOCKED at 5.40pm - Mod ]

by jeanmonroe 14.11.15 19:16

'fake' OR 'not', why didn't KM/GM or any of their 'friends', give the PJ/GNR 'the last (pool) photo' on the night of 3rd May 2007?

After all, it was IN one of her cameras', so KM 'tells' us, at 1:29/2:29pm in the afternoon of 3rd May 2007................wasn't it? winkwink

7- 7 1/2 hours BEFORE Madeleine 'disappeared'.

Remind me again, WHY didn't the PJ/GNR have 'access' to this 'last photo' in the 'time' immediately AFTER the 'disappearance'? (at 10:00pm, 'supposedly')

So 'they' would 'know' WHICH little 'missing' girl, 'they' were supposed to be 'searching/looking/hunting' for.

by canada12 14.11.15 19:38

Indeed. And, if the only thing changed about this photo was the date and time stamp, then logically, this photo should have been on one of the cameras from early on in the holiday and should have been available.

by **Jill Havern** 14.11.15 19:55

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The reflection in the sunglasses he is wearing above hasn't distorted. I can see a car in a driveway, right way up.

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

Reply by Darren Ware ('knitted' on CMOMM) :

Darren Ware Exactly... and the edge of the round pool is also the right side up in the reflection. No one has ever said its 'flipped' (other than those that say the vertical lines are impossible). Gerry and the photographer are separated by the edge of a 5m round pool. The part you see reflected just happens to be the part of the edge that runs between the two of them. You're seeing probably a couple of feet of edge at most and that's all, and it just so happens to be the bit midway between the two of them. Thus it is the part of the large curve that runs pretty much from 'front to back' between the two of them. The whole point is that if you don't understand what you are seeing you'll think the reflection has magically flipped (or been Photoshopped). My video shows that vertical lines are simply, and naturally, what you'd see of the side edge of a 5m/6m round object between a reflective surface (such as sunglasses) and a photographer. The effect is thus not impossible and thus is not evidence of Photoshopping.

by Guest 14.11.15 20:00

jeanmonroe wrote:'fake' OR 'not', why didn't KM/GM or any of their 'friends', give the PJ/GNR 'the last (pool) photo' on the night of 3rd May 2007?

After all, it was IN one of her cameras', so KM 'tells' us, at 1:29/2:29pm in the afternoon of 3rd May 2007................wasn't it?

7- 7 1/2 hours BEFORE Madeleine 'disappeared'.

Remind me again, WHY didn't the PJ/GNR have 'access' to this 'last photo' in the 'time' immediately AFTER the 'disappearance'? (at 10:00pm, 'supposedly')

So 'they' would 'know' WHICH little 'missing' girl, 'they' were supposed to be 'searching/looking/hunting' for.

Yes yes yes and yes again! Purported to be the last photograph of MBM taken on the afternoon of 3rd May 2007, full facial, taken by Kate McCann on her camera - a perfect image but when did it appear? It appeared not as one might expect, between the 3rd and 4th of May but in the UK press on 24th May 2007 - curiously hours after Gerald's visit to the UK to attend to matters of a personal nature.

At the risk of repeating myself - so why did the McCanns issue the PJ with a younger image of their daughter to assist with the investigation rather than a perfect fresh image taken on 3rd May?

by skyrocket 14.11.15 21:18

Russell O'Brien's Rogatory is quite interesting:

Reply    “Yeah, she was certainly, yeah, she was, she was English, you know, clearly not a, not a local. Erm, next it says ‘We tried to find a picture of Madeleine’, I mean, it wasn’t so much struggling to get the picture, it was struggling to find the means of printing it. We had the cam, we had Kate’s camera, erm, the, what we were trying to do is find a picture that actually gave a good likeness, rather than just being any old shot it actually had, you know, a close-up of her, of her face. There were a lot of pictures on the camera but they were, you know, just at home and on, you know, in profile and things like that”.

1578    “Yes”.
Reply    “So we had, we”.

