Re: The Last Photo (again)

C.Edwards Thu 28 Feb - 14:00

Claudia79 wrote:C.Edwards, I can perfectly deal with your boring arrogant posts where you lecture everybody and try to amaze us all with your incomparable expertise. I sense they are important to your self esteem so I just skim through them as quickly as possible insuring simply that you are not disrespecting anyone. Being rude and obnoxious to long time respected posters of this forum is, however, intolerable. And the next time you do it, you will be out of here without further explanation. You registered here a long time ago and barely posted. You did, however, find this forum useful to whine when you got kicked out from elsewhere and from then on you seem to think that you can treat people in a disrespectful patronising way. You can't. This forum is not your stage.

You find my posts boring and arrogant. Others apparently don't. I have been no ruder to anyone on here than they have to me and it's only because you perceive me as an interloper of some sort that you keep threatening me with banning. I have no self esteem issues whatsoever, I'm happy to not post. Sorry I bored you and enjoy your circle of agreement.

**kitti** Thu 28 Feb - 14:02

Well I will say it again, Madeleine wasn't their on the 3rd may so that picture has been photoshopped to make it look like she was at the pool at that time.

Thursday was 'abduction' day, as one off the tapas lot said.....'things were done differently that day'.......they sure were, the lot off them kept well away from the Mccanns.

**kitti** Thu 28 Feb - 14:03

CLOSE THE DOOR........please...

SashaM Thu 28 Feb - 14:16

jeanmonroe wrote:Step 4: Almost done with clone brush now

All of Amelie and Gerry gone from picture now. Trouble is the wall on the left is too artificial. The cloning process clearly shows in the repeating patterns in the stone. Also the grass line up at the top where it's in front of the tree is a bit samey at the extreme left. Paving stone pattern to the left is also a bit poor.

That's a really impressive result! The Last Photo (again) - Page 6 944533

**Claudia79** Thu 28 Feb - 14:44

C.Edwards wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:C.Edwards, I can perfectly deal with your boring arrogant posts where you lecture everybody and try to amaze us all with your incomparable expertise. I sense they are important to your self esteem so I just skim through them as quickly as possible insuring simply that you are not disrespecting anyone. Being rude and obnoxious to long time respected posters of this forum is, however, intolerable. And the next time you do it, you will be out of here without further explanation. You registered here a long time ago and barely posted. You did, however, find this forum useful to whine when you got kicked out from elsewhere and from then on you seem to think that you can treat people in a disrespectful patronising way. You can't. This forum is not your stage.

You find my posts boring and arrogant. Others apparently don't. I have been no ruder to anyone on here than they have to me and it's only because you perceive me as an interloper of some sort that you keep threatening me with banning. I have no self esteem issues whatsoever, I'm happy to not post. Sorry I bored you and enjoy your circle of agreement.

I'm not threatening. I'm informing you. For the last time.

tigger Thu 28 Feb - 14:54

tigger wrote:
matthew wrote:wouldn't the glass(cant see it but its usual) covering the photo & the camera angle of the video being taken, distort the picture we are seeing?

But even then, why have a black and white one when a perfectly good coloured crop (which they used on various occasions) is available?

Slightly OT but from the book:

Some images are etched for all time on my brain. Madeleine that lunchtime is one of them. She was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon – a small extravagance, perhaps, but I’d pictured how lovely she would look in them and I’d been right. She was striding ahead of Fiona and me, swinging her bare arms to and fro. The weather was a little on the cool side and I remember thinking I should have brought a cardigan for her, although she seemed oblivious of the temperature, just happy and carefree. I was following her with my eyes, admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same.unquote
Why should Kate be thinking 'the same' as the putative paedophile? That's implied in the wording.
However lovely a toddler looks, 'admire' isn't the verb I'd use.
Most of all, some 'images' - it seems she is thinking of a photograph again. But she gets the colour wrong. So was she thinking of the black and white photograph, taken some considerable time before 3/5? The weather looks anything but on 'the cool side.'

Dragged the book quote here again for clarity.

