Re: 'The Last Photo': The key questions

by Veritas 11.11.13 14:41

There's nothing remotely challenging about editing EXIF data. It would be no more trustworthy than the image itself. You can't consider it credible evidence. Period. Unless the PJ siezed the memory cards on May 4th 2007.

by Angelique 11.11.13 14:57

I discussed the Last Photo (pool one not the tennis photo) years ago on Stevo's site The Truth for Madeleine but I don't know where the comments are now. I always said that this picture was an amalgam of many images.

I think the reason we cant see Amelie's arm properly is because Gerry has been photoshopped in and the arm has been cropped otherwise her arm would rest on Gerry's knee, which it couldn't if he has been shopped in if you see what I mean. There is no knee for it to rest on if these images are all separate.

by dan55 11.11.13 15:02

So [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has conctrete proof it was photoshopped!!!!!!

by canada12 11.11.13 15:06

One of my primary arguments that the pool photo has been photoshopped is the rotated image of the pool in Gerry's sunglasses. Nobody has been able to explain this to me yet. A lot of people have said, oh it must be the curvature of the sunglasses, or the polarisation of the lenses.

No. A thousand times no.
There is no way the image reflected in those sunglasses is the right way up.

If any Photoshop experts would care to tackle that, I'm all ears.

Thanks.

Edited to add and fix the link to the highest res copy of the photo we have available:

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

by dan55 11.11.13 15:26

Thanks curioser but that is not a exif file from the camera or it would not have photoshop's name in there It's a photoshop file. It is a photoshopped file and if you want concrete proof that the image was faked it tells you in that file. The Canon a 620 only produces 3.2 megabyte photo's maximum but that photo is 1869934 bytes 18+ megabytes where did the extra bytes come from ?????? They only came with a 16 or 32mb sd card!

by Mirage 11.11.13 15:29

canada12 wrote:One of my primary arguments that the pool photo has been photoshopped is the rotated image of the pool in Gerry's sunglasses. Nobody has been able to explain this to me yet. A lot of people have said, oh it must be the curvature of the sunglasses, or the polarisation of the lenses.

No. A thousand times no.
There is no way the image reflected in those sunglasses is the right way up.

If any Photoshop experts would care to tackle that, I'm all ears.

Thanks.

Edited to add and fix the link to the highest res copy of the photo we have available:

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

Talking of all ears, I would be grateful if a photographic expert could explain the very strange low ear positions in the famous blue eye-shadow photograph.

I looked at this photo again this morning on the other thread and wondered , how the hell is that normal? Maybe someone with more expertise than I possess could bring it across.

On the same subject I leaned down to pick up something on the floor and happened to glance upwards at the screen. It stopped me in my tracks. From this angle the shadows on her face made me gasp out loud. It was the mouth as much as anything. Almost cavernous. I was even more repelled by this photograph than before. And for some reason I became quite tearful.

by dan55 11.11.13 15:29

In the faked exif file it also says focal length is 22mm yet the canon a620 starts at 35mm and does not have 22mm on it's zoom !! fake! fake! fake!

by dan55 11.11.13 15:54

Sorry made a mistake that would be 1.8mb but the 22mm is correct.

by Angelique 11.11.13 16:07

Mirage wrote:Talking of all ears, I would be grateful if a photographic expert could explain the very strange low ear positions in the famous blue eye-shadow photograph.

I looked at this photo again this morning on the other thread and wondered , how the hell is that normal? Maybe someone with more expertise than I possess could bring it across.

On the same subject I leaned down to pick up something on the floor and happened to glance upwards at the screen. It stopped me in my tracks. From this angle the shadows on her face made me gasp out loud. It was the mouth as much as anything. Almost cavernous. I was even more repelled by this photograph than before. And for some reason I became quite tearful.

Hi Mirage

Can you tell me which thread this was if you are still here ?

by Hicks 11.11.13 16:21

Angelique wrote:
Mirage wrote:Talking of all ears, I would be grateful if a photographic expert could explain the very strange low ear positions in the famous blue eye-shadow photograph.

I looked at this photo again this morning on the other thread and wondered , how the hell is that normal? Maybe someone with more expertise than I possess could bring it across.

