The Last Photo (again)

AnnaEsse wrote:

jd16 wrote:Talking of photoshop photos...how photoshopped is this one!!!!

I'd tidy that one up and even my Kodak software would do an adequate job on it.

Just how many people are sitting on that settee. A big man with a green tea shirt, slouching wide, left arm along the back.
John's son, right arm along the top, resting over the man's arm, then a twin climbing towards the back of the settee in between the man and John's son. Then Maddie , I'm not sure where her bottom can be resting and forward of that, Fiona, sitting on what, holding a weighty enough baby in front of her. And where are her rather big hands, holding the baby, coming from I can't see her arms or wrists.
Any suggestions ?
ETA why has Fiona not got white eyes when Amelie and Maddie are looking in the same way forward as Fiona.

If anybody was going to the trouble to Photoshop that, the first thing they would do is fix the redeye. That's Photoshop 101 stuff!

Here's an unedited version.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/Paul-FionaGregor-madeleine.jpg

The young man on the left is another cousin, Paul.

I've never thought that was a child between Fiona and Madeleine - it looks like a cushion to me! If it is a child, presumably it's Amelie (judging by the pink) which means Sean is the baby held by Fiona.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/FAMILY.htm




Fiona is holding Amelie I think, because if you look at the other version you can just see the little bump on her upper lip which is evident in other photos.

ann_chovey wrote:http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/FAMILY.htm




Fiona is holding Amelie I think, because if you look at the other version you can just see the little bump on her upper lip which is evident in other photos.

nothing like the bigger picture. If the baby is Amelie, and I agree the little lip bump, then is the pink thing a doll that Madeleine is holding with the back of its head towards us.

want the truth wrote; nothing like the bigger picture. If the baby is Amelie, and I agree the little lip bump, then is the pink thing a doll that Madeleine is holding with the back of its head towards us.

I think it must be a doll because if it were a twin it would be suffocating! Also they would have sat it on a knee to face the camera I imagine.

e.t.a. if you zoom in it appears to be a doll.

Yes I'm certain that's a doll.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Yes I'm certain that's a doll.

Shame, not the inseparable cuddlecat then.

That little girl has got very big hands !

Lioned wrote:That little girl has got very big hands !

Oh, don't start with the hands, you will be getting a lecture about fingers from the Edwards person. Or has he/she left now.

I'm sure he's still with us in one incarnation or another!

dazedandconfused wrote:

Lioned wrote:That little girl has got very big hands !

Oh, don't start with the hands, you will be getting a lecture about fingers from the Edwards person. Or has he/she left now.

I didn't count the fingers yet,i'll go have another look.

I am wondering why this picture would be photoshopped ?

Lioned wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:

Lioned wrote:That little girl has got very big hands !

Oh, don't start with the hands, you will be getting a lecture about fingers from the Edwards person. Or has he/she left now.

I didn't count the fingers yet,i'll go have another look.

I am wondering why this picture would be photoshopped ?

You and me both.

dazedandconfused wrote:I'd never have been able to pick Madeleine out even immediately after she went missing. She looks totally different in each picture - I'm assuming the little girl in pink is Madeleine? Teeth again not the same as other pictures of her if it is.

I agree...there's been so many different photos released that it's difficult to know what Madeleine looks like exactly. Perhaps that's the purpose? Cover all basis with blonde/mousy/brown haired children with blue/green/brownish eyes who may be slim but could be chubbier who may or may not have a coloboma.

Back to the 'last photo' and the last day:

I recall Kate McCann making a thing about the timestamp on the poolside photo being one hour out – that has stuck with me ever since. To mention it must mean she was aware that the time was wrong and felt a need to give an explanation when most of us wouldn't have batted an eyelid (until it was mentioned). Perhaps she anticipated awkward questions and was trying to head them off?

As someone has already pointed out, Kate says in her book that Madeleine is wearing a peach smock when it’s clearly pink. I'm not sure if this next part has already been discussed (if it has then ignore me please)...after dropping the children off at the crèche for the afternoon of May 3rd Kate says in her book:

Having arranged for Gerry to meet the children, I opted to go for a run along the beach, where I spotted the rest of our holiday group

Yet according to the crèche record it was Kate who signed Madeleine out. If Gerry collected the children why didn't he sign his name?



It doesn't seem to be a mistake because Kate then says:

“I had finished my run by five-thirty at the Tapas area, where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their tea with Gerry.”

Kate's signature's for the 'Time in' and 'Time out' doesn't seem to match.

Nothing seems to add up...at least not to me anyway.

ann_chovey wrote:

Lioned wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:

Lioned wrote:That little girl has got very big hands !

Oh, don't start with the hands, you will be getting a lecture about fingers from the Edwards person. Or has he/she left now.

I didn't count the fingers yet,i'll go have another look.

I am wondering why this picture would be photoshopped ?

You and me both.

Me too. It looks like an ordinary snapshot.

I see the Naylors child went in at 9.10am the same as Madeleine did. Wonder why the McCanns have never breathed a word about them seeing as Dr.Gerry signed their child in another time.