Thanks Shasham! You've solved the puzzle. The other photographs also look very 'squat'.
I'm still sticking with the easily detected pasting in of Amelie, the too-young Maddie and the hot weather- and the problem for me - thank you C.E. for the high res. pics.- with Maddie's neck. I'm going to have to get my little niece to sit like that to make sure - there's a very clear demarcation line which cannot be a big 'double chin' .
Add to that the three weeks it took to get the 'last photograph' out, it not being on the camera Kate said she used to take it - the fact that Kate doesn't even get it right in her book and the weather conditions. It may be a lot of things but a record of 2.39 on the 3rd of May 2007 it isn't.

tigger Thu 28 Feb - 14:59

[quote="Claudia79"]

C.Edwards wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:C.Edwards, I can perfectly deal with your boring arrogant posts where you lecture everybody and try to amaze us all with your incomparable expertise. I sense they are important to your self esteem so I just skim through them as quickly as possible insuring simply that you are not disrespecting anyone. Being rude and obnoxious to long time respected posters of this forum is, however, intolerable. And the next time you do it, you will be out of here without further explanation. You registered here a long time ago and barely posted. You did, however, find this forum useful to whine when you got kicked out from elsewhere and from then on you seem to think that you can treat people in a disrespectful patronising way. You can't. This forum is not your stage.

You find my posts boring and arrogant. Others apparently don't. I have been no ruder to anyone on here than they have to me and it's only because you perceive me as an interloper of some sort that you keep threatening me with banning. I have no self esteem issues whatsoever, I'm happy to not post. Sorry I bored you and enjoy your circle of agreement.

Guest Thu 28 Feb - 15:31

dazedandconfused wrote:I for one hope this Edwards person doesn't get banned just yet. I find all this photoshopping banter fascinating. If I was Iris and had been verbally attacked, then I might think differently, but for now, I'm enjoying looking at the photoshopped pictures, which "prove" nothing's been photoshoppe. All a bit too clever for me, obviously.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest, DAC. I am secure and happy in my own skin.

Guest Thu 28 Feb - 15:33

@ tigger. That's the part that rings the big red alarm bell for me. Why on earth did it take 3 weeks to produce?

I could produce the latest picture of my three in the thirty seconds it takes to open the wee door of the camera and remove the datacard.

want the truth Thu 28 Feb - 16:04

C.Edwards wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:I know that if i put a big stick and a little stick a few feet apart, in my lawn, both upright, as the sun shines down on them they BOTH cast the same shadow 'angle' on the lawn.

But you would have me believe that two vertical objects cast different shadows when the sun is shining on them from the same orientation.

Oh well, back to school for me then!

No. You're misinterpreting the picture. Just look at the shadow cast on the wall above the weeds. Where does that come from? Virtually directly overhead. look at the shadow underneath the recliner on the left. Starts almost immediately at the plane of the end of the recliner meaning the sun is very high in the sky. Look at the shadow under the rim of the pool - there is a lip of an inch or two protruding out. Gerry is sitting with his legs well clear of that lip.

You refer to shadows on the wall from the weeds - there's your problem, there aren't any. The weed shadows are invisible at the base of the weeds themselves. If the photo was bigger, you would see a small shadow around Madeleine where she was sitting on the edge of the pool. Likewise you would see shadows on the pool wall under Gerry from his thighs, with the shadows from his knees to his feet being virtually underneath his feet on the bottom of the pool.

Most of the shadow misinterpretation is being done because of the shadow extending under the recliner making it look like the sun is off at an angle to the top left. It's not. You can tell this by the point at which the shadow starts. To me, it's elementary (light) ray tracing and all is perfectly normal and valid. There is nothing wrong with this picture.

A BIG HOME GOAL C.EDWARDS. TIME YOU WENT BACK TO SCHOOL. The failure to OBSERVE the bigger picture. Just like Gerry would
have us believe that his carefully photo-shopped picture would signify
a date of 3rd May 2007, when the bougainvillea in full bloom in the background could not have been in
full bloom, due to the cold and wet weather conditions preceding,
C.Edwards now STATES that there would be NO SHADOW behind Maddie, because the shadow (hence SUN) comes from "VIRTUALLY DIRECTLY OVERHEAD".
BRILLIANT. It's the 3rd May 2007 (early spring time) it's not on the equator, and yet the sun/shadow is coming from virtually overhead.
Now how in the blazes can that phenomenon happen.
IT'S A FAKE, isn't it C.EDWARDS. Where is Maddie's shadow, as you would see in such sunshine on 3rd May 2007.

**Panda** Thu 28 Feb - 16:15

Claudia79 wrote:C.Edwards, I can perfectly deal with your boring arrogant posts where you lecture everybody and try to amaze us all with your incomparable expertise. I sense they are important to your self esteem so I just skim through them as quickly as possible insuring simply that you are not disrespecting anyone. Being rude and obnoxious to long time respected posters of this forum is, however, intolerable. And the next time you do it, you will be out of here without further explanation. You registered here a long time ago and barely posted. You did, however, find this forum useful to whine when you got kicked out from elsewhere and from then on you seem to think that you can treat people in a disrespectful patronising way. You can't. This forum is not your stage.

