Re: Video Analysis of Tennis Court photo

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 image.]

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 image.]

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 image.]

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 image.]

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.]

by Lance De Boils 13.04.13 19:53

Monty Heck wrote:...rather like one of those 'celebrity' masks from the joke shop.

That description is spot on - I agree.

I'm glad someone else posted the picture of Amelie wearing the same (or very similar) shorts - I was about to add that myself.

by Guest 13.04.13 20:27

tigger wrote:
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 image.]

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.

Upper picture: Tennis girls backdrop; red/green?

by Guest 13.04.13 20:41

worriedmum wrote: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.]

And CC!

Uncanny how the pair and the kids allways appear colour coordinated.

GM & S: Manly (despite the ludicrous and derogatory description of 'Seany's' "female side" by his mother in her book)
KM & A: pinky, but with sandals very different from the gaudy 2nd hand stuff Tennis girls.

So Tennis girl's hat and shirt and little trousers did exist?
They were there for DNA analysis?

Surely, Kate & Gerry immediately handed them in to the PJ for analysis?!

If not: WHY NOT?

Edit: come to think of it: did Amelies wearing them contaminate any Maddie-DNA material in the trousers?

by worriedmum 13.04.13 20:46

interesting too IMO that although it appears that Amelie wears at least the hat from this picture, and wears it in the pool picture, I have never seen the white hat, the Gap top or the Monsoon shorts on later pictures. IIRC Kate says that she has some clothes 'put away' in a drawer-I can understand this but am surprised that some clothes do appear-I would have expected the sun hat to be used;I remember seeing Amelie wear a blue sun hat.

by Guest 13.04.13 20:50

Looks more & more like a witness protection plan to me.

Gerry in The Troubles by any chance?

by Guest 13.04.13 21:20

Portia wrote:Looks more & more like a witness protection plan to me.

Thanks Portia

Witness protection plan.... Surely all caracteristics are there!

parapono

by Lance De Boils 13.04.13 21:23

Witness protection plan? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Truthmustout 14.04.13 10:57

Thanks worriedmum for posting the pic with Amelie wearing the shorts. I was going to mention it but gladly u had posted it .What I find interresting is that the shorts seems to fit Amelie perfect but on the tennis pic it looks a little big for Madeleine . And it should also look longer on Amelie since she due to age should be shorter than Madeleine was..

The tennis pic has something strange looking over it, especially the back ,sticks to much out, like the hunchback of Notre dame.. The proportion looks wrong.

Khaleger : have u looked at the playground picture ? Madeleine right foot looks like a left foot. Also a weird picture IMO. Can someone post it for me? I can't do it with my iPad, and I'm hospitalized at the moment and have no access to a computer :)

by Guest 14.04.13 12:57

Hope it's nothing serious M-V.

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

This is the playground photo and the only one which shows any other people in it, I wonder if they were ever traced and interviewed. I see what you mean about the right foot.

by Truthmustout 14.04.13 13:00

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Hope it's nothing serious M-V.

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

This is the playground photo and the only one which shows any other people in it, I wonder if they were ever traced and interviewed. I see what you mean about the right foot.

Ty for posting it. Isn't the man in the background one of those observed with Murat ? Her foot looks odd and she looks a lot taller than 90 cm..

Hopefully nothing serious will know more tomorrow:)