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

by hentie 16.11.15 19:20

Two independent experts who declared photo not photo shopped.
Surely if there was any software available to disguise photo shopping, these experts would know it as a possibility and not give a definitive answer?
Just a thought.

by Doug D 16.11.15 21:39

TB:

@ 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,’

Bluebag P.5. 11.35 :

‘Another reason TextUsa is wrong:

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

Yes I have seen it, but sorry, Bluebag is displaying false logic here imo.

Yes, I agree that the shot of MM on her own has clearly been photoshopped out of the ‘last picture’, not very well, with just a bit of quick cut and pasting of the wall etc to build up the background, but that does not preclude her from having been professionally photoshopped in, in the first place.

It would be interesting to see the two expert opinions in full, as to whether they actually say ‘no evidence of photoshopping’ or ‘not photo shopped’ which is what hentie is now saying.

As for:

‘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.’

any program looking for photoshopped anomalies would be looking for exactly the same types of discrepancies that a ‘create’ program would be seeking to build in, so sophistication wise, I reckon it would be very similar.

Shadows are very much an inexact science, in yes they fall where they should fall, but small differences such as leaning back or leaning forward, even if ever so slight, make differences, so without the complete 3D picture it is impossible to tell exactly where they should fall and no program is going to identify that with 100% certainty.

If the experts are actually categoric with a ‘not photo shopped’ verdict, I will happily fall on my sword and remove my 'gut feeling'.

by sammi1967 16.11.15 21:50

Concerning the image in the lens of the sunglasses.....wouldn't it be easier to look through hundreds of holiday snaps online to see how many images are vertical instead of horizontal...this would be a good indication of how possible it is. If anyone has the patience to do so.

by **Jill Havern** 16.11.15 21:59

Professor Farid sent this link to PeterMac to help explain his analysis: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Grande Finale 16.11.15 22:10

1) textusa assumes GM's glasses convex in both horizontal and vertical planes but this is not the case (see image below.) this flat plane makes a vertical image possible as per the youtube video.

2) If sunglasses were hanging from GM's Tshirt then GM's Chin is missing from the reflection.

3) The important point is the date of this photograph and according to all sources this is easily altered.

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

by Guest 17.11.15 7:51

Doug D wrote:TB:

@ 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,’

Bluebag P.5. 11.35 :

‘Another reason TextUsa is wrong:

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

Yes I have seen it, but sorry, Bluebag is displaying false logic here imo.

There is no false logic in what I said.

You even agree with what I said.

Bizarre.

People WERE claiming that Madeleine was photoshopped in from the picture without the elbow. I guess that claim will disappear for a while now (don't worry someone will resurrect it like it was never debunked).

TextUSa uses that picture in her 3 picture composite graphic.

No false logic.

But now the goalposts are moving once again as they always do... now we have yet another photo thrown in that Madeleine was supposedly photoshopped from.

How convoluted do you want to get?

by Guest 17.11.15 7:52

Grande Finale wrote:1) textusa assumes GM's glasses convex in both horizontal and vertical planes but this is not the case (see image below.) this flat plane makes a vertical image possible as per the youtube video.

2) If sunglasses were hanging from GM's Tshirt then GM's Chin is missing from the reflection.

3) The important point is the date of this photograph and according to all sources this is easily altered.

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

ABSOLUTELY!!!

TextUsa analysis is totally bogus.

by Guest 17.11.15 8:00

Tony Bennett wrote:
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

I'll say it again.

Why is anyone with half a brain listening to the junk she is saying?

Just look at that picture.... it's garbage.

by Guest 17.11.15 8:13

Well, well, well...

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

Outrageous.

And a key to what is going on with this crap.

I think we are looking at inverse reputation management.

by Joannep43 17.11.15 8:15

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The obvious thing to me is what another poster has mentioned.If this photo had been take on or around the 18th May then Gerry McCann would have quite a suntan.This photo looks like it was taken on the first or second day of the holiday.Occams razor is an old principle which says the simplest answer is usually correct not the more complex theory.It is still relevant today.Its simple to change a date.

by Guest 17.11.15 8:33

Photographer higher than subject.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The curvature in the horizontal plane makes no difference, you are going see reflections below Gerry's glasses.

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

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

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.15 8:43

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

----------

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

The theory

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

18 Obvious problems with the theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Another top expert reached similar conclusions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. Matching the shadows perfectly would be almost impossible.

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

“Textusa has posted again today explaining why the photo must have been manipulated. It is a detailed post which, in my view, determines that the Last Photo has been manipulated. It goes against the Law of Physics, otherwise. Will people still say it is genuine (albeit with EXIF data altered)? I guess so, but will be interested to hear their explanations”.

