Re: Recap on the Tennis Balls photo

by 1soapy 18.05.14 22:12

Re: Andrew77Rs picture of the tennis balls (and relating back to, I think worriedmum?) and the other English equivalent balls picture - both in red on a yellow ball with large capitals and smaller small letters. I looked for a while and couldn't find them, so well done.

I've tried copying all these pics and horizontally reversing the tennis pic and enlarging/zooming in on it, but still can't seem to match them, i.e. the letters. The purpose being, whether the picture is reversed or not, as I think it went back to whether this pic had a mark on MBMs right leg which is actually on her other leg elsewhere. If we can confirm the make of balls in her hands and determine whether they are the right way round, it will be one more aspect dealt with. So, I'm going to look a bit more at this. Also, the shadows on the picture should determine where the sun was in relation to when the picture was taken or is claimed to have been taken. This would also determine if the picture is inverted or not or from what angle/side of the court or time of day it was taken. Just wonder if I'm spending to much effort on too trivial an issue, but I'll make it a first attempt at solving something anyway.

by Woofer 18.05.14 22:35

PeterMac wrote:
worriedmum wrote:
\"RIPM '' wrote:
He states Madeleine was alive by the pool on Thursday 3 May and it was hot and sunny. So in your opinion, why is he ignoring an easily proven fact''
Where is the quote from Redwood about the weather from ,please?

He does know it was cold and windy, because the relevant documentation has been sent to Grange.
It is in the public domain, so here it is.
The black bar at the top is cloud cover, the rest is self explanatory, I think.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

17ºC ( 62ºF) with a brisk Force 4 breeze from the SW = off the sea, is NOT pool sweating and sunglasses weather.
Many people find this temperature a bit cold, sweater and long trousers needed, especially with the wind chill factor.

Besides this, the PJ (Tavares de Almeida) sent a fax on 7th October 2007 to the Meteorology Institute in Lisbon (this was after GA left) asking for weather details for the 3rd May - the MI faxed them back giving a quote of 395,14 including VAT, but the files don`t seem to contain a reply accepting the quote or any report from the MI, so we don`t know if the PJ actually found out the weather conditions.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes, SY know - cos they have been informed and I can`t see how they can ignore all the info they`ve been sent - not just by PM but I believe others have informed them as well. We can only wait and see.

by Guest 18.05.14 23:28

I did not get any further either, the pixels of the lettering stays reddish if you get it to 600x, but i could not make out anything from the text, what first looks like an v or a, looks at 600x more like an e. As far there is to see there is not anything like a logo on this one.

Only thing i could make out that one line of text is made in a print letter like times roman style and the other line is more like hand writing style. I don’t have the impression that it were the two in the pictures from amazon.

This combination in red i could not trace back. But there are a lot of marks and there is also the possibility that is has text by order. Or that guests had taken at some time their own tennis balls and forget to take them back.

It looks like a normal type ‘senior’ tennis ball, the most for juniors or children are indeed different, most had a two tone coloring or are bigger and more the sponge types.

I also had looked on all pictures i could find from the ocean club and mark warner tennis activities, at the moment they say they use head balls and rackets and there was a piece about the balls used for the children lessons, but they have 3 levels for mini tennis now.
On the 2007 pictures there was nothing around the tennis site in pdl with a mark from tennis gear.

Lots of models, or text could have been changed in the last 7 years also.

There must be software that is far better then mine, i know there is some used in forensics that could do a lot better. I even tried by hand to give some more accent in black to the most reddish pixels, but it did not bring a letter out.

Anorak has a slightly bigger picture : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by worriedmum 18.05.14 23:45

1soapy ''Just wonder if I'm spending to much effort on too trivial an issue, but I'll make it a first attempt at solving something anyway.''

Thank you for trying to get to the bottom of this, 1soapy.

If it is a flipped photo, then I don't think it is trivial, because the tennis photo, we have been told, comes before the pool photo.

SO, if we are seeing the same arm on both of these photos, it would seem strange that the earlier one shows 'sunburn' and other marks, and the pool one , taken a couple of days later,DOES NOT.

by canada12 19.05.14 3:50

As you know, I firmly believe this is a cobbled together photo which has been manipulated and contains a head, body, arms, legs and hands which do not necessarily belong to one little girl.

