Re: Alex Woolfall 'knows': 'The Last Photo', and other photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz

by bobbin 29.01.14 13:59

rustyjames wrote:
NickE wrote:Check out the wall next to GM's elbow.
What do you think?

bobbin wrote:Apart from considerable inconsistencies in the walls /stones, in both pictures, the green plant at base of wall falls to the right of the tree trunk in the coloured photo, and it falls in the middle of the trunk in the black and white photo.
You may need to look back at NickE's post (around 10.37, page 41) to see the original black and white. Copying it here loses the green plant at middle position of tree trunk.

bobbin wrote:Re Shadows.
Why does Amelie's hat, with its rather wide brim cast a shadow down to half way up her chest,
Yet Gerry's chin and nose, albeit big and protruding, casts a shadow way down his chest, beyond the equivalent reach of Amelie's shadow.
Gerry's nose and chin are not as big as Amelie's hat brim.
IMO the angle of sun/shadow on Gerry's T shirt is NOT THE SAME ANGLE as Amelie's shadow.

The first two pictures just appear to be different attempts at cropping out Madeleine from the photo to show what can be done. Neither are perfect. To fill the gap left something has to be created, the most easy being duplicating something from the original. In both cases the section where the weed was has been used and if you look carefully you can see the remains of it copied but made to look more like the wall.

As for the shadows I spent a lot of time on that in the 3arguidos days. I don't think I ever published my version of the picture, but to me the shadows are probably consistent. In the picture the sunbeds and the shadow on Gerry's shirt of the left side of the frame give the direction of the light. Parallel lines drawn relative to those seem consistent with the shadows of other points in the picture such as Madeleine's hair.

I'm sure there was discussion in the past on the angle of the sun and whether anything could be deduced from that regarding the time of day / date.

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

rustyjames, thanks for your efforts but anyone can draw red lines onto a picture, red pen and ruler will do the job adequately.
What I was focussing on is the ‘length’ of the shadow of Gerry’s face down his T shirt.

It is not his forehead nor hair that creates the long, bottom part of the shadow.
His hair is shadowed on his forehead and stops there, it does NOT continue to create any shadow on the T shirt.

The sun is fully on Gerry’s nose, and then chin, which are responsible for making the lowest part of the shadow on the T shirt.

My comment is that Gerry’s nose cannot stick out further than Amelie’s hat brim.

Although I accept that Gerry has told so many lies that he probably ‘out-noses’ Pinocchio, his nose still can’t be more sticky out than a brim which completely covers the little girl’s face down to her chest.
That after all is the ‘sole function’ of a sun hat, to cast a big shade.

Gerry’s schonk and chin cannot be casting that longer shadow down his T shirt than the large brim of Amelie’s hat which falls shorter than Gerry’s shadow.

The shadowing is the wrong way round.
The more sticky out the lit feature, the longer the shadow should be.
In this case, Amelie’s hat must stick out MORE than Gerry’s nose relative to their respective shadow lengths.

by rustyjames 29.01.14 14:03

Portia wrote:Bobbin, you're right. The wall behind GMs left elbow is different on both pictures. The black and white one has a round flagstone first while the colored one has only half a flagstone next to the elbow. ground level also differs.
Another thing which struck me, that GM's upper thighs don't bend around the edge of the pool. It almost looks as if he is floating over this edge. Could it be that GM has been shopped in, instead of MM? Just wondering.

I explained this in my last post. The picture in the video and the black and white one are two different photoshops but using the same technique - duplicating some of the background to fill in the gap. I assume both are also cropped because of the difficulty in adding what would be the missing hand.

This possibly makes it clearer where the duplication has taken place, especially the black and white one as it is higher resolution and you can see where the wall repeats.

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

by rustyjames 29.01.14 14:21

bobbin wrote:
rustyjames, thanks for your efforts but anyone can draw red lines onto a picture, red pen and ruler will do the job adequately.

Agreed anyone can draw red lines, but they aren't just red lines but show the direction the sun must be falling. I agree the middle three lines are from the nose/chin. The next two to the left are across the glasses and then the next two to the left of those follow the left part of the frame. The head is upright or slightly back and combined with a slight indentation in the t-shirt in the chest area that area results in the longer shadow.

If you look at the angle of the light rays in comparison to the angle of his body compared to Amelie's, he is more upright leading to longer shadows.

All just my opinion after spending many hours on the photo back around 2008.

by Doug D 29.01.14 15:08

Thinking about the lack of the ‘last photo’ in the black & whites, is there any reason to think that this was not just another ‘good marketing ploy’ photo, purely constructed for the papers?

