Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by sallypelt 04.11.14 12:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
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

Thank you, Tony. That's exactly my point. I have never been convinced by "photoshopped" photographs, including the "last photo", but I am convinced that it was taken earlier than the 3rd of May, and I am of the opinion that everything else about the photograph is genuine, EXCEPT the date.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.11.14 12:30

Atomic Peanut wrote:
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

That last bit is utter nonsense ( I read 'The Author's pronouncements at the time btw).

Going by what you say, The Author said the shadow lengths were more consistent with 1.29pm than 2.29pm (which I would agree with btw).

The sun is HIGHER at 1.29pm than at 2.29pm - that is agreed by all.

So your last sentence makes no sense. If The Author says that the shadows were 'too long for either time' (which I DISAGREE with btw), then it follows that the author would be saying that the photo was taken LATER than 2.29pm, which makes complete nonsese of his suggestion that the time is nearer 1.29pm than 2.29pm.

The really relevant part of what 'The Author' wrote was that he took as read that the angle of the sun was the same on all three individuals - which backs up 100% what PeterMac's experts said - namely that all three individuals were snapped at the same time i.e. on the same occasion. The experts said that you couldn't fake that.

That is the fundamental objection to claims that one individual has been shopped in to that photo from another photo.

P.S. Using astronomical charts I calculated some time ago that the sun would be at its zenith at that time of year in southern Portugal at 1.35pm (with a margin of error of about 2 minutes either way) - you can do the calculation yourself on the internet.

by Atomic Peanut 04.11.14 12:38

I meant long vertically - ie they go too far down the chest. But as I said, you can't see how far forward they're leaning, and an inch or two would make a difference. Try it yourselves
The Author said there was nowhere on earth that the photo could have been taken that week, so make of that what you will. Without a 3D aspect I think it's impossible to tell
Agreed, the time of solar noon (highest point in the sky) in PdL is approx 1.30pm, and the time shown on the camera was 1.29pm
Chart for Portimao here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Probably a coincidence?

by sallypelt 04.11.14 12:46

Now I will go back to my original post, which was:

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?

My knowledge of photography is limited to taking a photograph. I know nothing about "shadows" or "photoshopping". My original point was, and still is, IF the "last photo" proves to have been altered in ANY way, then everything else that has been said won't matter, because NO ONE is going to alter a photograph IF they have NOTHING to hide.

I know rest my case!

by Atomic Peanut 04.11.14 12:55

By an amazing coincidence, solar noon (the highest point in the sky of the sun) in Faro on 3rd May 2007 was 1.29pm - exactly the time shown on the camera
The full chart is here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Atomic Peanut 04.11.14 13:39

palm tree wrote: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

[color:9d2c=000000] GM witness statement to PJ on 10th May 2007:
They stayed in the play area for approximately an hour, until 14H30/14H35. After that, they left the twins at the crèche near the TAPAS, they signed the register, and the three of them (deponent, KATE and MADELEINE) made their way to the crèche at the main reception, where they arrived at 14H50 and delivered MADELEINE, not being able to say precisely who signed the register.

by sarliv 04.11.14 13:40

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

Gerry in his statement says he went to the "resort play area" he does not say"pool".That is different.
As mother of twins myself to say the photo was taken at 14.29pm then they were at the crèche within minutes/seconds seems optimistic.
They would have to have dried off and clothed again.That takes a while.

by Atomic Peanut 04.11.14 13:43

sarliv wrote:As mother of twins myself to say the photo was taken at 14.29pm then they were at the crèche within minutes seems optimistic.
They would have to have dried off and clothed again.That takes a while.

According to the GM witness statement on 10th May (see my last post) they arrived at the creche at 14.50
Also, the pool and the play area are adjacent, you could even say they are the same thing

by sarliv 04.11.14 13:53

Atomic Peanut wrote:
sarliv wrote:As mother of twins myself to say the photo was taken at 14.29pm then they were at the crèche within minutes seems optimistic.
They would have to have dried off and clothed again.That takes a while.
According to the GM witness statement on 10th May (see my last post) they arrived at the creche at 14.50
Also, the pool and the play area are adjacent, you could even say they are the same thing

At the kids crèche at tapas 14.30 then they delivered Maddie to crèche at main reception 14.50.
Don't want to gang up on you here but you seem a bit casual with the facts.
Why use word "pool"?

by Atomic Peanut 04.11.14 14:08

How much distinction do you want to make between the grass on the right and the pool on the left? They are the same area

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

Here is the relevant part of the GM 10th May witness statement:
They stayed in the play area for approximately an hour, until 14H30/14H35. After that, they left the twins at the crèche near the TAPAS, they signed the register, and the three of them (deponent, KATE and MADELEINE) made their way to the crèche at the main reception, where they arrived at 14H50

I am happy to be corrected if I make a mistake, so I can learn from other posters, but I can assure you I am never casual with the facts!

