Photographs Revisited - general

Silentscope wrote:Oh Verdi, never pass up the chance to take a poke do you?

Where did I say I had read it in PeterMacs ebook?

Not even I can read a whole book in an hour...

Pathetic please stop...

No, YOU stop. Verdi is my appointed moderator who does a fantastic job for this forum, so please refrain from telling him what to do. You've only been here a short time and even I don't speak to him like that.

Do it again, and your membership will be revoked.

@ Sharoni

Did they not go as a family of 5 to the beach bought ice creams - allegedly?

Something too about the families all going for tea at the beach cafe comes to mind?

@ Petermac

No not many photos appear to have been taken.  Certainly not any it would seem as a group as you say.  But did they do much as a group?

Perhaps the other families did take lots of pictures of their own families, but no reason for them to be released into public domain?

Agree, McCanns seem to have been lacking in holiday snaps department

These families don't seem to have spent too much time with their children - maybe the reason not too many pics?

What was it Kate McCann said, they (adults) were more into each other, spent more time doing adult activities, running, tennis, sailing etc.   Weren't with their kids.  If it had just been her and Gerry and the kids she'd have been paying more attention...

And did they not choose this resort as they could dump children off at kids clubs etc to allow adults time to do what they wanted? (like probably all of the other families there, chose the resort for very same reason)  So not going to get tons pictures of them all together, as they weren't that often together as a family/families, by sound of things.

Not what I'd call a family holiday.  I'd have been taking snaps of my children inside the apartment, and throughout the day, to capture it all, all that we did on holiday, even at meal times, and every other time.
 
And in the evenings at the dinner table with my friends and family.

Was there ever any pictures of meal time at the tapas taken by the adults?

Did their mobile phones at that time have camera I wonder?

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

I can see where you are coming from re the picture of Madeleine where you ask if this is two pictures put together.  Wouldn't surprise me.

I think a lot of the pictures online, over the years are not as they should be, tampered with shall we say.  So easy to do these days.   So easy to make a picture tell a very different story from what it was.

I don't find the picture (discussed on another thread  - one which should have been about a thermometer would you believe but Madeleine's pictures became the topic) of Madeleine with the make-up strange at all.   Other than it is a strange picture to use for a missing child campaign - in my opinion.

I doubt Madeleine put the eye shadow on by herself.   No parent would allow a child so young to put mascara or shadow on their eyes for the simple reason they could injure their eyes! A shadow brush or mascara brush in the eye - painful, put an eye out!  A mother if she was happy to allow the shadow would apply it for the child or let the child use their finger.

I did laugh at some saying that the eye shadow was on so perfectly applied that Madeleine couldn't have done it!   Most likely she didn't for above reasons.
Kate probably did!  Still, it is hardly well applied.   It's applied the way you would do for a child having fun!
  
Little girls usually get to do the blusher and the lipstick, not given an instrument that would put an eye out when used by little hands!  
 
I'm sure all you ladies out there will have stuck the mascara wand or eye shadow brush in your eye or had shadow powder fall in your eye, and it all hurts!

Did Kate McCann actually say that Madeleine applied it?  Or, just that Madeleine was playing with her mum's  makeup?


As for the angle of the picture, looks to me as though she's looking up at someone, head back, to show off her make up to them,  the way tiny children do when they want to show you something, or look up to ask you something, head goes back.  Looks perfectly normal and natural to me.

I don't find anything odd either about the photo of Madeleine with the ice cream spoon in her mouth.   What in heavens name is odd about a child eating an ice cream with a spoon?

The picture of her lying at the skirting board - well before I could make any judgement on that I'd need to see it in its entirety, and the context.

I have one, of one of my kids having a temper tantrum lying on floor - one to remind her/give to her children when she complains about their tantrums!

I think too much is being read into innocent pictures!  Little girls like dressing up.  Like playing with makeup.  Like posing!

What I find odd about pictures in the Madeleine case is that they used a picture for press release, when she first disappeared of a much younger Madeleine!

That could not have been helpful (if someone genuinely wanted a child to be found)

When you look at other later pictures of Madeleine, she looks very much  different.  One of these would have been more appropriate for the purpose.

In fact, in a lot of the later pictures of Madeleine online she not only looks more mature than her then almost 4 years, but quite different from picture to picture too, you have to take a double take to see that it is Madeleine.

