Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by bobbin 02.11.14 13:48

aquila wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:I'm not trying to hold up the last photo as an indisputable historical record. I'm just saying that it might have been taken on 3rd May, then again it might not
---------------------------------------------
Thankyou AP.
You sound just like DCI Mahogany! "may have been or may not have been" "could of been but could not have been" "might have or might not have"
Thank you JM, but I can't deduce anything from it so I leave that to others. They have strong views and have said they consulted experts, good. But the conclusions must be based on fact, and that is where I have tried to explain errors that have been made about the weather (like the air temperature being measured in the shade and the wind speed being taken 10m off the ground) Meanwhile, do you have any comments about the playground pic? Every time it's brought up, the discussion is buried by distractions or diverted towards the last photo
Plebgate - there have been several threads about the playground pic but they quickly dry up
The playground pic is important because it is supposed to have been taken nearly a day earlier than the last photo, so it would make sense to analyse that one first
AP, do you have any proof of the kiddies' pool being a sheltered haven in a break between the clouds?

I've looked at your reasoning. I've lived in a hot European country by the sea. I've been able to sit in a t shirt on my patio in April - that's mostly because it was sheltered by walls very close to me. I can't see anything sheltered in the Ocean Club - no matter what wind speed, what vertical level is used to calculate it, what walls etc surrounding it. I can't see anything that makes the kiddies' pool a little sheltered haven.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
@atomic peanut.
Can you also tell where you have found any info on the Boyd Family.
The above site is all I could find.

There, of course, is confusion.

Vickie Boyd is referring to May 2nd, since Madeleine went missing the NEXT day.

Madeleine according to First Magazine report, was apparently wearing a sunhat, pink top and BLUE SKIRT and was going up and down the WATERSLIDE, which there wasn't at the OC kiddies pool, and if she was in a skirt it would all be getting very wet.

Perhaps Vickie Boyd meant the slide at the grassy play area.

She talks of Gerry arriving from tennis, putting his arm around Kate, a lovely family unit.

Gerry says what he was doing on 3rd May around lunch time (in the post above) and there is no mention of tennis.

Since on 3rd May Maddie was back in creche, for the p.m. it can only be May 2nd that Maddie, in a blue skirt, might have been playing football by the pool and play area with Louie, the Boyd's son.

So, effectively, why are you using the Boyd's statement/news article and comment on Madeleine/time at pool/play area, clothing etc. to make any reference to the weather on 3rd May or whether Madeleine was in fact even at the pool side on 3rd May.

by Atomic Peanut 02.11.14 14:21

Yes Bobbin, you are correct, that's the only article I've seen and it isn't certain which day the Boyds are talking about - the 2nd or 3rd May. I did mention that on another thread, along with the fact that the clothes are different from the last photo

The article says M was abducted "the next day". Strictly speaking, that makes the meeting with the Boyds on 2nd May, as she went missing at 10pm on the 3rd

But then the son goes on to be quoted as saying (on seeing the posters) "is that the little girl I played with yesterday?", which makes the meeting look like 3rd May

I wonder if the article referring to "the next day" means the day (4th May) when everybody found out about M being missing, rather than 10pm on the 3rd

The meeting with the Boyds is unlikely to have been 2nd May though. Although there has been much debate about the weather on the 3rd, there is no doubt that it rained on the morning of the 2nd, which would have made a lunchtime rendezvous by the pool a rather soggy one

Later on there was an appeal for the "nice lady by the pool" on 3rd June, which may have been an error - meaning 3rd May instead

When you try to fit all the witness statements and photos together, some of them must be wrong.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.11.14 14:22

bobbin wrote:
So, effectively, why are you using the Boyd's statement/news article and comment on Madeleine/time at pool/play area, clothing etc. to make any reference to the weather on 3rd May or whether Madeleine was in fact even at the pool side on 3rd May.

Because, in reality, he is agent of the McCann Team, whose purpose here is just to sidetrack and distract us, and generally waste our time?

If you look back through Peanut 's posts, he hangs a great deal of evidence on the peg of the Boyds' statement.

It looks, however, as though the screws holding up that peg are about to fall out...