Having said that, you can actually see part of what purports to be Madeleine's left arm:

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

And it does actually look as sunburned as her right arm.

So if you're looking for "proof" that The Last Photo could not possibly have been taken after The Tennis Balls Photo, there it is.

by j.rob 19.05.14 16:02

Given the huge question marks over the truthfulness of this photo and the possible implications of all the speculation around it, it is really beyond creepy that Kate, of page 57 of her book, writes: "Gerry loves that picture."

It is actually quite a sad photo as, even if it was genuine, Madeleine appears as a lonely figure on the tennis court. The horrible plastic sandals which are so inappropriate as footwear as though the parents couldn't be bothered to ensure she had the correct footwear. I also think there is something odd about the smile. You can only see the front four teeth - normally with a genuine and wide smile, you would see the full set of knashers. That is what is so endearing about a child's smile - it is broad and spontaneous.

by 1soapy 19.05.14 16:20

But it is as strange or natural to say that her arms are sunburned as to say that they are not - given that her right hand is white and no reasonable explanation has been given for this. Like I mentioned; it's like she were wearing a glove, and with a pretty much defined opening around the wrist.

Unless, as is being suggested, the whole hand is added and not changed to match the arms, perhaps due to intricacy issues.

Remembering also that different lighting gives a huge difference in skin colour effect (i.e. on the same person under different conditions).

I'm also a bit reluctant to think that any conspiracy or work by certain people, like all these alleged photo-shopped pics that we today are still looking at and thinking through, could have all been considered within the short time that any guilty party actually had back then.

Also, if any photo-shopping has been done, and done well as indicated by some experts here, then why then have blatant oddities left in their wake (feet facing the wrong way, child too big etc.) and draw even more attention to it? Maybe it was too late then, after so much re-work. All IMO

by Guest 19.05.14 17:07

1soapy - which experts on this forum have indicated that any photo-shopping on the tennis photo has been done well?

by **PeterMac** 19.05.14 17:08

1soapy wrote:
I'm also a bit reluctant to think that any conspiracy or work by certain people, like all these alleged photo-shopped pics that we today are still looking at and thinking through, could have all been considered within the short time that any guilty party actually had back then.

With the Last Photo, all they had to do was alter the EXIF metadata from 29/4 to 3/5
And that photo was not released until 23rd - and in the press on 24th - (complete with all the Mitchell nonsense about the time being out by a hour - look ever here, not over there - look, look, )
so someone had ample time to do it her / himself, or to get someone with relevant knowledge and computer programme to do it.
GM came back from the UK WITH Mitchell on 22rd
Other close family members came from other places the same day.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 19.05.14 17:16

PeterMac wrote:
1soapy wrote:
I'm also a bit reluctant to think that any conspiracy or work by certain people, like all these alleged photo-shopped pics that we today are still looking at and thinking through, could have all been considered within the short time that any guilty party actually had back then.
With the Last Photo, all they had to do was alter the EXIF metadata from 29/4 to 3/5
And that photo was not released until 23rd - and in the press on 24th - (complete with all the Mitchell nonsense about the time being out by a hour - look ever here, not over there - look, look, )
so someone had ample time to do it her / himself, or to get someone with relevant knowledge and computer programme to do it.
GM came back from the UK WITH Mitchell on 22rd
Other close family members came from other places the same day.

EXIF data can be altered in Windows in less than a minute, very easy to do if you know how to do it. There's no special trick to it really.

by 1soapy 19.05.14 17:59

I understand/agree that the date that a picture was taken is easily altered.

I am happy to go with the idea that the last pic (pool) either is not the last pic or was taken at a different time/date. The weather report seems to show pretty convincingly that the dates are not correct and OG should have hell to pay if they cannot justify knowing this (given people on this site have sent it to them and all evidence should be looked at). I am fully in the ball park of the direction of this site's overwhelming views, and torn between a whitewash and the truth coming out.

I was referring to the MANY photo edits suggested on many pics of MBM and relating to many other theories which, to my mind, would have taken as long as this case has been looked at to actually be done. Just think a little more of Occam - but with a fair few twiddly bits to boot.