The picture they first used of her, was striking, memorable, I haven't seen any other picture of her that you could say likewise of.   Not intended in a derogatory way, but she just looks like any little girl.   

But that was no reason to use a picture which really would not be helpful to the public if looking out for her, as it did not resemble the 4 year old Madeleine.

So I have to ask why?   Why did they not have a more recent picture of her available for that first release?

I am new to the forum and it feels kind of rude to just start a new thread. But the other threads on this topic are old, so if I’m doing something wrong I apologize. I mainly just want to share a theory and see if it stands up to scrutiny, as I am far from being an expert on the subject.

What got me interested in the topic is PeterMac’s excellent book, and, specifically, his chapter on the last photo. One of the things that intrigued me was the information that the photo was taken at 2:29 and the McCanns took pains to convince everyone that the EXIF data of 1:29 was wrong by one hour. PeterMac hand waves this detail away as being unimportant, but I wasn’t convinced. It certainly did not seem unimportant to the McCanns. For one thing, it makes more sense for them to claim the photograph was taken at 1:29 on May 3, as the creche records contradict the 2:29 time. It only gave Kate and Madeleine a minute to get back to the creche for Madeleine to be signed in at 2:30. So either the crèche records are wrong or the photo wasn’t taken at 2:29 on May 3. Of course, I realize that both the crèche records and the last photo have been called into serious question, but I am looking at this from the perspective of the McCanns. Why not go with the 1:29 time since there is no written record of Kate and Madeleine’s whereabouts at 1:29? And how could they get the time wrong? They didn’t triple check it just to make sure before they revealed it to the public. I figured it might have something to do with the shadows in the photograph, and so I took a closer look, and that’s when I unsuspectingly took a dive into Pandora’s Box.

So this is my theory in a nutshell. The photo needed to be taken at solar zenith because it somehow aided in them altering the photo without making it obvious that the image had been manipulated. They forgot, however, to account for Daylight Savings Time, as solar zenith does not take that into account, and they didn’t realize their mistake until after they had released it.

Well, unfortunately, I’m going to have subject everyone to an astronomy lesson, or at least my understanding of an astronomy lesson. The first term I’m introducing is solar noon. Solar noon is the point at which the sun will appear to be at its highest location in the sky to someone observing it on the ground. The only place that solar noon and solar zenith are the same is the tropics. The best way I can think to describe this discrepancy is that solar noon is where we perceive the highest point of the sun’s arc to be in the sky at any given location and solar zenith is where it actually is based on the fixed celestial plane of the sun. For illustration, imagine you are standing on a horizontal plane. You and the plane would form a 90 degree angle, and then if you extended the vertical line of your body above your head straight up, the point where that line intersected with the sun’s arc would be solar noon, and that is basically the case in the tropics where the sun’s celestial plane lines up with the equator. However, what if the horizontal plane is tilted? Obviously, that is going to skewer our perspective, and since we are tilted 23 1/2 degrees in relation to the sun, everyone outside the tropics is on a tilted plane. Solar noon also does not necessarily line up with the clock either. For example, solar noon in Praia Da Luz today is 1:40 pm.

So what does this to do with the last photo? It has to do with how shadows move throughout the day. Before I launch into that, I’ll lay some ground rules so I don’t have to keep repeating caveats. I’m only talking about the northern hemisphere, only about the sun as the source of the shadows rather than artificial light sources, and I am also well aware that seasons, equinoxes, solstices, etc., all come into play here. However, I don’t believe my theory relies on being that accurate or detailed, though I realize I could be wrong and would like to know, if that is the case.

So, as everybody knows a shadow is cast in the opposite direction from the sun. Thus, in Praia Da Luz, shadows would start in the west and travel clockwise, or east, as the day progresses, with solar noon being the midway point. If you are familiar with a sun dial, then you know what I’m talking about. However, shadows will have what I term a northern bias. They will never be cast directly east or west because the sun’s position is not just east or west for Praia Da Luz. It is also south. While solar noon is the highest point in the sky and the point at which shadows are the shortest, there is still going to be shadows. The sun will be high, but slightly facing due north, and the shadows cast will be pointing due north as well. The sun will then begin moving in a westerly direction, meaning the shadows will be moving eastward. At solar zenith, the sun will still be high in the sky, meaning the shadows will still be short, but they will have a northeastern direction.

