Photoshopping

I see there is an article in the Daily Mail today about a computer program that can show what parts of a photo have been photoshopped.

I can imagine that certain people might get a bit worried by that.

jassi wrote:I see there is an article in the Daily Mail today about a computer program that can show what parts of a photo have been photoshopped.

I can imagine that certain people might get a bit worried by that.

There could be some anxiety aroused by this in some households.

the mind boggles

Wouild be interesting to know if 'the last photo' or any others had been tampered with.
Doubt it will bother the mccanns much as they will come up with some kind of explanation as to why it was necessary etc etc.

I really hope that Scotland Yard avails itself of this program to check out all the suspect photos, not just the infamous "last one at the poolside" but all those supposedly taken in PDL, the few from Donegal a month earlier and the girl in the football shirt whom I don't think is Madeleine. Having said that, experts have long been able to tell when images are bogus.

I'm old enough to remember the fake photos of President Kennedy's alleged killer holding the murder weapon. Some things don't change do they?

From what I read, the program not only shows that the photo has been altered, but where the alterations occur, and can also reverse them with a fair degree of accuracy.

jassi wrote:From what I read, the program not only shows that the photo has been altered, but where the alterations occur, and can also reverse them with a fair degree of accuracy.

That is very interesting, jassi, thank you. I was just thinking that if they can work out how a person's body has been changed, then they should also be able to work out how, for example, a stone wall behind figures in a photo has been changed.

jassi wrote:From what I read, the program not only shows that the photo has been altered, but where the alterations occur, and can also reverse them with a fair degree of accuracy.

Oh dear, oh dear!!!!

Lioned wrote:Wouild be interesting to know if 'the last photo' or any others had been tampered with.
Doubt it will bother the mccanns much as they will come up with some kind of explanation as to why it was necessary etc etc.

A few stray specks of tomato sauce from the Sardines contaminating them, probably.

Technology is amazing and one never knows how it could come back to bite us in the future.

As far as the last picture goes...I find it very 'telling' that it is not included in the police files available to the public.

We know there are many files that exist but are not included (Carolyn Carpenter early statement is referred to in the files but not available to view so I have very little doubt that the police have all the information they need, the 'last picture' included.

OJ prosecuters had all the evidence they needed to convict OJ but a mistake created a doubt and he was not guilty (which is not 'innocent' as we know). ("If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit')

For curiosity sake I would love to see the result of the last picture, but I have little doubt that there is already overwhelming 'evidence' about what happened, but until someone speaks, or, Madeleine's body is found they won't take a chance....and I would not blame them!

I'm not sure if the Donegal photos of April 2007 have ever been discussed here. I'm sorry I can't post them direct but here's a link.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/family.jpg

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Irland4647701.jpg

I've read a lot of comments elsewhere that there's a lot of strange things about them too. It will be interesting if anyone who hasn't seen them before comes up with the same points.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I'm not sure if the Donegal photos of April 2007 have ever been discussed here. I'm sorry I can't post them direct but here's a link.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/family.jpg

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Irland4647701.jpg

I've read a lot of comments elsewhere that there's a lot of strange things about them too. It will be interesting if anyone who hasn't seen them before comes up with the same points.

There was a discussion regarding Madeleine's hand which, when a good copy was magnified, showed to be normal.

Lioned wrote:Wouild be interesting to know if 'the last photo' or any others had been tampered with.
Doubt it will bother the mccanns much as they will come up with some kind of explanation as to why it was necessary etc etc.

Hmm, why it was necessary to add an arm holding an ice-cream cone to a photograph of Maddie already sucking an ice lolly in a flirtatious way. Why so soon after her abduction her face was pasted onto a toddler with an Everton T shirt and especially Maddie's face pasted onto a smaller child in the two Donegal photos. (took me ages to work it out, the one on the rocks shows her body the same size as Sean's, I kept wondering why the twins were so gigantic in Ireland, just three weeks before they apparently shrunk in PdL - it wasn't the twins who were too big, it was Maddie who was too small, her face is just pasted on in both photos.)

tigger wrote:
Hmm, why it was necessary to add an arm holding an ice-cream cone to a photograph of Maddie already sucking an ice lolly in a flirtatious way. Why so soon after her abduction her face was pasted onto a toddler with an Everton T shirt and especially Maddie's face pasted onto a smaller child in the two Donegal photos. (took me ages to work it out, the one on the rocks shows her body the same size as Sean's, I kept wondering why the twins were so gigantic in Ireland, just three weeks before they apparently shrunk in PdL - it wasn't the twins who were too big, it was Maddie who was too small, her face is just pasted on in both photos.)

I had to go and google this, are you saying the photo of all these sitting on this little wall...



and this one are supposed to be just weeks apart?



No way!! Look how grown up Sean is in the second one.

BTW, l don't agree with you thinking Maddies head has been posted on there.... whose was taken out? She's not swapped with Amelie, look at the legs, Amelie holds hers in a babyish way Maddie's sitting more grown up. Maddie was tiny for her age but l don't think there's any photoshopping there.

Hi Margaret, the one with the children on a wall was supposedly taken in early April 2007 and the other one, if I remember rightly in September 2007, certainly later than May. I'm not at all sure that it's Sean in both photos though I think the little girl in both is Amelie.