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

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

A note on photos that look fake - by Professor Harry Farid
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Wednesday, 29th June 2011

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 at 2:45PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENDS

by Doug D 17.11.15 10:21

Bluebag, the false logic is that because the photo of MM on her own was cut from the last photo, as evidenced by the poor cut and paste of the brick wall etc, you seem to imply that this precludes just MM (not bits of wall, ground etc) having been photoshopped in in the first place, although in the scheme of things it really doesn’t matter.

As GrandeFinale says:

‘The important point is the date of this photograph and according to all sources this is easily altered.’

and PeterMac’s weather analysis is about as good as it gets, even if not conclusive, as we are never going to get to definitive exif date from the information available.

I have never had a problem with the reflections, shadows etc, which is what Prof Farid is talking about in the article he sent to PeterMac, but I would still love to see exactly how categoric the experts are about ‘no photoshopping’ or just ‘no evidence of photoshopping’.

Either way I think Textusa is leading people up the garden path.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.15 10:44

Doug D wrote:Either way I think Textusa is leading people up the garden path.

@ Doug D Thank you for giving this further consideration.

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

-----------

1st EXPERT - Professor Harry Farid

"I have taken an initial look at the image. The artefacts alluded to in the pdf document that you sent are simply JPEG compression artefacts (as described here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ). If you magnify other parts of the image you will see similar artefacts. I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent -- they are. I see no other anomalies in the photo. So, at first glance, I see no evidence of photo tampering.

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

Regards,

Professor Farid

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

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

by sallypelt 17.11.15 10:52

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

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

-----------

1st EXPERT - Professor Harry Farid

"I have taken an initial look at the image. The artefacts alluded to in the pdf document that you sent are simply JPEG compression artefacts (as described here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ). If you magnify other parts of the image you will see similar artefacts. I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent -- they are. I see no other anomalies in the photo. So, at first glance, I see no evidence of photo tampering.

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

Regards,

Professor Farid

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

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

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

by Guest 17.11.15 10:57

Doug D wrote:Bluebag, the false logic is that because the photo of MM on her own was cut from the last photo, as evidenced by the poor cut and paste of the brick wall etc, you seem to imply that this precludes just MM (not bits of wall, ground etc) having been photoshopped in in the first place, although in the scheme of things it really doesn’t matter.

No I never used that "false logic".

I implied no such thing.

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

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

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

by Doug D 17.11.15 13:00

Fair enough BB, but that was my understanding of what was implied and TB seems to have picked up on it in point 9 above.

Thank you for posting the expert's opinions Tony. Your filing and searching are far superior to mine.

As with most experts they won’t commit themselves, so I’ll stick with my gut feeling about the composition, fairly irrelevant though it may be.

The true exif data for the photo is the important thing and I don’t think we will ever really get to the bottom of it, based on what we have available.

The PJ and presumably OG though is a completely different matter

by Guest 17.11.15 16:48

BlueBag wrote:Photographer higher than subject.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The curvature in the horizontal plane makes no difference, you are going see reflections below Gerry's glasses.

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

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

I think TextUsa has stopped approving posts on that blog entry.

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

Not approved.

Must be embarrassing.

by TheTruthWillOut 17.11.15 18:16

BlueBag wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Photographer higher than subject.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The curvature in the horizontal plane makes no difference, you are going see reflections below Gerry's glasses.

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

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

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

Not approved.

Must be embarrassing.

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

Edit: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Just an aside/query.....Is the image above of Gerry in his sunglasses been altered/photoshopped? (outside of the red arrow and line, obviously)

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

Thanks.

by Guest 17.11.15 19:49

TheTruthWillOut,

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

Oh come on!

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

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

No embarrassment or misunderstanding on this side.

by TheTruthWillOut 17.11.15 19:58

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

Grande Finale's cropped image:

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

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

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

Spot the difference....

by Guest 17.11.15 20:06

They are STILL flat glasses in the vertical plane.

So what is your point?

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

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

by TheTruthWillOut 17.11.15 20:18

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

So what is your point?

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

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

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

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

by Guest 17.11.15 20:26

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

So what is your point?

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

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

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

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

Not flat? Are you serious? Just look at the original getty image for goodness sake.

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

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

by TheTruthWillOut 17.11.15 20:39

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

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

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

by Guest 17.11.15 20:44

Yes the logo is blacked out.

No idea why and I don't care much.

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

The glasses are flat in the vertical plane.

That is the point.

by TheTruthWillOut 17.11.15 21:53

BlueBag wrote:Yes the logo is blacked out.

No idea why and I don't care much.

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

The glasses are flat in the vertical plane.

That is the point.

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

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

by Dr What 17.11.15 22:02

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

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

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

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

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.15 22:14

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

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

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

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

Still not one person so far who has been able to respond to the 18-point list of obvious problems with Textusa's theory. I hope that changes, otherwise we must assume that no-one is capable of answering them.

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

by TheTruthWillOut 17.11.15 23:02

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...