Welcome sarliv, good to see that you too have an interest in this particular matter

by Snifferdog 04.11.14 14:18

I for one don't believe anything the pair say, because they are proven liars Atomic Peanut.

Which is why we are sifting through the fallout thereof, in the hope of getting justice for to date 3 dead people.

1. Madeleine - Died under suspicious circumstances. BH Howe has himself told us Maddie was murdered imo.

2. Colin Salke - Volunteer Maddy searcher who sold his house and possessions to search for Madeleine in PdL. He died and was hastily buried under suspicious circumstances imo.

3. Brenda - A concerned citizen, who was found dead under suspicious circumstances imo. in an hotel room.

by sarliv 04.11.14 14:19

AP .In your penultimate post you gave the impression that from the time they left the pool (after 14.29) until they went to the crèche was twenty minutes which clearly was not the case as Gerry himself says they were at the tapas crèche at 14.30/35.

by Atomic Peanut 04.11.14 14:23

Snifferdog, I don't want to involve myself in speculation. I am only trying to correct errors and misunderstandings that may lead people in the wrong direction
eg in this case there's no point looking for GM somewhere else at 2.29pm on the grounds that he told the PJ he wasn't at the pool/play area, because he didn't
But it's fair to say that I find the case as fascinating as you do!
sarliv - no, GM said they left the twins some time between 14.35 and 14.50
Am taking a break now in case I'm accused of dominating the thread

by HelenMeg 04.11.14 14:40

Atomic Peanut wrote:By an amazing coincidence, solar noon (the highest point in the sky of the sun) in Faro on 3rd May 2007 was 1.29pm - exactly the time shown on the camera
The full chart is here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I purport, then, it may not be a coincidence at all but that 1.29 was chosen for a reason. Why would they do that?
So that a photoshopper would know exactly where shadows should fall etc.

by juliet 04.11.14 16:18

The last photo shows GM floating above the pool side next to an armless Amelie who looks far too big (in proportion) to how she appears normally. I say for the 50th time that there is something seriously wrong with "Madeleine's" neck. The tendons etc which would be prominent are missing and there is an impossible horizontal crease. Her head was pasted on. The child's arm has a bracelet of baby fat which is entirely absent from the lanky, bruised tennis court child's arm.
As for the plsyground - surely Tony you can see that half Madeleine's right knee has been sliced off? She also has literally two left feet. A bit of pink in front of her fleece is meant to be GM's calf ( I think) but is too far from his upper leg to work. If she straightened up she would be about 5ft tall. GM is looking dumbly at the ground while Sean reaches out to thin air. The man behind is a
contortionist - his foot is at a ridiculous angle. Plus weird shadows and odd vertical lines in the grass....
As for why - they needed happy family pix. They had none so they faked them.

by Guest 04.11.14 17:24

juliet wrote:The last photo shows GM floating above the pool side next to an armless Amelie who looks far too big (in proportion) to how she appears normally. I say for the 50th time that there is something seriously wrong with "Madeleine's" neck. The tendons etc which would be prominent are missing and there is an impossible horizontal crease. Her head was pasted on. The child's arm has a bracelet of baby fat which is entirely absent from the lanky, bruised tennis court child's arm.

Sorry.. no.. just no.

Did anyone mention the weather in recent posts?

by j.rob 04.11.14 17:28

juliet wrote:The last photo shows GM floating above the pool side next to an armless Amelie who looks far too big (in proportion) to how she appears normally. I say for the 50th time that there is something seriously wrong with "Madeleine's" neck. The tendons etc which would be prominent are missing and there is an impossible horizontal crease. Her head was pasted on. The child's arm has a bracelet of baby fat which is entirely absent from the lanky, bruised tennis court child's arm.
As for the plsyground - surely Tony you can see that half Madeleine's right knee has been sliced off? She also has literally two left feet. A bit of pink in front of her fleece is meant to be GM's calf ( I think) but is too far from his upper leg to work. If she straightened up she would be about 5ft tall. GM is looking dumbly at the ground while Sean reaches out to thin air. The man behind is a
contortionist - his foot is at a ridiculous angle. Plus weird shadows and odd vertical lines in the grass....
As for why - they needed happy family pix. They had none so they faked them.

I agree. I think all the pics look very peculiar. The head positions are often out of synch with the body position. Amelie's right arm could not be hidden at the angle she is sitting at, imo. And, as I wrote up-thread, the hidden left hand could not be resting flat on the ground as it should be, given the sitting stance with the bent elbow, as her wrist is too high up.

Madeleine's head has to be pasted on because given her body position the head is at an impossible angle - I don't think it would be physically possible to have the head so twisted to the side given the angle of her body.

