Re: Former Ullapool teacher struck off for indecent images

by Guest 13.11.13 20:58

PeterMac wrote:
ProfessorPPlum wrote:Clay the umbrellas probably are movable, but you'll see they're spaced equally all round and are likely to be replaced in this way each day.
They're not. They are concreted into the pool surround, hence the regularity. They don't fly away in the wind.
Only the top can be removed during the winter. The tops are made of welded metal bars, with the cane thatching stitched in. That bit can be replaced every few years.
Very common in the Med and needed for the Atlantic gales.

Yeah, seems they are permanent. Which should make it easier to achieve, well, whatever Tony is trying to achieve. However, I just browsed some family photos taken over the years on the beach at Santa Eulalia and the shadows are a minefield - they're nowhere near how I would have expected them to fall.

by Harriet94 13.11.13 22:20

How come 'expert photoshoppers' can't work out why images are the wrong way up in Gerry's sun glasses?

by canada12 13.11.13 22:48

Harriet94 wrote:How come 'expert photoshoppers' can't work out why images are the wrong way up in Gerry's sun glasses?

An excellent point. There are many different explanations and theories to be found on the other threads to do with the photos. I'm a great believer in the old adage: A picture is worth a thousand words. If we could have one expert supply one photograph which illustrates one other case where the reflection in a pair of sunglasses was rotated 90 degrees, as the reflection in Gerry's sunglasses is, I would be most grateful.

by bobbin 13.11.13 22:58

Harriet94 wrote:How come 'expert photoshoppers' can't work out why images are the wrong way up in Gerry's sun glasses?

They can, but sh!t scared people go into blinding denial when they find serious posters exposing obvious inconsistencies in the 'faked' photos. They also get the same sh!t scared panic when people start discussing the deviant art of Philomena McCann's husband and so a simultaneous big distraction is rolled out to try to get serious posters looking in the other direction or kowtowing to the 'deniers' demands.
It's all such a waste of energy and page consuming space when the people they need to impress would be the PJ who needless to say will already have photos taken of the area, immediately pursuant to 3rd May, showing the wall behind Gerry, Amelie and Madeleine having no bougainvillea plants in flower because the weather in 2007 had been too cold and damp for them to flower.
As I've posted copiously in previous 'last photo' threads, the weather records for the time preceding 3rd May confirm the temperatures as being too low to permit the flowers to burst forth.
The obvious impossibility of the 'reflection' in Gerry's sunglasses will not have been overlooked by the investigating officers either, however hard any denier may seek to push the idea onto serious posters that a peculiar 90 degree turn is at all physically possible.
Candyfloss has tried her hardest to bring the site back into line, and it will be good when the threads can return to the former serious analysis and discovery of important new facts such as Philomena's husband's disturbing fetishes.

by Rasputin 13.11.13 23:08

I just googled ' how can a reflection in sunglasses turn 90 degrees ' , it gives an explanation about lightwaves which is too complicated for me , but apparently there is one , similar to the phenomenon of refraction ...

by Harriet94 13.11.13 23:11

Thank you. So going back to the original topic. Is it normal on a school trip abroad for the organising member of staff to also book a place for her husband, sister and brother in law including spa treatments and massages?

by ProfessorPPlum 13.11.13 23:32

Despite being called a 'denier' (lol) I have an idea about this 90 degree sunglasses reflection thing, which I've had ever since I first pondered the problem. All it will take for me to find out if I'm right or not will be to buy a pair of reflective sunglasses and go find me a similar small circular pool.

Here's the basics of it.

Imagine the opposite edge of the pool reflected in Gerry's glasses. You'd expect to see a horizontal line right? That's what everyone means when they say this reflection is wrong. That assumes that a) GM is looking directly at the opposite side of the pool and b) that there is no curve away from GM towards the opposite edge of the pool.

But you and I know that somewhere between where Gerry is and the opposite site of the pool (which, remember, is circular) there is a point where the edge of the pool curves and heads away from him.

You can seem what I mean by going to your kitchen now and holding a plate up just in front of you with your eyes a few inches above the plate. The edge near your eyes looks kind of straight, right? The plate edge opposite you looks kind of straight too. But to the left or right the plate curves away until it's pointing away from you doesn't it? And then it curves around to become the 'flatter' looking opposite side of the plate.

The important thing here is that IF GM was looking directly across the pool at the photographer, we would expect to see a broadly horizontal line of the pool edge (think plate). But he isn't. He's looking to his left across a small arc of the pool at the photographer (see my little diagram earlier). From this position, his glasses will reflect the part of the pool that's curving away from him.