1578    “So to the words ‘we were struggling’, ‘but we were struggling’ need to be removed'”
Reply    “Erm, yeah, ‘we tried to find’, I think, it’s fairly irrelevant, I think, you know”.

1578    “So'”
Reply    “’We were trying to find a picture but we’, you know, delete ‘but we were struggling’. ‘Kate checked the camera’. Erm, I don’t actually remember saying that Jane had taken the picture of Madeleine at the tennis lesson, in any case, it wasn’t that day it was the day before that Madeleine and Ella were in the group, erm, on a different day doing the tennis. I think, you know, it’s fairly, I think it’s fairly irrelevant anyway, I don’t think Jane did have a picture from the tennis lesson. So I think that that could all go, I think that ‘Jane had taken a picture of Madeleine at the tennis lesson that day’ could all go and then put, the main thing here was, erm, ‘We were searching for a printer and Kat, one of the Nannies, said she had a printer’. I’m pretty sure it was Kat. So this paragraph’s quite”.

1578    “So we keep in ‘We couldn’t print it off’'”

Reply    “’We needed to print it off’ that, that was the sticking issue, we had pictures but we needed to get in somewhere to print them and I think people had asked at, at, at the reception down at Ocean Club”.

1578    “So the pictures of Madeleine'”

Reply    “On a digital camera”.

1578    “That were printed off'”

Reply    “Yeah”.

1578    “Came from Kate’s camera”.

Reply    “From Kate’s camera as far as I can remember, yeah. And the main issue was trying to find somewhere to print it”.

1578    “What about if we say ‘Kate checked her camera and found some pictures’'”

Reply    “Yeah, yeah, or ‘Kate’s camera was checked’, I don’t think Kate was in no, in no state whatsoever to check her camera”.

1578    “Okay. So ‘We tried to find a picture of Madeleine’'”

Reply    “Yeah”.

1578    “’Kate’s camera was checked’'”

Reply    “Umm, ‘And Kat or one of the other Nannies went to their flat to retrieve a printer or something that would connect to a printer and then the pictures were printed in the office off the small reception portal’, there’s a little office in there”.

1578    “Okay. But ‘Kate or one of the Nannies’'”

Reply    “Yeah, ‘Kat or one of the Nannies’, I mean, Kat was there and Leanne was there, but whether it was actually their printer or lead, I’m not sure. The rest of that paragraph, erm, is fine.

Talk about backtracking and confusion. Speaks volumes.

Who goes away on holiday with loads of old photos on their camera? Wouldn't you download them all and clear the way for new holiday shots? Where were all the weeks photos of Madeleine? Why were they struggling to find a photo if the last photo and tennis photo were on KM's camera? Were the photos there but there was some perceived need to release a photo in which MBM looked younger? Why aren't OG asking all these vital questions and dozens (probably more like hundreds) more?

by canada12 14.11.15 21:36

Furthermore, if they found loads of pictures of Madeleine at home, then obviously they looked at photos from BEFORE the PDL holiday. So it stands to reason that if The Last Photo was on the camera, they'd have seen it as they moved backward to the pictures of Madeleine at home, or forward from there to the pictures at PDL.

by Beniyork 14.11.15 22:08

BlueBag wrote:
bobbin wrote:

No, I think it is pivotal to the 'truth of the lie' to be able to demonstrate that if a photo is a fake it be seen as that. That is why serious posters are working so hard to try to get to the bottom of this tragedy.
Serious posters are.

Unlike the ones continually posting easily debunked nonsense about this picture.

