Re: If there is ONE last photo.........................

by bobbin 10.12.13 21:35

Portia wrote:The quote button is totally messed up for me.

I see the last posters words in a yellow box

Normally, you push the quote button, and a white field opens beneath this yellow box, for you to put your comments in

Now, it no longer does. There is no white space to put my quote.

So I must go to 'post a reply'

Chatelaine, have I answered your question?

Just checking. So far it seems OK / normal, for me. I'm on MacBook, not microsoft. Would that make a difference ? It might be a totally technically ignorant thing for me to have said but it seems odd that some can reply and others can't. About to discover if it sends OK. spin

ETA, it's worked.

by Guest 10.12.13 21:41

bobbin wrote:
Portia wrote:The quote button is totally messed up for me.

I see the last posters words in a yellow box

Normally, you push the quote button, and a white field opens beneath this yellow box, for you to put your comments in

Now, it no longer does. There is no white space to put my quote.

So I must go to 'post a reply'

Chatelaine, have I answered your question?
Just checking. So far it seems OK / normal, for me. I'm on MacBook, not microsoft. Would that make a difference ? It might be a totally technically ignorant thing for me to have said but it seems odd that some can reply and others can't. About to discover if it sends OK.
ETA, it's worked.

Thanks Bobbin. Sorry, negative, with your post also. No white quote space available as before. Portia

by Guest 10.12.13 21:43

And are you on PC, Portia.
As Bobbin and I on Apple have no problems, that might be it ...

by Guest 10.12.13 21:44

Portia wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Portia wrote:The quote button is totally messed up for me.

I see the last posters words in a yellow box

Normally, you push the quote button, and a white field opens beneath this yellow box, for you to put your comments in

Now, it no longer does. There is no white space to put my quote.

So I must go to 'post a reply'

Chatelaine, have I answered your question?
Just checking. So far it seems OK / normal, for me. I'm on MacBook, not microsoft. Would that make a difference ? It might be a totally technically ignorant thing for me to have said but it seems odd that some can reply and others can't. About to discover if it sends OK.
ETA, it's worked.

Thanks Bobbin. Sorry, negative, with your post also. No white quote space available as before. Portia

***
Example

by bobbin 10.12.13 21:45

Portia wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Portia wrote:The quote button is totally messed up for me.

I see the last posters words in a yellow box

Normally, you push the quote button, and a white field opens beneath this yellow box, for you to put your comments in

Now, it no longer does. There is no white space to put my quote.

So I must go to 'post a reply'

Chatelaine, have I answered your question?
Just checking. So far it seems OK / normal, for me. I'm on MacBook, not microsoft. Would that make a difference ? It might be a totally technically ignorant thing for me to have said but it seems odd that some can reply and others can't. About to discover if it sends OK.
ETA, it's worked.

Thanks Bobbin. Sorry, negative, with your post also. No white quote space available as before. Portia

Just a question then, are you MacBook or Microsoft PC ? I just have a screen with the post and a single 'quote' box top right. I press that and get the previous message with the word 'quote' written beside it, where I can write my reply, then send. high5

by Guest 10.12.13 21:45

Châtelaine wrote:
Portia wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Portia wrote:The quote button is totally messed up for me.

I see the last posters words in a yellow box

Normally, you push the quote button, and a white field opens beneath this yellow box, for you to put your comments in

Now, it no longer does. There is no white space to put my quote.

So I must go to 'post a reply'

Chatelaine, have I answered your question?
Just checking. So far it seems OK / normal, for me. I'm on MacBook, not microsoft. Would that make a difference ? It might be a totally technically ignorant thing for me to have said but it seems odd that some can reply and others can't. About to discover if it sends OK.
ETA, it's worked.

Thanks Bobbin. Sorry, negative, with your post also. No white quote space available as before. Portia
***
Example

Once more: a no go. Portia

by bobbin 10.12.13 21:51

Portia wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Portia wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Portia wrote:The quote button is totally messed up for me.

