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

by skyrocket 15.11.15 16:46

Just a point re: Textusa's theory and the sunglasses.

Her theory doesn't involve frames; arms; etc being photoshopped. What she is saying is that the lenses have been photoshopped i.e. taken from the hanging sunglasses photo and put into the worn sunglasses photo. I can see no reason why this would be done at all.

One other thought - is it possible that the pink in the reflection is the photographer's knee (kneeling at edge of pool) and that the shadow seen is actually the photographer's shadow? We can't assume that it is AM's hat. Someone already mentioned that GM was looking at the camera as well and I didn't really register the point but if we look at GM's body angle in relation to MBM's is it possible that they are both actually looking at least in the general direction of the photographer?

by Joss 15.11.15 16:47

BlueBag wrote:
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?

Possibly. I also don't agree with Textusa's swinging theory either though.

by Guest 15.11.15 16:49

Joss wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
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?
Possibly. I also don't agree with Textusa's swinging theory either though.

Possibly?

Do you think there is something wrong about the elbowless photo analysis?

by Guest 15.11.15 16:52

skyrocket wrote:Just a point re: Textusa's theory and the sunglasses.

Her theory doesn't involve frames; arms; etc being photoshopped. What she is saying is that the lenses have been photoshopped i.e. taken from the hanging sunglasses photo and put into the worn sunglasses photo. I can see no reason why this would be done at all.

I know.

I said so today in this thread after I finally understood what her convoluted theory really was.

I also said why that was nonsense as well.

by Guest 15.11.15 18:03

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.

Really?

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

by Dr What 15.11.15 19:52

Now, I think we can all agree that those sunglasses have been very badly photoshopped.

by Guest 15.11.15 20:01

Hilarious.

Posters - stay on topic, please. Mod.

by Guest 15.11.15 20:28

TextUsa is using the wrong glasses for her theory as well!!!!!

Gerry has worn several pairs, but these flatter ones are the ones in the last photo (there is a mini logo in the left eye lens) AND this was taken 7th May.

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

Her argument against Darren Ware is completely bogus.

They are not the same glasses he wears when driving.

What a crock.

by notlongnow 15.11.15 20:32

Afraid i'm not very well read up on the PS pictures,as i find the threads a bit tedious.

But,Why would they bother to PS this picture?
Is the reason suggested to prove that it was after buying the sunglasses.

Would be extremely high risk if it was/is.

by hogwash 15.11.15 22:18

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

The Last Photo was said to be taken on 3 May so why are they not suntanned in the photo but a few hours later, when Madeleine disappears, they are - despite the weather not being great all week?

by **Tony Bennett** 15.11.15 22:36

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

The Last Photo was said to be taken on 3 May so why are they not suntanned in the photo but a few hours later, when Madeleine disappears, they are - despite the weather not being great all week?

@ hogwash - Exactly the right question.

(Or one of the right questions)

TWO PHOTOS:

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

                      Thursday 3rd May...OR                                                                   Friday 4th May
                           Sunday 29th April?

                                YOU DECIDE

(Oh, and just by the way, according to Textusa's 'Last Photo' theory, the photo on the left was probably taken on or about Friday 18th May)

by Guest 15.11.15 22:38

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

The Last Photo was said to be taken on 3 May so why are they not suntanned in the photo but a few hours later, when Madeleine disappears, they are - despite the weather not being great all week?

I recall asking much the same question some while back - after reading an opinion that the three subjects in the last photograph all looked tanned !?! Can't remember what the reply was, if indeed there was one.

No doubt something to do with the spring equinox or the strength of the sun bleaching the colour from their skin or the absence of a tanning salon in the area. No, hang on - must have been photoshopped to make it look as though they weren't actually there on the afternoon of 3rd May as recorded by the time/date stamp but were actually there on Sunday 29th April - that was the last photograph!!!

by Guest 15.11.15 23:08

Earlier I had another bash at reading Textusa getting all physical. Seriously - I don't wish to be rude but is her first language English or is her native tongue gobbledy gook? How anyone can create such a complicated explanation for the reflexion in the lens of a cheap pair of sunglasses is quite beyond me. What in the name of sanity is she banging on about?

