Re: Playground Photo

by Nina 07.09.15 22:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
tigger wrote:If you would kindly take the trouble to quote my words accurately such as: isn't it MORE LIKELY etc. which is not a statement of fact but a possibility, it would be possible to answer your many points.

REPLY: Strange, that, because in my last post I quoted every single word in your previous post accurately, before replying to each point. True, you previously said: "But isn't it more likely that the pink girl has been inserted?", but then in a later post you made a clear statement that it was not Madeleine McCann in any of the three photographs.

At 9.55am this morning, you wrote, QUOTE: "All it means is that I believe Maddie not to be in those [three] photographs."

I hope I am not misunderstanding, but your position is exactly this:

1. Playground photo is NOT Madeleine AND has been photoshopped
2. Two Wendy House photos are not photoshopped but are also NOT Madeleine
3. On many photos of Madeleine she is wearing a wig.

I am finding difficulty in understanding what your evidence is for these three beliefs, and I am sure I am far from being the only one.

That I am convinced re a wig etc clearly does not apply to this photo as is clear imo when one bothers to read the whole paragraph.

REPLY: You have clearly misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that you were saying Madeleine was wearing a wig in any of the three photographs. Indeed, you are emphatically saying it is NOT Madeleine in any of those three photos.

Any misinterpretations cannot - in my opinion - be put down to my inadequate knowledge of the English language.

I stand by my posts.

RE: the measurements: [SNIPPED]

REPLY: The detail of Gerry's height to the nearest inch and Madeleine's to the nearest centimetre is not really the issue - though if we had accurate measurements it would help us all. What you are saying is that your eyes tell you that the girl in the main 'playground picture' is 'too tall' to be Madeleine. Even if we had the most accurate up-to-date heights at that time for both of them, I am totally unable to agree that she 'looks too tall' to be Maddie in that photo. I gave my reasons before.

I am finding it very revealing that neither you nor any of the other 'pro-photoshopping' posters on this thread has been able (so far) to give a coherent reply to my '9 points'. I have yet to see any pro-photoshopping argument on this thread apart from: My eyes tell me it's been photoshopped'.

That simply isn't good enough evidence.

And I await the 'Madeleine often wore a wig' evidence with interest

If I may comment please if you are referring to me as a 'pro-photoshopping' poster.
I don't think I have used that term, photoshopping, I merely said quite simply what my eyes told me I had seen that for me the photograph just didn't seem physically possible.
Regarding that the girl is too tall to be Madeleine, no, I didn't say that either, I firmly believe it is Madeleine. My eyes tell me though that if she were to stand up and Gerry too, the dimensions of both of them as portrayed in this photograph she wouldn't look like a little girl of nearly four and 90cms tall as we have been told she was.
And how very rude to say I have not been coherent enough to reply to your 9 points.
Yes, how very rude Tony.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.09.15 23:06

Nina wrote:If I may comment please if you are referring to me as a 'pro-photoshopping' poster.
I don't think I have used that term, photoshopping,

REPLY: Hi Nina, once again with the very greatest respect can I refer you to where you fully agreed with 'tigger's post a couple of days ago where she wrote, QUOTE:

"It is my opinion that the girl in pink in the playground and the Wendy House...is NOT Maddie McCann. What I also find strange in the playground photograph is the perspective of the woman seen under the roof of the roundhouse in the distance. She seems far too small for the distance...As others here have remarked: the non-participation of those present in the photos is frequently a give-away of photoshopping...Imo there's something very wrong with this photograph...isn't it more likely that the pink girl has been inserted?"

REPLY: tigger has clearly said two things here: 1. It was not Madeleine in the playground photo and 2. The playground photo is photoshopped.

And you replied EXACTLY as follows, QUOTE: "Your opinion Tigger and I agree with it".

So, yes, you fully agreed with tigger who said in a number of different ways above that the photo was photoshopped. So by your agreement with tigger, yes, I would say you are indeed someone who thinks that photo has been photoshopped - on your own admission.

