Re: The Last Photo (again)

**dazedandconfused** Mon 4 Mar - 12:47

@C.Edwards Amused me too.

**pennylane** Mon 4 Mar - 13:04

C Edwards, fwiw I agree with you re the endless photo shopping allegations, as do many others here. Those that believe all those photos have been 'shopped,' and arms and heads have been pasted on or left off, etc, just happen to be more vociferous.. whilst the rest of us have developed what is known as 'battle fatigue.' The Last Photo (again) - Page 9 294124

Just saying you're not a lone voice on this subject.

Guest Mon 4 Mar - 13:11

No, not by any means.

I found the C.Edwards' input most informative and credible.

tigger Mon 4 Mar - 14:11

want the truth wrote:

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.

unquote

There are other incarnations/sleepers for just such an emergency, fear not! There's a good reason for some people to register and not post for years.

In short imo there are two possibilities to explain the too young Maddie by the pool, it was taken many months earlier or her head was pasted on.
Supporting this last theory is the curious straight line under her chin and the type of double chin only found in older people.
With sufficient magnification it is clear that Amelie (who incidentally was a petite girl, much smaller than Maddie and here is nearly the same size)
is missing most of her upper right arm, the left over part is a thin transparent strip under which the creases in Gerry's dark shorts continue.
I'm not too interested in wether the flowers should be in bloom or not.

So Maddie and Amelie are nearly the same size there, Maddie's pose is very uncomfortable and Amelie misses half an arm.
The photograph was not on the camera on which it was said to be taken. It appeared three weeks later after Gerry came back from the UK.

The Donegal head only gives Maddie half a neck : the neckline starts under her right mouth corner. Just an example.

The Last Photo (again) - Page 9 Screen14

want the truth Mon 4 Mar - 14:27

tigger wrote:want the truth wrote:

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.

unquote

There are other incarnations/sleepers for just such an emergency, fear not! There's a good reason for some people to register and not post for years.

In short imo there are two possibilities to explain the too young Maddie by the pool, it was taken many months earlier or her head was pasted on.
Supporting this last theory is the curious straight line under her chin and the type of double chin only found in older people.
With sufficient magnification it is clear that Amelie (who incidentally was a petite girl, much smaller than Maddie and here is nearly the same size)
is missing most of her upper right arm, the left over part is a thin transparent strip under which the creases in Gerry's dark shorts continue.
I'm not too interested in wether the flowers should be in bloom or not.

So Maddie and Amelie are nearly the same size there, Maddie's pose is very uncomfortable and Amelie misses half an arm.
The photograph was not on the camera on which it was said to be taken. It appeared three weeks later after Gerry came back from the UK.

The Donegal head only gives Maddie half a neck : the neckline starts under her right mouth corner. Just an example.

good Lord, I hadn't seen that before. Just goes to show how much we take for granted without questioning. The Last Photo (again) - Page 9 307691

**Lioned** Mon 4 Mar - 16:10

@ c edwards. Great effort,well done.

Still think gerry has 6 fingers in the other photo.

Guest Mon 4 Mar - 16:17

C.Edwards - you're still welcome as far as I'm concerned with that sense of humour!

Lioned - what photo? I shall then be off to count fingers!

**pennylane** Mon 4 Mar - 16:55

Lioned wrote:@ c edwards. Great effort,well done.

Still think gerry has 6 fingers in the other photo.

His foot looks oddly misshapen too...

maybe cos it's been in his mouth so much! The Last Photo (again) - Page 9 110921

**Lioned** Mon 4 Mar - 17:00

pennylane wrote:
Lioned wrote:@ c edwards. Great effort,well done.

Still think gerry has 6 fingers in the other photo.

His foot looks oddly misshapen too...

maybe cos it's been in his mouth so much!

I also think one of his arms looks like it is stitched on back to front!

**pennylane** Mon 4 Mar - 17:05

Lioned wrote:
pennylane wrote:
Lioned wrote:@ c edwards. Great effort,well done.

Still think gerry has 6 fingers in the other photo.

His foot looks oddly misshapen too...

maybe cos it's been in his mouth so much!

I also think one of his arms looks like it is stitched on back to front!

I thought it was just my eyes playing tricks on me The Last Photo (again) - Page 9 847843

And what the heck is going on with his nose......

ooops that's not photoshopping! The Last Photo (again) - Page 9 2631910524

**Claudia79** Mon 4 Mar - 20:42

I'm convinced there's nothing wrong with the photos that is related to what happened to Madeleine. Any possible changes are, in my opinion, due to marketing reasons, i.e. money. I'm also convinced that C. Edwards is not here to debate or discuss this case. These are my opinions and I'm as entitled to them as anyone else.

Loopdaloop Mon 4 Mar - 23:27

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"*

After reading the above I realised that people here are definitly onto something re what on earth Kate was doing on may 3rd and thr conflicting accounts as well as the signature on the creche record.