The emphasis placed on this photograph by the McCanns, in terms of time and date, indicates the need to place either Gerry and/or Madeleine at the Ocean Club on the afternoon of 3rd May. Nothing to do with playing happy families, that serves no purpose, so why the need to go to such lengths to fabricate a scene that didn't exist a la Textusa, after the event just to make it look as though they were all having a jolly good time together. The very idea is so farcical it should be stored in the annals along side the Crimewatch reconstruction video. Even if it was the aim to create a happy family snap shot, wouldn't it be simpler to paste bodies in a scene without reflective surfaces, sunglasses, flowering shrubbery, ghostly images, passing flying saucers, black cats and black holes?

Leave it to the experts who know what they're talking about.

by Joss 16.11.15 2:09

BlueBag wrote:
Joss wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
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?
Possibly. I also don't agree with Textusa's swinging theory either though.
Possibly?

Do you think there is something wrong about the elbowless photo analysis?

Obviously if someone was "elbowless" in a photo it wouldn't seem right.

by Joss 16.11.15 2:28

BlueBag wrote:
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.
Really?

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

That neck don't look right to me all the same, but whatever.

by Joss 16.11.15 2:30

Or here, it looks like she has a goiter:

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

by Joss 16.11.15 2:41

My personal opinion is that i hope there would be more than just a supposed last family photo to prove that Madeleine was still around when she was supposed to be, and if the entire case just hinged on the photo alone it would not be very much to go by.

by Guest 16.11.15 7:20

Joss wrote:Or here, it looks like she has a goiter:

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

Good analysis.

Photoshopped head can be taken off the list (again).

by Guest 16.11.15 8:18

The more you look at TextUsa's blog the worse it gets:

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

She can not be serious.

Wrong glasses type.
Wrong pool size.
Wrong photographer position.
Wrong everything.

And she says it's nearly perfect.

Why is anyone taking this seriously?

by joyce1938 16.11.15 10:25

The little chubby neck I think is not unusual with tiny kids. Maddie was a slight child I think when really young . If short the neck will show it. Just a thought as one of my sons had short neck. joyce1938

by Joss 16.11.15 11:31

BlueBag wrote:
Joss wrote:Or here, it looks like she has a goiter:

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

Photoshopped head can be taken off the list (again).

I really dunno about photoshopping, i am no expert in that application and have never used photoshop for anything myself, but just saying her neck looks weird to me is all.
But no neck folds or prominent lines on this photo though, funny that.

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

by joyce1938 16.11.15 11:53

She is quite a bit older in 2nd photo and I think that kids even out after being a bit taller and older. I really don't think all heads are photoshopped. joyce1938

by Joss 16.11.15 12:17

joyce1938 wrote:She is quite a bit older in 2nd photo ,and I think that kids even out after being a bit taller and older ,I really don't think all heads are photoshopped.joyce1938

I'm not saying anything is "photoshopped" Joyce, just noticing "spot the differences" in some of the photos that i find odd is all.

by Moonbathed skin 16.11.15 14:49

FWIW and IMO the last/not last photograph has as far as photoshopping is concerned become an unnecessary bone of contention between the two sides of the .....It has/Hasn't.... fence, this is particularly true for the "it has" posters.

The reason I say this is that if it proved to have been photoshopped (and I'm not saying it has been) then TM will just give another one of their lame excuses sorry explanations, for instance "Kate was topless", "Sean was piddling in the pool" "there were other peoples children in the photograph" etc. And it would just have to be swallowed in the same way as the reasons for the washing of cuddle cat, the scent of cadaverine being found or the children sharing a toothbrush. Are any of TM's explanations credible on these three things? not IMO, but it is falls on SY or PJ to prove otherwise. So unless the original photo was found then any enquirey would have to accept at face value the " yes, we had to photoshop it as there were other peoples children in the photograph" or whatever they can think up, and if it was photoshopped then they will already have an explanation ready to be trotted out.

Just my humble opinion.

by Joss 16.11.15 16:40

Moonbathed skin wrote:FWIW and IMO the last/not last photograph has as far as photoshopping is concerned become an unnecessary bone of contention between the two sides of the .....It has/Hasn't.... fence, this is particularly true for the "it has" posters.