Yep, an entire astronomy lesson just to prove that the shadows in the pool photo should be pointing at least slightly northeast. The thing is, do they?

Okay, I followed the instructions about loading images, so I hope I did it right. In any case, the first one I uploaded is the pool photo. First, I will point out that all the shadows in this photo are caused by the sun. That means any and all shadows in this photo will point in the opposite directions from the sun’s position. So we see that a shadow is being cast on Madeleine, traveling from right to left (from the standpoint of the photographer) and at a downward angle. The shadow is possibly a combination of her hair, hat, and maybe even her head, as the sun is still very high, and those are the only parts of her body that would get in the way of the rays. On Amelie we see same thing, except her hat has a larger brim, so the shadows actually begin at her left shoulder. This is a key point and is good proof that whatever they did to the photo, Madeleine and Amelie are depicted accurately in relationship to the sun and each other. The play of shadows over them is in agreement.

Jerry, on the other hand, is another matter. I will point out that his shadow does have the same right to left sort of downward direction as the ones cast on his daughters. However, I can’t understand why his shadow is so big when the front part of his body seems slightly more oriented to the sun’s direction. The shadow should have even more of a downward slant towards the left of him and yet that is not the case. I can’t explain it, so I’m just choosing to ignore it for right now.

So what can we deduce about the sun’s position. We can deduce that it is high in the sky, to the upper left (right for the photographer) of Madeleine and behind her to some degree (whether slight or not, I can’t tell). 

The next image I uploaded is a satellite image of the Ocean Club I got off Google maps. All the research I have done puts the three McCanns on the right side of the pool and slightly left and above where the path leads out of the small pool area to the larger pool area when looking at the satellite image, which is basically a northern view. Although this is an extremely clunky way of doing it, I lined up the small pool with the compass on the far right side of the satellite image. You should be able to see it on the extreme right edge of the satellite. When I did that, I found that north was pointing right at the position where the three are sitting. If the pool was a sundial, they would be solar noon, which means that the shadows are being cast in a slightly southwestern direction. Meaning the sun in this photo is in the northeastern sky…at 2:29 PM. Unless somebody can provide proof that the sun sets in the east in Portugal, I don’t see how this photograph could not be altered.

______________________________________________________________________

Topic merged Mod

Welcome to the forum Winter 

There are no photographs in your post.

Thanks for the heads up. I think I forgot to hit insert, and the bad part is that it’s not giving me the option to edit.

Thanks also for the Suncalc. I wish I had found that before my post. However, my theory isn’t dependent on knowing exactly where they are in relation to the pool. At solar zenith, the sun is always going to be slightly southwest and high in the sky. Taking the McCanns at their word, all I had to do was figure out where the sun was in the photograph. If this was taken at solar zenith, then that location would be the same regardless of any other elements in the photograph.. Once you know that, you can determine how the people in the photograph are oriented in relation to a sun being in the high slightly southwestern sky. This means if I got the location of the sun right and it’s solar zenith, then the McCanns could only be due south. It’s true that I concluded they are due north because of the compass. However, the only other place they could be is due south, and the background doesn’t support this. I could, of course, be calculating the angle of the shadows wrong, but that is the only way in which I think my theory would be wrong. Of course, if we take solar zenith off the table, then that gives us more room for debate. However, the McCanns were very adamant that this was taken at 2:29.

G'day Winter.
thanks for the lesson on the sun and azimuth. Most illuminating.
As to your argument that the last photo, when 'looking at this from the perspective of the McCanns' was taken on 3rd May at 2.29 pm does need further development to have validity, especially after dismissively stating 'PeterMac hand waves this detail away as being unimportant, but I wasn’t convinced''. Very brave.
Anyway, to further develop your 2.29 justification, you may wish to address the following points and of course, upload your proof photos and diagrams.

