Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by j.rob 03.11.14 14:07

I wonder why there was a need for Gerry to be wearing a pair of sunglasses in the alleged 'final photo'. As others have noted on Thursday it was only 17 degrees and it was a partially cloudy day so not especially sunglasses weather. And they look rather like ladies' sunglasses at that!

What does Kate write about the sunglasses in her book?

Gerry apparently bought the sunglasses on Tuesday 1st May on a trip to the beach. Despite the fact that it was raining Gerry apparently needed sunglasses.

"Before heading up the road, we stopped at a shop on the corner of Rua da Praia and Avenida dos Pescadores, one of several open-air market-style stalls, as Gerry needed a pair of sunglasses."

I wonder why Gerry specifically needed sunglasses on the Tuesday? I have long felt that by Tuesday *something bad* had happened.

Was it was to conceal his eye area (bruises/black eye/puffy eyes) and/or was it to help conceal his identity perhaps while out doing something. (And don't forget, Kate had whopping great bruises on her hands, wrists and forearms on Friday. And judging by the look of the bruises in an early photo of KM after Madeleine's 'disappearance' they were sustained earlier than Thursday. I reckon that the Mcs had a lot more than a 'tiff' over GM's 'lack of social graces' that week.)

by palm tree 03.11.14 14:10

GM was not there at 1:29 on the 3rd because in his statement he tells police he was leaving the apartment to go to the recreation area.
GM was not there at 2:29 on the 3rd either because he told police he was signing the twins into the Jellyfish crèche.
IMO

by tiny 03.11.14 14:13

BlueBag wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
smokinggun wrote:Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in the thread. Looking at the reflection in GM's sunglasses you can see the pink hat of Amelie but then there is the side of the pool running along with no MM!!

That's because MM is to Amelie's left.

I don't see anything amiss with the photo other than the weather.

I see something amiss with the reflection.

We should see a reflection of Gerrys elbow right next to the hat, but its not there.
Gerry's elbow is behind Amelies hat.

Are we going to have ridiculous arguments about photoshop again when we all know what the elephant in the pool is?

then surely we would see Madeleine next to A,if its the other side then we would see Gerry t shirt

by Guest 03.11.14 14:19

tiny wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
smokinggun wrote:Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in the thread. Looking at the reflection in GM's sunglasses you can see the pink hat of Amelie but then there is the side of the pool running along with no MM!!

That's because MM is to Amelie's left.

I don't see anything amiss with the photo other than the weather.

I see something amiss with the reflection.

We should see a reflection of Gerrys elbow right next to the hat, but its not there.
Gerry's elbow is behind Amelies hat.

Are we going to have ridiculous arguments about photoshop again when we all know what the elephant in the pool is?
then surely we would see Madeleine next to A,if its the other side then we would see Gerry t shirt

It's the foremost tip of Amelies hat reflected in the sunglasses.

All the other things some people are banging on about are to Amelies left or behind her.

This has been beaten to dead in this thread and it's a pointless argument.

The weather... the weather... sunglasses, skimpy summer clothes feet in the water, that's the real issue.

by smokinggun 03.11.14 14:21

BlueBag wrote:
smokinggun wrote:Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in the thread. Looking at the reflection in GM's sunglasses you can see the pink hat of Amelie but then there is the side of the pool running along with no MM!!

That's because MM is to Amelie's left.

I don't see anything amiss with the photo other than the weather.

So - why is there a pink hat with nothing to the side of other than the edge of the pool? GM is facing slightly to his left thus the reflection will show what is to his left. If the hat in the reflection was white followed by the end of the pool then that would be fine - that would be MM. But the hat is clearly pink meaning that right next to that hat should be MM but instead there is only the edge of the pool.

EDIT TO ADD: If the reflection shows what's behind MM why does it clearly show the edge of the pool including the water!

by j.rob 03.11.14 14:25

The proportions of the bodies are wrong and also the angles are wrong. Gerry's torso is much too big for his lower half. His right knee is pointing at an awkward angle to the right. As others have noted he is 'floating' on the edge of the pool. Amelie's right arm is missing. Given the angle that she is sitting at it is impossible, imo, for her right arm to be completely hidden behind her. That is not compatible with the angle of her body. Madeleine is particularly badly photo-shopped, imo. Her head angle is incompatible with her body angle. I think it would be impossible for her head to be so far angled over given the position of her body. Her left arm does not look like that of a nearly four year old but looks like the arm of an older child. And the part of her legs you can see also do not look like those of a four year old and also they look too long and large to be compatible with the rest of the body.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.11.14 14:31

Hicks wrote:I think smoking gun has settled this debate on the last photo.