It is indeed hard to reconcile the difference in their appearances. I wish that I grew younger looking with age!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Hi Margaret, the one with the children on a wall was supposedly taken in early April 2007 and the other one, if I remember rightly in September 2007, certainly later than May. I'm not at all sure that it's Sean in both photos though I think the little girl in both is Amelie.

It is indeed hard to reconcile the difference in their appearances. I wish that I grew younger looking with age!

I hate to be wrong but it's better than stupid....I think Margaret is right on the ice cream photo. Still, could be any suitable girl - nothing to prove that was Maddie. The ice-cream cone is held very strangely and there is a weird area near her left arm in high magnification. Don't think head is pasted there, but perhaps the ice-cream? Looks as if she is holding something between her two little fingers and ice cream is in the wrong position, the ice should be going up her nose.
The photo of the happy parent with the 'twins' - boy absolutely isn't Sean. Red hair, older. Not even sure about the girl, although Amelie is petite, much smaller than Sean.
The photo on the rocks is, however, definitely shopped and that does have Maddie's head pasted on. I measured the length of her lower leg and that of Sean and they seemed to be pretty much the same.
One of the give aways with these paste jobs is that you often see all others in the photograph looking at the camera but not the pasted head.

It's just that I like absolutely nothing about the Irish trip and the fact that these two photos were in the Belfast Times only days after she disappeared, together with a pretty story about how Irish they all were. April 2007 was their first visit, according to the Bewk.

It looks to me as if the ice cream has been added to the image of Madeleine, assuming that's who she is. She is holding the cone in a strange way. It's quite possible to hold something with the fingers at the front and the thumbs at the back for support, but when the photo is enlarged to 400% it doesn't seem as if her fingers are touching the cone at all.

I share Tigger's disbelief in the whole Donegal visit story.

Further to my last posting. I'm not sure what Tigger means by the boy in the photo with the parents not being Sean. Here's a link to another photo from May 2007 in which I don't think that there's any doubt that these are the same children as in the booth. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/20-05-07-4.jpg

It's the ones in Donegal which are the problem! To add to the confusion, look at this photo of the cousins taken a year later. They also look younger than before!

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/z/z%20(8).jpg

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Further to my last posting. I'm not sure what Tigger means by the boy in the photo with the parents not being Sean. Here's a link to another photo from May 2007 in which I don't think that there's any doubt that these are the same children as in the booth. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/20-05-07-4.jpg

It's the ones in Donegal which are the problem! To add to the confusion, look at this photo of the cousins taken a year later. They also look younger than before!

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/z/z%20(8).jpg

Do you think they have pictures in the attic????!!!!!

I'm not sure I understand what you mean Keela. Is it anything to do with the novel (and subsequent films) The Picture of Dorian Gray? In that case it was the picture that aged while the actual person didn't.

I'd be happy with that scenario for myself!

The only other known photo from Donegal is this blurred one.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/DonegalMccann.jpg

Interestingly there is a clear version of Madeleine alone.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/05-08-07-Mail-Transcript_files/MADDIE.jpg

If you enlarge the first one, what the heck is that on Madeleine's left hand? It isn't on the second one!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Further to my last posting. I'm not sure what Tigger means by the boy in the photo with the parents not being Sean. Here's a link to another photo from May 2007 in which I don't think that there's any doubt that these are the same children as in the booth. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/20-05-07-4.jpg

It's the ones in Donegal which are the problem! To add to the confusion, look at this photo of the cousins taken a year later. They also look younger than before!

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/z/z%20(8).jpg

Hi, I meant the one where they're in a Punch and Judy sort of toy theatre. Imo it's not Sean. I really think they've been throwing different children in our faces from the start. There are quite a few photos which aren't Madeleine at all - on Pamalan I think you can see the one with the sunglasses on her head, the one with the frizzed hair (quite a different smile) one of the two Everton photos, the very blond one. I don't think any of them are her.
Maddie is nearly always insecure looking, rarely happy or truly smiling as in the poolside photo (where she looks not more than just three). She is 'advertised' as a blond girl, yet her hair is light brown in quite a few photographs.

The single photo you mentioned looks very cropped, may have been taken same time as the one with all four children, I think Maddie might have a 'claw' glove on perhaps.
Imo the two Donegal photos are both shopped, the ice cream to hide her face? May have been a fairly lookalike child. But the one on the rocks shows a lot of discrepancies on her right side in particular. Her wrist is all wrong. If you blow it up a lot it is clear the face has been pasted into someone else's hair. But a shadow under her left side shows the top part of her ear, where it should show all of it.

Bit off subject..But, sure i remember reading how Amelie and Madeleine shared shoes in pdl? On the wall photo their feet are very very different sizes! I dont understand how they could of shared shoes?

Its all very intriguing but where's it going.Is this 'photoshopping business about proving Maddie did not exist ? I can understand the 'last photo' poolside business although even that is a little spurious as they could easily just alter the time on the camera to suit Maddies earlier death,but all these other photo's why would they need to mess with those ?

My thoughts exactly Lioned,imo it seems a bit far fetched-why on earth would they use different Seans???