1. You do need to explain how the McCann's addressed computer clock drift and synchronisation on their simple, battery powered Canon sureshot camera
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I would be amazed if their camera was effectively synchronised for days, hours and minutes, unless they had reason to do. I never bothered when on holiday, but then, I wasn't on active service.
2. Please can you explain why the shadows on Gerry are at a different angle and length than those of his daughters.
3. Please can you further explain how you know that the photo was taken on the 3rd may and not say, a week later.
4. You do need to discuss the potential manipulation of the EXIF photo metadata time date stamping. Using this as proof in 2007 met the needs of the British Press, but now we are all wiser and know how easy it is to over write data via PC.

WOW Winter, that's some daring introduction for a new member!  A trifle blustery but I'll put that down to high spirits at this juncture.

Firstly I will say how sorry I am that you feel, as a new member, that CMOMM is failing to keep threads fresh, something we strive to do as deemed necessary.  I will of course look into that without further delay.  

Meanwhile, I will take your first post in isolation.  As it stands your first post doesn't warrant a new thread, as you may be aware the subject of the 'last photograph', the poolside photograph, has been the subject of extensive study and analysis here on CMOMM, the subject has you could say been exhausted!   But of course we are always open to new ideas, providing they fall within the realms of tangible.

The fact that you haven't uploaded the mentioned photographs has already been highlighted.  You don't need to edit your first post, you can post again uploading the photographs without problem!

I wonder what makes you appear 14 years down the line with a very controversial observation when you appear to have studied the forum and the photograph in great detail, I guess from this you are not new to the forum, even if only a lurker.

You say you were drawn to the subject by forum member PeterMac's e-book, yet you instantly dismiss the entire study on the premise of lack of attention to the McCann camera photograph time stamp.  However, if you thoroughly and attentively read PeterMac's e-book you will note that he pays much attention to the time and day the photograph was most likely taken, including the sun's zenith, the weather and shadows!  Whilst perusing the forum on the subject of the poolside photograph, did you also take note of the extensive coverage the subject has taken - the study and analysis, not only by esteemed forum member PeterMac who you so readily dismiss, but other critical thinkers?  I think the answer to that is no - you haven't.

So that leads me to the present.  I have moved your first post here , where it belongs at this stage to see how it develops.  As it stands it doesn't warrant a place of it's own but we can always review the situation should the need arise.

Lest they forget - the poolside photograph..

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

No one is obliged to agree nor disagree with everything written on this forum, we all have are own viewpoint but don't presume to ignore different aspects as if they've never been addressed, especially if only in favour of your own attention.

Welcome to the forum by the way.

I have no idea what I put in my post that would indicate I’m dismissing people’s theory or don’t have any respect for them. And somehow addressing issues that have never been addressed is interpreted as ignoring them? Yes, I have been lurking. I only posted now because I thought I had something to contribute. I would never claim that other people didn’t see it or even that my theory is correct. I specifically stated in my post that I was deliberately opening my theory up to scrutiny. I’m not an astronomer or a mariner, and I never claimed I’m an expert. As far as I can tell, the main thing PeterMac is discussing is what day the photo was taken on. I’m not contradicting him on this. And he never states any proof he has that the last photo was taken at solar zenith. He doesn’t because he doesn’t believe it’s important and that’s the only thing I fundamentally disagree with him on. I said I disagree with him and I stated my reasons. All he stated about the time itself is that it was between 12:30 and 2:30.because the shadows are very short. He never talks about the way shadows are pointing or where the sun is. He also doesn’t completely close the door on possible photo manipulation. Obviously, it’s not the way he is leaning at the moment. However, his book shows that he does keep his mind open and will adjust a theory if he has good reason for doing so, and that’s all we can ask of anyone. Just stating my theory does not automatically dismiss everyone else’s theory. However, I apologize if I gave you or anyone else the wrong impression. I tend to be forceful with the way I speak, and I try to soften it. Evidently, I’m not always successful In this. I have, however searched diligently for any thread or a portion in PeterMac’s book for my specific contention, and I never seen it discussed. Had I, I would not have posted, as PeterMac had two experts looking at it. I myself am having a hard time accepting my own theory, as I don’t know how they could have faked it and gotten away with it. It’s not a theory I just leapt to. When people were arguing about the black line or whatever, I immediately did some research and found arguments that I thought explained it adequately. I found plenty of discussions about the photo but nothing specifically addressing my problem. Despite the length of my post, I can boil it down to one question: Why are the three McCann’s sitting in a spot they could not be sitting in if my interpretation is correct? It’s either doctored or my interpretation is not correct. If I’m incorrect and someone has time to spare, then showing me the error of my ways would be greatly appreciated.

