Re: New photos of the McCanns

by Guest 16.03.14 22:11

Sharon: only the Paynes and the McCanns travelled together so there were 5 children, not 8.

by **sharonl** 16.03.14 22:17

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Sharon: only the Paynes and the McCanns travelled together so there were 5 children, not 8.

Oh, yes, good point.

Was it David Payne that took the video?

If it was done for a reason, surely Gerry's' comment of not being there to enjoy himself would not have been recorded.

by Guest 16.03.14 22:19

Yes it has to be David Payne as he is the only one heard but not seen on the bus.

Goodness knows why that comment was not deleted before issuing the video to the media.

by ultimaThule 16.03.14 22:21

Strictly speaking, the McCanns, the Paynes, Dianne Webster, and their children flew from East Midlands Airport arriving at the Ocean Club c3pm on Saturday 29 May, which was a couple of hours later than the Oldfied/Tanner/O'Brien party who flew from Gatwick at an earlier time... but not so early that it would have occasioned being in the departure airport at 4am as stated by Matthew Oldfield when he recalled the first occasion he spoke to Jeremy Wilkins who, with his wife and child(ren) was on the same flight.

by Tangled Web 16.03.14 22:30

As a mother of three (quite close in age) children myself, the airport wait/shuttle bus/boarding the plane has to be one of the worst parts of travelling abroad with young children and you're forever making sure your child is by your side at all times. Very stressful indeed and not really time for recording holiday footage. Hats off to the McCann's though, they even managed without a buggy nah

In my mind, that footage was recorded to serve a purpose - 'here is madeleine boarding the plane' as sinister as it sounds.

I agree, UT, even in this little snippet they come across as such callous people. No helping Madeleine up when she fell on the steps, no checking her over there and then and giving her knees a little rub sad

There were also no protective arms over the children on the bus. A slam on the brakes from the driver and all of the children would've flown forward. Very strange indeed. Maybe the reality of parenthood for the McCann's didn't quite live up to their expectations. It appears some people think that this footage was 'leaked' to make GM look bad because of what he says but I think there must've been theories questioning Madeleine's existence and this was released to 'prove' she went on that holiday so that people would carry on contributing to the 'search' fund.

I also agree that 'Madeleine's' hair on this footage looks ginger and I also see this on the 'Donegal' photo's.

The current silence is deafening and I so hope it means something.

by ultimaThule 16.03.14 22:52

I take the current silence to mean that the libel trial, which I have no doubt is ongoing in terms of evaluating and clarifying certain legal issues which arose prior to the court's scheduled date of January 7th for its resumption, has yet to announce a revised date for the purpose of hearing closing arguments from both sides, TW.

However, given the deluge of stories involving every possible combination of suspects, whether dead or alive, which began on Twelfth Night and which have mercifully ceased to assail our senses for the past few weeks, I'm given to wondering a) what Clarence has left to pull out of the hat in order to spare his clients' blushes when the trial resumes and/or they fail to succeed in Lisbon and b) whether he'll get it past what would seem to be, prompted by noises of disapproval from the PJ, a NSY clampdown on the UK's MSM.

Interestingly, mccannfiles.com 'Latest News' has the story of cctv tapes being requested from a Gouves (Crete) hotel by Europol in a bid to confirm a sighting of Madeleine on the island but, as far as I can see, there's been nary a peep about this in UK tabloids.

by Guest 16.03.14 22:55

A couple of things, which always made me wonder re those videos [airplane stairs and airport bus] were:

* in neither of them there's evidence on which trip they were taken: no way to identify the aircraft, nor the region where the bus is traveling;

* do we know, if Paynes & Webster were with them on another trip shortly before May 2007?

* they were released shortly after the disappearance surely for a reason. Which one?

* the very first time I saw the bus video I did NOT hear Gerry's swearing, especially NOT: "I'm not here to amuse myself" ... Has the original been tampered with?