On the same subject I leaned down to pick up something on the floor and happened to glance upwards at the screen. It stopped me in my tracks. From this angle the shadows on her face made me gasp out loud. It was the mouth as much as anything. Almost cavernous. I was even more repelled by this photograph than before. And for some reason I became quite tearful.
Hi Mirage

Can you tell me which thread this was if you are still here ?

I think Mirage means the makeup photo, use the search engine above.

If you have a laptop lean the screen backwards, the image of M's face is even more freaky, look at the eyes, one pupil a pinpoint the other large covering the iris. I don't know if it is just me but the bluish marks on M's face looks like the process that happens just after death.

by Veritas 11.11.13 17:35

Well, you won't like it, but based on the poolside photo I see no signs of forgery. The EXIF data (which is a post Photoshop EXIF anyway) is not from theoriginal image, and the EXIF capture date could be forged, but the image is legit.

The supposedly 'unusual' reflection is entirely consistent with fixed angle polarising lenses, or even polarising lenses viewed through a second polarising lens. In sunglasses the typical angle of the polarising 'filtering' is 90 degrees and based on the actual line of the frame top, not the tilt of GMC's head, 90 degrees is bang-on. Curved, polarising lenses with or without reflection off the surface of the pool. The depression in the sides of the head for the glasses, the shaping of the underlapping and overlapping hair around the legs, as wellnas the slight overlapping of the edges of the nose over and in front of the bridge indentation, all consistent.

And the simple fact is that the rest of the image is so clearly authentic and in-situ as a complete image, that if the glasses are a forgery they have no purpose except to cover up an anomaly with GMC's eyes. Why bother? Equally, if the image is a pristine forgery, a composite, by a highly skilled artist, why make the sophomoric mistake of cloning and rotating a pair of glasses with a telltale reflection. The curve on the glasses convinces me that even if the glasses werre hung on GMC's breast pocket, they would have been incapable of reflecting the elements in the image. Only their position on GMC's face would be physically capable of reproducing those details in reflection.

Chasing this image as evidence of fakery is a provable fallacy, a waste of time, and unnecessary in the light of the available evidence.

by Liz Eagles 11.11.13 17:40

Veritas wrote:Well, you won't like it, but based on the poolside photo I see no signs of forgery. The EXIF data (which is a post Photoshop EXIF anyway) is not from theoriginal image, and the EXIF capture date could be forged, but the image is legit.

The supposedly 'unusual' reflection is entirely consistent with fixed angle polarising lenses, or even polarising lenses viewed through a second polarising lens. In sunglasses the typical angle of the polarising 'filtering' is 90 degrees and based on the actual line of the frame top, not the tilt of GMC's head, 90 degrees is bang-on. Curved, polarising lenses with or without reflection off the surface of the pool. The depression in the sides of the head for the glasses, the shaping of the underlapping and overlapping hair around the legs, as wellnas the slight overlapping of the edges of the nose over and in front of the bridge indentation, all consistent.

And the simple fact is that the rest of the image is so clearly authentic and in-situ as a complete image, that if the glasses are a forgery they have no purpose except to cover up an anomaly with GMC's eyes. Why bother? Equally, if the image is a pristine forgery, a composite, by a highly skilled artist, why make the sophomoric mistake of cloning and rotating a pair of glasses with a telltale reflection. The curve on the glasses convinces me that even if the glasses werre hung on GMC's breast pocket, they would have been incapable of reflecting the elements in the image. Only their position on GMC's face would be physically capable of reproducing those details in reflection.

Chasing this image as evidence of fakery is a provable fallacy, a waste of time, and unnecessary in the light of the available evidence.

Is there anything else that is a provable fallacy, a waste of time and unnecessary in your opinion? I'd hate to take up my time reading lots of other people's views (some of them are professionals).

by dan55 11.11.13 17:58

This statement of yours "First and most obvious, I wouldn't want to make a single judgement without being able to verify a source file from a digital camera. And neither would the police."
is a direct contradiction of this one " but the image is legit" . Please explain how you can come to that conclusion in view of your previous comment that it is not possible to tell without the original for forensic study. I 'm a photographer and it's a fake it's cobbled together and does not fit in with GM's testimony of the time scale. The arguments are all there and if you knew anything about polarising glasses or filters you would know they only polarise when you are looking through them at light subjects not at them so your argument is redundant they reflect the same as all glass when the sun shines on them and there is a dark background and do not polarise at all especially from a distance. Just measure Madeleines head and compare it to Gerrys. If it is legit why did he not produce it at the time but photoshop it first???? The missing arm is of no interest to you I suppose!

by Mirage 11.11.13 18:08

Angelique wrote:Hi Mirage

Can you tell me which thread this was if you are still here ?