Okay, I still can’t edit my first post, so I’ll put the images here for now. It will be good practice.

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

Okay, Verdi’s post indicates to me that I may have given the wrong impression. I’m not arguing that the photo was not taken on Sunday, April 29th. I am also not arguing that the photo wasn’t taken at solar zenith. As short as the shadows are on Madeleine and Amelia, I completely agree with PeterMac that they were taken between the hours of 12:30 pm and 2:30 pm. In fact, the McCanns adamant stance that the photo was taken at solar zenith is what led me to believe that the original photo might have been taken at solar zenith and they lined up the elements that they added or manipulated to give the appearance that they lined up with solar zenith. It is interesting to note that the shadows in the photo actually lie upon the solar zenith line. It’s only that the source is in the wrong position. Move the sun from the northeast to the southwest and you have solar zenith. This, I believe would make it easier to manipulate the photo without getting caught right away.. I do, however, have serious doubts about Jerry. I do not believe he was in the original image. What I do think is possible  is that they used a photograph of Jerry taken on Sunday about an hour so later than the one of the girls. It would not be solar zenith, but the shadows would still be going in the same direction. This would explain the discrepancies between the short shadows on the girls and the longer shadows on him.. I had initially theorized that the reason fo the dates being wrong was because they didn’t take Daylight Savings Time into account. Yet, when I looked  it up in PeterMac’s book, he says solar zenith is at 1.29. I don’t know if he’s taking Daylight Savings into account. However, if he is, then the photo of the girls could have been taken at the solar zenith of 1.29 while the one of Jerry was taken an hour later at 2.29.

While I don’t know how popular the theory is, mine actually unintentionally supports the one about the reflection in Jerry’s sunglasses being rotated. When flipped horizontally, it seems to be a reflection of the background in the pool photo where Jerry was sitting. This is understandable if the photo was taken when he was on the opposite side of the pool from where he is in the photograph.  There is a shadow in the reflection and when viewed horizontally and flipping it, as it is a reflection, it would lay in rhe direction of solar zenith. However, the shadow is a bit long for solar zenith, and this could be explained by the hour time difference between the two photos. The edge of Amelie’s hat can be seen in the reflection, so what they may have been doing is just sitting around the pool area while Kate was taking several pictures of them.

I realize that some people believe that the sunglasses were not purchased until Tuesday, May 1. However, the only person with a firsthand account of this seems to be Kate and considering the pack of lies she has told, I’m really not inclined to believe it without further proof. She could have just been saying that to bolster the fact that the last photo was taken around lunchtime on Thursday. If not for the sunglasses, there really is no reason for Jerry to be in the photograph. It is interesting to note that it was Tuesday, either the day of or the day after many people believe something tragic happened to Madeleine, that Jerry decided he suddenly needed sunglasses. The weather really wasn’t sunglasses’ weather at that point. And possibly the reflection in the glasses was flipped to edit Kate out. Jerry is looking right at her, so she should be in the reflection, and we are actually seeing only the background reflected in one lens. If it is supposed to be horizontal what would the reflection in the other lens show?

So at least as far as I can tell, it wouldn’t really take much editing. The shadows would line up.along the solar zenith line. Only Jerry’s is out of sync, but then obviously they didn’t do a good job of editing it. And the same could be said for the horizontal flip in the sunglasses. The biggest problem would be the background. I know how difficult it is to change that without tipping someone off. If that’s what happened, I don’t know how they did it. That is the weakest part of my theory.

Aha I see Winter, so through all that highfalutin bluster what you're actually saying is you think the poolside photograph was photoshopped - just as I thought!

Fourteen years of study and analysis gone in a puff of bluster!

I ask again, did you/have you/will you thoroughly read and absorb the full content of PeterMac's e-book and the wealth of member contribution to this subject here on CMOMM?  A rhetorical question of course.

Meanwhile enjoy the forum and feel free to comment on any other aspect of this convoluting case - the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann.

Oh and my the way in the interest of accuracy, it's Gerry with a G as in Gerald, not Jerry with a J as in Tom 'n Jerry!



ETA:  This alone should keep you going for a while..