The reason I say this is that if it proved to have been photoshopped (and I'm not saying it has been) then TM will just give another one of their lame excuses sorry explanations, for instance "Kate was topless", "Sean was piddling in the pool" "there were other peoples children in the photograph" etc. And it would just have to be swallowed in the same way as the reasons for the washing of cuddle cat, the scent of cadaverine being found or the children sharing a toothbrush. Are any of TM's explanations credible on these three things? not IMO, but it is falls on SY or PJ to prove otherwise. So unless the original photo was found then any enquirey would have to accept at face value the " yes, we had to photoshop it as there were other peoples children in the photograph" or whatever they can think up, and if it was photoshopped then they will already have an explanation ready to be trotted out.

Just my humble opinion.

I agree that they would have an explanation too if it was proven the photo was photoshopped. I think the best one i have heard yet was K. McC had handled corpses before their holiday in PDL, that was the reason for the cadaver transfer on the McCann items the dogs alerted to. As if.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.15 17:31

Moonbathed skin wrote:FWIW and IMO the last/not last photograph has as far as photoshopping is concerned become an unnecessary bone of contention between the two sides of the .....It has/Hasn't.... fence, this is particularly true for the "it has" posters.

The reason I say this is that if it proved to have been photoshopped...then TM will just give another one of their lame excuses sorry explanations, for instance..."yes, we had to photoshop it as there were other peoples children in the photograph" or whatever they can think up, and if it was photoshopped then they will already have an explanation ready to be trotted out.

The 'bone of contention' is being fought over because the subject does matter. It is far from being 'unnecessary'.

I want to re-examine some points in bobbin's long ramble today about x-axes and y-axes, which tried to overwhelm the clearest possible evidence provided by 'knitted' in his video that - of course - vertical lines on sunglasses ARE possible. He provided absolute proof that it is possible.

Here are some points made by bobbin in that post - and some others I want to refer to:
-------

bobbin said: "In the polls on the Maddie case, there are more people who in their gut instinct feel that the image in Gerry’s sunglasses in the last photo is incorrect and therefore it must have been manipulated into place rather than occurring naturally. It is always a sound reaction to trust gut instincts".

REPLY: It's true that the balance of opinion to date in those two polls is that the photo has been photoshopped. Although it must be said that a majority prefer 'The Last Photo is genuine' to Textusa's ideas. A substantial proportion of the 188 people who have voted agree that it's been photoshopped, but disagree with Textusa on how.

I am not sure that it can be said that everyone who voted 'It's been photoshopped' is doing so form a 'gut instinct', but I'll that pass.

In any event, the poll is just a snapshot of opinion at this moment in time. Soon after Operation Grange was set up, the forum-owner ran a poll about Grange headed just 'Whitewash' or 'Justice'. I had called it an expensive charade from Day One. The poll verdict was, by a considerable majority, that Grange was an honest search for the truth and not a cover-up. The poll was re-run three years later, and almost no-one thought it was an honest search for the truth.

bobbin wrote: "Both flat-earthians and instinctives agree the imagery to be pool side and pool water".

REPLY: So, describing those who think the Last Photo is genuine, including Prof H Farid, as 'flat-earther'? Not nice. Not nice at all.

bobbin: "Every photo of sunglasses worn perpendicular to the face of an upright person, looking face on, will show reflection of the lines in the true image of the field of vision".

REPLY: Then you just have to watch knitted's video again. Plus the fact (as I think is admitted by bobbin) that the lenses in Gerry's sunglasses are not straight, they are curved

bobbin: " Conclusion. In the video above, the expert does not replicate the conditions of the last photo".

REPLY: 'knitted' did not carry out an exact replication of the 'Last Photo' conditions - but he didn't need to. He intended to defeat the claim by both bobbin & Textusa that you could NEVER - under any circumstances - get vertical lines in sunglasses. He did that successfully.

bobbin: "The common experience of the instinctives is that when they are looking at reflective sun glasses, the sun glasses will reflect the scenery behind them, as if they were looking at the true image themselves but with left eye instead of right and vice versa."

REPLY: Again, look at 'knitted's video for a practical demonstration.

bobbin: "The laws of mathematical geometry confirm the instinctives’ belief".

REPLY: Quite simply, a false statement of fact. Once again, knitted's video tells you all you need to know - and from his video we can see how the image in the (acrylic) sunglasses varies as he moves around. We do not need reams of pages from a Grade 8 Mathematics book or a degree in Physics to work this out.