Would be safe to say then perhaps the photo was taken on the 3rd, but that Madeleine was not there?

Either that or it was taken on the 29th April without Madeleine? Which could imply that she met her fate as soon as they arrived...or Madeleine was never in PDL in the first place.

smoking gun wrote: "Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in the thread. Looking at the reflection in GM's sunglasses you can see the pink hat of Amelie but then there is the side of the pool running along with no MM!!"

@ HelenMeg @ Snifferdog @ Hicks @ smoking gun

REPLY: I am afraid that the rejection of the authenticity of this photo seems to be being rejected on very slender grounds.

I part company with smoking gun's attempted interpretation from the sunglasses, as do most others. To base a claim that a photograph is photoshopped purely on what one sees in sunglasses' reflections is fraught with problems. Unless the evidence from the sunglasses is crystal clear, which I suggest it is not.

If a photo has been photoshopped, usually one can say how.

But @ Hicks can only say the photo might have been taken on 29 April OR 3 May, basing his claim on his view that Madeleine has been photoshopped in.

There is a fundamental objection to all the theories that this Last Photo was photoshopped and so far this objection has been ignored.

That is the length of the shadow on the three individuals.

The most imprtant feature of them is that they are utterly consistent as between the three individuals. Moreover, this is impossible to fake (this by the way is the verdict of the two experts that PeterMac consulted).

On each of the three, the sun burns down from near vertical, hence the very short shadows on all of them. The sun would be at its highest that time of year between 1pm and 2pm.

Those who suggest e.g. missing shadows on the thighs etc. are missing the point that, because the sun is so high, a shadow would probably not be found there.

For a long time, we have wondered why the 'Last Photo' was held up fpr 3 weeks.

An explanation that fits the facts has now been found - it seems to be a genuine photo but maybe taken 3 or 4 days earlier.

If so, then it clearly does not prove that Madeleine was alive on 3 May.

That is why, of course, we have the story about the sunglasses, and the story about the hair beads, all said to have occurred on 3 May. These details are intended to confirm in our minds that the photo really was taken on 3 May.

But what if it wasn't?

by Guest 03.11.14 14:35

Once again we see an attempt to confuse the simple issue with "the last photo".

I don't see anything wrong with any of the elements in the picture and I'm far from alone on that issue!

As for the reflection in the sunglasses... please engage brain.

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

by tiny 03.11.14 14:41

so are you saying the the reflection misses Madeleine all together.thank you

by Guest 03.11.14 14:45

tiny wrote:so are you saying the the reflection misses Madeleine all together.thank you

Absolutely!

Madeleine is to Amelies left and below the tip of the hat.

What we are seeing reflected is everything above the line of the tip of the hat and the side of the pool as it curves around (which becomes vertical in the reflection).

by Hicks 03.11.14 14:46

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

I know very little about photography so this might sound ridiculous, however, in the reflection of the glasses (right side) there is a blue line representing the edge of the pool? Surely this should be a white line as the edging is white? The reflection seems wrong.

I just wonder if the photo was taken on the 3rd but that the glasses, and Madeleine have been added.

My reasoning being that Gerry has a tanned face in this photo. That wouldn't be the case if it was taken at the beginning of the holiday.

by j.rob 03.11.14 14:59

Apart from the fact that Amelie's right arm could not be completely hidden, given the angle she is sitting at, imo, her left arm is also wrong.

Look at the crease which signifies the end of the arm and the beginning of the hand. In other words the wrist area which in a child of that age does look like a crease due to puppy-fat. Given the way she is sitting, you would expect her hand to be flat on the ground or resting on the ground. Which would be why her elbow is bent and would be completely compatible with that type of sitting position.

But her hand cannot be flat on the ground or resting on the ground because the wrist area as signified by the crease in the photo is too far away from the ground to allow for that possibility.

So how can this anomaly be explained? Perhaps her hand is just dangling down? But no, that would be incompatible with the bent elbow.

Pretty much everything about that photo is fake, imo.

I wonder what would happen if you took Gerry out of the photo but left everything else in?

by tiny 03.11.14 15:02

BlueBag wrote:
tiny wrote:so are you saying the the reflection misses Madeleine all together.thank you

Absolutely!

Madeleine is to Amelies left and below the tip of the hat.