I wonder who was involved in the production of all these photos? Why do such a bad job?

by juliet 04.11.14 18:11

Thank you jrob. Interesting and true about Amelie's arm and hand. I hadn't noticed that before. Surely the blatant fakeness of these pictures is hugely important - they show that the whole Madeleine story is built on lies and fakery.

by j.rob 04.11.14 18:14

Indeed. Every photo in Kate's book is weird in one way or another. What a peculiar family, imo.

by canada12 04.11.14 18:48

juliet wrote:Thank you jrob. Interesting and true about Amelie's arm and hand. I hadn't noticed that before. Surely the blatant fakeness of these pictures is hugely important - they show that the whole Madeleine story is built on lies and fakery.

I agree with both of you.

Plus, Gerry's left arm is completely in focus and it's behind Amelie.
The folds and the details on his shorts are completely in focus, and they're beside Amelie.
Yet Amelie's right arm (the fuzzy pink thing which people insist IS her right arm, and which I believe is not her right arm, it's someone's attempt to make it look like a right arm) is fuzzy and out of focus, and lacking in the same definition that Gerry's arm (which is BEHIND Amelie's arm) is. Amelie's arm, if it's genuine, should be distinct and with a distinct border, the same as Gerry's arm and the detailing on his shorts and tshirt). Also for that matter, Madeleine's right arm (also a photoshopped addition IMO) has no right shoulder. There should be a curve leading into her hair, given the angle she's sitting at. There is no curve, just a straight line going up into her hair.

by Guest 04.11.14 18:54

No planes.

Same brown stuff.

The weather... anyone?

by missbeetle 04.11.14 19:00

canada12 wrote:
juliet wrote:Thank you jrob. Interesting and true about Amelie's arm and hand. I hadn't noticed that before. Surely the blatant fakeness of these pictures is hugely important - they show that the whole Madeleine story is built on lies and fakery.
I agree with both of you.

Plus, Gerry's left arm is completely in focus and it's behind Amelie.
The folds and the details on his shorts are completely in focus, and they're beside Amelie.
Yet Amelie's right arm (the fuzzy pink thing which people insist IS her right arm, and which I believe is not her right arm, it's someone's attempt to make it look like a right arm) is fuzzy and out of focus, and lacking in the same definition that Gerry's arm (which is BEHIND Amelie's arm) is. Amelie's arm, if it's genuine, should be distinct and with a distinct border, the same as Gerry's arm and the detailing on his shorts and tshirt). Also for that matter, Madeleine's right arm (also a photoshopped addition IMO) has no right shoulder. There should be a curve leading into her hair, given the angle she's sitting at. There is no curve, just a straight line going up into her hair.

I'm with you ladies on this, too -

I'm beginning to wonder if only women can see these things!

by floating leaf 04.11.14 19:03

NickE wrote:@Peter Mac.
Theory?

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

did some one cut Maddies hair LONG?

by Guest 04.11.14 19:04

Divide and conquer.

So easy.

Floating leafs...

by juliet 04.11.14 19:19

Bluebag, if you look back a bit there is endless stuff about the weather.
Floating leaf, the hair length ( and hat shape) in those two photos are completely different. Another bizare McCann mystery.
missbeetle: I do think maybe men have something wrong with their eyes! How could anyoone miss the two left feet in the playground pic!? Or the missing knee?

by canada12 04.11.14 19:38

BlueBag wrote:Divide and conquer.

So easy.

Floating leafs...

No dividing and conquering going on here. Some of us believe passionately that The Last Picture was photoshopped because of some very small but obvious details, once you see them. Others of us believe passionately that the EXIF data has been altered, by relying on the weather reports and the McCanns' statements. Even others of us believe there's nothing wrong with the picture and that it's accurate. So, there are three points of view here. All passionately argued, none of them proven.

by Guest 04.11.14 19:40

canada12 wrote:No dividing and conquering going on here. Some of us believe passionately that The Last Picture was photoshopped because of some very small but obvious details

Some of us passionately believe that's BS.

The KEY issue is "when was it taken".

Everything else is distraction.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.11.14 19:42

juliet wrote:@ juliet Thanks you very much for providing clear answers as to where you are coming from in terms of your allegation that both photos have been heavily photoshopped. I will reply in detail to each of your points

The last photo shows GM floating above the pool side

In the early days much was made of this. He did look 'detached' from the poolside and I still think that to this day. But, in short, expert photographers I've talked to say that depending on things like the kind of camera used and how you focus on your subject etc. it is quite common to gain that sort of impression. That I think is also, in terms, what PeterMac's experts said. I think it is also common ground on this thread that the short shadows on Gerry (and the two children) are perfectly consistent with photos being taken at the Ocean Club pool at around 1pm to 2pm that time of year

next to an armless Amelie

A number of people have shown in the past that someone leaning back, with say their right hand behind them on the ground, and photographed from their left-hand side, might appear to have no right hand. I agree with them. Moreover, if this photograph had been photoshopped by experts, do you really think they would have gone to the trouble of removing Amelie's right arm? Why on earth would they do that?

who looks far too big (in proportion) to how she appears normally.

