'The Last Photo': The key questions

K Dan 55 and Dantezebu I'll help out here! . Let's call a spade a spade and stop beating round the bush. It was Veritas wot did it! :innocent face:

Snifferdog wrote:K Dan 55 and Dantezebu I'll help out here! . Let's call a spade a spade and stop beating round the bush.  It was Veritas wot did it! :innocent face:

 

Be careful! Wasn't it an innocent face emoticon which got Sally Bercow into such hot water with Lord McAlpine?

dantezebu wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:Sorry to have upset you Candyfloss but the photo shopping aspect is perhaps  very important to those that are of the opinion that they are photoshopped. It is interesting to note that it is mostly posters who are trained in the arts who can see it.  

Not you Snifferdog, others who are becoming rather agitated.

But to be fair on the other posters, only one poster has resorted to sarcasm and abusive remarks.

Out of curiosity, which bits of my posts were sarcasm and which were objectively stating the obvious? When did either become verboten? When specifically did anyone level an abusive remark, and how many people rather churlishly leapt to take offence and feign injury and then USE that false injury and the resort to the persecution complex as a means of keeping their untenable and unsupported imaginative fantasy regarded as if it were material fact? 

Someone very inAccurately just described, it seems, the support group for the feigned last photo as comprising a large number of trained graphics professionals. Who are they, what are their credentials, and can they present a convincing breakdown in graphic detail of the evidence of a forger which can stand up to academic scrutiny and hold water as a testament to itself? I'm curious, because after a working lifetime in design, print and publishing during which time most of my working life was spent in Photoshop from back when it came on floppy discs and you needed a £4k computer to use it, I just ain't seeing what you're saying you're seeing. I'm seeing a cloud, you're seeing a face.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Be careful! Wasn't it an innocent face emoticon which got Sally Bercow into such hot water with Lord McAlpine?

.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Be careful! Wasn't it an innocent face emoticon which got Sally Bercow into such hot water with Lord McAlpine?

. True that NFWTD. I'll take me chances. O.T. Can't but say Sally Bercow made an agreement and IMO was rewarded with skiing in the Swiss Alpine territory and t many were too scared to utter a word thereafter.

I was for a while but then turned to photography wherein you use similar skills as a behavioural psychologist, for if, you take pictures you have to be able to work with people and weigh them up get the family who doesn't really like each other to get together and smile etc that is an art in itself(doesn't always work). To get a pretty lady to laugh and not pose and catch that moment, means you are using the same skills if you can't get on their side and work out where there at you won't get the photo . Stick to cars or dogs if that is not your forte.

Sorry, Veritas, I'm not going to be drawn into a further argument with you. If anyone's interested in exploring the tone of your postings, they can read back over the past few pages of this thread. Candy Floss is tired of the bickering and I've agreed that I disagree with you and will argue no further. That is my final word on the subject. Your opinion has been noted, and not accepted.

Thank you.

canada12 wrote:Sorry, Veritas, I'm not going to be drawn into a further argument with you. If anyone's interested in exploring the tone of your postings, they can read back over the past few pages of this thread. Candy Floss is tired of the bickering and I've agreed that I disagree with you and will argue no further. That is my final word on the subject. Your opinion has been noted, and not accepted.

Thank you.

So you lie about me, you can't back up the false claims you make about me, and unable to handle someone scrutinising your analysis and declaring it to be not only untrue but fantasist, you turn the whole issue into a fabricated personal squabble. 

This seems to be more about you than the evidence and rational analysis. You seem to really want the last word for the sake of it. You are clearly neither a photographic nor digital compositing expert, so I simply say you're a charlatan who cannot back up claims with reasonable evidence nor provide credible credential to support you. Why should anyone believe you when you can't demonstrate real world objectivity or transparency when making a declaration. You seem content to demonstrate to the world that this site represents the worst Icke-esque hysterias and fantasies. 

My opinion has been 'not accepted'? By who? You? Do you think that bothers me in the slightest to have some self declared expert reject sanity and evidence for a prejudicial lie? Truth is bigger than that. The picture is genuine. 

By all means ban or censure me for fighting for truth. Join the likes of the Carter Ruck's and specialise in suppressing inconvenient voices who refuse to let unsupportable Lies and myths detract from observable, examinable evidence of the truth. I worry that the provable truth means less to you than playing sleuth. One thing for sure... Court cases are won and investigations solved in the domain where proof, not fantastical stories and preconceived fallacies is king.

