Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by Snifferdog 07.11.14 12:05

Neither would I Aquila, its just so weird;

Redwood refers to Tannerman carrying the child as one would carry a corpse, and refers to the odd way the child was carried, as if odd but nothing untoward - same goes for the inadequate protection from the cold.
The way he actually tells us that it was not possible for the Smiths to have given a description of who they saw, as it was dark and a year later.

by Snifferdog 07.11.14 12:07

@PeterMac.
Yes, it could also come across as satirical.

Andy Redwood is no fool - coverup or no.

by **PeterMac** 07.11.14 12:08

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

by Snifferdog 07.11.14 12:16

A picture tells a thousand words.

by Liz Eagles 07.11.14 12:40

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

I need to ask you PeterMac, as an ex police officer in receipt of a pension from your job whether you find your comments on the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance could possibly be a threat to your retirement.

I need to ask you this because I have faith in your facts, what you write, your opinions on the case and your unfailing commitment to finding out what happened to Madeleine.

I find your courage an inspiration, given no-one in UK seems to have the cajones to state what you do.

I hope you don't blush too much at the compliment.

by Snifferdog 07.11.14 13:02

PeterMac posted:

Exactly.
And do you ever get round to sorting, deleting etc or do you simply dump the entire chip onto your computer and let iPhoto sort them out ? (Rhetorical - I know you don't!)
You then clear the chip ready for the next thousand images,but the rtest remain on you hard dis.
Why did Gerry go back to Rothley to get some photos of Madeleine "From the Album".
This is 19th century stuff, leather bound "albums" with black paper and tissue to protect the fragile images . . . And where are the images he brought back ?
Or is this code for the Last Photo ?
Nothing in the autobiography about what happened when he got back, or why he went. The stuff about the album came from a different source, and the book implies, though does not state, that he did not go back to the house at all. So why did he go ?.
::::::::::::::::::::::

Exactly. Also, as mentioned here several times:

Why were there no suitable photos of Madeleine on that same holiday?

and

Why are there so few photos of Madeleine out there, after all, the Mccanns have not shied away from using all available means to claw their way onto the front page or telly sofas.

Was Madeleine perhaps resident in a childrens home, prior to her disappearance in PdL???

by Stillthinking 07.11.14 13:09

Atomic Peanut wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:Don't you think, though, that the last photo may be the biggest of all red herrings, and that ultimately it doesn't matter where it came from? What matters is the reasoning behind its release, and there has been rather a lot of leaping to conclusions on that score
Whaaaaat ?*!@?!*&?@*?!!

It doesn't matter if it really was taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May or (say) at 1.29pm on Sunday 29 April?

You cannot be serious
Of course I'm serious - depending on the reason for issuing it, it may not matter when it was taken or even if it's real. Many of you seem to be assuming it's an "alibi" for an earlier disappearance, right?
Not necessarily - there is one other very good reason that is very plausible - publicity
Three weeks after the disappearance, Murat questioned and released, public interest dwindling, M slipping out of the daily agenda
Last photo released - more headlines, more publicity, back to square one

Yes, an important aspect is that the photo was given to the media... rather than it being something given to the police as a response to police suspecting Madeleine wasn't around on the 3rd. Police already had independent witnesses placing Madeleine at the creche till 5ish that day. If it were a case of Madeleine not being around that day, and police just not having picked up on it, then the McCanns would have been beyond stupid to put into publication a picture that could be proven to have been faked in some way, when police were satisfied that she was around. Like the supposed faked creche records and substitution stories, it would be another unnecessary risk taken that would have dire consequences if discovered. When the result of being found out is so huge, you just don't take those kind of reckless risks when you don't need to.

Calling it the last photo could well have just been media spin, to attract more press attention... or it may just have actually been the last photo. Either way, at the time it was released there was no real suggestion that Madeleine wasn't around that day and the photo only began to attract that kind of speculation when The Author started his infamous thread on the Mirror forum, announcing that the photo was fake/photoshopped and that if it was faked then it must mean "Madeleine was already long dead when her image was stitched into this forgery." & "‘Drs Gerald and Kate McCann, as you have conspired to place, in the public domain, fraudulent evidence that Madeleine was alive at 2.29 pm 3 May, is it not unreasonable for the reader to assume that she was already dead by that time?’"

by Stillthinking 07.11.14 13:12

Snifferdog wrote:PeterMac posted:

Exactly.
And do you ever get round to sorting, deleting etc or do you simply dump the entire chip onto your computer and let iPhoto sort them out ? (Rhetorical - I know you don't!)
You then clear the chip ready for the next thousand images,but the rtest remain on you hard dis.
Why did Gerry go back to Rothley to get some photos of Madeleine "From the Album".
This is 19th century stuff, leather bound "albums" with black paper and tissue to protect the fragile images . . . And where are the images he brought back ?
Or is this code for the Last Photo ?
Nothing in the autobiography about what happened when he got back, or why he went. The stuff about the album came from a different source, and the book implies, though does not state, that he did not go back to the house at all. So why did he go ?.
::::::::::::::::::::::

Exactly. Also, as mentioned here several times:

Why were there no suitable photos of Madeleine on that same holiday?

and

Why are there so few photos of Madeleine out there, after all, the Mccanns have not shied away from using all available means to claw their way onto the front page or telly sofas.