I'll take some pictures in the next few days to see if I can demonstrate this.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Daisy 13.11.13 23:35

Harriet94 wrote:Thank you. So going back to the original topic. Is it normal on a school trip abroad for the organising member of staff to also book a place for her husband, sister and brother in law including spa treatments and massages?

Good question. It's not normal in my experience is all I can say.

by **Nina** 13.11.13 23:41

Daisy wrote:
Harriet94 wrote:Thank you. So going back to the original topic. Is it normal on a school trip abroad for the organising member of staff to also book a place for her husband, sister and brother in law including spa treatments and massages?
Good question. It's not normal in my experience is all I can say.

I have a friend, a teacher, and her hubby often went on school trips, especially the really good ones to China and Russia, not so much the London or Edinburgh ones, but the foreign travel certainly.

by Harriet94 13.11.13 23:55

I am not surprised that Phill took her husband on a school trip,but I am surprised that her sister and brother in law were also included. ( Is there evidence for this ?).

I try to be a fairly open minded mother/grandmother, but I would not have wanted my teenage daughter to be anywhere near Phill's husband in this country, let alone abroad, near a beach, just imo.

by roy rovers 14.11.13 0:05

Was Tony Rickwood, husband of Philomena McCann, by any chance the 'master manipulator' of photoshopped images? Keep it in the family so to speak.

by chillyheat 14.11.13 0:18

Just had a thought about the last picture....Please move, not sure where to put it.
Now you know the time it was taken, has anyone cross referenced with the times of the creche records ?

For each day, whether it be 1:59pm or 2:59pm. If Madeleine was booked into the creche at these times, then she cant be in the picture. Im sure you understand what I mean

by Harriet94 14.11.13 0:20

I don't know. Was he in Turkey June 2007, on a school trip? If he was on that trip were safeguarding checks carried out?

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 14.11.13 8:08

ProfessorPPlum wrote:One last thing (although it'll probably get me banned), the little water droplets are clearly from Amelie. She is looking intently at the water and not at the photographer. Why? Because - as any parent will recognise, she is doing something FAR more interesting: splashing the water with her feet.

What a truly pathetic thing to say.

Why would you get banned for saying Amelie is splashing water? Is that really what you think of the people who run this excellent site?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.13 8:11

roy rovers wrote:Was Tony Rickwood, husband of Philomena McCann, by any chance the 'master manipulator' of photoshopped images? Keep it in the family so to speak.

IF that were true, it would follow that the McCanns knew about his photoshopping capabilities - and at least throws up the possibility that they also knew about his (quote) "lifelong interest" in "women in peril"

by **PeterMac** 14.11.13 8:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
roy rovers wrote:Was Tony Rickwood, husband of Philomena McCann, by any chance the 'master manipulator' of photoshopped images? Keep it in the family so to speak.
IF that were true, it would follow that the McCanns knew about his photoshopping capabilities - and at least throws up the possibility that they also knew about his (quote) "lifelong interest" in "women in peril"

I would find it difficult to believe that Philomena does not know. Wives generally know more about their husbands than the husbands like to believe.

by ProfessorPPlum 14.11.13 8:52

Google Gaspar Statements

My comment was humour - referring to the the fact that this thread is & isn't supposed to be for discussing the highly-contentious 'pool photo' and the fact that admin had repeatedly asked people not to in this thread.

Instead of jumping to your conclusion and then insulting, you could ask a question. "Banned? What do you mean?"

The world would be a better place if we all took that extra step of checking our understanding before leaping in and ranting at people.

by Guest 14.11.13 9:54

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Google Gaspar Statements

My comment was humour - referring to the the fact that this thread is & isn't supposed to be for discussing the highly-contentious 'pool photo' and the fact that admin had repeatedly asked people not to in this thread.

Instead of jumping to your conclusion and then insulting, you could ask a question. "Banned? What do you mean?"

The world would be a better place if we all took that extra step of checking our understanding before leaping in and ranting at people.

It was the other thread I made the requests PPP IIRC.

by Eyei 14.11.13 10:16

Harriet94 wrote:How come 'expert photoshoppers' can't work out why images are the wrong way up in Gerry's sun glasses?