...the peg and all the evidence he hangs on it crashing to the floor along with the screws.

by Atomic Peanut 02.11.14 14:25

I am not an agent of anybody and find it disappointing that the valid points I have made have been brushed aside so dismissively
Bobbin please read my last post

by Guest 02.11.14 14:29

Atomic Peanut - do you have any thoughts on what happened to Madeleine?

by Atomic Peanut 02.11.14 14:32

LIR the problem is that, as so many have said before, there is no solution that matches all the information. There is always something in the chain that doesn't fit. But I suppose that's why we're still talking about it
I admire the deductive work done by so many posters but when I am accused of being a double agent it's proof to me that not all the theories are correct!

by bobbin 02.11.14 14:34

Atomic Peanut wrote:Yes Bobbin, you are correct, that's the only article I've seen and it isn't certain which day the Boyds are talking about - the 2nd or 3rd May. I did mention that on another thread, along with the fact that the clothes are different from the last photo

However, the article says M was abducted "the next day". Strictly speaking, that makes the meeting with the Boyds on 2nd May, as she went missing at 10pm on the 3rd

But then the son goes on to be quoted as saying (on seeing the posters) "is that the little girl I played with yesterday?", which makes the meeting look like 3rd May

I wonder if the article referring to "the next day" means the day (4th May) when everybody found out about M being missing, rather than 10pm on the 3rd

The meeting with the Boyds is unlikely to have been 2nd May though. Although there has been much debate about the weather on the 3rd, there is no doubt that it rained on the morning of the 2nd, which would have made a lunchtime rendezvous by the pool a rather soggy one

Later on there was an appeal for the "nice lady by the pool" on 3rd June, which may have been an error - meaning 3rd May instead

When you try to fit all the witness statements and photos together, some of them must be wrong.

Ref to 3rd June is actually correct because it refers to Sunday 3rd June and of course 3rd May was a Thursday.

The appeal was on 3rd June, to find the mum, so once again it does not refer to the pool side event as being the 3rd May.

In reference to whether the pool side becomes 3rd May instead of the 2nd... you base this calculation on a 3 year old boy whom his MOTHER claims has not only articulated his great sorrow at losing his special little friend, but has referred to the past as 'yesterday'.

For heavens sake, yes, Thank you Tony, the screws holding the pegs up are seriously falling out.

There is one thing that comes out of all of this. However hard they try to make the 3rd May fit the chosen propaganda theory they still haven't managed to break any of the ever increasing observations which point to the contrary.

by Atomic Peanut 02.11.14 14:48

I really don't follow your reasoning - are you saying the Boyds were lying? They are a real family who have no connection to the case other than just being there. I agree that the article is badly written, but the meeting obviously did take place and it wasn't on 2nd May as it would have been too wet. Are you suggesting that the meeting was on 29th April and they miscalculated the number of days by rather a lot?

by Guest 02.11.14 15:38

Atomic Peanut wrote:I really don't follow your reasoning - are you saying the Boyds were lying? They are a real family who have no connection to the case other than just being there. I agree that the article is badly written, but the meeting obviously did take place and it wasn't on 2nd May as it would have been too wet. Are you suggesting that the meeting was on 29th April and they miscalculated the number of days by rather a lot?

I can't believe that anybody is giving credence to an article that appeared in "First" magazine. I wouldn't say the content of this type of publication are a complete fabrication but for the purposes of establishing hard facts they might as well be.

by j.rob 02.11.14 15:44

Atomic Peanut wrote:I really don't follow your reasoning - are you saying the Boyds were lying? They are a real family who have no connection to the case other than just being there. I agree that the article is badly written, but the meeting obviously did take place and it wasn't on 2nd May as it would have been too wet. Are you suggesting that the meeting was on 29th April and they miscalculated the number of days by rather a lot?

The Boyds could be lying. People do lie sometimes for all sorts of reasons. They may know the McCanns and/or have reasons to back up the McCann's version of events. They may have media links. There may have been incentives for them to say what they said. All these things are a possibility.

What does a 'real' family mean? As opposed to a 'fake' family, you mean? How do you know they have no connection to the case? Where is the evidence to support this statement?

There are a great number of inconsistencies in that article. To pick out just one, Mrs Boyds is quoted as saying that the Ocean Club holiday was the first holiday abroad for the McCann family. Whereas in her book Kate writes: "Gerry and I took the kids everywhere ......so they were used to travelling. They had been on lots of family trips to........Crieff, Donegal, Guernsey and Spain."