What we are seeing reflected is everything above the line of the tip of the hat and the side of the pool as it curves around (which becomes vertical in the reflection).

Are you an expert in photography may I ask

by Guest 03.11.14 15:15

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that Amelie had been added in to hide the watch on GM's arm which could reveal the time and even date (with very good photographic software maybe you could distinguish between single or double digits i.e end of April / beginning of May)?

Maybe someone knows which arm GM normally wore it on (I need missbeetle here...)

Wanted to add this into the mix as I have never seen it discussed on this forum.

All IMO.

by j.rob 03.11.14 15:31

It would be interesting to see the photo with Gerry taken out but Madeleine and Amelie remaining.

And then with Amelie taken out but Gerry and Madeleine remaining in.

by Snifferdog 03.11.14 15:34

I don't think the time would be visible as the watch face would be out of our view - where it would usually be sitting.

by Hicks 03.11.14 15:40

BlackCatBoogie wrote:I read somewhere (can't remember where) that Amelie had been added in to hide the watch on GM's arm which could reveal the time and even date (with very good photographic software maybe you could distinguish between single or double digits i.e end of April / beginning of May)?

Maybe someone knows which arm GM normally wore it on (I need missbeetle here...)

Wanted to add this into the mix as I have never seen it discussed on this forum.

All IMO.

There's this..

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

Link not working. If you Google-Gerry McCann- and go onto images you will see lots of photo's showing him wearing a watch on his left arm

by juliet 03.11.14 15:48

Tony, I can't believe you haven't read the 1,764 threads over the past seven years tearing the last photo and the playground photo apart. It is your idea that neither has been tampered with which is unexpected and extraordinary.

by Guest 03.11.14 16:14

tiny wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
tiny wrote:so are you saying the the reflection misses Madeleine all together.thank you

Absolutely!

Madeleine is to Amelies left and below the tip of the hat.

What we are seeing reflected is everything above the line of the tip of the hat and the side of the pool as it curves around (which becomes vertical in the reflection).
Are you an expert in photography may I ask

No.. just good at seeing the bleedin obvious.

by sallypelt 04.11.14 11:15

Someone on CF's forum posted a very interesting post. I hope that the poster doesn't mind me posting it verbatim on here: Apologies in advance but if it can be proved that the time HAS been altered, then everything else is blown right out of the water, because why would someone go to such lengths to alter the timing if there's nothing to hide?

QUOTE

Being optimistic brightens my day so...
GM tells police exactly where he was at 1:29 & 2:29, then a pic appears 3weeks later placing him at the pool, he obviously wasn't there so has lied to police (imo). Maybe some of these witnesses can place him somewhere else? Or not place him where the pic does?
Imo

by HelenMeg 04.11.14 11:18

sallypelt wrote:Someone on CF's forum posted a very interesting post. I hope that the poster doesn't mind me posting it verbatim on here: Apologies in advance but if it can be proved that the time HAS been altered, then everything else is blown right out of the water, because why would someone go to such lengths to alter the timing if there's nothing to hide?

QUOTE

Being optimistic brightens my day so...
GM tells police exactly where he was at 1:29 & 2:29, then a pic appears 3weeks later placing him at the pool, he obviously wasn't there so has lied to police (imo). Maybe some of these witnesses can place him somewhere else? Or not place him where the pic does?
Imo

Yes we can live in hope - I do feel optimistic in general about this case at the moment.

by Atomic Peanut 04.11.14 11:49

sallypelt wrote:Someone on CF's forum posted a very interesting post. GM tells police exactly where he was at 1:29 & 2:29, then a pic appears 3weeks later placing him at the pool, he obviously wasn't there so has lied to police (imo). Maybe some of these witnesses can place him somewhere else? Or not place him where the pic does?
Imo

The poster is wrong, sallypelt. In GM's witness statement made to the PJ on 10th May 2007, he said they all left the apartment around 1.30pm, went to the pool and play area, and stayed there until 2.30-2.35pm

by sallypelt 04.11.14 11:52

Atomic Peanut wrote:
sallypelt wrote:Someone on CF's forum posted a very interesting post. GM tells police exactly where he was at 1:29 & 2:29, then a pic appears 3weeks later placing him at the pool, he obviously wasn't there so has lied to police (imo). Maybe some of these witnesses can place him somewhere else? Or not place him where the pic does?
Imo
The poster is wrong, sallypelt. In GM's witness statement made to the PJ on 10th May 2007, he said they all left the apartment around 1.30pm, went to the pool and play area, and stayed there until 2.30-2.35pm