I merely said quite simply what my eyes told me I had seen that for me the photograph just didn't seem physically possible.

REPLY: And that is not a coherent, argued reply with evidence to my 9-point challenge that this photo is NOT photoshopped.

Regarding that the girl is too tall to be Madeleine, no, I didn't say that either, I firmly believe it is Madeleine.

REPLY: OK, well at least we now agree on that, although earlier you said you agreed with tigger that it was NOT Madeleine. tigger says it isn't Madeleine, you now say it is. Maybe you can persuade tigger that you are right - because I have failed so far

My eyes tell me though that if she were to stand up and Gerry too, the dimensions of both of them as portrayed in this photograph she wouldn't look like a little girl of nearly four and 90cms tall as we have been told she was.

REPLY: But you agree it is Gerry and Madeleine? Maybe it is simply, as I suggested before, that Madeleine was taller than that 90cm figure we were given, which would make her under 3 feet.

And how very rude to say I have not been coherent enough to reply to your 9 points. Yes, how very rude Tony.

REPLY: Nina, we are discussing a piece of evidence in the case. A few people, tigger included, say the playground photo is photoshopped, with which you agreed. Now you have changed and say it is NOT photoshopped. So you are no longer a 'pro-photoshopper'. My intervention on this thread has been (1) to assert that the playground photo is NOT photoshopped. I have given NINE different positive evidential reasons for my view on that photo.

The only counter argument I have read here so far, skyrocket being a prime example, is along the lines of 'my eyes tell me it's been photoshopped'.

Frankly, that's not good enough. If anyone still seriously maintains that the playground photo is photoshopped, or that it is NOT Madeleine, they should answer all of my nine points now.

Or humbly accept that they have lost the argument.

The major photographic issues here concern the 'Last Photo' and the 'Tennis Balls Photo'.

Not these three photos

by missbeetle 08.09.15 4:12

I still remain perplexed as to the identity of the Playground Man -

- and to what he is doing seemingly watching Gerry play with children -

- whilst another fellow in his company seems to be spying through the playhouse :

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

(snipped from a post from Tony to Juliet, on the 'Further Analysis of the Last Photo' thread, dated 5th November 2014)

Hello Tony -

Are you able to tell us who this fellow is?

Or who you think him to be?

Or even how you have come to the opinion that he is of African descent?

Many thanks.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.09.15 7:59

missbeetle wrote:I still remain perplexed as to the identity of the Playground Man - and to what he is doing seemingly watching Gerry play with children - whilst another fellow in his company seems to be spying through the playhouse

@ missbeetle

You recently made this statement (I think on another thread): QUOTE>>> "One of my theories is that poor Madeleine isn't dead...but is living within the wider circle of McCann friends and family - and has been doing so since long before her reported disappearance. This could be why the pictures supposedly of her are so fake - I've seen nothing to convince me that Madeleine McCann...was ever at the Ocean Club in April/May 2007".

I asked a couple of days ago if you could kindly assist us all with your evidence for making these statements, and in particular to whom you think the dogs might have been alerting, on 17 separate occasions - if not Madeleine McCann?

I also listed up the thread nine positive evidential points in favour of Madeleine McCann being in Praia da Luz and in favour of the three 'playground photos' being genuine photos of Madeleine taken in the late afternoon of Saturday 28 April 2007.

Here they are again - no-one has effectively countered them so far:

The POSITIVE evidence that the three playground photos are NOT photoshopped and ARE of Madeleine McCann:

1. Madeleine's shadow. It fits perfectly with the shadow on Gerry, and with all the other shadows on the photograph.

2. It would be very hard to fake such a shadow on a photograph such as this.

3. The setting for the photograph is exactly in accordance with what we know about the events of that day - arrival on a sunny day in the early/mid-afternoon, quickly go to the apartment, then run down to the playground and let the kids let off steam.

4. The child of another member of the Tapas 7 is in the foreground - is it claimed that this image is also photoshopped?

5. If you say this is photoshopped, what do you say about the other two playground pictures of Madeleine by the Wendy House? Not Madeleine? Photoshopped. Faked?

6. If you say this is not Madeleine on this holiday, what about the airport bus vidoeo? Was that Madeleine? If yes, was that Madeleine on that holiday, or another?

7. If you say this is not Madeleine on this holiday, what about the 'climbing-the-steps-of-the-plane' video? Was that Madeleine? If yes, was Madeleine on that holiday, or another?

8. If this was NOT Madeleine, how do you account for the 17 alerts of the dogs?

9. If this was NOT Madeleine, how to you account for her name being on the passenger manifest for 28 April?

Could you please now help us with your response - TIA.

PLAYGROUND MAN

In answer to your query about the playground man with sunglasses, the consensus of opinion is that he is Rajinder Balu, a barrister or solicitor working for immigration lawyers Cooper Tuffs

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

He is of Asian rather than African descent and lives close to me at Herongate in Essex. The following two pictures, which [acknowledgement] I grabbed from one of pamalam's sites, taken together with the 'playground photo', have been taken by some as suggesting that he and Gerry McCann might already have been known to each other. He appears to have been a friend of Neil Berry whose name also features in the events of 3 May 2007:

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

AFAIK the claim that this was Rajinder Balu has never been decisively proved

by rustyjames 08.09.15 9:27

With regard to the height I had a play with the photo a long time ago but don't think I ever uploaded or shared it, probably because it still remains subjective.

There are a couple of images below with a "straightened" Madeleine. I' tried to err on the side of joining the separate parts to make her as tall as possible.

I can understand why people see her as looking tall, but in my opinion the photo is taken with a fairly long zoom foreshortening the distances, and most importantly from quite a low angle, (it doesn't look like a photo looking down on the children), and whilst hard to judge is probably a height of somewhere around Gerry's waist.

The second photo compares the size of the other child in comparison and looks proportionally correct compared to Madeleine.

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

by **Jill Havern** 08.09.15 9:34

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

What is the orange circle supposed to be....

....and what is the oblong next to it supposed to be please?

by **Tony Bennett** 08.09.15 9:45

rustyjames wrote:I can understand why people see her as looking tall, but in my opinion the photo is taken with a fairly long zoom foreshortening the distances...

Thank you for including this concise piece of forensic photographic information.

It explains basically why some people (like 'tigger') think that Madeleine is 'too tall' in that photo - when in fact she isn't.

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

@ Get'emGoncalo You asked: "What is [1] the orange circle supposed to be...and what is [2] the oblong next to it supposed to be please?

REPLY: My suggestions:

1 is part of the Wendy House equipment, possibly a movable disc which can be spun round by the children. Or maybe just a decorative feature

2 is an oblong space, though which we see a woman with a purple top sitting in the pavilion behind. She looks small for the precise reason given above by rustyjames

by Liz Eagles 08.09.15 10:16

missbeetle wrote:I still remain perplexed as to the identity of the Playground Man -

- and to what he is doing seemingly watching Gerry play with children -

- whilst another fellow in his company seems to be spying through the playhouse :

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

(snipped from a post from Tony to Juliet, on the 'Further Analysis of the Last Photo' thread, dated 5th November 2014)

Hello Tony -

Are you able to tell us who this fellow is?

Or who you think him to be?

Or even how you have come to the opinion that he is of African descent?

Many thanks.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the only thing that surprises me more than you hadn't noticed on this forum that these things have been discussed to the nth degree and you need to ask someone to confirm whether this is Raj Balu or not (you've posted a few photos of him in the past) is that you've failed to draw attention to his shoe looking like a cloven hoof and a batch of demonic clouds somewhere.
eek

by rustyjames 08.09.15 10:38

I found these picture of the same "castle" on a Gumtree ad. The orange bit looks to be a random " spinny thing" to play with :-)

The ad states it is 81.5"D 47" W and 53.75" H.

Not sure which oblong you are referring to?

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

by skyrocket 08.09.15 10:48

Geeez @ Tony Bennett - you never give up!

Here we go again, off down the road again, do do do do do (can't help singing that one) - but please note mods, I am staying on topic countering points made by others.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - you said 'relax and enjoy'! I say - how!!!!!!! big grin

Also note - I had a better nights sleep last night so no hackles anywhere.

@Tony Bennett

The only counter argument I have read here so far, skyrocket being a prime example, is along the lines of 'my eyes tell me it's been photoshopped'.

Did I say that Tony? Please, feel free to quote me but please do it accurately word for word or not at all. Editing can cause misinterpretation. I seem to recall I said something along the lines of:

I do not know when the playground photos were taken; I do not know if they have been photoshopped. I don't believe that you can say definitely that they haven't. I don't think any of us can be 100% certain about any of the photos being genuine or otherwise, can we? I think a number of photos both before and during the holiday are dodgy. But, it is all theorising on the best information available.

and:

I repeat, we may all be wrong about this photo being 'wrong' - I'm not sure whether it is or it isn't - but I find it quite interesting (nothing more) and I want to discuss it with other like-minded members (until the topic is exhausted or clarified).

and:

I'm still far from convinced about this playground image and I tend to agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that the anomalies can be evidenced, as far as is possible, by eyesight. If anything in this case could be easily evidenced it wouldn't now be 2015 with no conclusion and 30+ British police still working on it (apart from the Portuguese investigation).

Play fair.

Frankly, that's not good enough. If anyone still seriously maintains that the playground photo is photoshopped, or that it is NOT Madeleine, they should answer all of my nine points now.

Why should they? (could - yes; should - no) We're not in school - no detention; extra homework; headmaster's study.

Or humbly accept that they have lost the argument.

Again, is that all this about?

The major photographic issues here concern the 'Last Photo' and the 'Tennis Balls Photo'.

Not these three photos

On what are you basing this statement? Evidence please (opinion alone will not suffice). If this can be established categorically (court of law standard) we can all forget about this thread.

@TB I appreciate your background in law and the fact that solicitors/lawyers are adversarial at heart (only natural for the profession) but I really don't believe anything useful will gained from posters if they are continually heckled. I've been told this is the way of these blogs and basically to toughten up - I can do that, but that's not what I joined here for.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - keep smiling, I may not agree with all you say, all the time, but who cares about that really?! Not me that's for sure.

@ rustyjames - only just read you post/analysis now.

Can't agree - sorry. Please don't take offence at the following (it is not for your benefit).

@TB 'Thank you for including this concise piece of forensic photographic information'     Seriously?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has MBM and Lily almost the same height - it is fact, from all the available evidence that Lily is give or take 7-8cm shorter than MBM. This difference is clearly visible when they stand next to each other and she is several months younger. Lily's upper torso has been placed too high for her leg length in the forensic analysis.

If infact MBM came up to her father's waist (or just above as @Tony Bennett stated), she would be in the region of 108cm at waist; 110cm slightly above waist. This would make her 18cm taller than the description given to the police. Not only that, her head would be 8cm above the height of the doorway of playhouse in the other photo, which as I understand it from others research is fixed at 100cm.

Try it yourself - calculate the height of your waist in relation to your height, taking your waist at the narrowest point of your torso. You are exempt from this if you have disproportionally long legs or body. GM doesn't. I don't. Others I have been assaulting with a tape measure don't. All waists up to now have fallen in the range of 59.36% of height - 62.4% of height. Average 60.88%. Your waist height is not at the mid point of your height.

Take GM's height as 178cm (5' 10") as declared. Therefore, I calculate his waist to be at 108.37cm in height.

Now you could perhaps argue that GM's height might be a bit out. He would have to be 1.50m in height (4'11") for MBM to work out as just over 91cm in height.

Also, long lens - nope, doubt it very much. I would suggest that the photographer's shadow can be seen in the bottom right corner of the photo. The shadows are not long. Also, why would a family member be standing metres and metres away with a long lens?! They were using small compact cameras - which may have had a small zoom capability which are generally only used for cropping or zooming a distant image/panorama.

I have several years professional experience in photography (own studio/darkroom pre digital).

Again [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], sorry to shoot down your hard work - and I am completely open to anyone shooting mine down (actually fully expecting it on past experience).

Apologies for the spacing.

by skyrocket 08.09.15 11:30

Just to clarify, because reading back over my last post it might not be obvious - I do think that the image of the girl in pink (MBM presumably) appears too large for the rest of the group.

I agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] @Tony Bennett [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (sorry if I've missed any) that the pink figure, straightened up, would come up to at least GM's waist.

I believe GM's waist line is at a minimum of 108cm in height.

by Guest 08.09.15 11:43

Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What is the orange circle supposed to be....

....and what is the oblong next to it supposed to be please?

by Guest 08.09.15 11:45

Once again.. people are yanking our chain about "photo-shopped" pictures.

by **Jill Havern** 08.09.15 11:48

rustyjames wrote:I found these picture of the same "castle" on a Gumtree ad. The orange bit looks to be a random " spinny thing" to play with :-)

The ad states it is 81.5"D 47" W and 53.75" H.

Not sure which oblong you are referring to?

Thank you for the photographs rustyjames.

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

The oblong I refer to is the one where the arrow is pointing, but according to the rear-view pics you posted it's an entrance to the playhouse.

Sorted. thumbsup

eta: thank you for the enlarged pics bluebag.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.09.15 11:53

BlueBag wrote:Once again.. people are yanking our chain about "photo-shopped" pictures.

That's it in a nutshell agree

Not one reply yet to my 9-point challenge, apart from 'tigger' whose response addressed, at least in part, 4 of the 9 points

by ROSA 08.09.15 12:03

@ Tony Bennett you say the man in the playground lives 2 miles away from you , have you ever met him or has he ever come forward to comment on the photo ? thanks

by **Jill Havern** 08.09.15 12:11

ROSA wrote:@ Tony Bennett you say the man in the playground lives 2 miles away from you , have you ever met him or has he ever come forward to comment on the photo ? thanks

That's a question I thought about asking Tony, but I assumed the answer would have been "No" otherwise he'd have said.

by Verdi 08.09.15 12:23

On average people are not interested in the artistry of photography, they are only concerned with taking snapshots of anything and everything, so they invest in an affordable digital camera (or mobile phone) with limited scope for anything other than snapshots. That is where this whole subject goes off piste in my opinion.

They say the camera never lies which is true to a certain extent because it captures a detailed image of everything within the lens range, however the image it captures is not identical to that perceived by the naked eye. For many technical reasons the camera distorts images, the less sophisticated the equipment, the less picture quality and versatility. The naked eye tends to focus on central images whilst the peripheral areas fade out of focus so to speak, whereas a photographic image retains everything seen through the lens. How often have you seen a beautiful landscape view and with great enthusiasm taken a snapshot - only to find that the image is flat uninteresting and totally lost the beauty that you tried to capture? I've done it scores of times!

Generally all people want are snapshots to keep or share, not a professional photographers ideology of the perfect picture. What you see is what you get, not necessarily a true depiction of the scene captured at the time the photograph was taken. Effectively, trying to search for something obscure in an ordinary snapshot in order to say it's fake (or not as the case may be) is a total waste of time.

by rustyjames 08.09.15 12:26

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

I think you'll find I stated that interpretation of the height was subjective. My opinion is it looks absolutely fine. Also the picture with the other child was just to show a comparison that Madeleine was not unusually large compared to the rest of the scene. If you prefer there is a version with a different placement ...

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

As for the shadow being the photographer, my opinion is you are wrong and it is in fact "bush shaped" and is the small tree in the play area, (see below).

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

by worriedmum 08.09.15 13:18

I agree the shadow in the foreground is probably the bush...................but I just can't understand why the shadow doesn't appear to be pointing in the same direction as the shadows of the people......?

by Guest 08.09.15 13:28

worriedmum wrote:I agree the shadow in the foreground is probably the bush...................but I just can't understand why the shadow doesn't appear to be pointing in the same direction as the shadows of the people......?