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

I am not comfortable with the idea that it is photoshopped, Verdi, and that is basically because I have read all the posts and the fourteen years of research. Photoshopping a picture and getting away with it would probably be harder than the McCanns pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes. The reason for my “bluster” and insanely long explanation is because I was uncomfortable about even suggesting the theory. It only comes from one thing and that has to do with the shadows seeming to indicate that the sun is in a position it can’t be at that particular time. I do not have any other proof. There is nothing that suggests my theory is right. And I don’t believe even that suggests my theory is right. My perception and knowledge leave plenty of doubt that I simply could be mistaken. And I honestly don’t know what else to say. I’m sorry that even bringing it up just automatically seems to mean I’m dismissing everybody’s research when, for me, I was just hoping someone had an easy explanation. So, all I can say at this point is I apologize. I won’t make he mistake again.

Winter wrote:I am not comfortable with the idea that it is photoshopped, Verdi, and that is basically because I have read all the posts and the fourteen years of research. Photoshopping a picture and getting away with it would probably be harder than the McCanns pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes.

Excuse my hignorance, but doesn't this equate to photoshopping, or image manipulation, or image adjustment - call it what you will..

Winter wrote:In fact, the McCanns adamant stance that the photo was taken at solar zenith is what led me to believe that the original photo might have been taken at solar zenith and they lined up the elements that they added or manipulated to give the appearance that they lined up with solar zenith. It is interesting to note that the shadows in the photo actually lie upon the solar zenith line. It’s only that the source is in the wrong position. Move the sun from the northeast to the southwest and you have solar zenith. This, I believe would make it easier to manipulate the photo without getting caught right away.. I do, however, have serious doubts about Jerry. I do not believe he was in the original image. What I do think is possible is that they used a photograph of Jerry taken on Sunday about an hour so later than the one of the girls. It would not be solar zenith, but the shadows would still be going in the same direction. This would explain the discrepancies between the short shadows on the girls and the longer shadows on him.. I had initially theorized that the reason fo the dates being wrong was because they didn’t take Daylight Savings Time into account. Yet, when I looked it up in PeterMac’s book, he says solar zenith is at 1.29. I don’t know if he’s taking Daylight Savings into account. However, if he is, then the photo of the girls could have been taken at the solar zenith of 1.29 while the one of Jerry was taken an hour later at 2.29.

One of the things I say in my Chapters about the Last=Pool photo is that it is largely irrelevant whether it was taken at 13:29 or 14:29; 12:29 or 15:29.
That is not the issue.
The issue is whether it was taken on Thursday 3rd May 2007.
It wasn't.
It CANNOT have been taken on 3/5/7, nor yet on 2/5/7, 1/5/7, or even 30/4/7

It can ONLY have been taken on Sunday 29th April 2007.
That is the only possible day a genuine photo of that scene could have been taken.

But the McCanns have to insist it was, because it is the only evidence they can adduce that Madeleine was alive and well at lunchtime on that day.
And their insistence on this leads to another conclusion altogether.

Keep your eye on the squirrel 

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

I tried not to come to a snap judgment, but it’s very clear to me, Verdi, that all you’re interested in doing is launching personal attacks. Considering that, I consider whatever negative things you have said about as backhanded compliments. I finally found someone who was willing to treat me like a reasonable human being, and I responded as one when I accepted the fact that I was wrong.

Thanks to everyone else in the thread and thanks, PeterMac. I did say more once than once that I was not taking issue with you over what day the photo was taken and couldn’t possibly be taking issue over the time, as you said it was 12:30 to 2:30, and that’s what I believe. That’s was an argument Verdi made it into. I did wonder about photo manipulation, but only because of the shadow, which I wanted some clarification on. And that’s my only reason for posting in the forum. As questions that even vaguely challenge someone’s pet theory seem to start a war, please delete my membership. And I don’t really care if you delete my posts.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] started and ended by saying he/she was so confused. That is exactly what will see the McCanns get away with the whole thing.There is so much mish mash of evidence that even convinced guilty voters start to wonder. It's spin at its best. Hate to sound like a 'conspiracy nut' but it worked with the Kennedy assassination and 9/11. People just start to give up and these guilty as hell people get off scot free. How does Clarence Mitchell sleep at night?   Steve Cooper

Winter wrote:... please delete my membership. And I don’t really care if you delete my posts.