I am a Dispensing Optician (hence the user name) and I can honestly say I have never seen a reflection turn by 90 degrees in a spectacle lens.

by Rufus T 14.11.13 10:23

Mr Rickwood's Facebook page -
As well as the picture of Philomena in Tunisia 2007, gosh she gets around doesn't she, Mr Rickwood also has a photo of local primary school children standing round his telescope.
I wonder if their parents are aware of his other interests.

by ProfessorPPlum 14.11.13 10:38

Eyei wrote:
Harriet94 wrote:How come 'expert photoshoppers' can't work out why images are the wrong way up in Gerry's sun glasses?
I am a Dispensing Optician (hence the user name) and I can honestly say I have never seen a reflection turn by 90 degrees in a spectacle lens.

As I pointed out last night, it isn't rotated 90 degrees. That's a conclusion we've jumped to because we need to fit what we see into what we expect. There's rather a lot of it about in this whole case (I'm not being sh*tty btw, it's very human - but any good investigator will anticipate this tendency).
Now, like everyone here, I have a real life and day job to do big grin

but as soon as I can, I'll demonstrate exactly what I mean.

Put simply, the apparently vertical line in his left lens is just a reflection of the pool edge as it goes away from GM before it comes round to a horizontal line on the opposite side of the pool. At this point it appears, due to foreshortening, to be perpendicular to him (whereas in fact it is still as gently curved as any other part of the pool). But the result is that we will see water to one side, pool deck to the other and what appears to be a vertical line dividing the two.

The fact that we're expecting horizontal is the problem here as I hope to demonstrate in due course.

If I do demonstrate this effect (nothing to do with polarisation etc), I wonder if it will make ANY difference to this discussion though.

by Guest 14.11.13 10:42

ProfessorPPlum wrote:
Eyei wrote:
Harriet94 wrote:How come 'expert photoshoppers' can't work out why images are the wrong way up in Gerry's sun glasses?
I am a Dispensing Optician (hence the user name) and I can honestly say I have never seen a reflection turn by 90 degrees in a spectacle lens.
As I pointed out last night, it isn't rotated 90 degrees. That's a conclusion we've jumped to because we need to fit what we see into what we expect. There's rather a lot of it about in this whole case (I'm not being sh*tty btw, it's very human - but any good investigator will anticipate this tendency).
Now, like everyone here, I have a real life and day job to do but as soon as I can, I'll demonstrate exactly what I mean.

Put simply, the apparently vertical line in his left lens is just a reflection of the pool edge as it goes away from GM before it comes round to a horizontal line on the opposite side of the pool. At this point it appears, due to foreshortening, to be perpendicular to him (whereas in fact it is still as gently curved as any other part of the pool). But the result is that we will see water to one side, pool deck to the other and what appears to be a vertical line dividing the two.

The fact that we're expecting horizontal is the problem here as I hope to demonstrate in due course.

If I do demonstrate this effect (nothing to do with polarisation etc), I wonder if it will make ANY difference to this discussion though.

I understood what you meant from your first explanation Professor. It's crazy anyway, speculating on why somebody would rotate just a small portion of the picture. I'm happy it's not fake - the principle questions arising being A) When was it really taken? and B) Is that actually Madeleine?

by canada12 14.11.13 10:52

Eyei wrote:
Harriet94 wrote:How come 'expert photoshoppers' can't work out why images are the wrong way up in Gerry's sun glasses?
I am a Dispensing Optician (hence the user name) and I can honestly say I have never seen a reflection turn by 90 degrees in a spectacle lens.

by canada12 14.11.13 10:59

ProfessorPPlum wrote:
Imagine the opposite edge of the pool reflected in Gerry's glasses. You'd expect to see a horizontal line right? That's what everyone means when they say this reflection is wrong. That assumes that a) GM is looking directly at the opposite side of the pool and b) that there is no curve away from GM towards the opposite edge of the pool.

But you and I know that somewhere between where Gerry is and the opposite site of the pool (which, remember, is circular) there is a point where the edge of the pool curves and heads away from him.

You can seem what I mean by going to your kitchen now and holding a plate up just in front of you with your eyes a few inches above the plate. The edge near your eyes looks kind of straight, right? The plate edge opposite you looks kind of straight too. But to the left or right the plate curves away until it's pointing away from you doesn't it? And then it curves around to become the 'flatter' looking opposite side of the plate.

The important thing here is that IF GM was looking directly across the pool at the photographer, we would expect to see a broadly horizontal line of the pool edge (think plate). But he isn't. He's looking to his left across a small arc of the pool at the photographer (see my little diagram earlier). From this position, his glasses will reflect the part of the pool that's curving away from him.