Hi Angelique. Sorry, only just seen this. Been out for a while.

The photo is on page 2 of the "What's so special about Burgau" thread. See what you make of the ears. Not only do they look very low down, they look v big as well.

I think Hicks, said, the photo when looked at from a certain angle is really freaky. I've seen it many times and I know there's been a lot of discussion about where it was taken, and where the photographer might have been in relation to her. I'm just trying to get an understanding on the head angle. I even tried putting my head right back, as I know about foreshortening when you do life drawing for instance. To little avail, other than it was extremely uncomfortable.

by Veritas 11.11.13 18:10

No, this was the issue in hand and a sane conclusion is sufficient for now. The nature of a subject like this is that there will always be no shortage of people with opinions, amateur sleuths, and as much as you may want to respect their tenacity, confidence, commitment, bravery, seniority or sincerity none of those things hold water next to testable evidence. Clinging to a wrong opinion has no virtue. If there was no evidence in this case save for this photo, the case is over. But there's so much evidence that spurious theories about the authenticity of this image in respect of its composition are without any merit. As they say, it isn't a hill you'd want to die on.

The blunt version is that I don't care whose holy opinion we're talking about or how many years they've been banging the same drum. On this subject they've been wasting their time with red herrings.

The image is authentic, only the date in dispute.

by Veritas 11.11.13 18:12

There is no missing arm. Its a natural distortion.

by canada12 11.11.13 18:17

Veritas wrote:
The supposedly 'unusual' reflection is entrely consistent with fixed angle polarising lenses, or even polarising lenses viewed through a second polarising lens. In sunglasses the typical angle of the polarising 'filtering' is 90 degrees and based on the actual line of the frame top, not the tilt of GMC's head, 90 degrees is bang-on. Curved, polarising lenses with or without reflection off the surface of the pool.

Any chance you can illustrate that with a photograph, Veritas? Because I've tried with a pair of rather expensive polarised lensed sunglasses, and couldn't manage it at all. The reflection was exactly what was in front of the lenses.

If you can take a picture of the reflection in a pair of sunglasses and post it here to illustrate your opinion, I'd be most grateful.

Many thanks!

by secrets and lies 11.11.13 18:29

Going back to the Madeleine "makeup" photo, I just had another look at it and was considering the angle etc.

I think if Madeleine was standing on a chair, for example, and the photographer was crouching down and taking the shot from that angle, then the ears would indeed look very "low down".

The portrait is clearly not taken at eye level but from well below.

Nor does it appear to be taken with Madeleine in a prostrate position.

The ears or the makeup don't concern me very much. But the whole "vibe" of the pic does. Surely there were more wholesome looking photos taken of her that day while playing dress up? And if not, why release this one at all? Again, another worrying oddity in this case. Or a deliberate red herring? Or, as someone suggested, a pictorial warning to someone.

The photo, when you consider it, captures a face that is difficult to put an age on and an expression that is difficult to read. It is completely dehumanizing. Was this the intention?

by Penfold 11.11.13 18:32

Has anyone ever seen any photos of MM taken when she was in the Kids'Club? I know that whenever we've been away with the kids and they've spent any time at all in the organised play facilities there have been several photos of them enjoying themselves. These photos are printed and exhibited on a board, usually in the dining room, for all to see. And pay for!

I wonder if the PdL playgroup staff ever did this? Surely considering the amount of time Madeleine spent in the Kids' Club she would have figured on many of them?

by chillyheat 11.11.13 18:39

secrets and lies wrote:Going back to the Madeleine "makeup" photo, I just had another look at it and was considering the angle etc.

I think if Madeleine was standing on a chair, for example, and the photographer was crouching down and taking the shot from that angle, then the ears would indeed look very "low down".