I havn.t posted on Missing Madeleine for several days because I am bored with the repetition of topics and just read the last couple of pages to see if the subject had any new evidence. I must say I am appalled that AnnaEsse could be so rude and you come in and back her up, You are both Moderators Claudia and your job is to keep order on the forum, not participate, with Iris, in attacking c edwards with no valid reason. We have had our share of upsets and settled down to a Forum where although we may not agree with posters views, we respect them and c edwards has been singled out when as far as I could tell he was replying to posts , not trying to prove his expertise..
Don't bother to reply to this post because I won't be looking in again.

**ann_chovey** Thu 28 Feb - 16:38

Re the 'should the bouganvillea be in bloom or not' scenario, they could have been bought in as greenhouse grown plants to 'prettify' the pool area. Many campsites do spruce up their most popular areas this way as harsh winters and summer droughts cause casualties.

Guest Thu 28 Feb - 16:47

Panda wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:C.Edwards, I can perfectly deal with your boring arrogant posts where you lecture everybody and try to amaze us all with your incomparable expertise. I sense they are important to your self esteem so I just skim through them as quickly as possible insuring simply that you are not disrespecting anyone. Being rude and obnoxious to long time respected posters of this forum is, however, intolerable. And the next time you do it, you will be out of here without further explanation. You registered here a long time ago and barely posted. You did, however, find this forum useful to whine when you got kicked out from elsewhere and from then on you seem to think that you can treat people in a disrespectful patronising way. You can't. This forum is not your stage.
I havn.t posted on Missing Madeleine for several days because I am bored with the repetition of topics and just read the last couple of pages to see if the subject had any new evidence. I must say I am appalled that AnnaEsse could be so rude and you come in and back her up, You are both Moderators Claudia and your job is to keep order on the forum, not participate, with Iris, in attacking c edwards with no valid reason. We have had our share of upsets and settled down to a Forum where although we may not agree with posters views, we respect them and c edwards has been singled out when as far as I could tell he was replying to posts , not trying to prove his expertise..
Don't bother to reply to this post because I won't be looking in again.

Did you miss the part where he told me that I clearly had the intelligence of a boot?

**Claudia79** Thu 28 Feb - 17:25

Panda wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:C.Edwards, I can perfectly deal with your boring arrogant posts where you lecture everybody and try to amaze us all with your incomparable expertise. I sense they are important to your self esteem so I just skim through them as quickly as possible insuring simply that you are not disrespecting anyone. Being rude and obnoxious to long time respected posters of this forum is, however, intolerable. And the next time you do it, you will be out of here without further explanation. You registered here a long time ago and barely posted. You did, however, find this forum useful to whine when you got kicked out from elsewhere and from then on you seem to think that you can treat people in a disrespectful patronising way. You can't. This forum is not your stage.
I havn.t posted on Missing Madeleine for several days because I am bored with the repetition of topics and just read the last couple of pages to see if the subject had any new evidence. I must say I am appalled that AnnaEsse could be so rude and you come in and back her up, You are both Moderators Claudia and your job is to keep order on the forum, not participate, with Iris, in attacking c edwards with no valid reason. We have had our share of upsets and settled down to a Forum where although we may not agree with posters views, we respect them and c edwards has been singled out when as far as I could tell he was replying to posts , not trying to prove his expertise..
Don't bother to reply to this post because I won't be looking in again.

You do not tell me what I will or will not reply to. If you're bored, don't log in. If you think you are too good for MM, start your own forum. Anna is a big girl and can defend herself so she certainly doesn't need me to back her up. I just happen to agree with her. I do not like to see this forum used as a means to serve people's agendas and as far as I can, I will prevent it.
But it's a good thing that you expressed your opinion because now I know how I should react if someone insulted you. Simply ignore it.

**cass** Thu 28 Feb - 17:51

oh eck -- come on we have been here years together -- dont let a newbee ? spoil it all with being rude -- anyway i agree with litti -- was well sorted before the 3rd -- i think the mcanns were shunned on the 3rd wasnt they not invited to stuff going off that day

Guest Thu 28 Feb - 18:01

cass wrote:oh eck -- come on we have been here years together -- dont let a newbee ? spoil it all with being rude -- anyway i agree with litti -- was well sorted before the 3rd -- i think the mcanns were shunned on the 3rd wasnt they not invited to stuff going off that day

That's right, I think they told Madeleine that the other kids were all going off on a boat trip or something, and she wasn't to get upset because she wasn't invited. I forget the exact details but that was the gist of it.

