Re: Video Analysis of Tennis Court photo

by Guest 13.10.13 15:34

tigger wrote:from the book: '.... she looked so gorgeous in her little T-shirt and shorts, pink hat, ankle socks and new holiday sandals that I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion."

The sandals do not look worthy of special mention, they may be new but look the usual cheap items most would buy for the holiday.The sandals are unsuitable for playing tennis. The rest of the clothes look scruffy, also to be expected.
We are also told that she looked so gorgeous that the moment had to be recorded. But that implies an exceptional moment, the tennis might have been, but the clothes ' her little T-shirt and shorts' are part or indeed the cause of her 'looking gorgeous' . Where anyone can see that the clothes she is wearing are not new and one would expect a parent to have dressed her in those clothes frequently in hot weather.
So the clothes are not special, neither are the sandals - it's an outfit I'd expect to have been worn frequently. Yet they were the prime cause for the photograph.
The occasion was NOT the reason for the photograph, recording your child's effort at tennis for the first time.

The tennis photo and the pool photo both have as their main theme 'how she looked' not what she was doing.
In the first she looked 'gorgeous' in the second she looked so desirable that the clothes were a factor in her disappearance, the creepy man looking over Kate's shoulder having had the same thoughts as her. From the book:
'I was following her with my eyes, admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same.'

Sorry, I think it's just the other way around.

They dug up a picture of some girl in old fashioned clothes somewhere; and then concocted up a boozy description of that apparel to fit their thesis that little Maddie was once at a tenniscourt while both her parents were there also. Him playing. Her taking 'that' picture.

So now they stitched themselves even further up, for the creche records show clearly who was where and when.
And that they never were there at the same time with little Maddie!

by Hicks 13.10.13 15:51

Good Lord! Just blew the tennis pic up to 400%. Poor little mite has finger mark type bruises on her arm plus many more, she must have been grabbed with such force...ummm... am getting really bad vibes from that.

by Guest 13.10.13 16:28

Coincidentally, the tennispic was turned 180 degrees in the Dutch newspapers at the time, so that the bruises looked left instead of right and vv;

by Searcher 13.10.13 18:10

Portia - any way you can post that pic? The excellent material from PeterMac keeps coming into my mind (the Sleeping Pills topic that I posted relates). Could needles leave bruises? pray

by **tigger** 13.10.13 18:21

Searcher wrote:Portia - any way you can post that pic? The excellent material from PeterMac keeps coming into my mind (the Sleeping Pills topic that I posted relates). Could needles leave bruises?

On page 7 here you'll find two photos in the original direction, I.e. the right way round.

by Searcher 13.10.13 18:33

Thankyou! Not sure about bruises, which someone has mentioned today. Also, if this is photoshopped, with another, older child's body, then that would not be relevant. I would like to know more.

by russiandoll 13.10.13 18:44

eh ? would not be relevant if photoshopped? can you please explain ?

by Hicks 13.10.13 18:57

If you go to page 7 and blow up-400%- the full length pic of M with tennis balls you can clearly see three elongated pinkish bruises in the shape of a hand mark. Amongst others.

by Searcher 13.10.13 21:04

OMG, yes, I see the bruises at 400% view; my concern was whether this was actually Madeleine. It seems an older child in terms of body size and length of the limbs. The marks on the arms are absolutely visible at 400%. Feel very sad. Thankyou for bothering.

by Searcher 16.10.13 17:29

This may well have appeared before on the forum but it is worth watching:

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

The claim is that, in anlysing the tennis photo, the date that shows it was
taken is allegedly given as 5th May. It's a short clip at c. 1.45 mins.

I have always felt that the child in the photo has much longer limbs than Madeleine.

It would be interesting to have any other links. splat

by Guest 16.10.13 17:31

Searcher have merged your thread with this one.

by Searcher 16.10.13 17:43

Thankyou Candyfloss; fascinating thread.

by bobbin 16.10.13 20:02

Searcher wrote:This may well have appeared before on the forum but it is worth watching:

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

The claim is that, in anlysing the tennis photo, the date that shows it was
taken is allegedly given as 5th May. It's a short clip at c. 1.45 mins.

I have always felt that the child in the photo has much longer limbs than Madeleine.

It would be interesting to have any other links.

I've never seen this analysis before. Very interesting, that the 'original' seems to have been taken on 5th May.
I hope the police have this video, because if taken on 5th, it's NOT Maddie, so more fakery and fraud.

by Searcher 16.10.13 22:44

The only thing I would say, Bobbin, is that I have no technical knowledge at all when it comes to cameras or digital possibilities with photographs. I would really like to know if someone could change a date 'behind' the image, going back into the underlying digital info. Do we have anyone on the forum who might have this sort of knowledge? splat

by Searcher 16.10.13 23:40

Found on YouTube, c. 9 mins.