I wish I had a pound for every time I had to explain this to people who think the Moon landing was a hoax because of shadows.

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

It's what Cameras do with parallel lines.

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

by rustyjames 08.09.15 13:30

I think it is. It you look at the bottom photo above, the shadow is formed from the far left edge of the tree.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.09.15 13:31

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
ROSA wrote:@ Tony Bennett you say the man in the playground lives 2 miles away from you, have you ever met him or has he ever come forward to comment on the photo ? thanks
That's a question I thought about asking Tony, but I assumed the answer would have been "No" otherwise he'd have said.

@ ROSA

Not '2 miles away', I just said 'close to me at Herongate in Essex'.

I did visit Rajinder Balu's home on Monday 5 March 2012.

It was in connection with research that a few of us on the forum were doing on Rajinder Balu, Neil Berry, the 'Jensen/Wiltshire sisters', and also Gary Hagland, the McCann Team investigator who many years ago had a quick trip to Saturn in an alien spacecraft, only to wake up on the back doorstep of his friend's country house in Sussex. I think he might have been drunk, actually, but he had always been a believer in flying saucers since the age of 14 when he saw (he says) a flying saucer come down in flames in Hampshire. The trip to Saturn and back apparently took a couple of hours. Long story - see Gary Hagland threads on CMOMM, or read his book on aliens written under the pen-name 'Mason Horsburgh'.

Hagland interviewed the Jensen sisters, along with Metodo 3 scallywag, Julian Peribanez. Balu, Berry and the Jensen sisters may have known each other prior to Praia da Luz 2007.

I shared the report on my visit to Balu's house, FWIW, privately with several researchers who were members of CMOMM or doing independent research.

This was my report to them:

QUOTE

On Monday late afternoon (5 Mar), I visited his house, which as you know is Herongate, BRENTWOOD, Essex.You'll recall that I said I would visit when I got an opportunity.

The house is a smallish semi-detached house in a row of perhaps 30 houses along a road between Brentwood and Billericay. There was a saloon car on the front, a few years old. This was not a row of houses with any sign of wealth.

I knocked on the door about 4.30pm, just as twilight was beginning. This is how it went:

Door opens after a little while, white lady, probably 40-50, greying/white hair as far as I can recall, plumpish, came to the door:

TB: Oh, good afternoon, I'm looking for Rajinder Balu, have I got the right house, please?

Lady: Who wants him?

TB: My name's Tony Bennett, I have been doing some research on the Madeleine McCann case, er, and his name came up as someone who was staying at the Ocean Club that week. I was hoping I could make an appointment to see Mr Balu to ask if he could help me with my researches into the case.

(Pause. An Indian boy aged about 9 to 12 appeared on the staircase just behind the lady, I think he had a tooth missing)

Lady (suspicious): And would that be in an official capacity?

TB: No, not in an official capacity, I am doing this research in a personal capacity.

Lady (after short pause): No, Tony, I don't think he would be interested in helping you. (Pause). Sorry.

Door closes. TB leaves.

UNQUOTE

by worriedmum 08.09.15 13:34

Thanks. I should have listened in Physics ~~instead of messing about~~

by **Tony Bennett** 08.09.15 13:40

skyrocket wrote:@ rustyjames - only just read you post/analysis now.

Can't agree - sorry. Please don't take offence at the following (it is not for your benefit).

@TB 'Thank you for including this [rustyjames' contribution] concise piece of forensic photographic information' Seriously?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has MBM and Lily almost the same height [discussion about Madeleine's height follows -SNIPPEDI have several years professional experience in photography (own studio/darkroom pre digital).

Again [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], sorry to shoot down your hard work...

@ skyrocket

For your information, rustyjames has earned the respect of members here and elsewhere on the internet for his expert opinions, always carefully and neutrally put, on matters relating to photographs connected to the Madeleine McCann case. See our two 'Last Photo' threads for examples of his previous work on the subject.