Well, I can't see where the poster is "wrong" if GM said where he was between 1:30pm - 2:35pm. He said he was by the pool. The 1:29pm time is the time the "last photograph" was taken. So, where is the poster wrong?

by Atomic Peanut 04.11.14 11:58

because the last photo is alleged to have been taken at 2.29pm, not 1.29pm

by sallypelt 04.11.14 12:01

Atomic Peanut wrote:because the last photo is alleged to have been taken at 2.29pm, not 1.29pm

But hasn't it been proven that the time must have been 1:29Pm because of the shadows? Hasn't it been examined by "experts" who say that the shadows on that photograph are consistent with being taken at 1:29PM?

by **Tony Bennett** 04.11.14 12:07

juliet wrote:Tony, I can't believe you haven't read the 1,764 threads over the past seven years tearing the last photo and the playground photo apart. It is your idea that neither has been tampered with which is unexpected and extraordinary.

That's not a very helpful response at all, and is not an answer to my question.

Regarding the 'Last Photo' in particular, please give me just ONE concrete example of a bit of photoshopping on that photo about which you can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it has been photoshopped (and please do the same for the Saturday evening playground pictures as well if you are able).

And besides that, please tell me how any photoshopper could fake all three shadows perfectly matching each other in length, so as to satisfy two top experts consulted by PeterMac that this photograph has NOT been photoshopped, but was a genuine, uintampered-with photograph - but maybe taken on a different date

by Atomic Peanut 04.11.14 12:12

sallypelt wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:because the last photo is alleged to have been taken at 2.29pm, not 1.29pm
But hasn't it been proven that the time must have been 1:29Pm because of the shadows? Hasn't it been examined by "experts" who say that the shadows on that photograph are consistent with being taken at 1:29PM?

When the pioneer of last photo discussions, The Author, analysed the photo back in the days of the Mirror forum, he concluded that the lateral angle of the sun was consistent with 2.29pm rather than 1.29pm. He or she also said that the vertical angle of the sun was slightly more consistent with 1.29 (when the sun was higher in the sky) than 2.29 but that it didn't match either of them. In his or her opinion the shadows were too long for either time

by **Tony Bennett** 04.11.14 12:16

sallypelt wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:because the last photo is alleged to have been taken at 2.29pm, not 1.29pm
But hasn't it been proven that the time must have been 1:29pm because of the shadows? Hasn't it been examined by "experts" who say that the shadows on that photograph are consistent with being taken at 1:29pm?

At 1.29pm in late April/early May, the sun would be at its absolute highest, and I personally think that this photo WAS taken at 1.29pm - though probably on a different date (somewhere there is a convoluted explanation by Gerry McCann about the different time zones and the reason the camera said 1.29pm not 2.29pm (or the other way round) - I can't find it now, but it struck me as rather a forced and unnecessary explanation at the time).

To PROVE that the shadows could only result from a photo taken at 1.29pm is another matter, and PeterMac's experts did not say that. You would need an expert to calculate the angle of the sun at the time the photo was taken - THEN you would be able to estimate the tim of day it was taken.

PeterMac's experts said, in terms, that the the shadows were of consistent length which in effect proves that all three were in the picture at the time when it was taken.

I hope that clears it up

by Atomic Peanut 04.11.14 12:21

The Author claimed that the sun would have had to be at an angle of 80 degrees from the horizontal to create the long vertical shadows in the last photo, and that the sun was never at a higher angle than 60-something degrees in PdL that week
To be sure of that, you would need a third dimension to the photo - ie to see how far forward they're all leaning
But you can read his or her theory here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by palm tree 04.11.14 12:24

Atomic Peanut wrote:
sallypelt wrote:Someone on CF's forum posted a very interesting post. GM tells police exactly where he was at 1:29 & 2:29, then a pic appears 3weeks later placing him at the pool, he obviously wasn't there so has lied to police (imo). Maybe some of these witnesses can place him somewhere else? Or not place him where the pic does?
Imo
The poster is wrong, sallypelt. In GM's witness statement made to the PJ on 10th May 2007, he said they all left the apartment around 1.30pm, went to the pool and play area, and stayed there until 2.30-2.35pm

1:30 they all left the apartment (couldn't have been sitting sweating by the pool at 1:29)
2:30 GM told police he was signing the twins into crèche (couldn't be sitting sweating by the pool)
No mention of pool by either GM or KM.
IMO