Re: Video Analysis of Tennis Court photo

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 link.]

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 link.]

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 link.]

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.

by plebgate 11.04.13 8:01

The fingers on Maddie's hand holding the two balls look to be spread very wide apart to me.

by Khalgregar 11.04.13 19:26

This is the tennis photo with the saturation adjusted to be very low:

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

Notice how the colour saturation of the hat seems different to the rest of the picture. It is 'more colourful' than the rest of the image.

This is not caused by the strong colour of the hat. The hat is a different saturation level because it has come from a photograph with a different saturation level.

It has been copied and pasted into this image. And the face and hair probably came from this other photograph.

by worriedmum 11.04.13 20:01

Wow, Kahlgregar, it looks like it is 'floating' around her hair on this version!

Which brings up another point.

If this is the same hat worn by Amelie on the 'last' photo by the pool, and subsequently photographed on her many times after Madeleine's disappearance,
I am quite surprised that it appears to fit them both.It looks like a snug fit on Amelie at the pool, but looks baggy and floppy on Madeleine here,IMO.

by Lance De Boils 11.04.13 20:45

Weird. When I look at that pic through squinted eyes, the whole head, starting at a line on the neck, looks like it's been pasted on. And not in quite the right position.

by Guest 11.04.13 20:48

Unless the poor little mite was a hunchback ....

by worriedmum 11.04.13 21:04

Kahlgregar, could you do the same withe 'last photo' please?

by Khalgregar 11.04.13 22:13

worriedmum wrote:Kahlgregar, could you do the same withe 'last photo' please?

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

The last photo looks completely natural in low saturation. If this image is photo-shopped, then it was done by an expert, most definitely not the same person who photo-shopped the tennis photo.

In my opinion, this photo is genuine and has not been manipulated. The 'Date Taken' metadata on a photograph is easily changed, and I suspect that this is what Gerry did in England and why this photo did not appear before his trip home. Because this photo is too perfect to not have been the automatic choice for the 'missing' posters.

On a side-note, this image reinforces what I have said about the tennis photo. There are strong colours in this image, but in low saturation *everything* looks in proportion. Nothing leaps out at you and says, oh, that's not right. The tennis photo immediately looks completely wrong. When amateur photo-shoppers are at work, that is what you get.

by worriedmum 11.04.13 22:28

quote ''The 'Date Taken' metadata on a photograph is easily changed, and I
suspect that this is what Gerry did in England and why this photo did
not appear before his trip home. Because this photo is too perfect to
not have been the automatic choice for the 'missing' posters. '' unquote

thank you Khalgregar, that is interesting. I don't understand what 'metadata' is and how that affected the fact that the photo did not appear 'til after Gerry's trip home?

by Khalgregar 11.04.13 22:30

Look at these three photos, they look to be from the same day at a play area in a park:

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

Can anybody date these photos? I suspect that the face pasted into the tennis girl photo is from another photo taken on this day. Madeleine's face looks very similar here to the tennis photo. My guess is that this was taken sometime in the winter of 2006/2007.

The floor surface is similar to that in the tennis photo. Very similar.

by Khalgregar 11.04.13 22:49

worriedmum wrote:quote ''The 'Date Taken' metadata on a photograph is easily changed, and I
suspect that this is what Gerry did in England and why this photo did
not appear before his trip home. Because this photo is too perfect to
not have been the automatic choice for the 'missing' posters. '' unquote

thank you Khalgregar, that is interesting. I don't understand what 'metadata' is and how that affected the fact that the photo did not appear 'til after Gerry's trip home?

Photographs that are taken on cameras have some extra data in them, such as EXIF (EXchangeable Image Format). The last photo has a bit of data called 'Create Date', with the value of 2007:05:03 13:29:51.

If Maddy died a couple of days earlier than 3rd May - giving them time to plan a staged abduction - then the absence of photographs during that time would be highly suspicious, considering that they were on holiday, in a group of 4 families. They probably had a bunch of photos from the first couple of days - there are three that I know of, and they all look genuine to me - and decided to hold one back so that they could alter the date and provide 'incontestable proof' that Maddy was alive on 3rd May. Now I'm a technical guy, and could have done this in 5 minutes with access to a PC. But Gerry is probably not as technical, and wanted to seek advice, either from a person or from the internet, so he waited till he went back to England to do it.

Is it coincidence that despite the near complete lack of any photographs of Maddy, they had a photo dated for the afternoon of 3rd May, which was not produced until after 26th May?