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

Very interesting analysis of Mini Tennis, times, witness statement contradictions;
includes short video interview, translated, with GA.

by gbwales 16.10.13 23:47

There's nothing suspicious regarding the date and time info as shown in that YouTube clip.
If you notice the photo they are examining is nothing like the standard aspect ratio of a digital photo.
It has been cropped to a tall portrait format, and although it is not easy to read you can actually make out some of the other metadata which includes notes from the picture agency confirming it as a 'family handout' and noting the location too.
The creation and modification metadata in this instance would not be expected to be inherited from the original file. This would be a new file created in Photoshop or similar and the metadata would be related to that instance of creation, editing, modifying and outputting.

by Searcher 16.10.13 23:59

Does that mean, gbwales, that it was photoshopped on 5 May? Rather than taken on 5 May?

by gbwales 17.10.13 0:04

That's correct. We are not inspecting the metadata from the original image there. The metadata relates to a file created by a picture agency.
The original photo would have been taken at some point prior to that.

by Searcher 17.10.13 0:25

On the other hand, are you saying it could have been photoshopped on 5 May, and if so that would mean we don't know in what way?

by gbwales 17.10.13 9:32

No. It was released into the public domain on the 6th which is entirely consistent with the Picture Agency creating the file on the 5th for distribution to media outlets.

by Searcher 17.10.13 9:51

Thankyou gbwales; helpful, and also it does point up how careful we have to be in checking material on the net. titter

by Briohazard 07.11.13 0:39

Looking at the birthday picture, the woman holding madeleine, looks like the cabinet behind her head.... It looks like its kind of transparent. I can see lines consistent with the cabinet through her skin. I may be mistaken, I'm on my phone, what do you guys think?

by Guest 07.11.13 11:25

russiandoll wrote:seems logical to me......an absence is reported. For that to have happened, there must have been a presence.
that is surely where the police started?

Police officer A to Police officer B :

A: This couple has reported their child is missing from.....

B: Are we sure she was there in the first place?

The creche staff were introduced to a child and told that her name was Madeleine McCann.
The creche sheets show entries for a child, name given as Madeleine McCann.
The twins, according to statements, spent more of their waking hours not in the company of the child named Madeleine McCann.
The tapas friend , according to their statements, ate all meals not in the company of the child named Madeleine McCann [ breakfast Mill/ M and family in 5a; lunch in an apartment with others, while McCanns and children ate alone in 5a; dinner, not in company of any children.
The tapas pals would have seen Madeleine McCann how often during a typical day?

Apologies for resurrecting an old comment, but this well reflects my feelings on the case too. As a frequent visitor to Portugal, I have to say that the native's somewhat legendary reputation for being devoted to children is well deserved. Over the course of a typical holiday my daughter becomes well known to restaurant staff - often by name - and others such as receptionists, cleaners etc, who all seem delighted to see her. And this is in Albufeira at the height of summer, a much bigger, busier place than Luz, out of season. Now my wife reckons that she remembers something from the very early days of the story, that upon hearing of a missing child some of the OC staff were a bit taken aback as they "didn't know that the diners had any children". Any legitimacy to this remark or did she imagine it?

I should also add that I generally return from a fortnight in Portugal with literally hundreds of digital photos of the family.

by Guest 07.11.13 11:48

sami wrote:
worriedmum wrote:is anyone else surprised that there are no other children visible on the tennis photo? no balls on the ground either.....

Yes and the same for the pool photo. The chairs are straight, no towels on them, nobody else in the background. This was supposedly 1 or 2 pm, usually people around a pool at that tome. My holiday snaps are usually ruined by the background.

That was another point I wanted to make. OK, not everybody is a great photographer, and the composition issues have been done to death, but if I'd taken the pool photo then I would have immediately retaken it with the group more centralised. That's what struck me as odd about the photo inventory of the camera, there was only one of each shot. No repeated efforts to ensure a "keeper". No accidental shots of feet, or sky. No pictures ruined by somebody else's kid gurning in the background. And as for the tennis photo, that is just an awful, awful "holiday snap". If you were trying to portray a sad, isolated, lonely little girl then you couldn't have done better if you tried.

by worriedmum 07.11.13 11:55

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
sami wrote:
worriedmum wrote:is anyone else surprised that there are no other children visible on the tennis photo? no balls on the ground either.....
Yes and the same for the pool photo. The chairs are straight, no towels on them, nobody else in the background. This was supposedly 1 or 2 pm, usually people around a pool at that tome. My holiday snaps are usually ruined by the background.
That was another point I wanted to make. OK, not everybody is a great photographer, and the composition issues have been done to death, but if I'd taken the pool photo then I would have immediately retaken it with the group more centralised. That's what struck me as odd about the photo inventory of the camera, there was only one of each shot. No repeated efforts to ensure a "keeper". No accidental shots of feet, or sky. No pictures ruined by somebody else's kid gurning in the background. And as for the tennis photo, that is just an awful, awful "holiday snap". If you were trying to portray a sad, isolated, lonely little girl then you couldn't have done better if you tried.

But I think there WAS another picture of Madeleine very similar to the one taken at the pool~ on the thread 'If there is only one last photo'...