[ Thread locked for a short period. There is an intense debate about whether the Last Photo is a 'fake' or 'forged' and, if so, in what way. When we resume this important debate, can we please on all sides stick to making evidential points with courtesy, and not personalising this by making accusations or other ad hominem attacks: see the forum rules. Thank you - Mod ]

[ UNLOCKED at 5.40pm - Mod ]

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.15 22:24

skyrocket wrote:Russell O'Brien's Rogatory is quite interesting:

Reply “Yeah, she was certainly, yeah, she was, she was English, you know, clearly not a, not a local. Erm, next it says ‘We tried to find a picture of Madeleine’, I mean, it wasn’t so much struggling to get the picture, it was struggling to find the means of printing it. We had the cam, we had Kate’s camera, erm, the, what we were trying to do is find a picture that actually gave a good likeness, rather than just being any old shot it actually had, you know, a close-up of her, of her face. There were a lot of pictures on the camera but they were, you know, just at home and on, you know, in profile and things like that”.

This extract from RO'B's rogatory statement is most definitely interesting and also revealing on the general issue of the 'Last Photo'.

However, it doesn't actually help us decide between the two basic rival theories for the 'Last Photo' - a simple change in the date and time of the EXIF data from one date to another, or Textusa's claim that:

* sometime around Thursday 17 May or Friday 18 May,

* Gerry McCann and Amelia turned up at the Ocean Club,

* with a photographer,

* and they sat by the pool,

* probably using the original photo of Madeleine on her own by the pool,

* to find the exact spot where the new 'base photo' would place them immediately to the right of where Madeleine was sitting in the original picture.

* the photographer then checked they were in the right position,

* they hoped the sun would come out (which fortunately it did!),

* then they all waited patiently until the sun was in EXACTLY the same position as what it had been two weeks ago when Madeleine was photographed on her own,

* so that when people eventually looked at the 'Last Photo', they would look at the shadows and think 'My goodness, the shadows all match, it looks like a genuine photograph',

* even fooling old U.S. Professor H. Farid and the owner of a major digital photography business in the process,
well, the moment arrived, and several photos of Gerry wearing sunglasses were taken,

* Amelie had her right arm behind her - leading some people to wonder if THAT had been photoshopped out as well,

* then the photographer said: 'Hey, Gerry, let's just have one of you with your sunglasses off and tucked into your T-shirt',

* and after that the photographer and maybe Gerry as well went off to a convenient photographic studio within the Ocean Club or nearby,

* where they produced a great photoshopped image by photoshopping Madeleine in from the original photograph into the new 'base' photo with Gerry and Amelia in it,

* and then there as all the problems of matching subjects from the original photograph,
with the new 'base' photo,

* they had to match the grass,

* they did that,

* they had to match the garden walls,

* they did that,

* they had to match the bougainvillea,

* they did that,

* they had to match the paving around the pool,

* they did that,

* they had to match the tiling in the pool,

* they did that as well,

* then they had to match a few other things,

* and they successfully did all that,

* and all then looked very good,

* until,

* horror of horrors,

* one of them noticed that one lens of Gerry's sunglasses had an image of THE PHOTOGRAPHER in it,

* well, that wasn't supposed to be the point of the exercise, it was supposed to be Kate taking the photo,

* so they thought,

* and thought,

* and came up with the idea of photoshopping the sunglasses from the photo where Gerry had the sunglasses tucked into his T-shirt,

* on to Gerry's face,

* and when they had done that,

* they also realised that the photoshopped sunglasses had one side missing,

* so they also went back to one of other pictures,

* and managed to crop one side of his sunglasses

* and carefully photoshop it in around his ear,

* and so the 'Last Photo' was finally ready,

* to be shown to the world a few days later,

* on 24th May,

* only Textusa has managed to work out this sequence of events,

* without first-hand evidence and mainly using the laws of physics,

* seeing a brilliantly executed bit of photoshopping,

* which totally fooled two top-class experts.

I think I've got that about right

by Guest 14.11.15 22:57

Another way of looking at this (excuse the witticism) if Textusa's theorizing is to be considered a tangible option - look at the dimensions of the reflection of the poolside in the lens of the sunglasses. If, as has been suggested, the reflection was the result the sunglasses dangling from the neck of GM's T-shirt, in order to justify the angle of the reflection - take note of the dimensions of the reflection.