The picture of the plastic castle on the grass near the pool for example. Where MBM was standing in front of the inside of the open door, showing a red bit. Whilst the poster in question was honest after believing it to be a phot-edit and recognized, upon evidence, that it was genuine, I just think some of us too easily jump to conclusions and neglect other options or Occam. Having said that, if we did not question, often very trivial looking things, we would be a lot worse off.

Regarding experts. There has been some here, even who's job it is, (sorry I can't provide names but I guarantee many posters here will know at least one if they have looked at such threads) and who have said (e.g. some pics where the hair would be virtually impossible to photo-shop or where a high resolution zoom of pixels still doesn't show any editing). TB seems a very meticulous researcher too and he has been convinced by evidence of experts that many pics considered photo-shopped are in fact genuine.

I don't know either way - I'm taking no sides, and am looking at some pics myself at the moment. The tennis pic and the last pic in particular. Another reminder of a question I asked before which was unanswered. Has anyone managed to re-create at THE pool, a similar sitting position with glasses on, to try to replicate the shadows and glasses reflection in a range of lighting?

by 1soapy 19.05.14 18:07

Oh, and regards the tennis pic possibly being trivial. I don't think it is, but it is small by comparison to other digging (pun intended). If the picture is flipped or shown to post-date the pool pic, it shows - pictures have been tampered with. If a body were discovered or a witness were to blab etc. then people could be quickly charged with serious crimes. What I have tried to argue on some threads though, is that if we can all pick and choose our own little niggles, when they come together, they may create a BIG issue. And it may well be that a huge number of very suspicious things together (photos, witness statements etc.) would convince the relevant judging panel, where an actual smoking gun is absent. IMO

by canada12 19.05.14 18:17

PeterMac wrote:
1soapy wrote:
I'm also a bit reluctant to think that any conspiracy or work by certain people, like all these alleged photo-shopped pics that we today are still looking at and thinking through, could have all been considered within the short time that any guilty party actually had back then.
With the Last Photo, all they had to do was alter the EXIF metadata from 29/4 to 3/5
And that photo was not released until 23rd - and in the press on 24th - (complete with all the Mitchell nonsense about the time being out by a hour - look ever here, not over there - look, look, )
so someone had ample time to do it her / himself, or to get someone with relevant knowledge and computer programme to do it.
GM came back from the UK WITH Mitchell on 22rd
Other close family members came from other places the same day.

Plus - was the Tennis Balls photo included in the list of photos released by the PJ? If not, then we must conclude that it came from the same "camera" as The Last Photo.

by Doug D 19.05.14 18:37

From KH1, the photo of M. opposite p.121, KM says:

‘April 2007: the week before we left for Portugal. This is how I remember our Madeleine. Happy and enjoying life – and especially ice-cream!’

Strange, you’d have thought it would have been the full face ‘last’ photo, or even GM’s ‘favourite’ tennis ball one.

Neither of these two even appear in the bewk and the poster photo released, which makes the cover, clearly shows a younger, more baby faced Madeleine, with a fringe and heavyweight brown ‘just a fleck’ in her eye.

by canada12 19.05.14 18:39

One thing I noticed while looking at all of these pictures released by the PJ... you can't see who is in most of them, but there are a lot of "family" shots and "children" shots... why are there so few of Madeleine? It's obvious from this that either the PJ held back photos that Kate and Gerry took of their children on holiday in PDL... or none were taken... or...if any were taken...they were deleted (IMO). So strange.

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

(And even the ones purporting to be of Madeleine were perhaps not taken by Kate or Gerry, but were taken by one of the other friends and were on his or her camera).

by G1 19.05.14 19:00

Hi, I'm new to the discussion. I can't find what I've been searching for discussed anywhere else in the web.

A commenter called "dewdrop" in public comments on the last photo on truthformadeleine.com made a crucial photo analysis. It shows a missing shadow for Gerry McCann's arm. The so-called last photo has been claimed to be doctored before, a lot, of course, but not in a way that was so glaring and clear. To me it now seems beyond doubt that this photo has in some way gone through computer photo editing software.

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

See the photo, look at where there is a blatant omission of a shadow of an elbow and good part of an arm.

