Re: Video Analysis of Tennis Court photo

by **tigger** 06.04.13 18:34

3 hours sleep last night, so deductive reasoning down the drain: to add - @worriedmum: the tennisball having been deleted (badly), so obviously the white bit denoting t-shirt (but very far forward positioning her left shoulder weirdly) and some very solid looking strands of 'hair' added to fill the gap? Supposed to be, but they're going on on the outside of the hat, looking more like sticks of wood than anything else. There's also a clear break in one of those bits of 'wood' - 3 to 4 pixels shifted to the right. That whole area behind her left cheek doesn't make sense.

by Guest 06.04.13 19:13

jd wrote:Why is 'Maddie' not wearing the creche's wristband? Where are all the other kids from the same class? Not even a hint of any

Why is this photo not on their camera? (yet it got to philomena mccann the next day or 2). Why are the photos of Maddie from the holiday either on her own, with gerry and one of the twins....none with kate mccann...none with any other child from creche. It seems she arrived on April 28th then just disappeared........

Who says she arrived on the 28th?

Where is the irrefutable evidence?

by russiandoll 07.04.13 13:54

despite Faro airport being regularly very busy, the date and time of the flight arrival of McCanns is known, did anyone trawl cctv at passport control to find the family arriving? just a thought......

by Guest 07.04.13 14:11

russiandoll wrote:despite Faro airport being regularly very busy, the date and time of the flight arrival of McCanns is known, did anyone trawl cctv at passport control to find the family arriving? just a thought......

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

by Guest 07.04.13 15:05

russiandoll wrote:despite Faro airport being regularly very busy, the date and time of the flight arrival of McCanns is known, did anyone trawl cctv at passport control to find the family arriving? just a thought......

I've wondered about this many times particularly when reading DP's and DW's statement. DP seems unusually evasive when discussing the transport from Faro and subsequent arrival in PDL. DW mentions 6 booster seats and DP talks about a spare cot. I always wondered what story a video clip at the airport would tell.

by russiandoll 07.04.13 15:30

There will be cctv footage of the group at East Midlands airport also, surely it would have been checked to confirm that Maddie did travel as claimed ? All basic checks which surely were done in a missing child case. It had to be established that Maddie was actually in the country when she was " abducted in Portugal" ?
The video footage on the airport bus is not evidence, it could have been taken at another time and place.
The police surely checked cctv footage to establish Maddie's presence on that holiday?

by Guest 07.04.13 17:00

Did they?

Anyone in the know?

Where are the CCTVs video's stored (?)

Who has had access to them since April 28th 2007?

Are there any records of them having been requested by ?? and name sof these ??

Have they been returned to their original keepers?

Were they intact, untampered with?

What was on them?

Where are the records of these contents?

Who has these records, and who has had access to them?

SY: eat your heart out. GRANGE, ARE YOU LISTENING?

by russiandoll 07.04.13 18:01

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?

by **tigger** 10.04.13 7:31

Rehashing this again - the photograph below shows the mark on her leg as mentioned in the PJ original report of the 5th of May.
This photograph was published in a Dutch newspaper and is the only one I've ever seen (thanks Portia) where she is facing left. This does however agree with the 'mark on her left leg' as given in the PJ report.
Mark - as far as I know - never mentioned again?
The height calculated in the diameter of tennis balls which are in the same plane more or less would be in the region of 114 cm.
Photograph was available as from the 6th May(see page one Garyp's posts)

McCANN Madeleine Beth CONTROL NO. : F-131/5-2007

REQUESTING COUNTRY: PORTUGAL
FILE No. : 2007123403
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2007
CIRCULATION TO THE MEDIA (INCLUDING INTERNET): YES
IDENTITY PARTICULARS

(Photograph of Madeleine)