Just an old woman, used to have doubts about things and taking nothing for granted big grin

by **sharonl** 16.03.14 22:59

Looks like we agreed on the purpose of footage of the boarding of the plane then.

If you believe that this footage was taken to serve a purpose, Can we return to the poolside photograph for a moment. Bearing in mind that this has become one of the most famous photographs in the McCann case, and that our researchers have established without doubt that it was taken on 29th April, take a closer look at it.

Gerry and Amelie are relaxed in what appears to be a genuine holiday snap, on the other side Madeleine in her very best and expensive new outfit. Madeleine appears as if she is taking part in a professional photo shoot. They were allegedly going to the park and pool area, surly all the kids would be in play clothes. Where is Sean by the way?

by canada12 16.03.14 23:22

Re the airplane / bus video...

When the question first came up about when the video was taken, someone astutely mentioned the shopping bags that the kids are carrying. If you happened to be very savvy about airport shops you could apparently date the video from what was being advertised on the shopping bags. Most of us likely wouldn't have that info to hand nor would we be able to access it but I'm sure the police have the manpower to do some digging to establish a fairly good idea about when the travelling was taking place.

by Woofer 16.03.14 23:55

canada12 wrote:Re the airplane / bus video...

When the question first came up about when the video was taken, someone astutely mentioned the shopping bags that the kids are carrying. If you happened to be very savvy about airport shops you could apparently date the video from what was being advertised on the shopping bags. Most of us likely wouldn't have that info to hand nor would we be able to access it but I'm sure the police have the manpower to do some digging to establish a fairly good idea about when the travelling was taking place.

If those are airport bags, they have `Newsweek` printed on them - Diane Webster has one too. Can`t see why an American magazine would advertise on an airport bag - is this usual?

by Guest 17.03.14 7:54

sharonl wrote:
If you believe that this footage was taken to serve a purpose, Can we return to the poolside photograph for a moment. Bearing in mind that this has become one of the most famous photographs in the McCann case, and that our researchers have established without doubt that it was taken on 29th April, take a closer look at it.

From the days that week, they've decided it had to be 29th April.

Could it have been taken at Easter?

by Guest 17.03.14 8:35

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
sharonl wrote:
If you believe that this footage was taken to serve a purpose, Can we return to the poolside photograph for a moment. Bearing in mind that this has become one of the most famous photographs in the McCann case, and that our researchers have established without doubt that it was taken on 29th April, take a closer look at it.

From the days that week, they've decided it had to be 29th April.

Could it have been taken at Easter?

To me, there are so many things about that photograph that are visibly wrong.

Then we have number of photoshop "experts" with x number of years of training who regularly appear on this forum to swear blind that, to their expert eye, it is impossible for that picture to have been manipulated in any way.

I don't believe that photo was taken that week.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.03.14 9:06

Poe wrote:
To me, there are so many things about that photograph that are visibly wrong.

Then we have number of photoshop "experts" with x number of years of training who regularly appear on this forum to swear blind that, to their expert eye, it is impossible for that picture to have been manipulated in any way.

I don't believe that photo was taken that week.

There is extremely strong evidence, amounting to overwhelming evidence, that the 'Last Photo' was taken that week.

1. The appearance and ages of the two children are fully consistent with their ages in late April 2007, i.e.: Madeleine 3 years and 11 months; Amelie 2 years and 2 months

2. The shadows on the three individuals are all very short and are consistent with the sun being at its highest point of the day at that time of year in Portugal - which has been checked and would have been at 1.35pm

3. The length of the shadows on the three individuals are fully consistent with each other.

4. It is virtually impossible if not impossible to fake all the shadow lengths so that they are consistent, as appears from the photograph

5. The bodily positions of all three individuals are wholly consistent with sitting around the Ocean Club pool.

Besides that, I would argue that there is no wholly unequivocal evidence that there has been any form of what is called 'photoshopping' of that photograph.