So how does that tally with Mrs Boyd stating that this was the McCann's first family holiday abroad?

You write that the meeting obviously did take place. How do you know? Maybe it didn't take place at all. Or maybe there was some kind of meeting but it was different to the one described; and/or on a different day; at a different time; involved different people.

The events as described in the article do not tally with events as described by Kate in her book. In the book Gerry is described as playing tennis after the play time when the children had returned to their clubs.

Whereas in the article Gerry is said to have been playing tennis during children's playtime. And finished tennis to come over and put his arm around Kate. Given the inconsistencies as outlined and given the speculation about the events of Thursday 3rd May, I would suggest that the article is a (very unconvincing) attempt to provide an alibi for Gerry, Kate and Madeleine at lunchtime on Thursday 3rd May. And to suggest that they were a happy family unit, when they may well not have been.

All of which looks very suspicious, imo.

by **PeterMac** 02.11.14 16:01

I thought under the circumstances the best thing to do was to Whoosh PdL in its entirety.
200 kilotons was sufficient !

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

by Atomic Peanut 02.11.14 16:03

Jrob - they are a real family because they actually exist - fact. They have no connection to the case because they weren't interviewed as witnesses. If the PJ thought they had something to offer, do we really think they would have ignored the Boyds? If there was the slightest possibility that they were lying to protect an arguido, they would have been well up on the list of persons of interest - potentially they would hold the key to the whole saga. And the PJ couldn't have been unaware of them because their faces were all over a magazine (and then The Sun a year later) Etc etc
The meeting took place, it wasn't on 2nd May because it was too wet. It probably wasn't on 29th April, unless there's evidence to suggest that it was - too early. And that leaves...?
Of all the dubious characters involved in this case, why have there now been three attempts (all in the last few hours) to diss the Boyds?

by **Tony Bennett** 02.11.14 16:11

j.rob wrote:
The Boyds could be lying. People do lie sometimes for all sorts of reasons. They may know the McCanns and/or have reasons to back up the McCann's version of events. They may have media links. There may have been incentives for them to say what they said. All these things are a possibility.

Much the same could of course apply to the Martin Smith family from Ireland

by Guest 02.11.14 17:00

Atomic Peanut wrote:
Of all the dubious characters involved in this case, why have there now been three attempts (all in the last few hours) to diss the Boyds?

As you may have guessed, I quite like motor racing. Now you may or may not have heard of an Irish racing driver called Martin Donelly; he was grievously injured in an accident during practice for the 1990 Spanish Grand Prix at Jerez.

This is him :-

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

Now, some time later I stumbled across an "interview" with his fiance in some Take a Break style magazine in a doctor's surgery or somesuch. I use the term interview lightly, as to say that they had taken liberties with the truth (of which I was well aware) would be a gross understatement - they had mangled the facts more badly than poor Martin's legs. I therefore bring a healthy dose of cynicism to anything I hear reported from similar quarters.

I'm not saying it's the Boyds' fault by any means, but this "real life" style reportage often seems to me to be anything but.

by Woofer 02.11.14 18:03

Tony Bennett wrote:
bobbin wrote:
So, effectively, why are you using the Boyd's statement/news article and comment on Madeleine/time at pool/play area, clothing etc. to make any reference to the weather on 3rd May or whether Madeleine was in fact even at the pool side on 3rd May.
Because, in reality, he is agent of the McCann Team, whose purpose here is just to sidetrack and distract us, and generally waste our time?

If you look back through Peanut 's posts, he hangs a great deal of evidence on the peg of the Boyds' statement.

It looks, however, as though the screws holding up that peg are about to fall out...

...the peg and all the evidence he hangs on it crashing to the floor along with the screws.

Why oh why are people not allowed to question on this forum? Some people do possess the ability to think independently and raise queries even if they are being devil's advocate - there is nothing wrong with that, in fact it is the healthy thing to do rather than have to stick sheepishly to what certain posters advocate. Gosh its no wonder so many people get disheartened.

by Hicks 02.11.14 20:19

Woofer wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
bobbin wrote:
So, effectively, why are you using the Boyd's statement/news article and comment on Madeleine/time at pool/play area, clothing etc. to make any reference to the weather on 3rd May or whether Madeleine was in fact even at the pool side on 3rd May.
Because, in reality, he is agent of the McCann Team, whose purpose here is just to sidetrack and distract us, and generally waste our time?