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

Whether the photograph was taken across the pool or by someone in the pool makes no difference, for the edge of the pool seen in the reflection to be so pronounced it would have to have been close to the subject - Gerry McCann, it covers about two thirds of one lens. The reflection is more or less straight, if across the other side of either the kiddies pool or the adult pool, the effect would not be the same - distance and the curvature of the poolside would be apparent.

Not so! The reflection is large and the contour straight, consistent with the reflection being in close proximity. Distance is relative.

by Guest 14.11.15 23:16

FOUR (at least) COMPOSITE PICTURES + shadow replication on face and shirt

VERSUS

Remove sunglasses and make shirt look like nothing was there

VERSUS

Leave sunglasses and just make the lens reflect the blue pool

VERSUS

Do nothing because that's the way it was.

----

So...

Can we have some common sense in place of insanity and mischievy please.

Because I for one am sick of this bollocks.

by MRNOODLES 14.11.15 23:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
skyrocket wrote:Russell O'Brien's Rogatory is quite interesting:

Reply “Yeah, she was certainly, yeah, she was, she was English, you know, clearly not a, not a local. Erm, next it says ‘We tried to find a picture of Madeleine’, I mean, it wasn’t so much struggling to get the picture, it was struggling to find the means of printing it. We had the cam, we had Kate’s camera, erm, the, what we were trying to do is find a picture that actually gave a good likeness, rather than just being any old shot it actually had, you know, a close-up of her, of her face. There were a lot of pictures on the camera but they were, you know, just at home and on, you know, in profile and things like that”.
This extract from RO'B's rogatory statement is most definitely interesting and also revealing on the general issue of the 'Last Photo'.

However, it doesn't actually help us decide between the two basic rival theories for the 'Last Photo' - a simple change in the date and time of the EXIF data from one date to another, or Textusa's claim that:

* sometime around Thursday 17 May or Friday 18 May,

* Gerry McCann and Amelia turned up at the Ocean Club,

* with a photographer,

* and they sat by the pool,

* probably using the original photo of Madeleine on her own by the pool,

* to find the exact spot where the new 'base photo' would place them immediately to the right of where Madeleine was sitting in the original picture.

* the photographer then checked they were in the right position,

* they hoped the sun would come out (which fortunately it did!),

* then they all waited patiently until the sun was in EXACTLY the same position as what it had been two weeks ago when Madeleine was photographed on her own,

* so that when people eventually looked at the 'Last Photo', they would look at the shadows and think 'My goodness, the shadows all match, it looks like a genuine photograph',

* even fooling old U.S. Professor H. Farid and the owner of a major digital photography business in the process,
well, the moment arrived, and several photos of Gerry wearing sunglasses were taken,

* Amelie had her right arm behind her - leading some people to wonder if THAT had been photoshopped out as well,

* then the photographer said: 'Hey, Gerry, let's just have one of you with your sunglasses off and tucked into your T-shirt',

* and after that the photographer and maybe Gerry as well went off to a convenient photographic studio within the Ocean Club or nearby,

* where they produced a great photoshopped image by photoshopping Madeleine in from the original photograph into the new 'base' photo with Gerry and Amelia in it,

* and then there as all the problems of matching subjects from the original photograph,
with the new 'base' photo,

* they had to match the grass,

* they did that,

* they had to match the garden walls,

* they did that,

* they had to match the bougainvillea,

* they did that,

* they had to match the paving around the pool,

* they did that,

* they had to match the tiling in the pool,

* they did that as well,

* then they had to match a few other things,

* and they successfully did all that,

* and all then looked very good,

* until,

* horror of horrors,

* one of them noticed that one lens of Gerry's sunglasses had an image of THE PHOTOGRAPHER in it,

* well, that wasn't supposed to be the point of the exercise, it was supposed to be Kate taking the photo,

* so they thought,

* and thought,

* and came up with the idea of photoshopping the sunglasses from the photo where Gerry had the sunglasses tucked into his T-shirt,

* on to Gerry's face,

* and when they had done that,

* they also realised that the photoshopped sunglasses had one side missing,

* so they also went back to one of other pictures,

* and managed to crop one side of his sunglasses

* and carefully photoshop it in around his ear,

* and so the 'Last Photo' was finally ready,

* to be shown to the world a few days later,

* on 24th May,

* only Textusa has managed to work out this sequence of events,

* without first-hand evidence and mainly using the laws of physics,

* seeing a brilliantly executed bit of photoshopping,

* which totally fooled two top-class experts.

