Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by canada12 22.07.14 19:51

SallyVern wrote:
Shibboleth wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Shibboleth I think you've cracked it! I've been staring at those glasses for years trying to work out why the reflection looked all wrong.

Now I can see the shadow cast by the folded sunglasses or is my imagination going into overdrive?

If they were originally hanging from the neckline then what was so important about his eyes that they needed to go to the bother of photoshopping the glasses onto his face? Something that might indicate the date is wrong? May be a stye he didn't have on 3rd May or something beneath his eyes?

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

Maybe he's squinting into the sun, and the sun isn't where it should be at the supposed time of day and date?
Maybe he has a black eye?
Maybe it is something to do with his eye that he had earlier, like a stye, as you suggest?
In any case, I think you're spot on.

by Guest 22.07.14 20:14

So why can't it be a reflection of the right side of the pool (from our POV)? Pools have sides other than the opposite one.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the glasses in the picture.

by Sparklehorse 22.07.14 22:16

@blue bag I think the point is that in the last photo the glasses are on Gerry's face not hanging from his tshirt but the reflection in the lenses of the last photo looks wrong.

by j.rob 22.07.14 22:24

missbeetle wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"

(middle picture clipped from a 14th June, 2012 article in UK Travel Daily e-magazine)

Clever thinking, J.Rob - could this be the chap?

Your thoughts regarding the pallid, softy-looking Gerald pictured at right have me scratching my head!

Are those his usual trainers I wonder?

A bit like Geraint Vincent, perhaps?

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

by **PeterMac** 22.07.14 22:35

The photo was taken on the Sunday,
The weather was warm and sunny around lunchtime
It was the first full day of the holiday and people DO take photos and dress children and themselves up in their new holiday clothes
From that moment on the weather was dreadful, as all the Tapas group say, and as all the photos on the Flickr PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt.

So legally the photo is a forgery, in that it tells a lie about itself - in that the date has been altered.
By someone.

Remind us who blathered on about the time being wrong - Oh, yes, Mitchell
Remind us who in so doing tried to draw our attention to the date - Oh, yes Mitchell
Remins us of the date on which this photo was released by the press - 24th
Remind us of the date on which it must have been provided to the Agency which released it - 23rd
Remind us of the date Gerry returned to PdL - 22nd
Remind us of who accompanied Gerry on that flight - Mitchell ! ! !
Remind us of whether in the McCann close family there is an extremely skilled photographer who might - just - know how to muck about with photos
Remind us who else arrived in PdL on 22nd - look it up.

work it out.
or as they say in Glasgow Purrrporrrt it

by TheTruthWillOut 22.07.14 22:36

BlueBag wrote:So why can't it be a reflection of the right side of the pool (from our POV)? Pools have sides other than the opposite one.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the glasses in the picture.

I would like you to elaborate on this if you could BlueBag. Many months ago another poster, who I think is banned now, also said something along the same lines and promised to explain it to me, but never did post about it again...

The problem though with what I think you're getting at (to name one) is the pink hat. According to the reflection, Amelie would have to be lying on her back for the peak of her hat to be pointing upwards.

Although reflections of lenses can to some degree distort things, I have never seen things rotated like they are in this image.

by missbeetle 22.07.14 22:45

j.rob wrote:
missbeetle wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"

(middle picture clipped from a 14th June, 2012 article in UK Travel Daily e-magazine)

Clever thinking, J.Rob - could this be the chap?

Your thoughts regarding the pallid, softy-looking Gerald pictured at right have me scratching my head!

Are those his usual trainers I wonder?

A bit like Geraint Vincent, perhaps?

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

My thoughts are that possibly big softy Gerry has been somehow photoshopped into this picture...?

Strange hazy dark halo around his head, and between him and Mr Hopkins...?

Also oxblood red thing floating slightly above the top of his head...?

Perhaps it is just his aura...

by Guest 22.07.14 23:03

The pink tip could be the tip of the right peak of the hat (from our POV).

Without knowing the exact position of everything (angle of glasses, curvature, height of camera and the properties of the camera itself (parallax does weird things) then I don't see anything massively wrong.

You have no idea what you are seeing in the glasses and the physics are probably complex.

I'm going along with the picture was not on the 3rd but I don't see why anyone would photoshop the glasses, paying exacting attention to the shadow of the glasses on the face and shirt and not bother with the reflection.

Why would Gerry need his glasses photoshopping anyway?

You could be right, although I doubt it. It's not necessary anyway. Ask the dogs.

by Guest 22.07.14 23:37

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

Did she have a pink and an orange one?

by Guest 22.07.14 23:41

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

by Sonmi-451 23.07.14 0:06

Has anyone got a detailed photo/set of photos of the pool area? Close up aerial ones? If so we can try and work out what the reflections might be. I still don't see any anomalies that fall outside the range of 'normal' anomalies (I work with family photos daily).