That is not my view, juliet, nor the view of many others

I say for the 50th time that there is something seriously wrong with "Madeleine's" neck. The tendons etc which would be prominent are missing and there is an impossible horizontal crease. Her head was pasted on.

I can't agree. I think she is naturally looking well to her left in the picture and that acounts for some, if not most or all, of what you see

The child's arm has a bracelet of baby fat which is entirely absent from the lanky, bruised tennis court child's arm.

That is a comment mainly on the 'tennis balls photo' - and I would actually agree with you that there are a number of major question marks about that photo, not least, who took it

As for the playground - surely Tony you can see that half Madeleine's right knee has been sliced off? She also has literally two left feet.

No. My interpretation is quite different. She is moving quite fast when the photo is taken. I see nothing untoward here and although I do see what you mean about 'two left feet', my view is that you are reading too much in to what you see there

A bit of pink in front of her fleece is meant to be GM's calf ( I think) but is too far from his upper leg to work.

I thought the pink might be a bit of scarf or something like that. Whatever it is, I don't see that it has been photoshopped

If she straightened up she would be about 5ft tall.

I simply cannot agree with your interpretation here

GM is looking dumbly at the ground while Sean reaches out to thin air.

He does not look 'dumb' to me. He is smiling, surely? Sean is just gesticulating about something, expressing joy and fun, I think, happy in his new surroundings

The man behind is a contortionist - his foot is at a ridiculous angle.

Again we disagree; our interpretations of what we see are different

Plus weird shadows and odd vertical lines in the grass...

I think all the shadows are capable of explanation - and I don't see 'odd vertical lines' in the grass - even if there are, what exactly would be the point of photoshopping them in?

As for why - they needed happy family pix. They had none so they faked them.

I am quite sure that the playground picture is a genuine picture taken at between 5pm and 7pm on Saturday 28 April in the Ocean Club play area. The man of African descent in the pcture has been identified.

You have listed what you say are several different b of photoshopping:

* Madeleine's leg sliced off
* Madeleine - 2 'left feet'
* bit of pink fleece
* Madeleine about 5 feet tall
* Gerry 'looking dumb'
* Sean 'reaching out into thin air'
* Contortionist bloke
* Weird shadows
* Vertical lines in the grass

Do you honestly think that all these 'photoshopping errors' could have been made by an expert photoshopper?

And with respect, they did not need 'happy family pix' - unless you are one of those who seriously suggests that Madeleine wasn't there at all.

No, what they desperately needed was a photograph proving that Madeleine was still there and very much alive on the afternoon of 3 May.

They thought they had got it with the 'Last Photo'.

But maybe, now that we have seen PeterMac's masterly analysis of when that photo was really taken, maybe they haven't, after all.

They have invested a huge amount of effort in 'proving' that the Last Photo was taken at 2.29pm on 3 May.

Personally I now think there area great number of indications that it wasn't - and was taken at around 1.30pm earlier in the week.

And if that were the case, they would have no need o the kind of elaborate photoshopping you have suggested.

Just a few seconds altering the date and time stamp would have been all that was necessary.

Thanks once again for your answers - robust debate is healthy and, well, if we disagree, we disagree

by canada12 04.11.14 19:44

BlueBag wrote:
canada12 wrote:No dividing and conquering going on here. Some of us believe passionately that The Last Picture was photoshopped because of some very small but obvious details
Some of us passionately believe that's BS.

The KEY issue is "when was it taken".

Everything else is distraction.

What happens if the weather information turns out to be dodgy? There's been a concerted attempt recently to try and discredit the weather reports to try and prove that the weather was warm enough for that picture to be taken. What happens if you remove the weather from the argument? You're left with nothing to prove that the EXIF info was altered. I agree, the KEY issue is "when was it taken". But if you can additionally accept that certain aspects of the photo may have been photoshopped in, you have a much stronger platform for arguing that the photo is misleading, than you do if you rely solely on the EXIF info.

I don't understand why you'd want to discard a possibility that would bolster the argument...?

I'm not arguing against the EXIF info - I fully support that theory. I'm arguing that we should consider photoshopping as an additional aspect of the picture.

by Guest 04.11.14 19:46

Plus weird shadows and odd vertical lines in the grass...

I think all the shadows are capable of explanation - and I don't see 'odd vertical lines' in the grass - even if there are, what exactly would be the point of photoshopping them in?

It's called parallax. I'm sick of arguing with people (who sometimes willfully) on the internet don't understand cameras.