SashaM

It does seem that confusion is the aim. Thankfully I've never lost one of my two children but I'm sure I'd make darned certain that any photos I gave out, should the worst have happened, would be the closest I could possibly find to how they looked when last seen. Why didn't they just release the most current photos and not blur the issue with pictures dating back years?

SashaM wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:I'd never have been able to pick Madeleine out even immediately after she went missing. She looks totally different in each picture - I'm assuming the little girl in pink is Madeleine? Teeth again not the same as other pictures of her if it is.

I agree...there's been so many different photos released that it's difficult to know what Madeleine looks like exactly. Perhaps that's the purpose? Cover all basis with blonde/mousy/brown haired children with blue/green/brownish eyes who may be slim but could be chubbier who may or may not have a coloboma.

Back to the 'last photo' and the last day:

I recall Kate McCann making a thing about the timestamp on the poolside photo being one hour out – that has stuck with me ever since. To mention it must mean she was aware that the time was wrong and felt a need to give an explanation when most of us wouldn't have batted an eyelid (until it was mentioned). Perhaps she anticipated awkward questions and was trying to head them off?

As someone has already pointed out, Kate says in her book that Madeleine is wearing a peach smock when it’s clearly pink. I'm not sure if this next part has already been discussed (if it has then ignore me please)...after dropping the children off at the crèche for the afternoon of May 3rd Kate says in her book:

Having arranged for Gerry to meet the children, I opted to go for a run along the beach, where I spotted the rest of our holiday group

Yet according to the crèche record it was Kate who signed Madeleine out. If Gerry collected the children why didn't he sign his name?



It doesn't seem to be a mistake because Kate then says:

“I had finished my run by five-thirty at the Tapas area, where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their tea with Gerry.”

Kate's signature's for the 'Time in' and 'Time out' doesn't seem to match.

Nothing seems to add up...at least not to me anyway.

Very good point sashaM, that Kate said Gerry had taken the kids to tea yet she has signed. Is this to give Gerry an apparentl alibi, since the cctv footage at the tea area shows that the McCanns were NOT present on 3rd. If she hadn't said Gerry was there, there would be quite a long time of not knowing where Gerry actually was. Also by her stating that she was running, it gives her an apparent alibi.
I can't see much difference in the signatures, but anyway, her words don't match the signatures. So as they always make a point to ward off questions, where was Gerry ?

margaret wrote:I see the Naylors child went in at 9.10am the same as Madeleine did. Wonder why the McCanns have never breathed a word about them seeing as Dr.Gerry signed their child in another time.

So....if Kate McCann’s signature is forged and her account of the day is a lie, then where on earth was she on May 3rd? She said in her book:

where I spotted the rest of our holiday group. They saw me and shouted some words of encouragement. At least, I think that’s what they were shouting!

Yet I don’t recall anyone on the CCTV appearing as if they had noticed anyone they knew on the beach.
Naylors – I’ve not long since started looking into them.

dazedandconfused wrote:SashaM

It does seem that confusion is the aim. Thankfully I've never lost one of my two children but I'm sure I'd make darned certain that any photos I gave out, should the worst have happened, would be the closest I could possibly find to how they looked when last seen. Why didn't they just release the most current photos and not blur the issue with pictures dating back years?

I couldn't agree more.

want the truth wrote:Very good point sashaM, that Kate said Gerry had taken the kids to tea yet she has signed. Is this to give Gerry an apparentl alibi, since the cctv footage at the tea area shows that the McCanns were NOT present on 3rd. If she hadn't said Gerry was there, there would be quite a long time of not knowing where Gerry actually was. Also by her stating that she was running, it gives her an apparent alibi.
I can't see much difference in the signatures, but anyway, her words don't match the signatures. So as they always make a point to ward off questions, where was Gerry ?

Alibis for both herself and Gerry – yes, it's certainly looking like that.

tigger wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Yes I'm certain that's a doll.

Shame, not the inseparable cuddlecat then.

Oh good God, Cuddlecat. It seemed to be everywhere in the beginning. It wasn't until I saw it carefully placed to poke out of the bag that I realised it was being used as a prop.

The only person Cuddlecat never was photographed was with Madeleine!

Apart from one baby photo where there was something pink that might or might not have been it.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/CUDDLE_CAT.htm

After reading this:

averageperson wrote:I do photo edit some pics and this looks to me like 3 pictures made into one, and terribly.

and this:

jd wrote:You only need a background and can then photoshop anything you want onto it. Like TV news, you just need green screens and can project any image onto it to be in any location you desire to fool the public

elsewhere I just decided I had to post once more and come clean.