This brings up questions:

1. Does that mean, as others have suggested, one or more persons in the photo have been "photoshopped into" the photo?

2. If you believe a person or persons were not added to the photo, does this mean the photo can be trusted at all? Date of photo, EXIF info including time (strangely - exactly "solar noon"), other shadows.

3. What suggests this could involve the McCanns, or that they are the victims of attempted scapegoating, as the digital photo seems to have been stolen and, strangely returned with Gerry's wallet? (How many wallets have been stolen with cash taken, other cash in Euros left, with cards untouched and posted back home?)

You can find the page of truthformadeleine.com where dewdrop posted the photo analysis in the link below. Also, you can see some of my comments after his post

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

by 1soapy 19.05.14 20:13

Regarding the tennis balls photo of the thread title, does anyone know/can anyone point me in the direction of who claims to have taken this pic, on what day, at what time (even if am or pm) and/or from what angle/side?

Wouldn't an expert in digital photo-editing or someone from the camera maker, be able to distinguish between one make or even model and another by the way the image is digitized?

It is odd that someone would be photographed in just a portion of the frame and have nothing except, unhelpful court areas without other reference - but this has been noted elsewhere. Could it be cropped?

Being an outdoor shot, the shadows (also in surprising shortage and/or very short) would indicate the sun's location, if out, and therefore the time of day, compared to any claim. A photo reversal would then confirm or deny this.

If this were higher resolution, more could be detected, e.g. the tennis ball words, any skin or clothes or court marks etc.

Is/was MBM left or right handed do we know?

by worriedmum 19.05.14 20:51

I don't know whether Madeleine is right or left-handed, but the small brown mark on the calf visible on the tennis photo made me wonder if it was the birthmark on the left leg mentioned as a distinguishing mark. It's strange, isn't it, that children who have been 'identified ' as Madeleine have not been checked for this birthmark which would surely eliminate them...

by 1soapy 19.05.14 21:31

Do we have any other photos showing said mark on calf and was the discussion of it/one in the bewk/on record/in media interviews or forums? It would be easier to create such a mark (e.g. digitally) than deny one that people might know about, verbally, should it be required to help a story.

by worriedmum 19.05.14 21:50

02-Processo Vol 2 Pages 467 and 468. McCANN Madeleine Beth CONTROL NO. : F-131/5-2007

REQUESTING COUNTRY: PORTUGAL
FILE No. : 2007123403
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2007
CIRCULATION TO THE MEDIA (INCLUDING INTERNET): YES
IDENTITY PARTICULARS

(Photograph of Madeleine)

PRESENT Family Name : McCANN
FAMILY NAME AT BIRTH : McCANN
Forenames : Madeleine Beth
Sex : F
DATE AND Place OF Birth: 12th May 2003 - Leicester, United Kingdom
Also known as Maddie.
OTHER DATES OF BIRTH USED : N/A
FATHER'S FAMILY NAME AND FORENAMES: McCann Gerald Patrick.
MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME AND FORENAMES : HEALY Kate Marie
IDENTITY : CONFIRMED
NATIONALITY : BRITISH (CONFIRMED)
IDENTITY DOCUMENTS - BRITISH PASSPORT No 45XXXXXXX, issued on 4th August 2003 (UNITED KINGDOM) (Valid until 4th August 2008)
Occupation : N/A
Language Spoken : English
MARITAL STATUS : N/A
DESCRIPTION:
HEIGHT : 90 cms
HAIR : Blond
EYE: Green/Blue
BUILD : Slim
DISTINGUISHING MARKS AND CHARACTERISTICS :
Left Eye : Blue and Green colour
Right Eye : Green colour with a Brown spot in Retina
Small brown mark on Left Leg Calf.
Teeth : EUA
BLOOD GROUP : N/A
DNA CODE : N/A
REGIONS/COUNTRIES LIKELY TO BE VISITED : United Kingdom.

by canada12 19.05.14 22:09

Right Eye : Green colour with a Brown spot in Retina

I'm just trying to figure out if this is an honest mistake on the part of the people who have provided this description, or if it's an actual condition.

The retina of the eye is invisible to the beholder. Your retina is INSIDE your eye at the back - it's the part that focuses light that comes in from the pupil. It's like the screen, if you will, that pictures are projected onto.