If you look back through Peanut 's posts, he hangs a great deal of evidence on the peg of the Boyds' statement.

It looks, however, as though the screws holding up that peg are about to fall out...

...the peg and all the evidence he hangs on it crashing to the floor along with the screws.
Why oh why are people not allowed to question on this forum? Some people do possess the ability to think independently and raise queries even if they are being devil's advocate - there is nothing wrong with that, in fact it is the healthy thing to do rather than have to stick sheepishly to what certain posters advocate. Gosh its no wonder so many people get disheartened.

Atomic Peanut always makes valid points. I don't see why he/she is viewed with suspicion. Is it just for having a different opinion?. Woofer is right, we continually need to question and look on the flip side.
AP is always polite.

by j.rob 02.11.14 20:42

Tony Bennett wrote:
j.rob wrote:
The Boyds could be lying. People do lie sometimes for all sorts of reasons. They may know the McCanns and/or have reasons to back up the McCann's version of events. They may have media links. There may have been incentives for them to say what they said. All these things are a possibility.
Much the same could of course apply to the Martin Smith family from Ireland

Yes, indeed.

It is perfectly possible that the Smith testimony is not entirely unbiased. And I think it is very odd that they did not go to the police immediately with their 'sighting'.

Truly independent, unbiased completely disinterested eye-witnesses in this case seem to be as rare as hens' teeth. I would say that neighbour Mrs Fenn was one - which would be why Kate in her book is dismissive and rude towards her. The social worker who arrived on the scene - Yvette Martin - is probably one, and again Kate in her book is very dismissive of her. So, imo, that probably means that she was a thorn in the TM side, as Mrs Fenn was. And indeed as detective Amaral was/is. Who Kate appears to have developed an intense dislike of, if her book is anything to go by. You could almost label Kate as a 'hater', given the anger that she directs towards a number of people in her book - but especially detective Amaral who was only ever 'doing his job' imo.

by HelenMeg 02.11.14 22:12

Hicks wrote:
Woofer wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
bobbin wrote:
So, effectively, why are you using the Boyd's statement/news article and comment on Madeleine/time at pool/play area, clothing etc. to make any reference to the weather on 3rd May or whether Madeleine was in fact even at the pool side on 3rd May.
Because, in reality, he is agent of the McCann Team, whose purpose here is just to sidetrack and distract us, and generally waste our time?

If you look back through Peanut 's posts, he hangs a great deal of evidence on the peg of the Boyds' statement.

It looks, however, as though the screws holding up that peg are about to fall out...

...the peg and all the evidence he hangs on it crashing to the floor along with the screws.
Why oh why are people not allowed to question on this forum? Some people do possess the ability to think independently and raise queries even if they are being devil's advocate - there is nothing wrong with that, in fact it is the healthy thing to do rather than have to stick sheepishly to what certain posters advocate. Gosh its no wonder so many people get disheartened.
Atomic Peanut always makes valid points. I don't see why he/she is viewed with suspicion. Is it just for having a different opinion?. Woofer is right, we continually need to question and look on the flip side.
AP is always polite.

agree - whats the problem..

by Liz Eagles 02.11.14 22:26

The last photo (and it's very clear on this forum that I try to stay well out of it as I know zilch about photography) does seem to get people 'frothing at the mouth'.

The last photo is a bone of contention.

I read everyone's posts as to the validity of the last photo.

What I find extremely interesting from AP's posts are his/her consistent pointers away from the last photo to the playground photo.

by Atomic Peanut 02.11.14 22:36

... because the last photo has been argued about for 7 years without a satisfactory conclusion, whereas the playground photograph has obvious defects yet is rarely discussed
As I understand it, the point of disproving the timing or composition of the last photo is to demonstrate that M wasn't around at 2.30 on 3rd May. However, the playground photo was allegedly timed at about 5pm on 2nd May, and to eliminate that would move her disappearance forward nearly another day. The last photo would effectively be irrelevant. Yet still nobody wants to talk about it
My posts are based upon logic, and thank you to all of you who have recognised that

by canada12 02.11.14 22:39

IMO the Playground Photo (with all of its obvious mistakes) was put out there as a diversion. So that it could be pointed at as an obvious case of photoshopping, to divert attention away from The Last Photo, which (IMO) has also been photoshopped, but with a good deal more skill than the Playground Photo.