Veritas, I have asked you and others to stop, and Canada12 has complied, why are you persisting with this? You have had your say, and people can make up their own minds...........now leave it. Final warning.

Mirage wrote:

aquila wrote:Snipped from tigger's post

"...and yes, they did need the photograph, still do as a matter of fact, because it comes up every time they're asked what their last memory of Maddie is. The Photograph!   It's produced like a rabbit out of a hat and that Professor Veritas, is exactly what it is, a conjuring trick.

Their LAST memory of Maddie would surely be the last time they saw her, played with her, talked with her? Gerry standing there with his 'proud father moment?'. Kate with Maddie telling her she had the best day ever?"

To my mind that really is the crux of the matter and why the photoshopping subject is so sensitive to some that it has to be denied categorically.

Ditto. Just as sensitive as the dogs IMO.

I've watched GM many times  on the 'last photo' subject. It is always prompted by the same question. Obviously an agreed set of questions beforehand. I'm thinking particularly of the Skavlan interviews on Swedish tv, last year.

"What is your last memory of Madeleine?"

And you know what's coming. The same rehearsed script. You can chant it with them.

The giveaway is that this particular question is always addressed to GM or picked up by GM. This time the question was definitely directed at him (he and Kate sat on opposite sofas for this interview).

Gerry takes a  few moments to arrange his face into the distant fond look and says - It was that last photo.

If you put yourself in a similar situation - for instance, the last time you saw a friend who later dies, or your daughter who emigrates. Someone asks you about that memory. Would the first words that trip off your tongue be: it was that last photo. As if nothing took place before or after was more significant than the moment a shutter clicked and an image produced.

You might say something like - We had a fabulous day together, laughing our heads off when my heel got stuck in the museum grating. We sat down for a coffee to recover and the waiter took this snap of us. I love this photo.  Carry it everywhere. It brings back that wonderful last day we had together.

Gerry talks about MM laughing, splashing and turning her head. Just beaming etc. Descriptions of what she is doing.  Does he actually reveal any emotional connection to the child?

 Can you imagine your very first response to emotional recall being a photographic image. 

Exactly!
I'm no expert in photography or Photoshop but the circumstantial evidence surrounding the "last photo " tells me it is not a genuine picture. IMO of course...
Again IMO only Kate can know for sure, as she was "allegedly " the one who took it.
The discussion about "is real / is not " goes nowhere because everyone is entitled to their opinion. Also from a "dumb in photography " point of view all the talk about pixels and lenses and shadows or whatever is "chinese " to me. And no I don't want an explanation or a Photoshop "degree " about those things, I believe the picture was tampered and even if the biggest expert on the matter says it wasn't, I won't change my mind because, again, circumstantial evidence.

As I'm not an expert in photography or Photoshop, all I have left is gut instinct and common sense. The only part of the last photo that I feel I can comment on is Gerry's left sunglasses lens.

1: I haven't seen the 90 degree rotation effect in any other reflection shot.

2: As these images show, manipulation of just the Lens/lenses is extremely easy and can be done in minutes.


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

My opinion on the last photo is this:

The lens/lenses (and only the lens/lenses) were Photoshopped to remove a reflection that revealed it wasn't Kate that took the picture or even that a man took it (Not going down that path yet!). Or it could simply be that it's been PS'd for image reasons....who knows.

Basically, I get the same gut feeling when I look at those damn sunglasses as I did when I first heard Gerry speak on the night of the 4th May 2007......I could yet be proved wrong on both counts. We'll see.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:As I'm not an expert in photography or Photoinly aren't mirrored, and since they are curved in the surface and with a slight down angle in the vertical plane, they show exactlycal pl what they could be predicted to showshop, all I have left is gut instinct and common sense. The only part of the last photo that I feel I can comment on is Gerry's left sunglasses lens.

1: I haven't seen the 90 degree rotation effect in any other reflection shot.

2: As these images show, manipulation of just the Lens/lenses is extremely easy and can be done in minutes.


  
                 ion of                                                                                    
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
                                                 Before                                                                                           During                                                    After        

My opinion on the last photo is this:

The lens/lenses (and only the lens/lenses) were Photoshopped to remove a reflection that revealed it wasn't Kate that took the picture or even that a man took it (Not going down that path yet!). Or it could simply be that it's been PS'd for image reasons....who knows.