There are some who believe that the last photo came from a previous trip to PDL. I dismiss that idea out of hand. If there was a previous trip, it would have left traces. Other holiday-makers for a start, could have remembered the McCanns. No, I believe that the last photo was taken during the week leading up to 3rd May, possibly two or three days earlier. I think there were probably several photos taken around that time, but Gerry didn't want to tempt fate and only produced one where he had altered the date - just enough to 'prove' that Maddy was alive on 3rd May.

by Khalgregar 11.04.13 23:13

Lance De Boils wrote:Weird. When I look at that pic through squinted eyes, the whole head, starting at a line on the neck, looks like it's been pasted on. And not in quite the right position.

Yes, the smudged line on the neck is very clear. Not good photo-shop work :) When you look at it from a distance, the back of the neck is a long way from where it should be.

Another thought - the reason for the hat being there at all, is to entirely obscure the face of whoever the body belongs to. It is probably out of place for the same reason.

And yet another thought - somebody said earlier in this thread that the outfit looks very '1970s', including the sandals. I am a 70s child, and I agree, yes it does, very much so. The baggy shorts, the long socks. I think it quite possible that this could be a picture of Kate at around 6 years old.

Because if you are going to photoshop your missing child's face onto another child's body, you need to be damned sure that the parent of that child doesn't rain on your parade. Using a picture of Kate herself would be a very clever move.

This theory would be easily disproved if there were any other person in the photograph. As we can see, there is not.

by **tigger** 12.04.13 8:44

Khalgregar wrote:Look at these three photos, they look to be from the same day at a play area in a park:

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

Can anybody date these photos? I suspect that the face pasted into the tennis girl photo is from another photo taken on this day. Madeleine's face looks very similar here to the tennis photo. My guess is that this was taken sometime in the winter of 2006/2007.

The floor surface is similar to that in the tennis photo. Very similar.

You will find some very high resolution sets of photos on this topic: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Re the pool photo: imo Amelie has been pasted in and Maddie looks far too young. Her face as well as her body. I tried to explain the reason for pasting Amelie in (very badly done - transparent bits of right arm etc.) to move the time to 2007. Although I do believe at least Gerry knew PdL beforehand through his several golfing trips - that's in the book - I'm sure I'm wrong on that point. But I'm not happy about Maddie's neck in that picture. Just like the Donegal photo, where her face is pasted onto a younger body (almost the same size as Sean) this might be the same trick but better executed. In the pool photo there's an inexplicable diagonal line in her neck. (the sterno/mastoid tendon intersects with the line). She is also wearing a white hat whereas Amelie is wearing Maddie's hat. Children are possessive - unlikely.
I 'm sure you're right that the pool photo was done by an expert. I didn't know about the saturation test, thanks, very useful!
But on looking at the saturation test again above, I can see left over colour on Amelie's hat and top, a little left over pink on Maddie's dress as well.

by **tigger** 12.04.13 9:22

To add: just looked at the above link I posted and the picture I'm commenting on there (page 1) seems to have disappeared. There were originally three sets.
The first set where she doesn't look a day over three on a pony is said to have been taken on the 17th April 2007.

by Monty Heck 13.04.13 17:57

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I don't normally comment on photos topics, having no expertise whatever in that area have nothing to add to the debate. I've seen the photo above many times but this is the first instance where it has really appeared to look photoshopped. The head and neck look as though cut and pasted on to the body, rather like one of those 'celebrity' masks from the joke shop. There is no shadow on the tennis ball directly under the chin and the entire head and face seem to have an outline around them while the body does not. I agree that the outfit looks old fashonioned, the shorts in particular. The stance and shape of the legs and feet also seem to correspond to KMcCs and not too difficult a leap to visualise the rest of the body as being from a photo of her as a child.
Edited to add: I found the above is more apparent when the image is enlarged

by **Nina** 13.04.13 18:16

Monty Heck wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I don't normally comment on photos topics, having no expertise whatever in that area have nothing to add to the debate. I've seen the photo above many times but this is the first instance where it has really appeared to look photoshopped. The head and neck look as though cut and pasted on to the body, rather like one of those 'celebrity' masks from the joke shop. There is no shadow on the tennis ball directly under the chin and the entire head and face seem to have an outline around them while the body does not. I agree that the outfit looks old fashonioned, the shorts in particular. The stance and shape of the legs and feet also seem to correspond to KMcCs and not too difficult a leap to visualise the rest of the body as being from a photo of her as a child.
Edited to add: I found the above is more apparent when the image is enlarged

Ye gods Monty Heck I have never viewed this photo with the image enlarged but have just done so at 400% and just look at the neck by the under chin ball, it has been pasted in on top of the neck of the tee shirt, very badly done job.

by worriedmum 13.04.13 19:18

Have just enlarged it 400% , this makes the arms and legs look very different too.

I know the outfit looks retro, but Amelie looks like she is wearing the shorts and hat...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]