Having said all that, there are, as PeterMac has so ably demonstrated, a series of incications that this 'Last Photo' is a genuine photograph, but taken much earlier in the week, when the weather was hot and sunny.

IMO it is on the date and time of this photograph that should be the focus of interest.

by aiyoyo 17.03.14 9:55

PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
6. ‘The Last Photo’: Gerry McCann, Amelie and Madeleine sitting by the poolside, said to have been taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May. Evidence assembled painstakingly by PeterMac suggestes that this photo was more likely taken on Sunday or Monday, with the date/time stamp altered: claims that it was 'photoshopped' in any other way seem unlikley. It was not published until 24 May and only after Gerry McCann had returned to England - and Gerry's sister Philomena McCann, wife of photoshopper and quicksand fetishist Tony Rickwood, had flown in to Faro two days earlier

It should also be remembered that the person who accompanied Gerry back to Portugal on 22nd after his two day trip was Mitchell.
That photo was released to the world's press on 24th, so must have been placed in the hands of the agency on 23rd.
And when it was released there was the accompanying stitherum about the time being out by an hour - as if anyone would care.
But that is classic "look over here".
In other words, focus attention on the time, which isn't very important, so that you see the date, which IS.

The circumstances around this belated release is definitely suspicious.
In crime investigations police study all circumstances leading to an event/incident/press release, so this late release would not go unnoticed by the Police. Furthermore they can't ignore data they received. They're obliged to look at them.

Drawing attention to the time is indeed strange behavior.
If anything the discrepancy should be between them and police if necessary, and not for public consumption as it is not in the public interest to know.

by ProfessorPPlum 17.03.14 10:40

"Then we have number of photoshop "experts" with x number of years of training who regularly appear on this forum to swear blind that, to their expert eye, it is impossible for that picture to have been manipulated in any way"

I am heartily sick of people referring to my and others' considered opinions (based on many years of day-to-day use of Photoshop) in this way. Unless you share a similar experience / expertise, all this demonstrates is that you don't like that our views on this matter interfere with your preferred theory. You are guilty of trying to change the evidence to fit your belief whereas the scientific method demands that you amend your belief to reflect the evidence.

If I'm more "expert" in Photoshop than you, so what? Why is that so hard to accept?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.03.14 11:17

ProfessorPPlum wrote:QUOTED: "Then we have number of photoshop 'experts' with x number of years of training who regularly appear on this forum to swear blind that, to their expert eye, it is impossible for that picture to have been manipulated in any way"

I am heartily sick of people referring to my and others' considered opinions (based on many years of day-to-day use of Photoshop) in this way. Unless you share a similar experience / expertise, all this demonstrates is that you don't like that our views on this matter interfere with your preferred theory. You are guilty of trying to change the evidence to fit your belief whereas the scientific method demands that you amend your belief to reflect the evidence.

If I'm more "expert" in Photoshop than you, so what? Why is that so hard to accept?

ProfesssorPlum, that is quite a harsh comment, in tone, anyway, against what Poe has said.

Now, it would appear that you and I are on the same page in saying that there is no 'photoshopping' or alteration of the photograph itself. To put it another way, I think we both agree that it can be called a genuine, unmanipulated photograph.

However, could you please also give us the benefit of your opinion on whether (and if so how easily) the EXIF data (or whatever they are called) could have been altered so as to make it seem that this photograph was taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May - when it could well have been taken some days earlier in the week?

I would be grateful.

by roy rovers 17.03.14 11:31

But the Bougainvillea are in full flower in that photo whereas videos made at the resort after MM disappeared show that they were not out yet.

by Guest 17.03.14 11:32

I accept that the photo could have been taken earlier in the week (though I still wonder if the weather really was as hot as it appears) but that still leaves the nagging question of why it wasn't produced immediately and why was there any need for the pretence that it was taken on the Thursday.

by ProfessorPPlum 17.03.14 11:48

Tony Bennett wrote:
ProfessorPPlum wrote:QUOTED: "Then we have number of photoshop 'experts' with x number of years of training who regularly appear on this forum to swear blind that, to their expert eye, it is impossible for that picture to have been manipulated in any way"

I am heartily sick of people referring to my and others' considered opinions (based on many years of day-to-day use of Photoshop) in this way. Unless you share a similar experience / expertise, all this demonstrates is that you don't like that our views on this matter interfere with your preferred theory. You are guilty of trying to change the evidence to fit your belief whereas the scientific method demands that you amend your belief to reflect the evidence.