Basically, I get the same gut feeling when I look at those damn sunglasses as I did when I first heard Gerry speak on the night of the 4th May 2007......I could yet be proved wrong on both counts. We'll see.

Red herring. The sunglasses may not be polarised. They certainly aren't mirrored. And given that they are curved in shape, both lenses and frames, andwith a noticeable down angle in the vertical plane they show exactly what they would be expected to show... The objects a foot in front of the wearer's head position and with some degree of pan to either side, withvertically stretched and horizontally narrowed (pinched) distortion like in the hall of mirrors - in this case pool, possibly legs, the side of the child's head and her hat. If we could see a lovely clear plane of a perfect reflection from the other side of the pool and an image of the "real" photographer then we would be definitely looking at a photoshopping, as your example images demonstrate, as well as the phenomenal suspension of the laws of physics. With the sun to the front and right of the subjects, the reflection is predictably mundane. 

Additionally, as a Photoshop professional, if I were tasked with eliminating the reflection in those glasses because it contained incriminating information, I would look for small, subtle changes to maximise blending, rather than attempting to recreate a fallacious scene. There would probably be heavy blur involved, and some brightness and contrast adjustment, probably Even the isolation of the lenses and an extensive level adjustment within. Far easier, more natural, more convincing, but neither option is in evidence here.

I have quite a bit of experience with Photoshop, compositing, image manipulation and digital imaging in general.

Imho Veritas is quite right. He/she is also correct in that he/she was baited and personally attacked by people who didn't agree with his/her analysis of the image (ok bored with that now - I'm switching to he -apologies if it's wrong). 

In my opinion Veritas has a level of skill much greater than the rest of the self-professed experts resident here, myself included. It would be a shame to lose his expertise through sniping and personal attacks. There is a very strong group here that does not want to sensibly discuss anything that doesn't fit their theories. They will resort to abuse and hyperbole at the drop of a hat.

We will lose good sensible skilled people if the incumbent group are allowed to badger people. I have experience of threads that get derailed by people bringing in their own pet theories even if you have expressly stated that there are other threads for discussing their theories. It's very difficult and takes constant work to keep the thread on track. It's even more difficult without saying, "Look. I think you're either an idiot, ignorant or malicious. Perhaps you're well intentioned. Perhaps not." 

Veritas has come back with some quite direct and confrontational rebuttals but I do think he was provoked.

Curioser wrote:I have quite a bit of experience with Photoshop, compositing, image manipulation and digital imaging in general.

Imho Veritas is quite right. He/she is also correct in that he/she was baited and personally attacked by people who didn't agree with his/her analysis of the image (ok bored with that now - I'm switching to he -apologies if it's wrong). 

In my opinion Veritas has a level of skill much greater than the rest of the self-professed experts resident here, myself included. It would be a shame to lose his expertise through sniping and personal attacks. There is a very strong group here that does not want to sensibly discuss anything that doesn't fit their theories. They will resort to abuse and hyperbole at the drop of a hat.

We will lose good sensible skilled people if the incumbent group are allowed to badger people. I have experience of threads that get derailed by people bringing in their own pet theories even if you have expressly stated that there are other threads for discussing their theories. It's very difficult and takes constant work to keep the thread on track. It's even more difficult without saying, "Look. I think you're either an idiot, ignorant or malicious. Perhaps you're well intentioned. Perhaps not." 

Veritas has come back with some quite direct and confrontational rebuttals but I do think he was provoked.

I can tell you its difficult to remain polite and respectful when you know people are plain wrong about a theory and you know this because you have an experience base in something that most of those people don't have. For people to think they know better about faking digital images in photoshop than myself or Veritas is like Gerry McCann assuming that he's the expert on sniffer dogs because he doesn't like the indications they, the experts, made. 

Sietah produced an amusing version of the pool picture by way of saying 'look, I can fool you too' but the fact that he and everyone else missed with his picture is precisely that Veritas and myself (for example) could tell you exactly how and why his image was faked - because we know the traces that such fakery leaves. Both Veritas and myself have argued repeatedly on these threads that we don't see ANY of the hallmarks (that we should know since we do it ourselves!) that manipulation leaves. 