Sorry.

by Atomic Peanut 02.11.14 22:46

Or is it that the endless debates about the last photo are driven by those who want to divert us away from the playground photo, because it's so bad? It isn't obvious who released it though. Interesting point, C12

by Liz Eagles 02.11.14 22:49

Atomic Peanut wrote:... because the last photo has been argued about for 7 years without a satisfactory conclusion, whereas the playground photograph has obvious defects yet is rarely discussed
As I understand it, the point of disproving the timing or composition of the last photo is to demonstrate that M wasn't around at 2.30 on 3rd May. However, the playground photo was allegedly timed at about 5pm on 2nd May, and to eliminate that would move her disappearance forward nearly another day. Yet still nobody wants to talk about it
My posts are based upon logic, and thank you to all of you who have recognised that

I think you need to go through your posts again as you seem to be tripping yourself up with timelines.

I have no wish to debate/argue and I'm not going to. I've read your timelines. I suggest you read them again.

by Atomic Peanut 02.11.14 22:52

They are consistent except for occasions where I have taken on board comments by other posters and amended my understanding of things, that seems fair to me. This is the second time today that I've been accused of doing similar, and the last one was shown to be wrong. Not all of my suggestions will be spot on, and I apologise for that aquila, but I am always happy to be corrected

by juliet 02.11.14 23:25

Surely no-one believes in the ludicrous playground photo? I thought it had been dismissed as a fake years ago? The trouble is that the media won't publish the truth about this ridiculous mess of a five foot tall Maddie with (literally) two left feet and a missing knee, apart from all the wrong shadows, ballet dancer onlooker etc etc. What can you do with the British press which re-publishes a seven year old photo (which looks nothing like the peggy toothed child we were told is missing) with nauseating McCann-dictated commentary.

by juliet 02.11.14 23:34

ps: I have no problem with AP's postings. I don't understand the snide comments.

by Liz Eagles 02.11.14 23:37

When the father of Madeleine McCann is asked about his last great memory and says the last photo - that has to be questioned.

This is why the reality/provenance of last photo is important and it's very important imo not to deviate from that.

This photograph wasn't released immediately on Madeleine's disappearance. This photograph would/should have been the most up-to-date photograph to give to the media/general public and yet it wasn't handed over immediately from the McCann's camera(s) to those who could print photographs (that's another topic).

Don't deviate. Keep your eye on the ball.

Just my opinion and all that jazz.

by plebgate 02.11.14 23:37

I don't think the comments about Atomic Peanut have been snide. I think they have been very direct and I tend to agree with them.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.11.14 23:39

Atomic Peanut wrote:... because the last photo has been argued about for 7 years without a satisfactory conclusion, whereas the playground photograph has obvious defects yet is rarely discussed
As I understand it, the point of disproving the timing or composition of the last photo is to demonstrate that M wasn't around at 2.30 on 3rd May. However, the playground photo was allegedly timed at about 5pm on 2nd May, and to eliminate that would move her disappearance forward nearly another day. The last photo would effectively be irrelevant. Yet still nobody wants to talk about it
My posts are based upon logic, and thank you to all of you who have recognised that

@ aquila - You make a very pertinent observation about Atomic Peanut drawing our attention away from the numerous problems with the Last Photo and trying to get us to look at the playground.

Atomic Peanut's position =

"Nothing to suggest the Last Photo couldn't have been taken on 3rd May - but look at the playground photo, that's the one with all the problems"

My position: =

Major problem with the Last Photo, given that it was produced 21 days later (a problem that Atomic Peanut has never addressed or commented on),e and given that it was obviously taken on a warm summer's day - and there is nothing wrong with the playground photo.

Now the application of Atomic Peanut's claimed 'logic':

These comments are from his past and oft-repeated postings about the playground photo:

QUOTE

So how do you explain the two impossible sets of shadows on the playground photo, left and right of the pic?

At best, it's two pictures joined together down the middle.

That isn't about debate and opinion, it's a fact staring everyone in the face.

That picture has been discussed on here and other forums for ages, but it cannot be an officially released photograph, surely?

Was it inserted into the mix by a joker who is now sitting back laughing about it?