If I'm more "expert" in Photoshop than you, so what? Why is that so hard to accept?
ProfesssorPlum, that is quite a harsh comment, in tone, anyway, against what Poe has said.

Now, it would appear that you and I are on the same page in saying that there is no 'photoshopping' or alteration of the photograph itself. To put it another way, I think we both agree that it can be called a genuine, unmanipulated photograph.

However, could you please also give us the benefit of your opinion on whether (and if so how easily) the EXIF data (or whatever they are called) could have been altered so as to make it seem that this photograph was taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May - when it could well have been taken some days earlier in the week?

I would be grateful.

Apologies if it is harsh in tone; at least I'm honest about it. I'm heartily sick of offering a view from a position of experience and having it marginalised by a group of people on this forum who insist that it is wrong. I've watched other contributors hounded off this forum as a result of the argument about this image and whether or not it has / hasn't been photoshopped. I can't help but think that the venon I've witnessed comes in part from the fact that, when you get down to it, what's really at issue here is what you want to believe vs. what the evidence suggests. And if that isn't what's exactly at the core of this 'abduction' story I don't know what is.

So Poe, I'm sorry if my reply was offensive in any way but the comment still stands: I am fed up of people with expertise in a certain area having that expertise dismissed by others who don't. When I (or others) have pointed out the folly of doing this, the response is to challenge or ridicule our 'expertise'. We are referred to as "experts" with inverted commas.

Tony, I have no idea about 'faking EXIF' data. I'm pretty sure that I could take that 'last photo' (at least the one with a date stamp on it - I've not seen that version for years) and fake any date stamp you want if that's what you're asking.

by Cristobell 17.03.14 11:49

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I accept that the photo could have been taken earlier in the week (though I still wonder if the weather really was as hot as it appears) but that still leaves the nagging question of why it wasn't produced immediately and why was there any need for the pretence that it was taken on the Thursday.

That delay makes no sense whatsoever NFWTD, if someone is missing you produce the most up to date photo you have, and same day would have been perfect.

I have noticed in the rogatory statements that the friends (including Dianne) specifically mention that Thursday 3rd was sunny, perhaps in contrast to the Wednesday where they all seem to be agreed, that it was raining. However, the rogatory statements were made several months later and they may be trying to reinforce the idea that the last photograph was genuine.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.03.14 12:29

roy rovers wrote:But the Bougainvillea are in full flower in that photo whereas videos made at the resort after MM disappeared show that they were not out yet.

I do not think that any point about the appearance of the bougainvilleas on the 'Last Photo' has been made out by any later videos.

You would need photographic evidence of exactly the same flowers at almost exactly the same time to help provide evidnece of photoshopping.

Of course, if the photograph was taken on say, Sunday 29th, the bougainviliea flowers would not look exactly the same on Thursday, nor days later when these other videos in the resort were taken.

In addition, not all bougainvilleas come out at the same time

by **Tony Bennett** 17.03.14 12:32

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I accept that the photo could have been taken earlier in the week (though I still wonder if the weather really was as hot as it appears) but that still leaves the nagging question of why it wasn't produced immediately and why...

Not merely a 'nagging' question, NFWTD, but a crucial one.