PRESENT Family Name : McCANN
FAMILY NAME AT BIRTH : McCANN
Forenames : Madeleine Beth
Sex : F
DATE AND Place OF Birth: 12th May 2003 - Leicester, United Kingdom
Also known as Maddie.
OTHER DATES OF BIRTH USED : N/A
FATHER'S FAMILY NAME AND FORENAMES: McCann Gerald Patrick.
MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME AND FORENAMES : HEALY Kate Marie
IDENTITY : CONFIRMED
NATIONALITY : BRITISH (CONFIRMED)
IDENTITY DOCUMENTS - BRITISH PASSPORT No 45XXXXXXX, issued on 4th August 2003 (UNITED KINGDOM) (Valid until 4th August 2008)
Occupation : N/A
Language Spoken : English
MARITAL STATUS : N/A
DESCRIPTION:
HEIGHT : 90 cms
HAIR : Blond
EYE: Green/Blue
BUILD : Slim
DISTINGUISHING MARKS AND CHARACTERISTICS :
Left Eye : Blue and Green colour
Right Eye : Green colour with a Brown spot in Retina
Small brown mark on Left Leg Calf.
Teeth : EUA
BLOOD GROUP : N/A
DNA CODE : N/A
REGIONS/COUNTRIES LIKELY TO BE VISITED : United Kingdom.

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

by jozi 10.04.13 12:48

Tigger.....Could you post both the tennis photos tog,why is her fringe on both photos over different eyes ??? If it was two different photos the fringe would still be over the same eye but at a different angle ??? If its a mirror image why can we not see the blemish on her leg in both photos???

by **tigger** 10.04.13 13:58

jozi wrote:Tigger.....Could you post both the tennis photos tog,why is her fringe on both photos over different eyes ??? If it was two different photos the fringe would still be over the same eye but at a different angle ??? If its a mirror image why can we not see the blemish on her leg in both photos???

I'll have a go :

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

That's because of the mirror image. However, the brown spot should have been there on the other photos too. I'm wondering if some more work was done on the photograph after the left facing one - flipping the image may make it look better, I think some more adjustment of the hair may have been done, this is a picture of a screenshot from a newspaper page, so the resolution is really not good. The marks on her - now left arm - are really strange, not sun burn.
As far as the 'ghostly' tennis ball goes - it may be that it was added over the background and then imperfectly deleted. I'll have another go at a high res. and more complete head shot of the right-facing one tomorrow.

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

by Guest 10.04.13 16:10

tigger wrote:Rehashing this again - the photograph below shows the mark on her leg as mentioned in the PJ original report of the 5th of May.
This photograph was published in a Dutch newspaper and is the only one I've ever seen (thanks Portia) where she is facing left. This does however agree with the 'mark on her left leg' as given in the PJ report.
Mark - as far as I know - never mentioned again?
The height calculated in the diameter of tennis balls which are in the same plane more or less would be in the region of 114 cm.
Photograph was available as from the 6th May(see page one Garyp's posts)

McCANN Madeleine Beth CONTROL NO. : F-131/5-2007

REQUESTING COUNTRY: PORTUGAL
FILE No. : 2007123403
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2007
CIRCULATION TO THE MEDIA (INCLUDING INTERNET): YES
IDENTITY PARTICULARS

(Photograph of Madeleine)

PRESENT Family Name : McCANN
FAMILY NAME AT BIRTH : McCANN
Forenames : Madeleine Beth
Sex : F
DATE AND Place OF Birth: 12th May 2003 - Leicester, United Kingdom
Also known as Maddie.
OTHER DATES OF BIRTH USED : N/A
FATHER'S FAMILY NAME AND FORENAMES: McCann Gerald Patrick.
MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME AND FORENAMES : HEALY Kate Marie
IDENTITY : CONFIRMED
NATIONALITY : BRITISH (CONFIRMED)
IDENTITY DOCUMENTS - BRITISH PASSPORT No 45XXXXXXX, issued on 4th August 2003 (UNITED KINGDOM) (Valid until 4th August 2008)
Occupation : N/A
Language Spoken : English
MARITAL STATUS : N/A
DESCRIPTION:
HEIGHT : 90 cms
HAIR : Blond
EYE: Green/Blue
BUILD : Slim
DISTINGUISHING MARKS AND CHARACTERISTICS :
Left Eye : Blue and Green colour
Right Eye : Green colour with a Brown spot in Retina
Small brown mark on Left Leg Calf.
Teeth : EUA
BLOOD GROUP : N/A
DNA CODE : N/A
REGIONS/COUNTRIES LIKELY TO BE VISITED : United Kingdom.

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

Sorry to step in, but the small blemish from the 2003 passport was on the calf of the leg, the hind side;

Tennis girl does have a blemish on her left leg, but hardly a small one, and it's not on her calf but on her shin: the front of the child.