Please can someone jot out the theory re that and send it off to scotland yard ia the operation grange email. id do it but am relying on internet via my mobile at the moment!

tigger Tue 5 Mar - 9:25

Claudia79 wrote:I'm convinced there's nothing wrong with the photos that is related to what happened to Madeleine. Any possible changes are, in my opinion, due to marketing reasons, i.e. money. I'm also convinced that C. Edwards is not here to debate or discuss this case. These are my opinions and I'm as entitled to them as anyone else.

I agree that these photographs were created for marketing reasons. There are on the whole very few real family snaps even with these debated ones included. The explanation might be that she wasn't so much part of the family as was advertised.

There was no other reason to doctor the photos other than to reinforce the 'story' - the happy family, the fairy princess beautiful little girl etc.

However, the release dates of these photographs give me some problems. Imo definitely pre-3/5/07. No laptops in PdL belonging to T9, no internet cafe with Adobe photoshop.
eta: we know more or less what the McCanns were doing hour by hour on the 4th, 5th, 6th of May. There was no time surely to start 'adjusting photographs?' But by the 7th the Donegal photos had to be available for the editor to publish the following day, the tennis photo went viral on the 7th of May via email.
The Everton photo too was out quite early.
Who were the people contacted early on by Gerry? Beckham - the tennis photo? Did he contact Murray? The 'last photograph' was first shown on the 24th may.

I also agree about mr. Edwards. Woken up like a sleeping prince/ss after 2 yrs on the forum. Amusing? No.

Woody Tue 5 Mar - 15:33

I too have been registered on this site for a couple of years, rarely post but read the comments every day. I am appalled at the comments made to C Edwards. He/she put forward some thought provoking ideas and I thought demonstrated them thoroughly. I may not agree with what he was saying but I thought this forum more accepting than most "Maddie" sites. He didn't appear to be rude to anyone and the threats to ban him seemed extreme, as did the comments implying that as it is "my site I can do what I want".
Where's the interest if we all agree 100%?

Anyway his/her final post was very funny indeed and I don't want to see him banned.

C.Edwards Tue 5 Mar - 16:00

Look... I appreciate the few posts there have been on here in support of me and what I've said. I think some people are far too paranoid about infiltration and so on. Go and take a look at the stop the myths forum (be grown up about it please) and see how "pro" they think I am on there (I post as cdc541 on there) if you want any kind of guide. The truth is that I (purposely) sit in the middle and this just seems to aggravate both sides as I'm not nailing my colours to any masts. I'm damned as an opponent on both sides of the fence basically because I won't toe the party line.

It may come as a shock to some of you that there are some on the stop the myths forum that are capable of a reasonable debate or even argument without resorting to childish provocation and abuse. And then there are some that aren't. But that's pretty much the same on here. And Haverns. There are those that are able to put aside the divide and be reasonable and those that can't help but get defensive and aggressive.

I'm not here to cause trouble, I don't claim to have any answers and I only have knowledge in certain areas (such as digital media manipulation) that allow me to be authoritative on the subject to a reasonable extent. I'm not prepared to "commit" myself to a particular belief about the McCann case (including whether or not Madeleine died before the 3rd May) until/unless I see reasonable proof that allows me to justify that decision. Many on the other side of the tracks who read this forum will either privately or publicly work up a head of steam on that point as they don't think it's reasonable to even entertain the belief that Madeleine died before the 3rd - partly because Amaral says so, it would appear. They may have a point. After all he was closer to the action than me and had access to more information than me and yet... I can't help but look at the confusion of statements around the 3rd from many directly concerned and I don't take as reasonable proof the sightings of Madeleine by kitchen staff who most likely couldn't tell apart one little blonde girl from another. But that's just my opinion and I accept I may well be wrong. I don't think it's unreasonable to continue to maintain that Madeleine's death before the 3rd is a possibility at least, even if it isn't a probability. That's for another thread though.

Guest Tue 5 Mar - 16:10

@woody
@C.Edwards

The Last Photo (again) - Page 9 307691

To both

Not much point in always pushing at an open door The Last Photo (again) - Page 9 944533

**pennylane** Tue 5 Mar - 16:21

C.Edwards wrote:Look... I appreciate the few posts there have been on here in support of me and what I've said. I think some people are far too paranoid about infiltration and so on. Go and take a look at the stop the myths forum (be grown up about it please) and see how "pro" they think I am on there (I post as cdc541 on there) if you want any kind of guide. The truth is that I (purposely) sit in the middle and this just seems to aggravate both sides as I'm not nailing my colours to any masts. I'm damned as an opponent on both sides of the fence basically because I won't toe the party line.

It may come as a shock to some of you that there are some on the stop the myths forum that are capable of a reasonable debate or even argument without resorting to childish provocation and abuse. And then there are some that aren't. But that's pretty much the same on here. And Haverns. There are those that are able to put aside the divide and be reasonable and those that can't help but get defensive and aggressive.