And one which, significantly, is not answered anywhere in Dr Kate McCann's 400-page book, 'madeleine;'

by aiyoyo 17.03.14 12:34

ProfessorPPlum wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
ProfessorPPlum wrote:QUOTED: "Then we have number of photoshop 'experts' with x number of years of training who regularly appear on this forum to swear blind that, to their expert eye, it is impossible for that picture to have been manipulated in any way"

I am heartily sick of people referring to my and others' considered opinions (based on many years of day-to-day use of Photoshop) in this way. Unless you share a similar experience / expertise, all this demonstrates is that you don't like that our views on this matter interfere with your preferred theory. You are guilty of trying to change the evidence to fit your belief whereas the scientific method demands that you amend your belief to reflect the evidence.

If I'm more "expert" in Photoshop than you, so what? Why is that so hard to accept?
ProfesssorPlum, that is quite a harsh comment, in tone, anyway, against what Poe has said.

Now, it would appear that you and I are on the same page in saying that there is no 'photoshopping' or alteration of the photograph itself. To put it another way, I think we both agree that it can be called a genuine, unmanipulated photograph.

However, could you please also give us the benefit of your opinion on whether (and if so how easily) the EXIF data (or whatever they are called) could have been altered so as to make it seem that this photograph was taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May - when it could well have been taken some days earlier in the week?

I would be grateful.

Apologies if it is harsh in tone; at least I'm honest about it. I'm heartily sick of offering a view from a position of experience and having it marginalised by a group of people on this forum who insist that it is wrong. I've watched other contributors hounded off this forum as a result of the argument about this image and whether or not it has / hasn't been photoshopped. I can't help but think that the venon I've witnessed comes in part from the fact that, when you get down to it, what's really at issue here is what you want to believe vs. what the evidence suggests. And if that isn't what's exactly at the core of this 'abduction' story I don't know what is.

So Poe, I'm sorry if my reply was offensive in any way but the comment still stands: I am fed up of people with expertise in a certain area having that expertise dismissed by others who don't. When I (or others) have pointed out the folly of doing this, the response is to challenge or ridicule our 'expertise'. We are referred to as "experts" with inverted commas.

Tony, I have no idea about 'faking EXIF' data. I'm pretty sure that I could take that 'last photo' (at least the one with a date stamp on it - I've not seen that version for years) and fake any date stamp you want if that's what you're asking.

To be fair to Poe, "manipulation" can be more than one way , doesn't restrict it to mean just photo-shopping.

So you concede the EXIF metadata can easily be faked, so that's manipulation is it not ?

by Guest 17.03.14 12:35

Tony, the photo doesn't even feature in the book!

In my opinion, there's no way that the pool photo and the tennis ball one can both be genuine in view of the differences in the age and appearance of the child.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.03.14 12:44

ProfessorPPlum wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
ProfessorPPlum wrote:QUOTED: "Then we have number of photoshop 'experts' with x number of years of training who regularly appear on this forum to swear blind that, to their expert eye, it is impossible for that picture to have been manipulated in any way"

I am heartily sick of people referring to my and others' considered opinions (based on many years of day-to-day use of Photoshop) in this way. Unless you share a similar experience / expertise, all this demonstrates is that you don't like that our views on this matter interfere with your preferred theory. You are guilty of trying to change the evidence to fit your belief whereas the scientific method demands that you amend your belief to reflect the evidence.

If I'm more "expert" in Photoshop than you, so what? Why is that so hard to accept?
ProfesssorPlum, that is quite a harsh comment, in tone, anyway, against what Poe has said.

Now, it would appear that you and I are on the same page in saying that there is no 'photoshopping' or alteration of the photograph itself. To put it another way, I think we both agree that it can be called a genuine, unmanipulated photograph.

However, could you please also give us the benefit of your opinion on whether (and if so how easily) the EXIF data (or whatever they are called) could have been altered so as to make it seem that this photograph was taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May - when it could well have been taken some days earlier in the week?

I would be grateful.