I'll take some pictures in the next few days to see if I can demonstrate this.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks PPP. I tried this myself in the kitchen with 3 different pairs of reflective sunglasses. One pair had an extremely curvy lens, the second pair was curved but not as much, and the third pair had flat lenses.

I agree that some degree of curvature appears at the outer corners of each curved lens. The plate, held at a certain distance away (as well as all of the kitchen cupboards in the background) curves upward or downward, depending on the angle of the sunglasses. However, the reflected image only bends at the outer corners of each curved lens. The image in the middle of each lens remains flat. I can't replicate a complete 90 degree rotation of the entire view, the way it appears in Gerry's sunglasses.

Also, I tried holding the round plate in the centre of the reflection of the sunglasses, and what reflected back, in one lens, was the plate, with both edges curved slightly upward, but the center part of the plate remaining horizontal.

by ProfessorPPlum 14.11.13 11:01

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Canada - the plate is too small to reproduce what happened here - but I cited it as a way of pointing out that part of the edge goes away from you a two points (left and right edge). The plate's too small and too close to replicate the situation (above) - but I appreciate you trying!

You can rest assured that I'm looking for a pair of used mirror shades and a suitable circular monument to practice on sarcastic

by canada12 14.11.13 11:13

ProfessorPPlum
As I pointed out last night, it isn't rotated 90 degrees. That's a conclusion we've jumped to because we need to fit what we see into what we expect. There's rather a lot of it about in this whole case (I'm not being sh*tty btw, it's very human - but any good investigator will anticipate this tendency).
Now, like everyone here, I have a real life and day job to do but as soon as I can, I'll demonstrate exactly what I mean.

Put simply, the apparently vertical line in his left lens is just a reflection of the pool edge as it goes away from GM before it comes round to a horizontal line on the opposite side of the pool. At this point it appears, due to foreshortening, to be perpendicular to him (whereas in fact it is still as gently curved as any other part of the pool). But the result is that we will see water to one side, pool deck to the other and what appears to be a vertical line dividing the two.

The fact that we're expecting horizontal is the problem here as I hope to demonstrate in due course.

If I do demonstrate this effect (nothing to do with polarisation etc), I wonder if it will make ANY difference to this discussion though.

With respect, PPP, if you increase the picture to 200% and rotate it 90 degrees to the left, you do indeed see a full reflection. What I see, top to bottom, is the dark green area behind the pool, the beige pool deck, a dark shadow on the pool deck, the edge of the pool deck, which is interrupted by the brim of a pink hat, followed by the pool water. That's in the top lens.

In the bottom lens, we have pool water.

It's interesting that all of the straight lines in the top lens reflection are just that. Straight horizontal lines. If there was any curvature at all of anything, would you not expect the horizontal lines to reflect curvature?

As to why someone would replace a reflection in the sunglasses, I've mentioned this before. Because the original reflection in the sunglasses showed something that was inconsistent with the story that was being told around the picture.

Sorry for banging on about this. I'll stop now, before I get this thread locked too. All just my opinion, and in the big picture (sorry about the pun) that's all this is really about. I'm fairly certain the PJ and SY have had their forensic investigators look at this "last photo" and if it has any bearing on the case, they'll have made note of it.

by canada12 14.11.13 11:19

ProfessorPPlum wrote:
Canada - the plate is too small to reproduce what happened here - but I cited it as a way of pointing out that part of the edge goes away from you a two points (left and right edge). The plate's too small and too close to replicate the situation (above) - but I appreciate you trying!

You can rest assured that I'm looking for a pair of used mirror shades and a suitable circular monument to practice on

Appreciate your diagrams and explanations... I await your discovery of mirrored shades and a suitable circular swimming pool to illustrate. :-)

by canada12 14.11.13 11:22

I always get the feeling, whenever the discussion of photoshopping in the pictures becomes passionate, that the discussions are being used, somehow, to test out how the arguments would play in front of a judge and / or jury :-) Just an observation.

by SittingOnTheFence 14.11.13 12:05

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]I think that people are making incorrect assumptions regarding the pink hat being the object that is being reflected on the sunglasses; just because the two are pink doesn't mean that they are one and the same. It could be a pink ball, towel etc. The reflection would be a combination of the trajectory angle of the position of the glasses plus the position / angle of the camera, the curvature of the sunglass lens etc - ie it is reflecting what is ahead of Gerry (where he is looking) as opposed to the side of him.

Various photos of reflections on sunglasses - some photoshopped for artistic effect, but most are normal photos. There are quite a few that reflect at 90 degree angles. That said, I think PPP is right in that the reflection is showing the curvature of the pool.

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