I've also spent completely fruitless hours online arguing with a lady on Twitter called @oddityfinder. She has used her camera to photograph her computer screen showing Google Earth images of Rocha Negra from June 2007. She's then zoomed into those pictures, adjusted the settings on her camera etc and - presto! is convinced she has found Madeleine McCann's body in the cliffs. I've stupidly wasted my time a) telling her that by blowing up a picture of a screen you don't CREATE more detail, more resolution in the image and b) proving to her (using the same imagery) that an adult human being is indistinguishable in the Google Earth images plus demonstrating that her 'phenomenon' as she mysteriously calls it is, in fact, the size of a small car. Harmless and wilfully deluded? Yes - except she spends her time pestering Scotland Yard with her fabulous findings. 

Arguing with her is like arguing about this pool picture. If it was just about being 'right' I'd probably not bother; everyone's entitled to carry on believing what they want. But it's not just about being right, it's about trying to hold back the line of enquiry in this case from becoming ludicrous. 

I think the question: is this a nearly four year old child in this picture? is a valid question - but even there, it's hardly scientific. Some people say 'yes', some say vehemently 'no'. By the same token, is Amelie a two year old child in that picture? Or a 1 year old? I've got two grown up kids and I can't answer that question confidently. I suspect we never will - at least not until the confessions come through and it all comes out in the wash. 

Here for fun are 3 versions of Gerry that took me about 30 minutes to do on a laptop without a tablet / stylus (which would make for more accuracy). Out of interest which do you instinctively feel is more 'realistic' out of the three? 

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

Experience in life and photography is of far more value than qualifications I know a lot of useless over qualified photographers with very expensive kits. I wonder how many qualifications the old painters had? Some of the best photographers in the world have no qualifications at all. Use your eyes and brain they are GOD's gift to you it's dumb to say I know the photo is genuine when it has been photoshopped or altered that we know for sure you can't know you can believe it if you want but you certainly can't prove it. Photography isn't a science it's an art it is all in the eye and mind. It can't be taught you either have an eye for a good pic or you don't.    [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/url]" />
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/url]
 
Ooops! I have put the same pic in twice you do not need to be a scientist here. For the sake of Veritas here is some of the shadow problems arrows depict direction of the sun (looking at the shadows), the x's show the difference in their density and colour and the question mark shows where there should be some shadow my hand is a bit shaky nowadays. The circle shows the difference in brightness or exposure. The problem is with this photo you can't make head nor tail of it and that is the problem it is not just one thing the whole photo does not make scientific sense. Always be wary of people who have to tell you how clever they are rather than argue specific issues in a way that normal people can understand. MMM I wonder what veritas was doing with all his equipment children, nudes, porn, dogs perhaps???? This took me about 3 mins but I think you get the idea. also the seat behind Gerry is the wrong size and the front legs twist one way and the back twists the other distorted chair maybe. Fake , fake, fake. IMO

Agreed PPP. 

I don't know. I find him unattractive in all three, but the middle one looks interesting.

Veritas wrote:

I know that the photo is real. I know that it wasn't taken a year earlier. The evidence makes it plausible that it was taken earlier in the trip. The EXIF doesn't tell me anything either way.

re: "The evidence makes it plausible that it was taken earlier in the trip..."

Well, suppose it was?

Then the best candidate by far would be Sunday (29 April). 

I arrive at this very simply.

The photo is taken in the brightest possible sunshine.

It is said to have been taken at 1.29pm or 2.29pm.

I have looked at the weather records ( see here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ) for the period 1.30pm to 2.30pm each day.

In summary, the weather on each day between 1.30pm and 2.30pm was as follows:

SUNDAY (29th) - Clear, sunny

MONDAY (30th)  - Cloudy

TUESDAY (1st) - Cloudy

WEDNESDAY (2nd) - Cloudy

THIURSDAY (3rd) - Scattered clouds

One of my reasons to believe the picture was taken on the Sunday, the FIRST real day of the holidays, is that NO girl would have WAITED till one of the LAST days of holiday to wear her exciting NEW and "special" GAP and Monsoon clothes ... Not entirely IMO, as I have vast experience with girls and new clothes  

Châtelaine wrote:One of my reasons to believe the picture was taken on the Sunday, the FIRST real day of the holidays, is that NO girl would have WAITED till one of the LAST days of holiday to wear her exciting NEW and "special" GAP and Monsoon clothes ... Not entirely IMO, as I have vast experience with girls and new clothes  

I'm afraid that I have to contradict you here - my daughter has always just worn whatever clothes are given to her or the first ones she lays her hands on, she's eleven years old now and is still the same :)  If you said 'GAP' or 'Monsoon' to my daughter she would have no idea what you were talking about.  So not really correct to say 'no girl would have...', as I can point you towards at least one.