Yes, you were right. I'm really a double agent, sent here by a powerful conglomeration of businessmen and politicians connected to the McCanns who we are protecting as they know a huge secret about the government. Those of you that have spotted the photoshop that a nephew of our glorious leader knocked up for his homework assignment are too close to the truth and it was decided that the only way to counter this was to send in closet sleeper pros like me to infiltrate the anti forums and try and throw you all off the scent. If only we'd checked it before we released it we would have realised all the stupid elementary mistakes in there like missing arms (Amelie has three, naturally) and the shadows being all wrong (the sun in portugal at that time of day & year is, of course, low on the horizon and throws long shadows) and those cursed flowering shrubs in the background. What fools we were to think we could hoodwink the public by using an elementary green screen technique and posting the photo of the family from their trip to Greece in 2008, oops, I mean 2006 into a computer-generated background of a NASA-built photolaboratory mockup of the kiddie pool area of the Ocean Club in PDL. If you look carefully you can see the footpod of the fake Apollo moon lander in the background of the shot as well.

I apologise profusely for leading you all astray. You are too astute and pegged me for "one of them" early on meaning I had to try and keep up the deception by posing as someone that works with digital media for a living when I'm really a flower-arranging lumberjack on gardening leave for inadvertently felling the prime-minister's favourite monkeypuzzle tree. Well, I had to find something to fill my time with.

Anyhow, now you know the "last photo" is a bad photoshop as I've proved it (apparently), I shall put plan D4 into operation which is going to be concerned with refuting other mistakes that are "too close to the truth and therefore closet pros like me need to rush around making a noise about it as we're worried you're on the right lines to solving this mystery". Subjects such as Kate's signature being in the creche book on the 3rd WHEN SHE WAS OUT RUNNING and couldn't possibly have signed the sheet at the table where the creche workers may have taken it to make the changeover easier for the parents and all the other photos being bad photoshops too as Madeleine, being nearly 4 years old (and in a little known Scottish byelaw therefore being of legal age to demand what she wore and when) would obviously have been wearing her new gap outfit on the day(s) in question.

We would have got away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling kids.
*pulls off fake clarence mitchell mask to reveal true identity as "John Blacksmith"*

C.Edwards wrote:After reading this:

averageperson wrote:I do photo edit some pics and this looks to me like 3 pictures made into one, and terribly.

and this:

jd wrote:You only need a background and can then photoshop anything you want onto it. Like TV news, you just need green screens and can project any image onto it to be in any location you desire to fool the public

elsewhere I just decided I had to post once more and come clean.

Yes, you were right. I'm really a double agent, sent here by a powerful conglomeration of businessmen and politicians connected to the McCanns who we are protecting as they know a huge secret about the government. Those of you that have spotted the photoshop that a nephew of our glorious leader knocked up for his homework assignment are too close to the truth and it was decided that the only way to counter this was to send in closet sleeper pros like me to infiltrate the anti forums and try and throw you all off the scent. If only we'd checked it before we released it we would have realised all the stupid elementary mistakes in there like missing arms (Amelie has three, naturally) and the shadows being all wrong (the sun in portugal at that time of day & year is, of course, low on the horizon and throws long shadows) and those cursed flowering shrubs in the background. What fools we were to think we could hoodwink the public by using an elementary green screen technique and posting the photo of the family from their trip to Greece in 2008, oops, I mean 2006 into a computer-generated background of a NASA-built photolaboratory mockup of the kiddie pool area of the Ocean Club in PDL. If you look carefully you can see the footpod of the fake Apollo moon lander in the background of the shot as well.

I apologise profusely for leading you all astray. You are too astute and pegged me for "one of them" early on meaning I had to try and keep up the deception by posing as someone that works with digital media for a living when I'm really a flower-arranging lumberjack on gardening leave for inadvertently felling the prime-minister's favourite monkeypuzzle tree. Well, I had to find something to fill my time with.

Anyhow, now you know the "last photo" is a bad photoshop as I've proved it (apparently), I shall put plan D4 into operation which is going to be concerned with refuting other mistakes that are "too close to the truth and therefore closet pros like me need to rush around making a noise about it as we're worried you're on the right lines to solving this mystery". Subjects such as Kate's signature being in the creche book on the 3rd WHEN SHE WAS OUT RUNNING and couldn't possibly have signed the sheet at the table where the creche workers may have taken it to make the changeover easier for the parents and all the other photos being bad photoshops too as Madeleine, being nearly 4 years old (and in a little known Scottish byelaw therefore being of legal age to demand what she wore and when) would obviously have been wearing her new gap outfit on the day(s) in question.

We would have got away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling kids.
*pulls off fake clarence mitchell mask to reveal true identity as "John Blacksmith"*

You've probably just proven your own point, or was it ours. Either way, I don't think I'll bother to read any more of your posts, except of course, that the areas which bring out the greatest amount of frothing and fuming are the ones which serious posters can thus identify as being 'really sensitive issues'. This enables serious posters to concentrate their focus on what might be wished to be concealed. A sort of home goal for the 'defenders' possibly and very useful tool for the serious minded investigators, seeking justice for a little girl who went away on holiday and didn't return. I'm glad I know where to find your posts C. Edwards now that you are no longer welcome to post on the JH site.

@ C. Edwards Very funny post, made me laugh out loud... literally! I do hope you don't get banned.

@C.Edwards: Excellent stuff