I think I've got that about right

Agatha Christie would be proud of that lot... but she'd probably bin it as it was too convoluted and far fetched.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.15 23:41

MRNOODLES wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Textusa's claim that:

* sometime around Thursday 17 May or Friday 18 May,

* Gerry McCann and Amelia turned up at the Ocean Club,

[MUCH SNIPPED]

* only Textusa has managed to work out this sequence of events,

* without first-hand evidence and mainly using the laws of physics,

* seeing a brilliantly executed bit of photoshopping,

* which totally fooled two top-class experts.

I think I've got that about right

Agatha Christie would be proud of that lot... but she'd probably bin it as it was too convoluted and far fetched.

You need a physicist, though, to give you a new angle and take things to a new dimension sarcastic

I actually think "The case of the photoshopped sunglasses" would have been a good one for Sherlock Holmes to solve:

Holmes: "See those vertical lines, my dear Watson? What do they tell you?"

Dr Watson: "Good Lord Holmes! What can this mean?"

Holmes: "Come now, isn't is obvious, Watson? It was faked to show a family time that didn’t exist within a family supposed to be enjoying a week-long family holiday. The fact that holiday time didn’t exist was because the parents were there to enjoy adult time with other adults and that’s how they spent most of the time that week".

Dr Watson: "Mrs Hudson, pass me the smelling salts - quickly - behind the teapot...but...but, Holmes, forgive me, how on earth did you deduce all that from a vertical line on one lens of a pair of sunhglasses?"

Holmes: "Elementary, my dear Watson. I just googled 'Textusa', 'Last' 'Photo' and within a few nanoseconds, up came the complete answer to this riddle"

by Guest 15.11.15 9:36

I just realised where TextUsa thinks the arms of the glasses came from.

They were supposedly always there but the problem was that the glasses reflected the photographer who wasn't Kate.

Luckily (phew) they had another photo from the same session where the photographer was not reflected.

Only the lens from that photo (glasses hanging from shirt) in the same session was laid over the original.

What a load of convoluted crap.

Why not just use the picture with the glasses hanging from the shirt then?

Why not get Kate to take the pictures... this session was supposed to be preplanned was it not according to TextUsa?

If there really was a session whose intent was to create a fake, then they would have taken lots of pictures to give themselves a good selection of base photos.

And TextUsa thinks there were some without glasses on face.

by jeanmonroe 15.11.15 10:35

WHY would 'you' take a lovely, family holiday 'snap', by the kiddies 'pool', WITHOUT son Sean, being IN it?

by Guest 15.11.15 11:35

Another reason TextUsa is wrong:

The picture without the elbow was created FROM the "last photo" not the other way around.

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

It's cleverly done with blurs and pastes from other parts of the picture. I've highlighted the obvious one.

by Joss 15.11.15 14:10

BlueBag wrote:Another reason TextUsa is wrong:

The picture without the elbow was created FROM the "last photo" not the other way around.

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

It's cleverly done with blurs and pastes from other parts of the picture. I've highlighted the obvious one.

What is the very prominent line on Madeleine's neck just below her chin?

by Guest 15.11.15 14:28

Here we go again.

What do you think it is?

by willowthewisp 15.11.15 14:31

Folds of skin

by Guest 15.11.15 14:36

willowthewisp wrote:Folds of skin

Yes that's what it looks like.

by Guest 15.11.15 14:37

BlueBag wrote:Another reason TextUsa is wrong:

The picture without the elbow was created FROM the "last photo" not the other way around.