Heavy bruises on left arm and left leg. And somebody else's head too. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 10.04.13 16:32

I think that the face is that of Madeleine - it's the body that I'm not sure about!

by Khalgregar 10.04.13 19:32

bobbin wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
OK, since we are
looking…..

The cake is a virtual
upside down reflection, as are the plates. The reflections are virtually ‘vertical
drops’.

Kate’s face is more or
less above the plates.

Where is the
reflection of Kate’s face and V neck blouse line, plus pendant.

It is possible that
Maddie’s hand is reflected just below the tea-towel reflection, to the right
hand side.

For Kate’s black top
to be accounting for the black area on the granite worktop, extending to the
bottom edge of the picture and beyond the cake’s reflection, Kate would have to
have an upper torso length of gigantic proportions.

In my career I have written various ray tracing algorithms, and the reflections on the table look entirely natural to me.

Where is Kate's face? Not in the reflection on the table, however her necklace is most definitely there, at the bottom of the frame.

You are assuming that the reflection on the table should be an upside down version of what you see above the table. This is not the case. Here is an example.

Ray tracing works backwards - we trace light rays from the camera's eye-point out into the scene, for every pixel in the image. These rays will bounce off objects until eventually we find a light source. Look at the colourful area of the reflection just above and to the right of the tea-towel. This is a reflection of the books, which are high up in the picture. Imagine a ray emitting from the centre of the photograph, and hitting somewhere in that colourful area. The ray will reflect upwards, through the gap between all the people, and hit the books, exactly as expected.

Kate's trousers do not appear in the reflection. No, of course they don't. Trace rays from the camera eye-point onto any point in front of Kate, and the rays will reflect high enough to hit Kate's black blouse.

I cannot see any evidence of photo-shopping in this image.

However, where I do agree with the general consensus, is that all the people in that photo are too tanned for February, even Madeleine is a little pink. Do we have an 'official' date for this photo?

by Khalgregar 10.04.13 19:51

rainbow-fairy wrote:Good God call in the exorcist as they seem to have an evil demon! Either that or its Dr Gerald McCann, not much difference IMHO.
BUT, if that is Gerry's face, WHERE IS HE? That 'reflection' looks like the 'person' is standing directly ahead of the toaster!?!

Well spotted aniandr, I've analysed this pic to death but never spotted that. Guess I've been so focussed on the angle of 'Maddie's leg' and the impossinle (imo) angle of Kate's too-big head on that broomstick frame.
Waaay too much wrong here for words...

The reflection in the toaster absolutely is that of a picture of Shrek :) Look at it really close up, you can clearly make out Shrek's tubular ear, his wide nose, and large top teeth. Trace rays from the camera to the toaster, and let them bounce off. The image of Shrek is cut in half, as it is obscured by the big blue thing on the sideboard behind Kate. You can guarantee that next to this there is a Shrek cup, lunchbox, something to do with a children's party, etc.

by Peneda Geres 10.04.13 20:03

Khalgregar wrote:
bobbin wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
OK, since we are
looking…..

The cake is a virtual
upside down reflection, as are the plates. The reflections are virtually ‘vertical
drops’.

Kate’s face is more or
less above the plates.

Where is the
reflection of Kate’s face and V neck blouse line, plus pendant.

It is possible that
Maddie’s hand is reflected just below the tea-towel reflection, to the right
hand side.

For Kate’s black top
to be accounting for the black area on the granite worktop, extending to the
bottom edge of the picture and beyond the cake’s reflection, Kate would have to
have an upper torso length of gigantic proportions.

In my career I have written various ray tracing algorithms, and the reflections on the table look entirely natural to me.

Where is Kate's face? Not in the reflection on the table, however her necklace is most definitely there, at the bottom of the frame.

You are assuming that the reflection on the table should be an upside down version of what you see above the table. This is not the case. Here is an example.

Ray tracing works backwards - we trace light rays from the camera's eye-point out into the scene, for every pixel in the image. These rays will bounce off objects until eventually we find a light source. Look at the colourful area of the reflection just above and to the right of the tea-towel. This is a reflection of the books, which are high up in the picture. Imagine a ray emitting from the centre of the photograph, and hitting somewhere in that colourful area. The ray will reflect upwards, through the gap between all the people, and hit the books, exactly as expected.