Well... having said that, you're all brainwashing me!! ... and a chink in my armour is developing. It isn't reflections in the glasses (without knowing what's around the the subject, as it need not be Amelie's hat, etc.), it's the amount of shadow present under GM's right thigh. Compare it to the shadow under Amelie's thigh... right on the lip of the pool. Having said that, I'm tired and will have a detailed look tomorrow.

In the meantime has anyone got other (non-TM) pool area pics?

by canada12 23.07.14 0:20

Sonmi-451 wrote:Has anyone got a detailed photo/set of photos of the pool area? Close up aerial ones? If so we can try and work out what the reflections might be. I still don't see any anomalies that fall outside the range of 'normal' anomalies (I work with family photos daily).

Well... having said that, you're all brainwashing me!! ... and a chink in my armour is developing. It isn't reflections in the glasses (without knowing what's around the the subject, as it need not be Amelie's hat, etc.), it's the amount of shadow present under GM's right thigh. Compare it to the shadow under Amelie's thigh... right on the lip of the pool. Having said that, I'm tired and will have a detailed look tomorrow.

In the meantime has anyone got other (non-TM) pool area pics?

Here's one... although it elongates the round pool a little. It's perfectly round.

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

And another...

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

And yet another...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Someone went to PDL and took a photo of the round pool exactly from the position of the photographer in The Last Photo, but without people in it. I must try and find it.

by zodiac 23.07.14 0:31

j.rob wrote:
missbeetle wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"

(middle picture clipped from a 14th June, 2012 article in UK Travel Daily e-magazine)

Clever thinking, J.Rob - could this be the chap?

Your thoughts regarding the pallid, softy-looking Gerald pictured at right have me scratching my head!

Are those his usual trainers I wonder?

A bit like Geraint Vincent, perhaps?

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

Regarding GM pool photo where he is wearing sunglasses and the reflection in his sunglasses is vertical. The photo, on the left, of the guy above (in pink polo top) perhaps is a good example of a reflection in sunglasses. His glasses are slightly askew due to him slightly tilting his head to his right yet the reflection IMO looks completely horizontal (not even slightly askew) and not vertical like the reflection in GM sunglasses.

ETA: If they were photo-shopped? Then attention to detail was missed.

by Sonmi-451 23.07.14 0:51

@zodiac...
Hi Zodiac...My point is that since we don't know what's reflected in GM's sunglasses we can't say if it's rotated, upside down, or back to front. At the moment people are *assuming* it's the pool, and thus anomalous. Yes, I agree it *looks* like the pool rotated 90 degrees but that doesn't mean that's actually what we are seeing. Personally I'd like to eliminate and/or fairly weight any other possibilities if I'm to be swayed.

@canada12... Thank you very much!... and that other pic would be great if you find it. It'll help greatly in suggesting what the reflection might or might not be... and maybe even convincing this old stick-in-the-mud that something's amiss with this photo!

by missbeetle 23.07.14 1:10

Hello Zodiac - I love the picture of the old Zephyr - is it yours?

A Mark I or II? There's a cheesy NZ film of the 1980s called Mark II Zephyr.

I had a Mark IV once, ex-Manchester Police car, bench seats and Pye radio...

Vrooom!

But that's by-the-by...

What's important is that I believe this Last Photograph to be a fake.

I just wonder how many other images supplied to us of the McCanns are faked?

by canada12 23.07.14 1:54

Sonmi-451 wrote:@zodiac...
Hi Zodiac...My point is that since we don't know what's reflected in GM's sunglasses we can't say if it's rotated, upside down, or back to front. At the moment people are *assuming* it's the pool, and thus anomalous. Yes, I agree it *looks* like the pool rotated 90 degrees but that doesn't mean that's actually what we are seeing. Personally I'd like to eliminate and/or fairly weight any other possibilities if I'm to be swayed.

@canada12... Thank you very much!... and that other pic would be great if you find it. It'll help greatly in suggesting what the reflection might or might not be... and maybe even convincing this old stick-in-the-mud that something's amiss with this photo!

Here's that photo. I don't know who took it, but it was sep 26, 2007, as you can see by the timestamp (which I'm trusting to be genuine). If you right-click on the photo and choose View Image, you'll see the full photograph.

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

As you can see the photographer made a point of trying to get the perspective of whoever created The Last Photo.

I don't know if this helps or not.

ETA - I remember the person who took this was posting to the 3A's or the Mirror Forum and told us she'd make a point of taking this photo when she travelled to PDL. She dutifully reported back with this photo, which I saved.

by canada12 23.07.14 2:08

Sonmi-451 wrote:@zodiac...
Hi Zodiac...My point is that since we don't know what's reflected in GM's sunglasses we can't say if it's rotated, upside down, or back to front. At the moment people are *assuming* it's the pool, and thus anomalous. Yes, I agree it *looks* like the pool rotated 90 degrees but that doesn't mean that's actually what we are seeing. Personally I'd like to eliminate and/or fairly weight any other possibilities if I'm to be swayed.