The portrait is clearly not taken at eye level but from well below.

Nor does it appear to be taken with Madeleine in a prostrate position.

The ears or the makeup don't concern me very much. But the whole "vibe" of the pic does. Surely there were more wholesome looking photos taken of her that day while playing dress up? And if not, why release this one at all? Again, another worrying oddity in this case. Or a deliberate red herring? Or, as someone suggested, a pictorial warning to someone.

The photo, when you consider it, captures a face that is difficult to put an age on and an expression that is difficult to read. It is completely dehumanizing. Was this the intention?

The make up is too perfect for a 3yr old to do IMO. I have read references about it being a very sinister photo. I simply dont like looking at it to be honest. It scares the shit out of me.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 11.11.13 18:43

Penfold: these are the only photos issued of the holiday.

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

by Guest 11.11.13 18:48

secrets and lies wrote:Going back to the Madeleine "makeup" photo, I just had another look at it and was considering the angle etc.

I think if Madeleine was standing on a chair, for example, and the photographer was crouching down and taking the shot from that angle, then the ears would indeed look very "low down".

The portrait is clearly not taken at eye level but from well below.

Nor does it appear to be taken with Madeleine in a prostrate position.

The ears or the makeup don't concern me very much. But the whole "vibe" of the pic does. Surely there were more wholesome looking photos taken of her that day while playing dress up? And if not, why release this one at all? Again, another worrying oddity in this case. Or a deliberate red herring? Or, as someone suggested, a pictorial warning to someone.

The photo, when you consider it, captures a face that is difficult to put an age on and an expression that is difficult to read. It is completely dehumanizing. Was this the intention?

Could she not have been sitting on somebody's lap or thereabouts; while that somebody is lying down on his back and is filming up at her?

This is on par with that piece of film of her looking so oddly into the camera, gnawing her mouth.
Look closely: first, she looks down, slightly to her right, at something we do not get to see as it is hidden behind the camera;
only then, having seen whatever is hidden from our view, to her right and to our left, does she look up, into the camera

This film, I personally, found very disturbing. Some in my company remarked it looked like an abused child looking at her abuser

A picture that raises more questions than answers. IMO, of course

by Mirage 11.11.13 18:51

ChillyHeat wrote:
secrets and lies wrote:Going back to the Madeleine "makeup" photo, I just had another look at it and was considering the angle etc.

I think if Madeleine was standing on a chair, for example, and the photographer was crouching down and taking the shot from that angle, then the ears would indeed look very "low down".

The portrait is clearly not taken at eye level but from well below.

Nor does it appear to be taken with Madeleine in a prostrate position.

The ears or the makeup don't concern me very much. But the whole "vibe" of the pic does. Surely there were more wholesome looking photos taken of her that day while playing dress up? And if not, why release this one at all? Again, another worrying oddity in this case. Or a deliberate red herring? Or, as someone suggested, a pictorial warning to someone.

The photo, when you consider it, captures a face that is difficult to put an age on and an expression that is difficult to read. It is completely dehumanizing. Was this the intention?
The make up is too perfect for a 3yr old to do IMO. I have read references about it being a very sinister photo. I simply dont like looking at it to be honest. It scares the shit out of me.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It is a horrible photo. I have posted on the 'What was special about Burgau' thread about it and I think I will call it a day on the subject, except to say, I certainly realise she's not prostrate, Secrets and Lies!!!! I wondered if she was in fact supine. The background has an integrity about it though so must assume it was taken from a point below her. I don't really want to pursue that either, frankly. The whole attitude of the picture is highly disturbing and I will never understand the mindset that released it into the public domain.

by Mirage 11.11.13 18:54

Portia wrote:
Could she not have been sitting on somebody's lap or thereabouts; while that somebody is lying down on his back and is filming up at her?

This is on par with that piece of film of her looking so oddly into the camera, gnawing her mouth.
Look closely: first, she looks down, slightly to her right, at something we do not get to see as it is hidden behind the camera;
only then, having seen whatever is hidden from our view, to her right and to our left, does she look up, into the camera

This film, I personally, found very disturbing. Some in my company remarked it looked like an abused child looking at her abuser

A picture that raises more questions than answers. IMO, of course

My impression too. A very guarded look.