If Madeleine had a brown spot on her retina it would only be visible to an opthalmologist looking through her pupil to the back of her eye with a very bright light.

Was this description actually supposed to read "brown spot on iris" ? (the iris is the coloured part of your eye visible surrounding the pupil).

Edited to add - I can't believe people with knowledge of the anatomy of the eye haven't picked up on this and corrected it. Especially the McCanns, being doctors.

by bobbin 19.05.14 22:21

worriedmum wrote:02-Processo Vol 2 Pages 467 and 468. McCANN Madeleine Beth CONTROL NO. : F-131/5-2007

REQUESTING COUNTRY: PORTUGAL
FILE No. : 2007123403
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2007
CIRCULATION TO THE MEDIA (INCLUDING INTERNET): YES
IDENTITY PARTICULARS

(Photograph of Madeleine)

PRESENT Family Name : McCANN
FAMILY NAME AT BIRTH : McCANN
Forenames : Madeleine Beth
Sex : F
DATE AND Place OF Birth: 12th May 2003 - Leicester, United Kingdom
Also known as Maddie.
OTHER DATES OF BIRTH USED : N/A
FATHER'S FAMILY NAME AND FORENAMES: McCann Gerald Patrick.
MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME AND FORENAMES : HEALY Kate Marie
IDENTITY : CONFIRMED
NATIONALITY : BRITISH (CONFIRMED)
IDENTITY DOCUMENTS - BRITISH PASSPORT No 45XXXXXXX, issued on 4th August 2003 (UNITED KINGDOM) (Valid until 4th August 2008)
Occupation : N/A
Language Spoken : English
MARITAL STATUS : N/A
DESCRIPTION:
HEIGHT : 90 cms
HAIR : Blond
EYE: Green/Blue
BUILD : Slim
DISTINGUISHING MARKS AND CHARACTERISTICS :
Left Eye : Blue and Green colour
Right Eye : Green colour with a Brown spot in Retina
Small brown mark on Left Leg Calf.
Teeth : EUA
BLOOD GROUP : N/A
DNA CODE : N/A
REGIONS/COUNTRIES LIKELY TO BE VISITED : United Kingdom.

The RETINA is at the back of the eye, not visible to an onlooker. Where has the 'retina' suddenly come from when we've been lead to believe it was (a) a coloboma, which would be visible or (b) a brown fleck / supposedly in 'iris' which would also be visible.

ETA Just seen your post Canada 12. Snap. and yes, unbelievable that the parents haven't corrected this a long time ago, unless of course that's a more accurate description of the not so "coloboma".

by canada12 19.05.14 22:36

"bobbin"

ETA Just seen your post Canada 12. Snap. and yes, unbelievable that the parents haven't corrected this a long time ago, unless of course that's a more accurate description of the not so "coloboma".

I'm beginning to wonder if there was ever any kind of eye discolouration visible to the average person. I would think, given Kate and Gerry's disdain for the Portuguese police, they would have raised this issue and used it as yet another glaring example of their ineptness - confusing Madeleine's iris with her retina. Did Kate raise this issue in her bewk? Did Gerry point it out as a huge error?

Thought not.
Hmmm.

by Woofer 19.05.14 23:17

PeterMac wrote:
1soapy wrote:
I'm also a bit reluctant to think that any conspiracy or work by certain people, like all these alleged photo-shopped pics that we today are still looking at and thinking through, could have all been considered within the short time that any guilty party actually had back then.
With the Last Photo, all they had to do was alter the EXIF metadata from 29/4 to 3/5
And that photo was not released until 23rd - and in the press on 24th - (complete with all the Mitchell nonsense about the time being out by a hour - look ever here, not over there - look, look, )
so someone had ample time to do it her / himself, or to get someone with relevant knowledge and computer programme to do it.
GM came back from the UK WITH Mitchell on 22rd
Other close family members came from other places the same day.