**AnnaEsse** Thu 28 Feb - 18:06

Iris wrote:
cass wrote:oh eck -- come on we have been here years together -- dont let a newbee ? spoil it all with being rude -- anyway i agree with litti -- was well sorted before the 3rd -- i think the mcanns were shunned on the 3rd wasnt they not invited to stuff going off that day

That's right, I think they told Madeleine that the other kids were all going off on a boat trip or something, and she wasn't to get upset because she wasn't invited. I forget the exact details but that was the gist of it.

I thought that was an awful thing to do. Why make sure Madeleine shared Kate's own feelings of being left out?

**ann_chovey** Thu 28 Feb - 18:10

Iris wrote:
cass wrote:oh eck -- come on we have been here years together -- dont let a newbee ? spoil it all with being rude -- anyway i agree with litti -- was well sorted before the 3rd -- i think the mcanns were shunned on the 3rd wasnt they not invited to stuff going off that day

That's right, I think they told Madeleine that the other kids were all going off on a boat trip or something, and she wasn't to get upset because she wasn't invited. I forget the exact details but that was the gist of it.

KM. statement 6th Sept. 2007

The lesson ended an hour afterwards, close to 4:30PM. Gerry continued playing tennis with a guest called Jxxxxn who belonged to his tennis group, while she went for a jog along the beach, for around half an hour. She saw the others of the group, children and grownups; she was disappointed as nobody had told her they were going to the beach and Madeleine would have loved to have gone with them. She cannot confirm whether she went to the apartment between the tennis game and the jog.

When she finished jogging, around 5:20/5:30PM she went to the Tapas area. Gerry was there, as well as the twins and Madeleine who were eating at separate tables. Madeleine had been taken to the Tapas by the nannies. Her parents were required to sign the register when the meal was over. During the meal Kate asked Madeleine if she was sad because the other children in the group had gone to the beach without her: she replied that she wasn’t, but was rather tired. She asked Kate to carry her back to the apartment. Kate agreed, and Gerry led the twins back to the apartment. Tiredness was due to the intense daily activities, not to any sickness.
They arrived at the apartment around 5:40PM, earlier than usual, because Madeleine was tired, their other friends were at the beach and Gerry had an all-male tennis game at 6:00PM.

Guest Thu 28 Feb - 18:10

This is in danger of going OT, but following on from that - it sort of indicates that the whole group weren't as "into each other" as we have been told. Else why would some members sneak off on an outing without telling or inviting the others? Was one party trying to get away from the other?

ETA Thanks Ann Chovey, that's the incident I was thinking about.

jd16 Thu 28 Feb - 18:25

Where has Maddie gone?
The Last Photo (again) - Page 6 B

Over here!
The Last Photo (again) - Page 6 C

jd16 Thu 28 Feb - 18:27

That single photo of Maddie was also used in the Church in PDL

The Last Photo (again) - Page 6 Alterl

And also they used it in a powerpoint presentation...I think it was in Brussels for Amber Alert or something (can't quite remember exactly the presentation)

jd16 Thu 28 Feb - 18:30

Note also, this day May 3rd Maddie (according to cat baker) went sailing in the morning and in the afternoon went somewhere else...Which means 3 complete changes of clothing this day...morning activities, change for lunch in this photo, then change again after lunch for the afternoon activities...Don't think so somehow all this changing in one single day

kate mccann in her bewk refers to what Maddie is wearing as peach....To me Maddies dress is pink not peach. Its Amelie that is wearing a colour resembling peach

want the truth Thu 28 Feb - 18:31

Iris wrote:This is in danger of going OT, but following on from that - it sort of indicates that the whole group weren't as "into each other" as we have been told. Else why would some members sneak off on an outing without telling or inviting the others? Was one party trying to get away from the other?

ETA Thanks Ann Chovey, that's the incident I was thinking about.

or perhaps Madeleine wasn't there that day and couldn't accompany them to the beach, leaving Kate free to jog or do something else because she also was separate from the friends. It all looks 'oh poor McCanns' being left out, but I don't recall the CCTV footage at the tea time showing McCanns, to be present. Also the other men, all identified on the photos, and all supposed to be playing tennis at 6, were if I remember correctly still pfaffing around the high tea place after 6 p.m. If I am wrong please correct me.

jd16 Thu 28 Feb - 19:06

Look at Maddies hair...Remember she had just returned from sailing out at sea all morning, apparently

**margaret** Thu 28 Feb - 19:39

Panda wrote:

Don't bother to reply to this post because I won't be looking in again.

Aah panda don't do that. The Last Photo (again) - Page 6 389741

Sponsored content