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

‘The last photo’ as an idea in itself makes good copy and if, say, photo 42 was taken as the basis of the idea (doesn’t even matter if it’s not the McC’s in it) a photo round the pool, dipping your feet in the water, on a bright sunny day would fit the bill nicely.

Trouble is the empty sunbeds, which look as though they haven’t been moved all day, don’t lend themselves to the ‘bright sunny day’ they are looking for, but that’s not a problem when you can start from scratch & construct a wonderful holiday photo from any number of new or old photos and then add a time & date to suit.

by MissesWillYa 30.01.14 21:07

Who is this child (photo #75 from the holiday photos link)? Does anyone else think this girl looks similar to some of the photos we've been told are of Madeleine? I'm specifically thinking of her mouth, which looks like the "Madeleine's" mouth in certain photos, but not others. It's bigger, wider, the lips more pronounced. The best example is the Christmas photos where she's in red pajamas riding on Gerry's back with her cousin. THIS child below looks just like the "Madeleine" in those photos. The pumpkin-costume photo comes to mind, as do the "princess" photos in pink with a tiara or headband type of thing. "Madeleine's" mouth in those photos looks just like this child's to me, but quite different from other photos of Madeleine. I get an impression of blonder hair in this B&W photo as well, not exactly sure why. That Christmas photo and the princess photos also looked blonder than normal for Madeleine, IMO.

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

by suep 07.02.14 6:34

There's a good argument for the last photo being a fake which was posted on the truthformadeleine website way back in September 2007 by someone calling themselves "The Author". He/she concentrates on the angles of shadows in relation to the angle the sun would have been at 2.29pm on 3rd May in the exact geographical location of the OC. It gets very technical and complicated. He/she concludes that the shadow of Gerry's chin on his teeshirt couldn't possibly have been that long if the photo was taken in early May in PdL because according to the charts he/she was using to do the calculations the sun never got high enough in the sky at that time of year to produce such a shadow. I had a look at the charts (there's a link in the post) and if my calculations are correct the only time a shadow that long could be cast in that location would be around late June to early July.

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

by canada12 16.02.14 9:26

Here is a photo of Amelie wearing pink shorts which are identical to the ones in the Tennis Ball photo.

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

If you look at the body shape of Amelie, and then look at the body shape of "Madeleine" in the tennis photo, you can see some similarities.

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

It's always looked strange to me, and I think that's why. I think that the trunk of the girl in the Tennis photo is actually Amelie, and the arms, legs and head belong to someone else.

And what are the chances that Amelie and Madeleine both had the same shorts?

by Guest 16.02.14 10:03

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

by Guest 16.02.14 10:42

I don't think there's anything strange about the shorts being shared - particularly not in a household where shoes are shared (unhygienic and not good for the feet) and even worse (allegedly) toothbrushes - please let that be a forum myth as it makes me feel so sick!.

Alternatively there could be more than one pair.

by Guest 16.02.14 12:16

canada12 wrote:Here is a photo of Amelie wearing pink shorts which are identical to the ones in the Tennis Ball photo.

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

If you look at the body shape of Amelie, and then look at the body shape of "Madeleine" in the tennis photo, you can see some similarities.

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

It's always looked strange to me, and I think that's why. I think that the trunk of the girl in the Tennis photo is actually Amelie, and the arms, legs and head belong to someone else.

And what are the chances that Amelie and Madeleine both had the same shorts?

Interesting proportional comparisons re length and relative distance of tshirt and shorts.

by Wahrheit 16.02.14 22:25

MILLIE wrote:
canada12 wrote:Here is a photo of Amelie wearing pink shorts which are identical to the ones in the Tennis Ball photo.

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

If you look at the body shape of Amelie, and then look at the body shape of "Madeleine" in the tennis photo, you can see some similarities.

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

It's always looked strange to me, and I think that's why. I think that the trunk of the girl in the Tennis photo is actually Amelie, and the arms, legs and head belong to someone else.

And what are the chances that Amelie and Madeleine both had the same shorts?
Interesting proportional comparisons re length and relative distance of tshirt and shorts.