Apologies if it is harsh in tone; at least I'm honest about it. I'm heartily sick of offering a view from a position of experience and having it marginalised by a group of people on this forum who insist that it is wrong. I've watched other contributors hounded off this forum as a result of the argument about this image and whether or not it has / hasn't been photoshopped. I can't help but think that the venon I've witnessed comes in part from the fact that, when you get down to it, what's really at issue here is what you want to believe vs. what the evidence suggests. And if that isn't what's exactly at the core of this 'abduction' story I don't know what is.

So Poe, I'm sorry if my reply was offensive in any way but the comment still stands: I am fed up of people with expertise in a certain area having that expertise dismissed by others who don't. When I (or others) have pointed out the folly of doing this, the response is to challenge or ridicule our 'expertise'. We are referred to as "experts" with inverted commas.

REPLY: Thank you for your prompt response. I think there has been a problem in respect of some posters (not saying you) in that they have rather 'lorded' it as experts over the rest of us here, without patiently explaining their qualifications and relevant experience and without always patiently explaining the precise phsyical reasons why they see no evidence of 'photoshopping'. And it is a technical field which needs patient explanation to laymen (like me).

As it happens, having now been able to see two written opinions from truly recognised experts in their field, with fully checkable C.V. etc., who are sure that there is no photoshopping, that has removed my doubts. I am therefore confident there has been no photoshopping of the photograph.

Tony, I have no idea about 'faking EXIF' data. I'm pretty sure that I could take that 'last photo' (at least the one with a date stamp on it - I've not seen that version for years) and fake any date stamp you want if that's what you're asking.

REPLY: Thank you for answering that point. Therefore that 'Last Photo' could have been taken on say Sunday or Monday.

THE TEMPERATURE:

Local records show that the max daytime temperatures on Sunday and Monday were 20C/21C i.e. 68F/70F. For the rest of the week, however, the max daytime temperatures had slipped back to 16C/17C i.e. 61F/63F.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.03.14 12:54

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Tony, the photo doesn't even feature in the book!

In my opinion, there's no way that the pool photo and the tennis ball one can both be genuine in view of the differences in the age and appearance of the child.

Yes, it is a remarkable fact that though the 'Last Photo' and the 'tennis balls photo' are both given quite a bit of coverage in Kate's book, neither photograph appears there.

Not the least of the problems about the 'tennis balls' photo is that it seems that there is no agreement amongs the 'Tapas 9' on whose camera it was supposed to have been taken!

The book says (p. 57, hardback): "Standing there listening intently to Cat's instructions, she looked so gorgeous in her little T-shirt and shorts, pink hat, ankle socks and new holiday sandals that I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion. One of my photographs is known around the world now: a smiling Madeleine clutching an armful of tennis balls...Gerry loves that picture..."

by ultimaThule 17.03.14 13:12

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Tony, the photo doesn't even feature in the book!

In my opinion, there's no way that the pool photo and the tennis ball one can both be genuine in view of the differences in the age and appearance of the child.

I share your opinion, NFWTD

As I'm not qualified to judge whether photographic images have been enhanced, altered, or modified in any way, all I can say is that if the pool photo was taken any time in April or May 2007, Madeleine, whose height 9 days before her 4th birthday was given as 90cm, was worryingly small for her age which can indicate an underlying physical or emotional condition that would explain her failure to achieve even the average height for a white British female child of her age.

In addition, to my eye, the development of her teeth and jaw woud appear to indicate that in the pool photo she is closer to 3 than 4 years old.

by ultimaThule 17.03.14 13:33

You have a hardback copy of the bewk, Tony? < impressed emoticon > If it's a signed first edition it'll soon be worth a fortune on eBay as collectors of black museum artefacts will be falling over themselves to acquire it. yes

If it's not signed perhaps Phil's ~~snuff~~ artist hubby can add an appropriate inscription after the event, so to speak, but, as it's probable the price of his photoshopped daubs will have greatly appreciated in value, he may have relocated from Ullapool to imposing premises which contain the artroom of his dreams big grin

by Guest 17.03.14 14:00

ProfessorPPlum wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
ProfessorPPlum wrote:QUOTED: "Then we have number of photoshop 'experts' with x number of years of training who regularly appear on this forum to swear blind that, to their expert eye, it is impossible for that picture to have been manipulated in any way"

I am heartily sick of people referring to my and others' considered opinions (based on many years of day-to-day use of Photoshop) in this way. Unless you share a similar experience / expertise, all this demonstrates is that you don't like that our views on this matter interfere with your preferred theory. You are guilty of trying to change the evidence to fit your belief whereas the scientific method demands that you amend your belief to reflect the evidence.