@canada12... Thank you very much!... and that other pic would be great if you find it. It'll help greatly in suggesting what the reflection might or might not be... and maybe even convincing this old stick-in-the-mud that something's amiss with this photo!

Here are some more photos of the pool, getting the whole area in:

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

by Sonmi-451 23.07.14 2:28

Excellent... Thanks Canada12. I need some zzzZZZ now, but will pour over these when I'm back in my workshop tomorrow. I'll also go back to page 1 of the thread to look at each and every suggested anomaly. It will thus take a wee while to systematically do it the justice it deserves !!

by **Nina** 23.07.14 8:39

PeterMac posted up a photograph this morning on the Most Damning McCann Interviews thread of the parents with the twins all jolly in the Punch and Judy set. Sorry to keep harping on about this but yet again Amelie is tiny, hust look at her little hands. Now compared to the pool picture where she is almost the same size as Madeleine and much bigger in comparison to other photos when she is with Gerry.
I cannot post pictures, try as I may, and believe me I have tried, so, would someone, a very clever and obliging someone, please post up the pool picture, the walking Gerry holding Amelia's hand and the Punch and Judy shot please for comparison.
In anticipation roses

by noddy100 23.07.14 8:49

Interesting that with 2 such small kids he wasn't at the baby pool

by missbeetle 23.07.14 8:49

Nina wrote:PeterMac posted up a photograph this morning on the Most Damning McCann Interviews thread of the parents with the twins all jolly in the Punch and Judy set. Sorry to keep harping on about this but yet again Amelie is tiny, hust look at her little hands. Now compared to the pool picture where she is almost the same size as Madeleine and much bigger in comparison to other photos when she is with Gerry.
I cannot post pictures, try as I may, and believe me I have tried, so, would someone, a very clever and obliging someone, please post up the pool picture, the walking Gerry holding Amelia's hand and the Punch and Judy shot please for comparison.
In anticipation

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

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

Hope this helps!

by joyce1938 23.07.14 9:00

I notice that rhe boy seems taller than the girl ,not at all unusual for twins ,I have twin girls where I live ,and they are of different sizing . Also maybe the angle of picture makes people look larger . Girl wearing her hair in bunches poss. as its pulled right back . just a thought on this thread . joyce1938

by **Nina** 23.07.14 9:15

missbeetle wrote:
Nina wrote:PeterMac posted up a photograph this morning on the Most Damning McCann Interviews thread of the parents with the twins all jolly in the Punch and Judy set. Sorry to keep harping on about this but yet again Amelie is tiny, hust look at her little hands. Now compared to the pool picture where she is almost the same size as Madeleine and much bigger in comparison to other photos when she is with Gerry.
I cannot post pictures, try as I may, and believe me I have tried, so, would someone, a very clever and obliging someone, please post up the pool picture, the walking Gerry holding Amelia's hand and the Punch and Judy shot please for comparison.
In anticipation

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

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

Hope this helps!

Missbeetle many thanks, yes it certainly does help. Amelie in the pool picture in comparison to Gerry is much bigger than the walking holding hands picture. Yes she is sitting slightly nearer to the camera but not so much. On the walking photo just look at her little legs compared to Gerry, then compare her legs to Gerry on the pool picture.

by missbeetle 23.07.14 9:19

Just out of curiosity - has anyone seen Gerald McCann in real life?

Have we a height on the man?

by rustyjames 23.07.14 9:21

SallyVern wrote:Shibboleth I think you've cracked it! I've been staring at those glasses for years trying to work out why the reflection looked all wrong.

Now I can see the shadow cast by the folded sunglasses or is my imagination going into overdrive?

If they were originally hanging from the neckline then what was so important about his eyes that they needed to go to the bother of photoshopping the glasses onto his face? Something that might indicate the date is wrong? May be a stye he didn't have on 3rd May or something beneath his eyes?

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

Over the years I've spent a lot of time on this photo. I'm in the camp that I'm highly doubtful of the date/time but can't see any internal inconsistencies with the content. Admittedly the reflection in the glasses looks a little strange but reflections from optics can be.

I agree that the arrows you've added are pointing to a shadow of the frame, but in the picture in an earlier [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and reproduced below, it's one of the points I considered matched up consistently with other shadows which are all cast down and to the right.

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

by Guest 23.07.14 9:26

missbeetle wrote:Just out of curiosity - has anyone seen Gerald McCann in real life?

Have we a height on the man?