I see the last posters words in a yellow box

Normally, you push the quote button, and a white field opens beneath this yellow box, for you to put your comments in

Now, it no longer does. There is no white space to put my quote.

So I must go to 'post a reply'

Chatelaine, have I answered your question?
Just checking. So far it seems OK / normal, for me. I'm on MacBook, not microsoft. Would that make a difference ? It might be a totally technically ignorant thing for me to have said but it seems odd that some can reply and others can't. About to discover if it sends OK.
ETA, it's worked.

Thanks Bobbin. Sorry, negative, with your post also. No white quote space available as before. Portia
***
Example

Once more: a no go. Portia

I see that Châtelaine's and my post crossed. Yes, interesting Châtelaine, that you also have Apple Mac.
It might be not such an ignorant observation then. Wonder if this will help. big grin

by Guest 10.12.13 21:52

bobbin wrote:
Portia wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Portia wrote:The quote button is totally messed up for me.

I see the last posters words in a yellow box

Normally, you push the quote button, and a white field opens beneath this yellow box, for you to put your comments in

Now, it no longer does. There is no white space to put my quote.

So I must go to 'post a reply'

Chatelaine, have I answered your question?
Just checking. So far it seems OK / normal, for me. I'm on MacBook, not microsoft. Would that make a difference ? It might be a totally technically ignorant thing for me to have said but it seems odd that some can reply and others can't. About to discover if it sends OK.
ETA, it's worked.

Thanks Bobbin. Sorry, negative, with your post also. No white quote space available as before. Portia
Just a question then, are you MacBook or Microsoft PC ? I just have a screen with the post and a single 'quote' box top right. I press that and get the previous message with the word 'quote' written beside it, where I can write my reply, then send.

MBook. As past history shows, I was perfectly able to tease all & sundry on quote.

The facilities you mention I had, precisely. For 6 yrs. Now all of a sudden I'm cut off

Thank you for your support! Portia

by Guest 10.12.13 21:53

Portia wrote: ...

Once more: a no go. Portia

***
One more try. When you put your cursor directly behind the last [/quote], then hit return once or twice and then type. What happens?

by Guest 10.12.13 21:59

Châtelaine wrote:
Portia wrote: ...

Once more: a no go. Portia

***
One more try. When you put your cursor directly behind the last

Lots of lovely white space!

Thank you very much Chatty!

But this is different form procedures so far

by Guest 10.12.13 22:00

Châtelaine wrote:
Portia wrote: ...

Once more: a no go. Portia

***
One more try. When you put your cursor directly behind the last

, then hit return once or twice and then type. What happens?[/quote]

Double check

Night!

by Guest 10.12.13 22:01

Portia wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Portia wrote: ...

Once more: a no go. Portia

***
One more try. When you put your cursor directly behind the last

Lots of lovely white space!

Thank you very much Chatty!

But this is different form procedures so far

***
I'm a wizard in many ways, dear Portia ... big grin

by Tangled Web 11.12.13 11:04

In my husband's opinion (he's been a graphic designer for 20 years) the two poolside pics of Maddie are two different photographs. He wouldn't indulge me any further (he thinks I'm obsessed!) but he's quite sure they are different.

by MissDrew 11.12.13 13:52

First post, but the black and white photo looked to me like a version that had been re-sized so the perspective had changed, making hair look shorter etc. I've re-sized the colour photo in an example in the following link to show what I mean. In my opinion it is the same photo.

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

by worriedmum 11.12.13 23:58

I don't think so MissDrew.

Look ath the shape of the top of the hat.
Look at the way the folds lie on the dress.

by canada12 12.12.13 0:27

Miss Drew...I don't think so either...

To quote myself: play the video here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
At about 00:32 in, the camera lingers on a good copy of the B&W photo.

You can see in the b&W photo that her hair is blunt cut and ends right at her chin.