Apart from the strangely disproportionate head and the ghost tennis ball, the legs look to me like they've been extended and a different foot added. You don;t have to look too closely to see a colour difference a line and an indentation in the right calf and a curve below the knee. Bizarre photo if not shopped.

by boo boos 16.02.14 23:20

IMO the tennis girl looks older and taller than any other I've seen of "Madeleine". Looks like she's had a growth spurt where she has shot up, her limbs are longer and thinner, yet her torso still looks quite full - whereas I would expect it to be skinnier like the rest of her - puppy fat still there where I would expect it to have disappeared and gone into making her grow.

by Hicks 17.02.14 10:27

I might be seeing things, however, if you blow the image above up to 400% it looks to me like Madeleine has a square indentation on her arm (right I think). There is a bruise further down the arm that looks like it was made by someone grabbing her forcefully.

by canada12 17.02.14 10:42

Hicks wrote:I might be seeing things, however, if you blow the image above up to 400% it looks to me like Madeleine has a square indentation on her arm (right I think). There is a bruise further down the arm that looks like it was made by someone grabbing her forcefully.

Yes, and very bruised legs. Which some might argue could also be red stuff from the tennis court, but if that was the case, then her shoes and socks should be stained red too. And they aren't.

Also, you might notice that the lowest tennis ball that she's holding is a rather peculiar shape. It's oblong, with an extra bit at the bottom, and ends in a straight black space between her third and fourth fingers.

Also, she's got no left knee. Really. Look closely. It's not there.

by Hicks 17.02.14 11:31

Yes, that leg looks very strange, no knee, it looks in a unnatural position. But then most photo's put out by the McCann's are strange, the make up photo tops the list for me, the ears are way too low.

by Hicks 17.02.14 11:45

Wondering what could possibly leave such a mark.

If sedation was used it could have been administered by a patch.

Looking into this possibility I typed 'children's sedation patches' into the search engine and found this...

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

The paragraph entitled 'Transdermal' is interesting.

by Lance De Boils 17.02.14 12:21

Madeleine's legs appear strange in more than one photo.
In the tennis ball pic, her left leg looks like a 'middle leg' - I can easily imagine a '3rd leg' to the left of her left leg. [Very poorly explained, I hope at least somebody gets my drift!]
Then there's the playground pic in which she has 2 left legs, plus the one where she's wearing a purple dress and her legs don't match.

by Hicks 17.02.14 12:47

Lance De Boils wrote:Madeleine's legs appear strange in more than one photo.
In the tennis ball pic, her left leg looks like a 'middle leg' - I can easily imagine a '3rd leg' to the left of her left leg. [Very poorly explained, I hope at least somebody gets my drift!]
Then there's the playground pic in which she has 2 left legs, plus the one where she's wearing a purple dress and her legs don't match.orts

Even stranger when you increase to 400%, it looks as if both legs come out from the same leg hole in the shorts with the left leg hole completely empty.

by ultimaThule 17.02.14 12:58

And quite apart from the fact that they appear to be a different colour to the right arm, the hands seem to be abnormally large for an almost 4 year old.

by canada12 17.02.14 13:31

And far too slender.

by Lance De Boils 17.02.14 13:42

Hicks wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:Madeleine's legs appear strange in more than one photo.
In the tennis ball pic, her left leg looks like a 'middle leg' - I can easily imagine a '3rd leg' to the left of her left leg. [Very poorly explained, I hope at least somebody gets my drift!]
Then there's the playground pic in which she has 2 left legs, plus the one where she's wearing a purple dress and her legs don't match.
Even stranger when you increase to 400%, it looks as if both legs come out from the same leg hole in the shorts with the left leg hole completely empty.

Yes, that's what I was getting at. As though her 'real' left leg was wiped out and a different left leg badly pasted in to the wrong place.
Or both legs were pasted from a completely different picture into this one. Badly.

How baggy would those shorts have to be to allow for such a huge gap in front of the left leg? It doesn't seem right.

by DurhamGuy1967 17.02.14 13:53

Is there anything in the statements and interviews to state what witnesses saw Madeline wearing on certain days? This information seems surprisingly illusive, and I would have thought it very important and relevant.

by worriedmum 17.02.14 16:53

From the Wikipedia entry,

''Interpol described Madeleine as having straight blonde hair, blue-green eyes, a small brown mark on the calf of her left leg, and a distinctive [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of her right eye, possibly a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Is that the mark?WHICH leg?

by Hicks 17.02.14 18:16

worriedmum wrote:From the Wikipedia entry,

''Interpol described Madeleine as having straight blonde hair, blue-green eyes, a small brown mark on the calf of her left leg, and a distinctive [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of her right eye, possibly a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Is that the mark?WHICH leg?