Dan55, there's a simple reason why the science of lighting is worth infinitely more than your magical eye, something you should have known as an 'experienced artist, sorry, photographer. Something you' ve totally failed to factor at all. Something basic, elemental, fundamental. Something which shows you up completely. 

See, you're busy waxing about enigmatic shadows being too weak and the direction of the sun... 

But... Can you tell what it is yet? 

Light is, fundamentally, not distributed in an exclusively linear fashion... And there are two major light sources in contention in the image, the second, weaker, but far more 'illuminating' in this case, is the one which gives an instant explanation to several telling characteristics in the scene and dispels your myths about the shadows you tell us all we should see... 

Guessed yet? 

Oh, ok then... The three are uplit by a giant, blue tinted mirror no more than 3 feet from their faces. 

Checkmate. r

Tony,  couple thoughts. First weather summaries are not exact and total science. Second, cloud can be sporadic. Third, I've just spent a week on the Med where I got a mild tan, spent 4 days on a beach, and barely saw the sun itself. Cloud does not equal winter. And it may not hamper a holiday. High level vapour concentration does not equal low level precipitation cloud. The auto headlight sensor on most cars can tell you that which is why most of them have trouble with bright daylight fog.

Veritas wrote:Tony,  couple thoughts. First weather summaries are not exact and total science. Second, cloud can be sporadic. Third, I've just spent a week on the Med where I got a mild tan, spent 4 days on a beach, and barely saw the sun itself. Cloud does not equal winter. And it may not hamper a holiday. High level vapour concentration does not equal low level precipitation cloud. The auto headlight sensor on most cars can tell you that which is why most of them have trouble with bright daylight fog.

Meteorology is one of my top hobbies, so no great surprises there.

The 'Last Photo' was unarguably taken when the sun was shining brightly and nearly overhead i.e. very close to 1.35pm (per Aspiedistra) that week.

That could have happened ANY of those days, even the three days when it was cloudy that day.

'Scattered cloud' on 3 May is by no means inconsistent with the McCanns having taken it at 2.29pm on 3 May.

THE MOST LIKELY day would be Sunday 29 April, when with a maximum temperature of 20 deg C (68 deg F) it was also warmer than all  the following days

Veritas That is dumber than dumb how could the tinted mirror get through Madeleine's hat to the top of her hat? DOH! The same applies to Amelies hat, the top of it? Gerrys fingers that are closer to this light source underneath are darker than above proving he is an insert for the lower fingers on his hand are nearer this massive light source than the parts of his fingers that are further away and facing upwards. Light does not travel through solid objects!!! The same applies to Gerry's left arm BEHIND Amelie and the top of his right forearm that is the same shade as his hand yet one would be hit by the giant mirror and the other wouldn't it certainly wouldn't affect the back of the chair. It also applies to the left side of MM's face that is facing away from this light but is as bright as the other side of the face that is facing the light you speak of! explain that? Give it up mate! Your wrong. Here is a normal photo of 2 guys by a pool. I would ask you all to compare it to the fake photo and you will see what I mean about unnatural.
.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/url]" />
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/url]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/url]" />
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/url]



One picture has natural even lighting the other doesn't both in bright sunlight!
Is Verita's trying to tell us that clouds don't affect lighting in pictures now? DOH!

ALL PAY ATENTION TO THIS
This is veritas theory and hatred of shadows comes back to bite him in the bum and prove Gerry is an insert!! Here is his tetimony "if you take out the angles of incidence and could position the sun directly overhead and perhaps the same 5-8 degrees to the front and straighten Gerry`s head,"
So the sun is falling approximately where the arrows are in the photo below but if that was so how come the chair has a shadow under it but there are no shadows from Gerry's arms that is possible in photoshop but not the real world. It has to be an insert.


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

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

Sorry veritas forgot to mention this, but science is of no use if you don't have an eye to see the results with! It is all in the eye! science can't replace that or maybe you are a robot and don't need them?