Seen him in Lisbon
About 1.78 m.

eta must be in his passport

by SallyVern 23.07.14 9:30

BlueBag wrote:The pink tip could be the tip of the right peak of the hat (from our POV).

Without knowing the exact position of everything (angle of glasses, curvature, height of camera and the properties of the camera itself (parallax does weird things) then I don't see anything massively wrong.

You have no idea what you are seeing in the glasses and the physics are probably complex.

I'm going along with the picture was not on the 3rd but I don't see why anyone would photoshop the glasses, paying exacting attention to the shadow of the glasses on the face and shirt and not bother with the reflection.

Why would Gerry need his glasses photoshopping anyway?

You could be right, although I doubt it. It's not necessary anyway. Ask the dogs.

I'm with the person (I think it was PeterMac?) who posted the weather chart and showed the sunniest day was likely Sunday 29th April. IF the last photo was taken then and not on 3rd like we've been led to believe and IF GM had a stye or some other mark on his eye on 29th April then there'd be a need to cover his eyes surely. It's the only explanation I can think of if they've gone to the trouble of moving the glasses from tshirt to face.

Loads of photos of GM on 3rd May and following days so easy to point out that the “mark” whatever it might be, is no longer there. Stye's take a few days to clear (not saying it is a stye just using it as an example).

I'm no photo expert but the shadow on his tshirt looks like folded sunglasses hanging from his neckline not his face, at least to me.

Admittedly there does look like shadow on his face beneath the glasses and thinking about it, why not just photoshop the stye out? I'm confusing myself now!

Anyway whichever way I look at it those glasses look better suited hanging from the neckline. To me the sunlight reflecting at the bottom of the glasses looks right now while the rest of the glasses look to be in shadow (from his face?) and like someone else pointed out, the tip of Amelie's hat also looks right now that Shibboleth has moved the glasses to GM's neckline.

I've copied Shibboleth's idea but used the high resolution photo instead to show more detail.

All in my personal opinion.

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

by Guest 23.07.14 9:33

Please could someone post the photo of the twins in the kiosk (or whatever it is) next to this one of them in Donegal - allegedly.

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

Is that really Sean in both of them?

by **Nina** 23.07.14 9:37

SallyVern wrote:
BlueBag wrote:The pink tip could be the tip of the right peak of the hat (from our POV).

Without knowing the exact position of everything (angle of glasses, curvature, height of camera and the properties of the camera itself (parallax does weird things) then I don't see anything massively wrong.

You have no idea what you are seeing in the glasses and the physics are probably complex.

I'm going along with the picture was not on the 3rd but I don't see why anyone would photoshop the glasses, paying exacting attention to the shadow of the glasses on the face and shirt and not bother with the reflection.

Why would Gerry need his glasses photoshopping anyway?

You could be right, although I doubt it. It's not necessary anyway. Ask the dogs.
I'm with the person (I think it was PeterMac?) who posted the weather chart and showed the sunniest day was likely Sunday 29th April. IF the last photo was taken then and not on 3rd like we've been led to believe and IF GM had a stye or some other mark on his eye on 29th April then there'd be a need to cover his eyes surely. It's the only explanation I can think of if they've gone to the trouble of moving the glasses from tshirt to face.

Loads of photos of GM on 3rd May and following days so easy to point out that the “mark” whatever it might be, is no longer there. Stye's take a few days to clear (not saying it is a stye just using it as an example).

I'm no photo expert but the shadow on his tshirt looks like folded sunglasses hanging from his neckline not his face, at least to me.

Admittedly there does look like shadow on his face beneath the glasses and thinking about it, why not just photoshop the stye out? I'm confusing myself now!

Anyway whichever way I look at it those glasses look better suited hanging from the neckline. To me the sunlight reflecting at the bottom of the glasses looks right now while the rest of the glasses look to be in shadow (from his face?) and like someone else pointed out, the tip of Amelie's hat also looks right now that Shibboleth has moved the glasses to GM's neckline.

I've copied Shibboleth's idea but used the high resolution photo instead to show more detail.

All in my personal opinion.

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

Surely if his glasses had been hung from his teeshirt neck band then it would have been dipped a little, also there would have been a change of the shadow behind tthe glasses on the shirt.

by missbeetle 23.07.14 9:39

parapono wrote:
missbeetle wrote:Just out of curiosity - has anyone seen Gerald McCann in real life?

Have we a height on the man?
Seen him in Lisbon
About 1.78 m.

eta must be in his passport

Thank you for that, Parapono. I make that at about 5'10", which is pretty much what I'd thought.

I couldn't find that information in with his grinning passport...

Maybe I was not looking in the right place.

Whilst you were in Lisbon, did you see Kate, if so how tall would you say she is?

Many thanks.

Nina - agree with your observations. Poolside Amelie seems out-sized.