The poor wee mite had no help from her parents with climbing the steep steps to the plane, hence she stumbled and hurt her knees, don't they look sore? Seems Madeleine never got help when she most needed it.

by HelenMeg 17.02.14 18:27

After reading through this and particularly because of the weed position it seems definitely shopped. But why? and the insistence about buying sunglasses. Whenever Kate mentions something it is for a reason.
I would think that Gerry has been added on this picture because he is floating on the ledge. The sunglasses seem to float very high up on his nose.
I think that the point of the photo was to show Gerry is there on the 3rd, nothing to do with Maddie. There has to be a reason for this that makes it fall into place. I think we've been looking at it the wrong way around.
It wasn't to prove Maddie was there but to prove something about Gerry. He has been shopped and the only picture of him that hey had to shop on was one of him in glasses. They then had to prove he bought some illfitting sunglasses lasses hence the story about sunglass corner. Why did he need to be there on the afternoon of the 3rd May?

by HelenMeg 17.02.14 18:29

Also, if he had been truly in the photo, I doubt very much he would have sat there in that position - he would have put his arm around Amelie for the photo. Any father would have
done that, a naturally instinctive move for the photo.

by canada12 17.02.14 18:36

HelenMeg wrote:After reading through this and particularly because of the weed position it seems definitely shopped. But why? and the insistence about buying sunglasses. Whenever Kate mentions something it is for a reason.
I would think that Gerry has been added on this picture because he is floating on the ledge. The sunglasses seem to float very high up on his nose.
I think that the point of the photo was to show Gerry is there on the 3rd, nothing to do with Maddie. There has to be a reason for this that makes it fall into place. I think we've been looking at it the wrong way around.
It wasn't to prove Maddie was there but to prove something about Gerry. He has been shopped and the only picture of him that hey had to shop on was one of him in glasses. They then had to prove he bought some illfitting sunglasses lasses hence the story about sunglass corner. Why did he need to be there on the afternoon of the 3rd May?

A very interesting point! You may have something there, HelenMeg. We have been very focussed on thinking the point of The Last Photo was to prove Madeleine was there. But yes, it also does purport to "prove" Gerry was also there at that time on that day. Which could give us a clue as to when, exactly, certain things may have happened.

by DurhamGuy1967 17.02.14 18:59

What if it is to hide the fact that on the 3rd Madeline was wearing a light green t shirt with a green flower on it? The green T shirt found later in a layby on a road to the airport. They couldn't produce this shirt for the police and so would have to hide any trace of it, photo's and all.

It bothers me that they are all totally clear on the description of pyjamas she was allegedly abducted in, but none of the Tapas 9 can recall any other clothes Madeline was wearing during the holiday, apart from when describing photographs. When you have young children you need to be able to spot them in a crowd, you need to know what they are wearing and to notice this and remember becomes automatic.

by Tangled Web 17.02.14 19:24

HelenMeg wrote:After reading through this and particularly because of the weed position it seems definitely shopped. But why? and the insistence about buying sunglasses. Whenever Kate mentions something it is for a reason.
I would think that Gerry has been added on this picture because he is floating on the ledge. The sunglasses seem to float very high up on his nose.
I think that the point of the photo was to show Gerry is there on the 3rd, nothing to do with Maddie. There has to be a reason for this that makes it fall into place. I think we've been looking at it the wrong way around.
It wasn't to prove Maddie was there but to prove something about Gerry. He has been shopped and the only picture of him that hey had to shop on was one of him in glasses. They then had to prove he bought some illfitting sunglasses lasses hence the story about sunglass corner. Why did he need to be there on the afternoon of the 3rd May?

The pool photo was produced to 'prove' all was well on the afternoon of May 3rd. I wonder where Sean was? Toddling dangerously close to the pool whilst KM was distracted taking this photo??? More great parenting!

The sunglasses are important but not sure why. Sunglasses photoshopped on and unnecessary detail from KM about when/where they bought the glasses. Maybe they saw that people were doubting the authenticity of the 'last photo' as the weather contradicts the weather they were enduring for one. So maybe Kate is telling the doubters through her book that the weather really was sunny and they even had to buy Gerry sunglasses.

by Tangled Web 17.02.14 19:28

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:What if it is to hide the fact that on the 3rd Madeline was wearing a light green t shirt with a green flower on it? The green T shirt found later in a layby on a road to the airport. They couldn't produce this shirt for the police and so would have to hide any trace of it, photo's and all.

It bothers me that they are all totally clear on the description of pyjamas she was allegedly abducted in, but none of the Tapas 9 can recall any other clothes Madeline was wearing during the holiday, apart from when describing photographs. When you have young children you need to be able to spot them in a crowd, you need to know what they are wearing and to notice this and remember becomes automatic.

Sadly, I don't think Madeleine wore many clothes that holiday. I think the last independent sighting of her was on the Sunday.

Alex Woolfall 'knows': 'The Last Photo', and other photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz