Re: 'The Last Photo': The key questions

by jd 16.08.12 18:00

Nina wrote:Re this 'last' photo. Gerry has alwys looked to me as though he was floating on the pool edge. There is no darkening on the pool side behind his hand and leg.
But the main question mark for me, sorry to bring it up again, are the climbing plants. I have them all over my land and gardens and never have they been in such flower in early May. Never. That photo background screams to me late June earl july when the ground is dry and warm. Then and only then have I seen flowers.

When you look at the flowers in some of the pictures that were on the mccann camera (there is a wider angle of this one below somewhere), you can make out that it was not blooming much and seems quite sparse...unlike the poolside photo (which is not on the mccann camera) which is in full bloom
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by ProfessorPPlum 17.08.12 14:06

IMO the mistakes being made here are typical of what happens when you fix your mind on an idea and then look for things to prove it. It's called a 'confirmation bias' - it's very common; we all do it at some point or other.

I share many peoples' belief that this picture may well NOT be the 3rd May 2007 AND my experience and expertise tells me it hasn't been photoshopped (not by the McCanns, not by a family friend and not by the Intelligence Services in some huge conspiracy situation).

If it isn't 3rd May 2007 and it hasn't been photoshopped then there are only two other possibilities:

1) That it was earlier in the holiday (the only significant objection seems to be the issue of flowers blooming). Let's research that objection.

2) That it was another holiday in the same place the previous year. Did they holiday in PDL previously? If so when? How old were the children then? Should be easy to postulate and confirm or disprove.

Out of interest, does anyone have a link to the high resolution picture with the time-stamp on it? Why are we not seeing it on the version linked to in this thread?

by Miraflores 17.08.12 16:55

The twins were born in February 2005 I believe, so supposing the photo had been taken the previous August/September Amelie would have been 18/19 months old. I forget what size small children are now, but I would have thought that she was more than 18 ish months in the last photo.

The bouganvilla in flower is a mystery.

by **tigger** 17.08.12 17:08

Miraflores wrote:The twins were born in February 2005 I believe, so supposing the photo had been taken the previous August/September Amelie would have been 18/19 months old. I forget what size small children are now, but I would have thought that she was more than 18 ish months in the last photo.

The bouganvilla in flower is a mystery.

My point is that she is the right age and appearance and indeed dress ( the apricot T shirt dress is in several pictures taken after 3/5) for 2007.

Maddie imo is the right age and appearance of a 3 plus a few months old, say August/September 2006. She certainly isn't as tall or as old as the tennis girl.

by Guest 17.08.12 17:09

My bougainvillea at the Côte d'åzur would flower from early May to end of November. It's important that the ground is dry and the weather warm to hot. I don't know if the flowering season in Portugal, more specifically the Algarve is different, as there may be a difference between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coast.

ETA I found a picture of apartment 5A with flowering bougainvillea and plumbago. Don't know exactly when this photo was taken. Anyone ... ?

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

by Guest 17.08.12 19:28

Seems easy for this guy to make shadows, remove and add things..

by Guest 18.08.12 22:24

Has anyone seen this documentary ? Its not the best quality but seems to be the only one out there about this dcumentary. I had never heard about it.

Around 3,40 - 3,50 they talk about the last picture.

by **tigger** 19.08.12 14:04

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

This shows the curious transparant quality of Amelie's upper arm and the fact that the depth of field is actually less than the perfectly represented creases in Gerry's shorts. Therefore it should be at least as sharp as those details behind her. If you look carefully, you'll see the creases in Gerry's shorts underneath the 'upper arm'. The line of the lower arm is too straight.
Amelie is also associated with the white/black stripe behind her left arm which doesn't figure in the rest of the picture. Imo Amelie is the one pasted in for the reasons I gave above.

You need to click on the image to get it full size.

by aniandr 19.08.12 21:14

Last photo. Wtf is going on on the Right side of madeleines hair. Like a fingerblur and a piece of Wall repeating its patterns. Realy bad photoshopping. I Think madeleine was placed in that photo if anyone.

by Guest 19.08.12 21:27

I think the photo is genuine. The real questions IMO are
- [why] have they changed the date?
- why have they photoshopped the CROPPED part - Madeleine alone WITHOUT Gerry's elbow - to use for the shrine in the church in PdL?

by bobbin 19.08.12 21:38

Châtelaine wrote:I think the photo is genuine. The real questions IMO are
- [why] have they changed the date?
- why have they photoshopped the CROPPED part - Madeleine alone WITHOUT Gerry's elbow - to use for the shrine in the church in PdL?

what do you mean by 'genuine' chatelaine ?
that it was a photo of Gerry, Amelie and Madeleine, taken all together, on the edge of the pool, at PdL, on the 3rd May 2007, at 1.29/ 2.29 p.m.?

by aniandr 19.08.12 21:39

Genuine apart from photoshopping and dato change big grin

by ProfessorPPlum 19.08.12 21:40

Châtelaine wrote:
- [why] have they changed the date?
- why have they photoshopped the CROPPED part - Madeleine alone WITHOUT Gerry's elbow - to use for the shrine in the church in PdL?

IF the date was added (and I haven't seen the 'dated' version recently) then my opinion is that it could have been to give impression MBM was alive 3rd May.

Why remove elbow? Nothing suspicious, just because MBM is the focus of the picture. It's a crude photoshop job as I pointed out a long way back.

Can anyone link to the dated picture & any docs pertaining to the timeline of this camera pls? i.e. any shortcuts :)

by **tigger** 19.08.12 21:40

Châtelaine wrote:I think the photo is genuine. The real questions IMO are
- [why] have they changed the date?
- why have they photoshopped the CROPPED part - Madeleine alone WITHOUT Gerry's elbow - to use for the shrine in the church in PdL?

It was the only photo from PdL on which she looks OK. The tennis girl looks stressed imo. So they just took Gerry's elbow and part of Amelie off and tidied up. A fairly simple job.
Imo the date was added when the photo was prepared on whichever computer was used for this in the UK.
This photograph wasn't on the camera, so the date/time being an hour out is imo a very strong pointer to it having been 'created' in the UK.

I can't understand that no one can see that Amelie is the only one in the photo with two strong anomalies - a wooden lower arm and a transparent sliver of an upper arm. Plus the black/white bar behind her. The way her right arm - what's left of it - is positioned is anatomically impossible.

by Ribisl 19.08.12 21:45

Moa wrote:
Has anyone seen this documentary ? Its not the best quality but seems to be the only one out there about this dcumentary. I had never heard about it.

Moa, who is this OTV? I've googled the logo and it keeps coming up with either Romanian tv online or Indian OTV Oglinda.

by Guest 19.08.12 21:49

With my child missing, would I bother to photoshop a cropped photo? NO, not me. I would just crop it / have it cropped to have a nice and recent picture of my missing darling at the shrine in the church, as a devote catholic]. Weeks later ... ? Pull the other one [an expression I've learned on internet ever since I started following this case on Anorak ... big grin

].

Tigger, you're absolutely right. I wouldn't even say MBM looks stressed in the tennis photo, she looks like a frightened girl trying to please sad

by bobbin 19.08.12 21:59

tigger wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I think the photo is genuine. The real questions IMO are
- [why] have they changed the date?
- why have they photoshopped the CROPPED part - Madeleine alone WITHOUT Gerry's elbow - to use for the shrine in the church in PdL?

It was the only photo from PdL on which she looks OK. The tennis girl looks stressed imo. So they just took Gerry's elbow and part of Amelie off and tidied up. A fairly simple job.
Imo the date was added when the photo was prepared on whichever computer was used for this in the UK.
This photograph wasn't on the camera, so the date/time being an hour out is imo a very strong pointer to it having been 'created' in the UK.

I can't understand that no one can see that Amelie is the only one in the photo with two strong anomalies - a wooden lower arm and a transparent sliver of an upper arm. Plus the black/white bar behind her. The way her right arm - what's left of it - is positioned is anatomically impossible.

tigger, there are so many anomalies, not least of which the 'elephant in the middle of the room' of the bougainvillea in full bloom when the conditions were so cold and wet as to make this flowering impossible given that 'four days earlier 'the photo in the playground' had nothing but a few stalks just starting to grow.

I also find it interesting that people cannot seem to see or acknowledge the anomalies and I wonder why. Is it an 'eye-sight' thing, eyes functioning differently in a type of perception/ acuity / blindness. However heavily some may try to persuade me that the photo is genuine, I can see too much that unquestionably shows inconsistencies which convince me that it is a faked photo and the claim that it was taken on 3rd May 2007, is a deliberate untruth. AIMO.

by Guest 19.08.12 22:15

I think the photo was taken on the first day of holidays. Looking at Gerry's clothes [same as on the bus] and remember that Kate was describing her fancy smock dress and Madeleine couldn't wait to wear it? I think she did.

IMO the date has been hampered.

As for the bougainvillea: they flower - as I wrote before - in the Med early May to end of November. It may be different in the Algarve. And it's not only the time of year, the ground conditions and the temperature, but also the positioning of the plant. IMO it is possible that at the swimming pool they could have been in full first bloom [possibly older plants] and at the playing ground they didn't. I say: It is possible. No evidence ...

by ProfessorPPlum 19.08.12 22:21

I don't understand how you can't see the the 'problem' with Amelie's vertical arm isn't a problem at all. Madeleine's arm is doing a version of exactly the same thing, only with different clothing and a slightly different angle. It is physically perfectly normal the way both look - the arms are near vertical.

Also the 'black line' is just an object we don't know about, that's all. Everything else about the shadows on that edge slab are completely correct. You just don't know what the black thing is - so it becomes one more thing that proves fakery.

I can't convince you obviously that this picture isn't faked (apart from possibly the date stamp) because you want to believe it is - and no doubt you could say the opposite applies to me :) So be it.

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

by Guest 19.08.12 22:57

Yes, I for one agree that that both girls' arms are in the photo and there is nothing untoward on that particular issue. I just do not believe that the photo can possibly have been taken within a day or two of the tennis ball girl one.

by jd 20.08.12 1:33

Thanks Moa for uploading the videos. thumbsup

Anyone with an open mind can see how the the poolside photo is faked from watching them, or at the very least have grave suspicions

Putting aside that this photo is as fake picture as I have seen ever...The 'black line'.....Take away Amelie from the photo and left with the 'black line' that is there 24/7, other people walking around it and seeing it, the 'black line' which is still there on August 20th 2012 as I speak and with current holidaymakers enjoying it today ....what is it?

I know the 'black line' is a photoshop error from Donegal, but what is the 'black line'??? How does it fit in at what is around the pool?

Maybe it is the same photoshop error like a known faked Korea photo?

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

It might surprise people that the BBC use fake photos to sell their story too.......

The British state-run broadcaster BBC has been caught passing off an old photo from Iraq in 2003 for the massacre in the Syrian town of Houla. In a report published hours after the massacre, the network used an old photo of dead Iraqi children taken in Al Mussayyib that was first published over nine years ago and presented it as a photo of victims of the recent massacre of civilians in the town of Houla in western Syria, The Telegraph reported.

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

by **tigger** 20.08.12 6:18

Jean wrote:Yes, I for one agree that that both girls' arms are in the photo and there is nothing untoward on that particular issue. I just do not believe that the photo can possibly have been taken within a day or two of the tennis ball girl one.

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

Amelie's arm is see through! The sleeve tells us that her right arm was probably at the same angle (mirror image) as her left. That would have interfered with Gerry's image and would have been complicated to adjust as Amelie's arm would then rest partly on his leg. So most or all of the right arm was erased and a botch job of adding one was done.
The lower arm is too straight, looks like a piece of wood, the upper arm is just a sliver and you can even see a crease in Gerry's shorts through it.
The black-white line is closely associated with Amelie and seems to have nothing to do with the pool's edge.

Another thing about this photo is that the 'hair bead' in Maddie's hair wasn't mentioned until this photo was published. Then Kate used it (also in the book), to tell us she took the hair bead carefully out of Maddie's hair that evening.
But imo it's not a bead but a length of fabric coloured elastic wound round several times. Maddie is also not wearing her bracelet, allegedly having just come from the creche.

by Angelique 20.08.12 8:01

Moa

Thanks for posting the video - I had not seen this although I have seen another video this same lady made about the Coloboma.

Does anyone agree with the apparent error regarding the pool tiles?

ETA oh and that was interesting about the Medical Records - or am I the last one to realise - they couldn't hand them over as it may prove they lied about the eye (referred to as the birth defect on video) doh!

by Guest 20.08.12 8:48

Ribisl wrote:
Moa wrote:
Has anyone seen this documentary ? Its not the best quality but seems to be the only one out there about this dcumentary. I had never heard about it.

Moa, who is this OTV? I've googled the logo and it keeps coming up with either Romanian tv online or Indian OTV Oglinda.

I dont know, I tried google the logo aswell and got to a Romanian TV aswell... Would like to know if this documentary excist at all ..

by ProfessorPPlum 20.08.12 9:14

I watched that video and the claims are no more credible than anyone has made here. I expected some more sophisticated proof but I got "When we study this picture more closely we immediately know that what we see is not what it is....Call me insane but that's how it looks to me". Right.

I don't know when this video was made, who this woman is or - for that matter - why she is reading a script in English. But the main objections she points to with this photo are:

• "Shadows don't fall right" - she tells you, no evidence, no proof. I've read the 68 degrees argument and I think it's rubbish.
• "The little stone fence is a little bit raised...." a quick fade between two different pics at two different times. All it takes is two stones happen to curve upwards either side of where her head was in that picture and presto! we assume there's a peak on the wall
• "We also observe a foreign object between Madeleine and her sister that IN FACT is a piece of another photo..." therefore PROOF Madeleine must be cut and pasted in!
• "We also see the pool border where they sit .. of a different colour....as if Madeleine was taken from another...etc" therefore more PROOF that Madeleine must be cut and pasted in.

What's amusing is that this piece of journalism misses most of the things that convince you this picture is faked - specifically:

• The flowers!!
• Amelie's arm!!!
• The temperature!!!!!
• Gerry's glasses!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, ask yourself how come this lady doesn't mention them - after all, she's the expert isn't she? She must be since you're prepared to cite her as credible evidence to prove what you believe.

IMO she doesn't mention them because she doesn't see them. The fact that she doesn't and you DO re-iterates what I said in an earlier post: unless you're prepared to question your inherent 'confirmation bias' you will keep on looking for more 'evidence' to support what you want to believe and keep on discounting any evidence to the contrary.