Whereas in the larger colour photo her hair is long and straggly and runs down into the top part of her clothing. The hat is also a different shape.

by ulyssesoh 12.12.13 2:28

From another angle in the video it looks much more like the familiar image.

Look at the crease in the dress on the bottom right; the two shadows formed between the left arm and dress where there are creases; the slightly darker area of skin on the outside of the arm above the left elbow; the dark bit of wall just off the left edge of the hat.

It does look strange but it looks like it could be a printout, it's of the edited version of the photo so it fuzzy in parts, and it's reproduced by video at a strange angle and in low resolution. Seems to explain it to me.

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

by ekatae 12.12.13 2:41

What a revelation ...this thread has been to me.....Thank you....!!

by ulyssesoh 12.12.13 3:01

Given roughly the same treatment in terms of angles, blurring and color temperature and the original photo confirms its authenticity. Case closed on this one I think.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by canada12 12.12.13 8:24

Oh look, yeah. It's the "special" version of The Last Photo - the one minus Amelie's arm and Gerry's elbow.

Which is the subject of a whole other topic of speculation about which came first, the photo with Gerry's elbow and Amelie's arm, or the photo of Madeleine on her own.

by bobbin 12.12.13 8:48

ulyssesoh wrote:Given roughly the same treatment in terms of angles, blurring and color temperature and the original photo confirms its authenticity. Case closed on this one I think.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I don't entirely agree. What exactly is the 'original' photo ? Can that be determined ?
I agree that the 'video' picture looks a 'squat' form of the pool photo but think it has also been fiddled with in the pool photo, so not an entire 'authentic original' in both photos.
Maddie's hair definitely looks longer in the pool photo, as if to age enhance her a bit perhaps. But WHY?
Well, these two photos being probably of original base (but maybe Madeleine's hair modified) leaves us with 'how did Gerry's jutting elbow and Amelie's arm get into the last pool photo?'
Or were they taken out, and if so, Why?
Either way, there's been some fiddling.
There is too much other evidence in the big pool picture of just fractionally out of sync shadow angles, shadow colour intensity, inconsistencies re sharpness of ground tiles and wall bricks, on either side of Maddie, the peculiar reflection in Gerry's glasses off at 90 degrees, the bougainvillea in full flower when the weather had not made it possible to be so, the peculiar black mark behind Amelie's hand/arm, all long discussed before.
Either, the 'alone' picture was taken a year earlier, on that background, when Madeleine's features would match better to her other photos, (that's if any single one of them is actually of her), AND the family / jutting elbow photo has had Gerry and Amelie added in, to make it look like a happy family photo,
OR the Gerry and/ or Amelie picture has been taken 'after' 03.05.07 and Maddie has been pasted in.
Or BOTH.
The top line of the wall and the grass, with shading to 'our left of Maddie's right ear', on the larger versions is also indicative of two different photo shootings.
I do agree that the 'alone' picture looks 'squat' because of the filming angle, but the timing of when these photos/including background/ elbow, Amelie arm etc. do indicate that Maddie, as shown in the 'alone' photo, is not the full picture (excuse the pun).
So I don't think it's case closed at all. The squat picture has Madeleine with shorter hair regardless of angle.
Might be the same Maddie photo, later enhanced, but definitely two conjoined backgrounds. So which is the original, for there to have been an authentic starting point.

by worriedmum 12.12.13 11:43

ulyssesoh, you say 'case closed' but can you tell me what you have done to the pool picture in order to make it more closely resemble the framed one?

by **PeterMac** 12.12.13 11:53

worriedmum wrote:ulyssesoh, you say 'case closed' but can you tell me what you have done to the pool picture in order to make it more closely resemble the framed one?