I'm sorry you feel that way Winter but if you're determined it's better that you unsubscribe yourself, to avoid any future repercussion or misunderstanding. You can do so here..

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

I see no reason to delete your posts.

Whatever your decision I wish you well.

We must thank our departing Winter (Spring? sorry, dad joke) for illuminating the so-called last photo. 
Winter has once again highlighted that Peter Mac's analysis clearly demonstrates, beyond reasonable doubt, that the photo was taken on a different sunny day, that of saturday the 29th April and not the cold and cloudy grey thursday 3rd may, as purported by the McCann's. The McCanns, Clarry and the british press all used the photo Exif time date stamp to legitimise their claim that MBM was alive on that day and on that hour. 

Fair Dinkum Busted! The Exif 'last' photo data, in the form of the time/date field was PC manipulated and we can once again recognise it as another manipulated lie.

I note Silentscope's point, derived from his analysis using the SunCalc tool that due to Gerry McCann's angular, poolside positioning, his shadow length and shadow angles all differ to those of his 2 daughters. This inconsistency implies that his photographic image was rendered at a different solar time (day/hour). I don't propose we dwell on this at this juncture, as any debate would pull us away from the hard evidential fact that the date of last photo was not as per the McCann claim and the EXIF data.

SUNDAY 29th.
They arrived on Saturday 28th, but late afternoon, so only in time for the Children's play area photos, which show a sunny day with large fluffy cumulus clouds – as do all the other hundreds on Flickr
Sunday was cloudless until the evening.
Then the cold weather front moved across from the North west, and did not clear until very late on Thursday evening.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm more interested to know the provenance of that EXIF data - how and why and when it found it's way into the public domain.

To my knowledge it's the only Madeleine holiday photograph to reveal such information.

Silentscope wrote:In the PJ Files there is the Photo of Madeleine in the door of a Playhouse. It is not revealed how the PJ knew the Date and Time?

Page 588- MBM taken in Portugal at 17:15 on Wednesday May 2, 2007


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

Not sure what point you are trying make here but the above reference is not taken from the actual PJ files per se, the images are documented in the PJ files but the interpretation of the images was compiled by one of the volunteer translators, in this instant one ALBYM with the help of Lizzy 'HiDeHo' Taylor, who tried to identify the content of the black and white images taken and documented in the PJ files.  

It's all made clear in the link you provided.

The images are those taken by the McCann holiday group, surrendered to the PJ.  The McCanns with the help of their relation Michael Wright, selected specific images to hand-over to the PJ - the poolside image was not one of them!

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

So I have to ask why?   Why did they not have a more recent picture of her available for that first release?

Answer:
The Tapas 9 withheld - and then selected Photos for release, instead of making everything of possible use available straight away. What they chose to supply was of little use.

The Tapas 9 did not withhold photographs from the PJ.  The McCanns with the help of their relative Michael Wright selected specific photographs from their own equipment before handing over to the PJ.

08-Outros Processos Vol VIII Page 549
NUIPC 201/07.0 GALGS

Visualisation and Analysis of Photographs

On this date, I state that the photographs contained on a CD delivered to this police force by Gerald McCann have been visualised and analysed, some of them are from the holiday period that the McCann family spent at the Ocean Club in PdL, beginning on the 28th April 2007.

The visualisation and analysis of these images that was carried out reveals that there are several photographs of interest to the investigation, in which it is possible to visualise Madeleine McCann.

Portimao, 09 May 2007

Signed by

Inspector Ricardo Paiva

Outros Processos Vol VIII

Page 550

NUIPC 201/07.0 GALGS

Visualisation and Analysis of Photographs

On this date, I state that the photographs contained on a CD delivered to this police force by Michael Wright, a relation of the McCann couple, relating to the holiday period that the McCann family spent at the Ocean Club in PdL, beginning on the 28th April 2007.

The visualisation and analysis of these images that was carried out reveals that there are several photographs of interest to the investigation, in which it is possible to visualise Madeleine McCann, as well as different adults and children that made up the group of friends who were on holiday together with the McCann couple in PdL, which is why these photographs, joined to the report, were printed.

Portimao, 09 May 2007

Signed by

Inspector Ricardo Paiva