Was Madeleine perhaps resident in a childrens home, prior to her disappearance in PdL???

That's a huge jump of logic there. To go from thinking there might not have been many photos of Madeleine to wondering if she was in a children's home...

by jeanmonroe 07.11.14 13:32

Snifferdog wrote:@PeterMac.
Yes, it could also come across as satirical.

DCI Andy Redwood is no fool - coverup or no.

YEP! DCI MAHOGANY is certainly NO fool!

BUT.................

Still getting his 38 strong 'elite' team to look out beware

for this 'desparado' prowling the Algave, 'looking for' ONLY white, UK, female children to......!

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

(Thx T) airkiss

by Snifferdog 07.11.14 13:52

Stillthinking wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:PeterMac posted:

Exactly.
And do you ever get round to sorting, deleting etc or do you simply dump the entire chip onto your computer and let iPhoto sort them out ? (Rhetorical - I know you don't!)
You then clear the chip ready for the next thousand images,but the rtest remain on you hard dis.
Why did Gerry go back to Rothley to get some photos of Madeleine "From the Album".
This is 19th century stuff, leather bound "albums" with black paper and tissue to protect the fragile images . . . And where are the images he brought back ?
Or is this code for the Last Photo ?
Nothing in the autobiography about what happened when he got back, or why he went. The stuff about the album came from a different source, and the book implies, though does not state, that he did not go back to the house at all. So why did he go ?.
::::::::::::::::::::::

Exactly. Also, as mentioned here several times:

Why were there no suitable photos of Madeleine on that same holiday?

and

Why are there so few photos of Madeleine out there, after all, the Mccanns have not shied away from using all available means to claw their way onto the front page or telly sofas.

Was Madeleine perhaps resident in a childrens home, prior to her disappearance in PdL???
That's a huge jump of logic there. To go from thinking there might not have been many photos of Madeleine to wondering if she was in a children's home...

No its not.

If you rrreeely rrreeely think about it you will se that I put the reference to Maddy possibly being resident in a childrens home prior to PdL in a new paragraph.
So quite ok by my book don't you think, Stillthinking?

eyebrows

by Snifferdog 07.11.14 13:58

jeanmonroe wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:@PeterMac.
Yes, it could also come across as satirical.

DCI Andy Redwood is no fool - coverup or no.

YEP! DCI MAHOGANY is certainly NO fool!

BUT.................

Still getting his 38 strong 'elite' team to look out for this 'desparado' prowling the Algave, 'looking for' ONLY white, UK, female children to......!

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

(Thx T)

Egad Jean, but the socks...a mummy's boy perhaps?
big grin

by **PeterMac** 07.11.14 16:13

aquila wrote:
I need to ask you PeterMac, as an ex police officer in receipt of a pension from your job whether you find your comments on the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance could possibly be a threat to your retirement.

Do you mean in the Brenda Leyland, or Dr Kelly, or Erwin Rommell, or Mike Todd sense .. . ?

by Dr What 07.11.14 19:04

A threat to his retirement?

Only in the sense that someone might ask him to come back to work!!

Please.

by Guest 07.11.14 19:34

Dr What wrote:A threat to his retirement?

Only in the sense that someone might ask him to come back to work!!

Please.

Yes, get some honesty and integrity back.

by Atomic Peanut 07.11.14 20:25

rustyjames wrote:We have a recessed downlight in the ceiling above and I was stood slightly back from the mirror. The shadow on my chest was very similar shape to that on the last photo.
The thing I noticed by pointing a finger at my nose and at my chin was the lowest point of the shadow was actually created from my nose -I've previously thought that shape could only be from the chin.

With the sun at an angle of 65 degrees (as at 2.29pm in PdL on 3rd May) you would need to have an exceptionally long nose for it to cast a shadow below the shadow made by your chin. My apologies if you do have a very long nose, nothing personal intended. I am not physically perfect myself
Regarding the last photo, I've been struggling for 7 years to work out what the bottom part of the chest shadow actually is

by **Tony Bennett** 07.11.14 21:00

Atomic Peanut wrote:
With the sun at an angle of 65 degrees (as at 2.29pm in PdL on 3rd May) you would need to have an exceptionally long nose for it to cast a shadow below the shadow made by your chin. My apologies if you do have a very long nose, nothing personal intended. I am not physically perfect myself
Regarding the last photo, I've been struggling for 7 years to work out what the bottom part of the chest shadow actually is

@ Atomic Peanut

I want to congratulate you on three counts.