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

It's cleverly done with blurs and pastes from other parts of the picture. I've highlighted the obvious one.

Not only is TextUsa wrong, but 24 people who voted she is right are wrong.

Will they have the grace to admit it?

by joyce1938 15.11.15 15:23

The pic with the elbow is more clear and colourful, so possibly original one? May have taken the one of Maddie out of that one, as there is one in a frame with just her in it, I believe. joyce1938

by **Tony Bennett** 15.11.15 15:58

BlueBag wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Another reason TextUsa is wrong:

The picture without the elbow was created FROM the "last photo" not the other way around.

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

It's cleverly done with blurs and pastes from other parts of the picture. I've highlighted the obvious one.

Not only is TextUsa wrong, but 24 people who voted she is right are wrong.

Will they have the grace to admit it?

Thank you very much @ BlueBag for this informative analysis.

And contrary to the assertions of certain posters, this is precisely why I started this second thread - because I wanted members here to take a very hard and deeper look at Textusa's theory, and get to know it better.

I may use rather less blunt language than yourself, but you have just made as plain as a pikestaff that one key element of Textusa's theory - the main element, in fact - is totally wrong.

As you've shown, the picture of Madeleine was NOT of her on her own as Textusa claims. You have provided clear, forensic evidence that the picture of Madeleine on her own was taken FROM the master picture i.e. from the 'Last Photo' - and not the other way round.

Textusa, who reads here, will simply have to scrap her whole theory, undergirded as it is by the very soggy and dodgy ground of a vertical line on a pair of sunglasses, on which assumption (which a member here has soundly shown to be false in a YouTube video) she has built a massive edifice of sheer speculation.

I agree it would be very good if those who have voted 'Textusa is right' could come on the thread and give their opinion about some of the things you've brought up, like the alleged photoshopping-in of a FOURTH photo - the side of a pair of sunglasses.

She had obviously failed to notice, in her haste to assume that a pair of sunglasses tucked into Gerry's T-shirt had been flipped from one photo to another, that the photoshopper (if there was one) would have had to photoshop in an extra side to the glasses, the one tucked UNDER his T-shirt.

duh

She made an excellent job in her 'Sagresman' article of demonstrating that Nuno Lourenco had told an obvious pack of lies about Polish man Wojchiech Krokowski trying to 'kidnap' his child - and I gave her full credit for it.

But she has made a complete pig's ear of analysing the 'Last Photo' - and I hope she will have the good grace to admit it.

As soon as possible

by **Tony Bennett** 15.11.15 16:03

joyce1938 wrote:The pic with the elbow is more clear and colourful, so possibly original one? May have taken the one of Maddie out of that one, as there is one in a frame with just her in it, I believe. joyce1938

Yep, you're dead right, @ joyce1938 - that's exactly what BlueBag was telling us all.

And that fact alone totally destroys Textusa's entire 'Last Photo' theory at a stroke.

by Joss 15.11.15 16:29

BlueBag wrote:Here we go again.

What do you think it is?

If you're talking to me then i don't know exactly what it is.

by Guest 15.11.15 16:30

joyce1938 wrote:The pic with the elbow is more clear and colourful, so possibly original one? May have taken the one of Maddie out of that one, as there is one in a frame with just her in it, I believe. joyce1938

Yes indeed. The one with the most clearest detail is the "last photo".

A double whammy.

by Joss 15.11.15 16:32

willowthewisp wrote:Folds of skin

I don't think it is. Children don't have folds of skin on their necks like that as far as i know. I guess if the child was quite fat then maybe, but MBM was not a fat or chubby child.

by Guest 15.11.15 16:38

Joss wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:Folds of skin
I don't think it is. Children don't have folds of skin on their necks like that as far as i know. I guess if the child was quite fat then maybe, but MBM was not a fat or chubby child.

But do you think TextUsa is wrong?

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...