I'm not here to cause trouble, I don't claim to have any answers and I only have knowledge in certain areas (such as digital media manipulation) that allow me to be authoritative on the subject to a reasonable extent. I'm not prepared to "commit" myself to a particular belief about the McCann case (including whether or not Madeleine died before the 3rd May) until/unless I see reasonable proof that allows me to justify that decision. Many on the other side of the tracks who read this forum will either privately or publicly work up a head of steam on that point as they don't think it's reasonable to even entertain the belief that Madeleine died before the 3rd - partly because Amaral says so, it would appear. They may have a point. After all he was closer to the action than me and had access to more information than me and yet... I can't help but look at the confusion of statements around the 3rd from many directly concerned and I don't take as reasonable proof the sightings of Madeleine by kitchen staff who most likely couldn't tell apart one little blonde girl from another. But that's just my opinion and I accept I may well be wrong. I don't think it's unreasonable to continue to maintain that Madeleine's death before the 3rd is a possibility at least, even if it isn't a probability. That's for another thread though.

I think it quite likely something terrible happened to Madeleine on the night the crying was heard from the McCanns apartment, for nearly 2 hours, by Mrs Fenn. OR this caused them to sedate her on the following evening (the 2nd), and it was then that a tragedy occurred.

**ann_chovey** Tue 5 Mar - 16:25

C. Edwards wrote: Many on the other side of the tracks who read this forum will either privately or publicly work up a head of steam on that point as they don't think it's reasonable to even entertain the belief that Madeleine died before the 3rd - partly because Amaral says so, it would appear. They may have a point. After all he was closer to the action than me and had access to more information than me and yet... I can't help but look at the confusion of statements around the 3rd from many directly concerned and I don't take as reasonable proof the sightings of Madeleine by kitchen staff who most likely couldn't tell apart one little blonde girl from another. But that's just my opinion and I accept I may well be wrong. I don't think it's unreasonable to continue to maintain that Madeleine's death before the 3rd is a possibility at least, even if it isn't a probability. That's for another thread though.

Very well put, my thoughts too. We weren't there 'at that moment' so we can't know for sure, none of us can but we have to be flexible in our thinking.

weissnicht Tue 5 Mar - 19:20

Just a question.. I think the "fleck/coloboma" is not in a same position in these two photos, what do you think?

The Last Photo (again) - Page 9 Coloboma

The Last Photo (again) - Page 9 Maddifleck

The Last Photo (again) - Page 9 Maddiefleck2

**pennylane** Tue 5 Mar - 19:53

I think you are right weissi. I imagine the poster photo was given an artistic boost, to enhance its "good marketing ploy" credentials. The early picture was probably the accurate one (imo).

**kitti** Tue 5 Mar - 20:01

Baby one 6o clock.....older one 7o clock

**Lioned** Tue 5 Mar - 20:53

Well we have had 15 pages of forensic analysis dissecting these photos,and obviously not for the first time,as interesting as it is sometimes to go over old ground i still await reasoned views as to why the photo's have been altered which is a far more interesting debate.
For what its worth i agree that most likely they have been dressed up for marketing and the coloboma seems the most obvious example of that.
I think others believe things more sinister which is what i would like to know,and why that would need all these alterations ?

As conspiracies go i have some interest in 'cloning' but thats another story.

**AnnaEsse** Tue 5 Mar - 20:56

kitti wrote:Baby one 6o clock.....older one 7o clock

Also, the older one has a very sharply defined straight edge. Younger one could be described as 'a fleck.'

**ann_chovey** Tue 5 Mar - 21:02

AnnaEsse wrote:
kitti wrote:Baby one 6o clock.....older one 7o clock

Also, the older one has a very sharply defined straight edge. Younger one could be described as 'a fleck.'

Tweaked and sharpened to create the 'thunderbolt' coloboma I suspect, which they wanted as the google toolbar image that never happened. (KM herself said....'it's just a fleck really).

tigger Tue 5 Mar - 21:06

kitti wrote:Baby one 6o clock.....older one 7o clock

From the Piers Morgan interview 11th May 2011.

MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --

MORGAN: Slightly distinctive eye colors and a little fleck.

MORGAN: And do you know if that would be still there if she's now eight years old?

G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.
unquote.

1) a coloboma is NOT a fleck
2) how can a 'fleck' be more visible or indeed be visible as a strong dark line on a photograph, it's either a fleck or a coloboma but not both
3) it's an additional 'bit of color' if it's a coloboma it is a thick bar the same 'colour' as the pupil.
4) they didn't make much of it - I could submit 500 photographs to the contrary, they even tried to use the Google logo by painting a bar in one 'O'.

2007:The coloboma was a complete invention, a marketing ploy with the added benefit that should there be a very good sighting, they need not jet over to check the child out, no coloboma, no Maddie.
2011: The coloboma is no more, a mere fleck, bit of color, practically invisible except at very close quarters. By now, around the publication of the book, it would be good to have lots of sightings, no coloboma, lots of sightings.
Lo and behold, we have the Leh sighting not long after. No coloboma mentioned at all. at all.

I particularly dislike the contempt in which the McCanns seem to hold the general public. How dare they think they can get away with such ~~contradictions~~, lies, it can only be because they think themselves untouchable and regard us as mere cattle.

Sponsored content