First, for persisting as long as you have done with utterly hopeless, pointless and endless arguments about the Last Photo.

The most imaginative - and desperate - was your apparently serious suggestion that the McCanns had produced the Last Photo to the world - even if it was taken on a different date - just to revive publicity for Madeleine and put her back on the front pages again.

I am not sure if that wins the prize for the most ridiculous suggestion made by the McCann camp and their supporters, but it must come very close to:

'The abductor opened the windows and the shutters as a red herring' - Dr Kate McCann

and

'I got this letter via a mystery man from my estranged paedophile Dad telling me he'd been drinking with this gypsy gang leader whose gang had stolen Madeleine for a wealthy North African, got upset about it, burnt it, then told the McCann Team and the Sun all about it but forpot the nane of the gypsy gang leader' - Wayne Hewlett

My second reason for congratulating you is that you have not (yet) resorted to the familiar tactic of those who are losing an argument - abusing your opponents.

Last but not least, you wrote: "Regarding the last photo, I've been struggling for 7 years to work out what the bottom part of the chest shadow actually is".

This is not one whit less than admirably heroic of you.

Please let us know if you ever find the answer

by Guest 07.11.14 21:06

Atomic Peanut wrote:With the sun at an angle of 65 degrees (as at 2.29pm in PdL on 3rd May) you would need to have an exceptionally long nose for it to cast a shadow below the shadow made by your chin. My apologies if you do have a very long nose, nothing personal intended. I am not physically perfect myself
Regarding the last photo, I've been struggling for 7 years to work out what the bottom part of the chest shadow actually is

I drew you rough a diagram to help you get the picture straight in your head with the sun at 68.6 degrees and Gerry hunching forward.

Can you prove the shadow is not possible now that you've seen that?

Have you ever studied the profiles of a human face? (I have by the way).

by Atomic Peanut 07.11.14 21:17

Neither of you has actually answered my points so I assume they must be correct
I only respond to facts not insults, but thank you for replying anyway
Blue Bag - what's the point of doing your caluculations at an angle of nearly 69 degrees?
the sun was at an angle of 65 degrees at 2.29pm on 3rd May
Please tell me what part of the body is creating the elongated bottom part of the chest shadow

by rustyjames 07.11.14 21:19

Atomic Peanut wrote:My apologies if you do have a very long nose

I'll ignore the insult, but I do know someone with a fairly long nose.

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

by Guest 07.11.14 21:26

Atomic Peanut wrote:Neither of you has actually answered my points so I assume they must be correct
I only respond to facts not insults, but thank you for replying anyway
Blue Bag - what's the point of doing your caluculations at an angle of nearly 69 degrees?
the sun was at an angle of 65 degrees at 2.29pm on 3rd May
Please tell me what part of the body is creating the elongated bottom part of the chest shadow

Your points have been answered.

Can you prove the shadow is not possible?

Chin, nose, sun, posture.

by Atomic Peanut 07.11.14 21:29

If that's 65 degrees I would definitely buy a new protractor
Straighten the picture to the correct angle, and then extrapolate at 65 degrees, the nose would cast a shadow on the chin, just as it does in the last photo
It's one of the few shadows that makes sense
So I ask again: what part of the body is creating the elongated bottom part of the chest shadow?

by Atomic Peanut 07.11.14 21:32

Tony Bennett wrote:My second reason for congratulating you is that you have not (yet) resorted to the familiar tactic of those who are losing an argument - abusing your opponents.

Please tell me this is satirical

by rustyjames 07.11.14 21:36

Atomic Peanut wrote:If that's 65 degrees I would definitely buy a new protractor
Straighten the picture to the correct angle, and then extrapolate at 65 degrees, the nose would cast a shadow on the chin, just as it does in the last photo
It's one of the few shadows that makes sense
So I ask again: what part of the body is creating the elongated bottom part of the chest shadow?

It was 68 degrees - the highest point that day. The picture below is 65 degrees precisely.

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

by Atomic Peanut 07.11.14 21:39

No, the sun was at 68 degrees at 1.29, 65 degrees at 2.29
And in that photo the head has been tilted to accentuate the angle
In the last photo the nose shadow is on the chin, so no point looking for it anywhere else

by Nereid 07.11.14 21:45

Atomic Peanut wrote:No, the sun was at 68 degrees at 1.29, 65 degrees at 2.29
And in that photo the head has been tilted to accentuate the angle
In the last photo the nose shadow is on the chin, so no point looking for it anywhere else

You're correct. The angle of the sun at 2.29 on the 3rd of May 2007 was 65.11°.