Everything on the left hand side has a long (late afternoon) shadow going from bottom left to right and everything from middle to right hand side has a shadow going from bottom right to top, or no shadow at all.

I can't believe this was ever released as an official photo because nobody in the world has ever taken a photo like that

So much discussion about the "last photo" but that one [i.e. the playground photo] is impossible.

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

So let's now apply some of Atomic Peanut's fabled 'logic' to these two photographs.

Let's start with his assertion that the playground photo was taken on Wednesday 2 May.

He bases this on an article in a mag with no reputation for accuracy.

There is no mention ever by the McCanns of Madeleine 'playing all afternoon' with the Boyd's, or any other family.

There is no mention of it in Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'.

Then Atomic Peanut objects to the playground photo on the main ground that on the left of the picture the shadows are long and pointing right, whereas he says the shadow seen in the bottom right points a different way.

No it doesn't.

It is simply the shadow of the photographer!

As anyone who has ever taken a photograph with the sun behind them would know this.

Thirdly, it is as certain as can be that this playground photo was taken on the Saturday evening, 28th April, after the McCanns and the rest of the Tapas group had arrived in Praia da Luz.

Some of the group took their children to the playground/play area after they'd arrived and unpacked.

It's in their statements.

It's in Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'.

Madeleine is wearing (I think) the same clothes as she's seen wearing when she climbs up the aeroplane steps and slips a bit.

The shadows indicate latish evening, I should estimate between 5.30pm and 7.00pm.

There is nothing strange or tampered with on that photograph whatsoever.

And notice Atomic Peanut's dogmatism:

QUOTE: "It's two pictures joined together down the middle. That isn't about debate and opinion, it's a fact staring everyone in the face".

Well, well, well. I can't recall seeing as dogmatic a statement as that on this forum. Ever.

And what's more, I'm sure it's wrong.

Now back to the Last Photo.

The major query about the Last Photo is this: why, when it was in the McCanns' camera on 3 May, did it take until 24 May -a day after Mrs Philomena Rickwood arrived post haste from Ullapool to Faro by plane?

This has led to two sets of rival suggestions about the photo.

One group insists it's been photoshopped, and give a variety of reasons within the photographs as to why.

Another group believes it's a genuine photograph taken earlier in the week, maybe Sunday or Monday.

Both groups accept the possibility that it was taken on 3 May.

So why (using logic) has Atomic Peanut invested such energy on this forum in...

* trying to prove by wind directions, microclimates, sunny intervals here and there, and people maybe wearing cardigans and then whipping them off every time the sun comes out for a couple of minutes? (look at all the time he's spent on this on the forum and all the photos he's collected)

* basing much of his evidence on the clearly dubious Boyd family article?

* false claims that the playground photo, almost certainly a genuine photo taken on the Saturday evening, 28 April, was (a) taken on 2 May (b) taken on 3 May, or (c) is a crude photoshop produced by sticking (QUOTE AP) "two pictures joined together down the middle?

I've used my deductive reasoning powers to work out the answer.

So has aquila.

He may be polite.

It is perfectly possible for someone to be polite whilst leading them a merry dance up and down the garden path all the time.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.11.14 23:47

@ Juliet & @ canada 12

Juliet wrote:

Surely no-one believes in the ludicrous playground photo? I thought it had been dismissed as a fake years ago? The trouble is that the media won't publish the truth about this ridiculous mess of a five foot tall Maddie with (literally) two left feet and a missing knee, apart from all the wrong shadows, ballet dancer onlooker etc etc. What can you do with the British press which re-publishes a seven year old photo (which looks nothing like the peggy toothed child we were told is missing) with nauseating McCann-dictated commentary.

I have no problem with AP's postings.

Canada 12 wrote:

IMO the Playground Photo (with all of its obvious mistakes) was put out there as a diversion. So that it could be pointed at as an obvious case of photoshopping, to divert attention away from The Last Photo, which (IMO) has also been photoshopped, but with a good deal more skill than the Playground Photo.

Sorry.

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

Just to make it clear, by the 'Playground Photo', I understood Atomic Peanut to be referring to the one of a group on the lawn with Gerry swinging Madeleine around, and one of the Tapas group's children in the foreground, looking on.

Does anyone seriously suggest that that photo was photshopped?

If so, how?