Looks like an iPad, at the same angle and then photographed.
Well done. Very neat.

by ulyssesoh 12.12.13 12:44

Sure, worriedmum. I just dragged the high resolution poolside picture into Microsoft Word (since I don't have better software for this purpose). Using the settings there I rotated the image to a similar angle, used the "blur" setting to reduce the resolution, used the color settings to make the image less bold and more grey. I added the frame and shadow for no good reason, really. Then I saved it as a picture.

I was quite surprised by how similar the final product was, to be honest, as the photo in the video did look quite different.

by ulyssesoh 12.12.13 15:42

bobbin wrote:
ulyssesoh wrote:Given roughly the same treatment in terms of angles, blurring and color temperature and the original photo confirms its authenticity. Case closed on this one I think.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I don't entirely agree. What exactly is the 'original' photo ? Can that be determined ?
I agree that the 'video' picture looks a 'squat' form of the pool photo but think it has also been fiddled with in the pool photo, so not an entire 'authentic original' in both photos.
Maddie's hair definitely looks longer in the pool photo, as if to age enhance her a bit perhaps. But WHY?
Well, these two photos being probably of original base (but maybe Madeleine's hair modified) leaves us with 'how did Gerry's jutting elbow and Amelie's arm get into the last pool photo?'
Or were they taken out, and if so, Why?
Either way, there's been some fiddling.
There is too much other evidence in the big pool picture of just fractionally out of sync shadow angles, shadow colour intensity, inconsistencies re sharpness of ground tiles and wall bricks, on either side of Maddie, the peculiar reflection in Gerry's glasses off at 90 degrees, the bougainvillea in full flower when the weather had not made it possible to be so, the peculiar black mark behind Amelie's hand/arm, all long discussed before.
Either, the 'alone' picture was taken a year earlier, on that background, when Madeleine's features would match better to her other photos, (that's if any single one of them is actually of her), AND the family / jutting elbow photo has had Gerry and Amelie added in, to make it look like a happy family photo,
OR the Gerry and/ or Amelie picture has been taken 'after' 03.05.07 and Maddie has been pasted in.
Or BOTH.
The top line of the wall and the grass, with shading to 'our left of Maddie's right ear', on the larger versions is also indicative of two different photo shootings.
I do agree that the 'alone' picture looks 'squat' because of the filming angle, but the timing of when these photos/including background/ elbow, Amelie arm etc. do indicate that Maddie, as shown in the 'alone' photo, is not the full picture (excuse the pun).
So I don't think it's case closed at all. The squat picture has Madeleine with shorter hair regardless of angle.
Might be the same Maddie photo, later enhanced, but definitely two conjoined backgrounds. So which is the original, for there to have been an authentic starting point.
------------------------------------

Leaving aside any other questions about the authenticity of this photo and its variants, I think we can safely conclude that the photo in the video is the "blurred" version with elbow etc. removed rather than an alternative. That's the only conclusion I was pointing to.

by bobbin 12.12.13 16:09

ulyssesoh wrote:
bobbin wrote:
ulyssesoh wrote:Given roughly the same treatment in terms of angles, blurring and color temperature and the original photo confirms its authenticity. Case closed on this one I think.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I don't entirely agree. What exactly is the 'original' photo ? Can that be determined ?
I agree that the 'video' picture looks a 'squat' form of the pool photo but think it has also been fiddled with in the pool photo, so not an entire 'authentic original' in both photos.
Maddie's hair definitely looks longer in the pool photo, as if to age enhance her a bit perhaps. But WHY?
Well, these two photos being probably of original base (but maybe Madeleine's hair modified) leaves us with 'how did Gerry's jutting elbow and Amelie's arm get into the last pool photo?'
Or were they taken out, and if so, Why?
Either way, there's been some fiddling.
There is too much other evidence in the big pool picture of just fractionally out of sync shadow angles, shadow colour intensity, inconsistencies re sharpness of ground tiles and wall bricks, on either side of Maddie, the peculiar reflection in Gerry's glasses off at 90 degrees, the bougainvillea in full flower when the weather had not made it possible to be so, the peculiar black mark behind Amelie's hand/arm, all long discussed before.
Either, the 'alone' picture was taken a year earlier, on that background, when Madeleine's features would match better to her other photos, (that's if any single one of them is actually of her), AND the family / jutting elbow photo has had Gerry and Amelie added in, to make it look like a happy family photo,
OR the Gerry and/ or Amelie picture has been taken 'after' 03.05.07 and Maddie has been pasted in.
Or BOTH.
The top line of the wall and the grass, with shading to 'our left of Maddie's right ear', on the larger versions is also indicative of two different photo shootings.
I do agree that the 'alone' picture looks 'squat' because of the filming angle, but the timing of when these photos/including background/ elbow, Amelie arm etc. do indicate that Maddie, as shown in the 'alone' photo, is not the full picture (excuse the pun).
So I don't think it's case closed at all. The squat picture has Madeleine with shorter hair regardless of angle.
Might be the same Maddie photo, later enhanced, but definitely two conjoined backgrounds. So which is the original, for there to have been an authentic starting point.
------------------------------------