Bluebag's drawing, though admirable, shows a 70° angle if my protractor is accurate. Also on his drawing Gerry's chin looks tucked in where I think since Gerry is facing the camera straight on, this is not the case in the Last Picture. Besides which, since this is very complex, he does not take into account that Gerry is facing SbE to SSE and the sun is coming from SSW at that time.

by rustyjames 07.11.14 21:58

Atomic Peanut wrote:No, the sun was at 68 degrees at 1.29, 65 degrees at 2.29
And in that photo the head has been tilted to accentuate the angle
In the last photo the nose shadow is on the chin, so no point looking for it anywhere else

Hence the revised picture has an angle of 65 degrees. The tilting is because in the original I used his head was leaning back a little.

Until this morning I thought the shadow was from the chin, and whilst not conclusive because as Nereid said there are a lot of other factors, in my opinion the calculations suggested the shadow length could still be possible if it was from the chin.

The shadow from the nose definitely falls below the nose and onto both lips. Why does it not cast any shadow immediately below the lower lip? Could the shadow on the chin be from the upper or lower lip?

by Atomic Peanut 07.11.14 22:06

rustyjames wrote:Until this morning I thought the shadow was from the chin, and whilst not conclusive because as Nereid said there are a lot of other factors, in my opinion the calculations suggested the shadow length could still be possible if it was from the chin.

But the chin can't be casting a shadow because it's in the shade. Things only cast shadows when they are in the sun
So what is casting that long bit of the chest shadow in the last photo?

by Guest 07.11.14 22:12

Nereid wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:No, the sun was at 68 degrees at 1.29, 65 degrees at 2.29
And in that photo the head has been tilted to accentuate the angle
In the last photo the nose shadow is on the chin, so no point looking for it anywhere else

You're correct. The angle of the sun at 2.29 on the 3rd of May 2007 was 65.11°.

Bluebag's drawing, though admirable, shows a 70° angle if my protractor is accurate. Also on his drawing Gerry's chin looks tucked in where I think since Gerry is facing the camera straight on, this is not the case in the Last Picture. Besides which, since this is very complex, he does not take into account that Gerry is facing SbE to SSE and the sun is coming from SSW at that time.

65, 68.6, 69.. 70...

Does it matter?

Sun, nose, chin, posture.. the way the shirt is sitting on the body.

It was a rough picture to demonstrate a point.

Anyone with any sense can see there is nothing there that isn't within the bounds of possibility.

Also if it wasn't taken at 2.30 on the 3rd... so sun position is another variable.

This nonsense is pretty tiring.

by Guest 07.11.14 22:16

Atomic Peanut wrote:
rustyjames wrote:Until this morning I thought the shadow was from the chin, and whilst not conclusive because as Nereid said there are a lot of other factors, in my opinion the calculations suggested the shadow length could still be possible if it was from the chin.
But the chin can't be casting a shadow because it's in the shade. Things only cast shadows when they are in the sun
So what is casting that long bit of the chest shadow in the last photo?

Why are you persisting with this nonsense.

Chin, nose, cheek bones, glasses... whatever...

The shirt is indented towards the chest in the middle.

There is nothing abnormal in that picture.

Except the weather for May 3rd.

by bobbin 07.11.14 22:19

BlueBag wrote:
Nereid wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:No, the sun was at 68 degrees at 1.29, 65 degrees at 2.29
And in that photo the head has been tilted to accentuate the angle
In the last photo the nose shadow is on the chin, so no point looking for it anywhere else

You're correct. The angle of the sun at 2.29 on the 3rd of May 2007 was 65.11°.

Bluebag's drawing, though admirable, shows a 70° angle if my protractor is accurate. Also on his drawing Gerry's chin looks tucked in where I think since Gerry is facing the camera straight on, this is not the case in the Last Picture. Besides which, since this is very complex, he does not take into account that Gerry is facing SbE to SSE and the sun is coming from SSW at that time.
65, 68.6, 69.. 70...

Does it matter?

Sun, nose, chin, posture.. the way the shirt is sitting on the body.

It was a rough picture to demonstrate a point.

Anyone with an sense can see there is nothing there that isn't within the bounds of possibility.

Also if it wasn't taken at 2.30 on the 3rd... so sun position is another variable.

This nonsense is pretty tiring.

I'm glad you're not on my team of forensic analysts nor helping me with my 3000 piece jigsaw puzzle.
Facts are all important to find the correct finish.
There's no point in trying to shoe horn the wrong bit in and hoping that it won't be noticed by a perceptive researcher.
It does matter what angle the sun is shining at and, especially as the nose shadow stops short on the chin, what is that long shadow down Gerry's T shirt ?