If I'm more "expert" in Photoshop than you, so what? Why is that so hard to accept?
ProfesssorPlum, that is quite a harsh comment, in tone, anyway, against what Poe has said.

Now, it would appear that you and I are on the same page in saying that there is no 'photoshopping' or alteration of the photograph itself. To put it another way, I think we both agree that it can be called a genuine, unmanipulated photograph.

However, could you please also give us the benefit of your opinion on whether (and if so how easily) the EXIF data (or whatever they are called) could have been altered so as to make it seem that this photograph was taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May - when it could well have been taken some days earlier in the week?

I would be grateful.

Apologies if it is harsh in tone; at least I'm honest about it. I'm heartily sick of offering a view from a position of experience and having it marginalised by a group of people on this forum who insist that it is wrong. I've watched other contributors hounded off this forum as a result of the argument about this image and whether or not it has / hasn't been photoshopped. I can't help but think that the venon I've witnessed comes in part from the fact that, when you get down to it, what's really at issue here is what you want to believe vs. what the evidence suggests. And if that isn't what's exactly at the core of this 'abduction' story I don't know what is.

So Poe, I'm sorry if my reply was offensive in any way but the comment still stands: I am fed up of people with expertise in a certain area having that expertise dismissed by others who don't. When I (or others) have pointed out the folly of doing this, the response is to challenge or ridicule our 'expertise'. We are referred to as "experts" with inverted commas.

Tony, I have no idea about 'faking EXIF' data. I'm pretty sure that I could take that 'last photo' (at least the one with a date stamp on it - I've not seen that version for years) and fake any date stamp you want if that's what you're asking.

ProfessorPPlum, I apologise for upsetting you. Normally when arguments start about photoshopping, I walk away because it's two opposing points of view with neither side willing to concede they may be wrong.

I understand why you find it frustrating to have your expertise questioned, although you are quite happy to assume that I have none, but the whole point of this forum is that everything about this case is questioned.

If we took everything at face value and believed the experts such as the doctors, the lawyers, the media etc. none of us would be here.

My opinion still stands - I can see photoshopping on this picture. If I'm wrong, so what? I'm just a nobody on a forum expressing an opinion. I'm sure the police both here and in Portugal have taken this image apart pixel by pixel and have seen it for what it is. So can we just agree to disagree?

by **PeterMac** 17.03.14 14:52

The first quote is from Professor of Digital photography, at a leading University in the US (private communication)
The second from a professional "photoshopper" who works on moving images for a leading advertising agency, removing items like cranes and gantries from the digital film

20.1 I have taken an initial look at the image. The artefacts alluded to in the pdf document that you sent are simply JPEG compression artefacts (as described here: http://www.fourandsix.com/blog/2011/6/29/that-looks-fake.html ). If you magnify other parts of the image you will see similar artefacts. I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent -- they are. I see no other anomalies in the photo. So, at first glance, I see no evidence of photo tampering.

I will add that it is fairly easy to change dates in an image's metadata or for these dates to be wrong. As such these dates should not be solely relied upon.
Regards,
Y Y Y Y

20.2 “From what I saw I couldn't see anything that would lead me to believe beyond reasonable doubt it had been doctored. The fringing mentioned can be caused by auto sharpening used in consumer digital cameras to make 'better' or 'sharper' images. These artefacts can often be made worse from image compression algorithms out of photoshop or other image manipulation software.”