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

by bobbin 12.12.13 17:09

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 18:12

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 18:56

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 19:09

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

by ulyssesoh 13.12.13 1:01

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.]

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

by Lance De Boils 22.12.13 18:45

tigger wrote:
Spaniel wrote:The logical day IMO to wear her new outfit was the Saturday they arrived. There was no kids club that day to get it messed up and they were all dining at the Millenium later.

It was 22 degrees on the 28th April, the pool had to be tried out but too cold to get into so a little paddle as a photo opportunity.

But they'd (k and m) already been in the pool on the day they arrived, which was a cooler day by all accounts.

The best weather that week was 28th and 29th.

I'm inclined to agree with Spaniel, especially as Gerry is wearing the same t-shirt as in the airport bus video.

Unless of course they took very few clothes and they had to wash dry and iron the same top for him to wear again later in the week. How likely is that?

by Guest 22.12.13 19:26

Lance De Boils wrote: [...]

Unless of course they took very few clothes and they had to wash dry and iron the same top for him to wear again later in the week. How likely is that?

***
Very unlikely [as is one toothbrush for a family ...].

Having said that: every time my 2nd husband and I were leaving for holiday, he was packed within 3 minutes. Two t-shirts, two undies, a sweater and some socks. Looking at my luggage, he would propose we'd rather put my wardrobe on wheels and just hook it up to the car big grin

by bobbin 01.01.14 21:52

Lance De Boils wrote:
tigger wrote:
Spaniel wrote:The logical day IMO to wear her new outfit was the Saturday they arrived. There was no kids club that day to get it messed up and they were all dining at the Millenium later.

It was 22 degrees on the 28th April, the pool had to be tried out but too cold to get into so a little paddle as a photo opportunity.

But they'd (k and m) already been in the pool on the day they arrived, which was a cooler day by all accounts.

The best weather that week was 28th and 29th.

I'm inclined to agree with Spaniel, especially as Gerry is wearing the same t-shirt as in the airport bus video.

Unless of course they took very few clothes and they had to wash dry and iron the same top for him to wear again later in the week. How likely is that?

On the current "Holiday Weather" thread, pages 1 + 2 discussing the wind on 3rd May, there are several references to the weather from friends' statements. Accordingly, the sun was only just about trying to come out, clouds clearing a little, by later in the afternoon .
So, there was 'No Hot Weather’ available for the last photo by the pool, at the time stated by Gerry and Kate McCann.

by **PeterMac** 01.01.14 22:59

Bu they also had nine pairs of pyjamas, if we go by the three pairs they took for Madeleine.

by loopzdaloop 02.01.14 1:44

tigger wrote:
saltnpepper wrote:
Portia wrote:
Lostfridge wrote:oh man!. come on peeps. The one in the bedroom may just be another photo taken at the same time! just because we have never seen it doesn't mean there isnt more than one photo taken by the pool that day. Different pic, slightly different angle ....

Little pics hair looks about 10 cms shorter

Gerry McCann said in a recent interview that the last photo was his last best memory of Madeleine...another pic which suggests misuse of a pc

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

I've also never been happy about that strong diagonal line in her neck, not what I expect to see - only when there's excess flesh in the neck.

Can't believe I've never seen this. Thanks everyone. Tigger is spot on, that line on her neck is where the new head has been photoshopped on the old picture!

by canada12 02.01.14 2:23

Watch this thread attract a whole lot of Photoshop experts now :-)
I'm in total agreement with Tigger and loopzdaloop.
There will be people who will now argue that the strands of hair can't be effectively pasted into the picture, but that's not how a good Photoshopper would do it. They'd take a photo of a blonde haired little girl wearing the clothing in the picture, sitting on the edge of the pool, with exactly the background you see. They'd then replace the face and some of the hair around the face with a photo of Madeleine's face, and for good measure possibly pop on a hat to conceal the Photoshopping of the forehead area. They'd keep some of Madeleine's hair, around her face, to ensure a good blend and match with the hair of the stand-in child.

The neck area is difficult to blend in but they've shrouded it in shadows in the hope that it's not too obvious. There is no detail whatsoever, other than that diagonal and completely unnatural line. Also her right shoulder (left side facing us) has no natural curve to it. It just sort of ends.