'knitted's practical demonstration provides all the proof we need - and of course avoids the convoluted explanations that folk like bobbin and Textusa have to resort to, one they maintain that the sunglasses have been photoshopped.

Nuala Seation and Textusa "I'm not interested in what your experts had to say. We don't know who they are and we don't know what questions they were asked. Besides which no-one should blindly take the word of an expert and I'm surprised that you do. Anyone who has seen expert witnesses giving testimony in court cases knows two experts on the same subject can have totally opposing views. So expecting to shut down this debate with the "experts" argument isn't going to work. We're intelligent people with minds of our own and we use them.

REPLY: The plain fact is that PeterMac has gone to two acknowledged top experts, and they, independently of each other, pronounce the Last Photo 'genuine' with no evidence of photoshopping. Speaking for the 'Last Photo is genuine' brigade, I don't think any of us are saying that their opinion is the 'last word'. Let the photoshopping camp get hold two acknowledged experts, also using forensic techniques, who can say that the photo has been photoshopped - and then tell us how - and the debate will be more even. But until they do, the photoshopping brigade amateurs are simply preferring their own individualist impressions over the experts. And one of the other key problems for the photoshopping brigade is that they all furiously differ amongst themselves about HOW it has been photoshopped.



Nuala Seaton, Textusa and bobbin: "The reflection in GM's sunglasses is impossible. The photo was photoshopped".

REPLY: Watch 'knitted's video

by Guest 16.11.15 17:43

BlueBag wrote:The more you look at TextUsa's blog the worse it gets:

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

She can not be serious.

Wrong glasses type.
Wrong pool size.
Wrong photographer position.
Wrong everything.

And she says it's nearly perfect.

Why is anyone taking this seriously?

I wonder why bobbin didn't respond to this.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.15 17:58

BlueBag wrote:
BlueBag wrote:The more you look at TextUsa's blog the worse it gets:

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

She can not be serious.

Wrong glasses type.
Wrong pool size.
Wrong photographer position.
Wrong everything.

And she says it's nearly perfect.

Why is anyone taking this seriously?
I wonder why bobbin didn't respond to this.

I think bobbin 'instinctively' feels that Textusa is right about everything - and that she must be accepted without question. As do 40-odd other souls on here, apparently.

(Signed) A Flat Earther

by Doug D 16.11.15 18:32

Never had a problem with the sunglasses or anything else in the picture, other than the composition, which gut instinct to me suggests the insertion of MM.

Even a rubbish photographer taking a photo of three people would get them all somewhere near the middle unless there was a reason not to and as I have said before, with digital cameras, nobody ever takes just one photo, ‘just in case’, so where are the other similar photos, especially the one which would have had AM looking up after KM called her?

There is nothing of note to the left as we look at it and if there was someone else who would have been in shot to the right if not taken in the way it has, I am sure we would have heard about them.

If Textusa’s suggestion of a contrived photo taken a couple of weeks later was correct, surely they would have made a better job of it?

Prof H Farid has apparently come up with computer analysis programs for photos which in this case produce no evidence of photoshopping, but I have little doubt that a program could equally be written to allow a photoshop insert and average/blur the pixel colours at the edges of any insert to leave no evidence and create/correct any shadows etc.
Much the same sort of program working around in the other direction surely?

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.15 19:03

Doug D wrote:Never had a problem with the sunglasses or anything else in the picture, other than the composition, which gut instinct to me suggests the insertion of MM.

Prof H Farid has apparently come up with computer analysis programs for photos which in this case produce no evidence of photoshopping, but I have little doubt that a program could equally be written to allow a photoshop insert and average/blur the pixel colours at the edges of any insert to leave no evidence and create/correct any shadows etc.

Much the same sort of program working around in the other direction surely?

@ DougD Did you see BlueBag's posts on page 6 of the thread where he dealt more than adequately with the possibility that Madeleine had been photoshopped in.

With very persuasive analysis of the two Madeleine pics (with elbow, without elbow), he showed that the photo of Madeleine on her own was photoshopped FROM, i.e. OUT OF the 'Last Photo', and not photoshopped in (as Textusa and bobbin suggest).

If you've not already seen that analysis, please have a look and come back here and give us your verdict,

I think a photoshopping programme that could precisely determine where shadows might fall on a photo that is photoshopped in would be a very ambitious project indeed.

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...