I don`t know anything about Adobe Photoshop. Can someone who knows about EXIF data tell me what this means (the bit I`ve bolded below) - does it mean the Adobe Photoshop was used and could it have been altered using Adobe Photoshop? :-

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

First Generation, High Resolution copy of last photo
Thanks to 'gestalt' from the3arguidos forum for tracking down this copy and 'BakedBean' for EXIF information

"Full EXIF details:

XMP
Create Date 2007:05:24 17:41:20+01:00
11 months, 23 days, 7 hours, 3 minutes, 4 seconds ago
Creator Tool Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
Date/Time Digitized 2007:05:03 13:29:51+01:00
1 year, 13 days, 11 hours, 14 minutes, 33 seconds ago
Date/Time Original 2007:05:03 13:29:51+01:00
1 year, 13 days, 11 hours, 14 minutes, 33 seconds ago
Derived From Document ID adobe:docid:photoshop:f6b0285f-0a0a-11dc-b952-be0bcc6c30e7
Derived From Instance ID uuid:63e9333c-0a0c-11dc-b952-be0bcc6c30e7
Document ID adobe:docid:photoshop:367c54b5-0a0d-11dc-b952-be0bcc6c30e7 "

by rainbow-fairy 19.05.14 23:28

worriedmum wrote:02-Processo Vol 2 Pages 467 and 468. McCANN Madeleine Beth CONTROL NO. : F-131/5-2007

REQUESTING COUNTRY: PORTUGAL
FILE No. : 2007123403
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2007
CIRCULATION TO THE MEDIA (INCLUDING INTERNET): YES
IDENTITY PARTICULARS

(Photograph of Madeleine)

PRESENT Family Name : McCANN
FAMILY NAME AT BIRTH : McCANN
Forenames : Madeleine Beth
Sex : F
DATE AND Place OF Birth: 12th May 2003 - Leicester, United Kingdom
Also known as Maddie.
OTHER DATES OF BIRTH USED : N/A
FATHER'S FAMILY NAME AND FORENAMES: McCann Gerald Patrick.
MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME AND FORENAMES : HEALY Kate Marie
IDENTITY : CONFIRMED
NATIONALITY : BRITISH (CONFIRMED)
IDENTITY DOCUMENTS - BRITISH PASSPORT No 45XXXXXXX, issued on 4th August 2003 (UNITED KINGDOM) (Valid until 4th August 2008)
Occupation : N/A
Language Spoken : English
MARITAL STATUS : N/A
DESCRIPTION:
HEIGHT : 90 cms
HAIR : Blond
EYE: Green/Blue
BUILD : Slim
DISTINGUISHING MARKS AND CHARACTERISTICS :
Left Eye : Blue and Green colour
Right Eye : Green colour with a Brown spot in Retina
Small brown mark on Left Leg Calf.
Teeth : EUA
BLOOD GROUP : N/A
DNA CODE : N/A
REGIONS/COUNTRIES LIKELY TO BE VISITED : United Kingdom.

Re Maddie's height. Looking again at Maddie's supposed height (namely c90cm) -

My son has in the last month had his 12month check with the health visitor. What struck me was this -
His height @ 12mths : 76cm (50th centile) - only 14cm less than Maddie, at 36months younger.

I have just checked the charts in his 'red book' - here are the results from the girls charts, for age 48 months.

Height Ranges For Girls 48months/4Years
0.4th percentile: 91cm
99.6th percentile: 114cm
Average height: 103cm

The 0.4th percentile is the lowest percentile line on the graph. Hence at 90cm, Maddie would have been off- the- chart small for her age.
Notes: 'It is quite normal for a child's weight or height to be anywhere within the centile lines on the chart'

90cm is the average height for a 29 month old.

Projected Adult Height: 5' ish (at 0.4th percentile of which MBM was lower)
Notes: 'Plot your daughter's height centile on the pink lines, the black numbers show the average female adult height for this centile; 4/5 will be within 6cm/2.25" above or below this'
- Very short imo for offspring of Kate and Gerry - neither are short for their sex?

Further Relevant Notes re height/weight:
'There is no exact point at which it can be said that a child's weight or height is definitely abnormal. However, only four in every thousand healthy children are at or below the 0.4th centile. A paediatrician usually assesses these children to make sure there are no problems. Being very small can sometimes indicate a medical or health problem.'

I don't know what all this means in relation to Maddie. I tend to believe, with all the differing photos released, that a shorter height was given (confusion is good... Wink