All speculation of course, and no Photoshopping has ever been proven, though it's been discussed to the point of getting threads locked.

by **PeterMac** 02.01.14 8:53

Anther one which has not been photoshopped.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

by Guest 02.01.14 10:56

When I look at these two images, aside from any possible 'photoshopping' it seems to me in any case that the smaller version of the photo appears to be a shortened flatter version of the other one, or even vice versa, since it is not possible to say whether one was flattened down from the larger version or the longer version was stretched out upwards from a flatter original version. No doubt someone somewhere has the means to actually try and stretch out and flatten the photos to see whether this is possible.

by Guest 02.01.14 11:00

One of the main things that has bugged me about the pool photo (apart from its inherent "weirdness", which seems to pervade a lot of their photos) is the composition. Take Maddie out and everything's perfect - as the doctor said to the doctor.

by Rasputin 02.01.14 11:33

This picture I find really strange , I can't put my finger on it but the perspective of the background just doesn't fit, once again the Madeleine is sitting almost alone , no sign of warmth or love from Gerry , and it has that 70's vibe Clay mentioned previously ....like there is some quality loss as if its a photo of a photo , which shouldn't be necessary this digital day and age ?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by bobbin 02.01.14 11:47

loopzdaloop wrote:
tigger wrote:
saltnpepper wrote:
Portia wrote:
Lostfridge wrote:oh man!. come on peeps. The one in the bedroom may just be another photo taken at the same time! just because we have never seen it doesn't mean there isnt more than one photo taken by the pool that day. Different pic, slightly different angle ....

Little pics hair looks about 10 cms shorter

Gerry McCann said in a recent interview that the last photo was his last best memory of Madeleine...another pic which suggests misuse of a pc

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

I've also never been happy about that strong diagonal line in her neck, not what I expect to see - only when there's excess flesh in the neck.

Can't believe I've never seen this. Thanks everyone. Tigger is spot on, that line on her neck is where the new head has been photoshopped on the old picture!

Also, with the head twisted round at such an acute angle for the chin to be so close, next to and slightly above, the shoulder one would see the muscle ridge, of the frontal spur, of the 'sterno-cleido-mastoid', under strict tension, like a strong vertical bar.
Turn your head onto your left shoulder and you'll feel the tight ridge of muscle. Look sideways in the mirror and you'll see it.
There is no evidence whatsoever, in Maddie's neck, of the presence of this essential muscle for this pose 'assigned to' Madeleine.

Image of sterno-cleido-mastoid muscle at:-
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **tigger** 02.01.14 15:48

The neck is the same colour as the face, everything else in the neck area is in shadow.

by russiandoll 02.01.14 18:08

a younger looking girl than tennis ball Maddie......not this exact photo but one taken from multiples at the same time as this below ?

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

by Lance De Boils 02.01.14 19:21

Rasputin wrote:This picture I find really strange , I can't put my finger on it but the perspective of the background just doesn't fit, once again the Madeleine is sitting almost alone , no sign of warmth or love from Gerry , and it has that 70's vibe Clay mentioned previously ....like there is some quality loss as if its a photo of a photo , which shouldn't be necessary this digital day and age ?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A photo of a photo! Bingo!
[Maybe?]

If someone took a photo of a photoshopped photo.... then surely the resulting image would not show any signs of photoshopping? [I'm referring to the technical side of it, not whether, say, a head looks blatantly 'pasted' on.]

by The Snapper 03.01.14 15:06

If this is a 'new' head, would anyone care to suggest who the body belongs to?

by Lance De Boils 03.01.14 15:51

... a child...? big grin

by The Snapper 03.01.14 16:04

anyone in particular?

by **tigger** 03.01.14 16:24

Since Kate could not even recall the correct colour in her book, since Chatelaine has researched the 2007 collections of Gap and Monsoon, as these items were new and bought by Kate ( allegedly) it is my conviction that the body was that of a child about three years old (not 8 days off 4 yrs) possibly the sub.
If there was a substitute child, smaller than Maddie it would explain the first two out of date photos published rather than recent ones.
I've also always found the title of their documentary syrange: 'Madeleine was here'. Well, where's the proof? No holiday photos, no artwork, conflicting statements of when tennis took place, no pink dress for the dogs to sniff, no trainers.

Why that title?

by suep 03.01.14 16:48

Lance De Boils wrote:
Rasputin wrote:This picture I find really strange , I can't put my finger on it but the perspective of the background just doesn't fit, once again the Madeleine is sitting almost alone , no sign of warmth or love from Gerry , and it has that 70's vibe Clay mentioned previously ....like there is some quality loss as if its a photo of a photo , which shouldn't be necessary this digital day and age ?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A photo of a photo! Bingo!
[Maybe?]

If someone took a photo of a photoshopped photo.... then surely the resulting image would not show any signs of photoshopping? [I'm referring to the technical side of it, not whether, say, a head looks blatantly 'pasted' on.]

Does anyone know what that black and white thing is between Madeleine and Gerry's right leg in the photo linked above?

by Guest 03.01.14 16:52

A cat. Madeleine was more red-headed when she was younger.

Log in for more topics