Kate's trousers do not appear in the reflection. No, of course they don't. Trace rays from the camera eye-point onto any point in front of Kate, and the rays will reflect high enough to hit Kate's black blouse.

I cannot see any evidence of photo-shopping in this image.

However, where I do agree with the general consensus, is that all the people in that photo are too tanned for February, even Madeleine is a little pink. Do we have an 'official' date for this photo?

If you cannot see evidence of photo shopping I suggest you open your eyes, the cake is sitting on a plate which is clearly wider than the cake, yet there is no reflection of the plate but we see a reflection of the blue icing on the lower part of the cake.
Sorry if I sound brusque by saying "open your eyes".

by Khalgregar 10.04.13 20:13

Peneda Geres wrote:If you cannot see evidence of photo shopping I suggest you open your eyes, the cake is sitting on a plate which is clearly wider than the cake, yet there is no reflection of the plate but we see a reflection of the blue icing on the lower part of the cake.
Sorry if I sound brusque by saying "open your eyes".

My eyes are open, there is nothing strange to my eyes about the reflection of the plate or the cake. Perhaps it is because I am thinking deterministically in terms of light-rays, instead of making an assumption about what I should be seeing.

by Peneda Geres 10.04.13 20:27

Khalgregar wrote:
Peneda Geres wrote:If you cannot see evidence of photo shopping I suggest you open your eyes, the cake is sitting on a plate which is clearly wider than the cake, yet there is no reflection of the plate but we see a reflection of the blue icing on the lower part of the cake.
Sorry if I sound brusque by saying "open your eyes".

My eyes are open, there is nothing strange to my eyes about the reflection of the plate or the cake. Perhaps it is because I am thinking deterministically in terms of light-rays, instead of making an assumption about what I should be seeing.

I'm not making an assumption of what you should be seeing, but it is obvious what you should not be seeing.
I have tried this with a mirror, the lower part of the cake does not reflect.

by Khalgregar 10.04.13 20:39

Peneda Geres wrote:I'm not making an assumption of what you should be seeing, but it is obvious what you should not be seeing.

Okay, I hear your opinion and respect your right to have it, but on the reflection of the plate I respectfully disagree with you. I am basing this on my experience of 3D computer visualization, which goes back longer than I would care to admit ;-)

by worriedmum 10.04.13 20:51

As the topic is the tennis court photo, Kahlgregar, can I ask you what your experience tells you about it, please?

by **tigger** 10.04.13 21:00

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I think that the face is that of Madeleine - it's the body that I'm not sure about!

I'm rather hoping it's not her body, those marks on the arm look more like injuries. Scraped knee OK. one can live with that.

@ Portia - there is a light brown mark on the side of her calf - I would certainly call that area calf, not shin. But it's hardly a distinguishing mark at all imo.

by Khalgregar 10.04.13 21:12

worriedmum wrote:As the topic is the tennis court photo, Kahlgregar, can I ask you what your experience tells you about it, please?

Ah, now that one looks much more suspect. While such things as the 'ghost' of the tennis ball can happen naturally through diffuse scattering, the head definitely looks wrong.

I'll qualify that. I have photos of myself, and of my children, that also look 'wrong' but I know to be 100% genuine. But all of Madeleine's head and hat looks very much out of proportion with the rest of her body, and in the wrong position. This is one of those occasions where drawing back, and trying to look at the whole picture rather than focusing in on tiny details is very revealing. The more I try to switch off, and just look at it as a normal photo, the more the face and hat sticks out like a sore thumb. The composition looks almost deliberately comical, like the pictures you see on the studio set of 'Have I Got News For You.'

The face and hat do appear to be possibly - very possibly - photo-shopped. I can't see any artifacts, but even the best quality image I can find has high levels of JPEG compression, so this isn't surprising.

To me, the body looks more like that of a 5 or 6 year old, especially the legs.

by worriedmum 10.04.13 21:48

Thank you Kahlgregar, that is interesting.

What are your thoughts on the tennis photo and the last photo as a sequence? The last photo does not seem to show any marks on the arms while the tennis photo has the 'sunburn', white hand etc-yet they are only days apart at most?

by **PeterMac** 11.04.13 7:36

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I hope this comes out larger than before.
Marks on both knees - normal for active 3 year old.
Mark on side of calf - not so sure
Various marks on forearm - not at all sure about these.