Leaving aside any other questions about the authenticity of this photo and its variants, I think we can safely conclude that the photo in the video is the "blurred" version with elbow etc. removed rather than an alternative. That's the only conclusion I was pointing to.

I understand that that was your point, and for the very most part, I agree with you.
However, unless we can, or the PJ / SY can, see the two photos next to each other, we can't know whether the one is an original and the other an exact copy, but with people either removed or added.
For there to be two different presentations, manipulation of some sort has occurred.
For this, (given that the tennis court and playground photos indicate longer hair and not a 'bob' cut as appears in the 'alone' photo) if Maddie's hair has been drawn out a little for the 'family' photo, then it would be to 'age' her a little to meet the attempt at 03.05.07 theory.
If the hair has not been drawn out, then the photo would indicate a year earlier for the photographing.
I can see that the video photo appears to be a 'squat' form of the family photo, this was agreed a long time ago, on the relevant threads.
Someone even did an exercise to 'extenuate' and 'foreshorten' other photos to show how it could be done.
They didn't present the two photos as you have done, so it's really good to see them done so.
And you are in most probability correct, that the two photos be the same, and I personally thank you for the work that you have done, and the fact that you are a new poster offering your valid help.
But we still cannot say 100% that the one is the other unless we see the two together for serious analysis.
It is, given the McCs devious track record, the level of 'manipulation' that is of interest, since that has much deeper and further implications if the two photos are not exact copies of Madeleine.
I know I'm appearing very nit-picky, but hope the above explains why I don't feel we can knock it on the head 100 % yet, until both photos are placed side by side. high5

and welcome to the forum.

by Guest 12.12.13 17:12

What really puzzles me is WHY do they have TWO times the same picture? The real difference for me is that the smaller one has a CROSS ...

by Guest 12.12.13 17:56

Châtelaine wrote:What really puzzles me is WHY do they have TWO times the same picture? The real difference for me is that the smaller one has a CROSS ...

If you watch the video, you'll notice it's shrine like aspect, and the cross on a rosary, i seems to me.

As strange as the urn-like pot on the mantelpiece.

Why, if you really believe your child is alive, do you construct a solemn memorial instead of putting up a collection of family pictures, showing the missing Love One with her siblings, with yourself and her nursery pals, just to name a few possibilities?

by Guest 12.12.13 18:09

That's what I meant between the lines ... Portia.

by ulyssesoh 13.12.13 0:01

On the subject of photos, one thing that I do think is strange is Kate's home office. Every single one of the photos around the desk seems to be one of Madeleine that has been released to the press, including a still from video. I found this quite surprising. One would have thought there would be plenty of photos that - while not ideal for identification purposes and perhaps not good enough to release for the campaign - are associated with happy memories and time with the family. Do other people have thoughts on this?

The link is [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Stills:

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

Latest topics