Re: The Last Photo (again)

tigger Tue 5 Mar - 21:08

ann_chovey wrote:
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).

If it's tweaked and sharpened to create the thunderbolt coloboma, then it's photoshopped. It was ready around midnight on the 3rd.

Bobsy Tue 5 Mar - 21:44

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.

Madeleine hasn't got the same wide gaps in her front teeth in this photo as she has in the pool picture. Just saying.

Guest Tue 5 Mar - 23:05

The gaps do seem to match though in the Donegal photos and the tennis ball girl one.

Loopdaloop Wed 6 Mar - 0:29

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.

To suggest paranoia re companies and organisations paid to 'cognitively infiltrate' (in the terms of cass sunstein) is a laughable perspective baring in mind each pr company highlights digital and social media manipulation as their skills. If you search this forum you will find links to details about Alex Woolfall, the man who famously said he taught gerry all he knew, and his biography on his very own company webpages detailing this.

There are many a graduate completing an internship keyword monitoring for sensitive issues at this very moment and then accessing a library of template responses to counter issues raised for clients both individual and business. People got wise to the monotony so more recently they are allowing people to add more character. Hence yourself. This is widely known.

The following article re bell pottinger getting busted editing wikipedia is the tip of the iceberg.
Less us not forget, Alex Woolfall worked in this very division within Bell Pottinger!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8942890/Wikipedia-suspends-accounts-over-Bell-Pottinger-claims.html

We all know exactly what your game is.l,
However paradoxically, you are helping to make our arguments stronger and refining the detail of the investigation into these issues which is not what your clients would want. Through the response to specfic subjects, like the manipulation of the photographs and also 'david payne' we know what is partiularly sensitive and find it encouraging to keep reflecting about those particular subjects!

What your people forget is that there is a wide range of people from all sorts of walks of life and professional backgrounds upon these forums. This isnt digitalspy or dailymail comments... Everyone here is clued up on a variety of issues.

You also forget that the people on these forums are not going to have their CV's ruined and the professional development scuppered by doing the bidding of the corrupt.
The Nuremberg defence does not apply and future employers will look dimly upon it, especially when the truth will out.

weissnicht Wed 6 Mar - 5:05

Lioned wrote: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.

I not speculating or creating conspiracy theories. Just asked a question, because for me they look like in different position. That's all. Simple.

tigger Wed 6 Mar - 6:26

Loopdaloop wrote:
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.

To suggest paranoia re companies and organisations paid to 'cognitively infiltrate' (in the terms of cass sunstein) is a laughable perspective baring in mind each pr company highlights digital and social media manipulation as their skills. If you search this forum you will find links to details about Alex Woolfall, the man who famously said he taught gerry all he knew, and his biography on his very own company webpages detailing this.

There are many a graduate completing an internship keyword monitoring for sensitive issues at this very moment and then accessing a library of template responses to counter issues raised for clients both individual and business. People got wise to the monotony so more recently they are allowing people to add more character. Hence yourself. This is widely known.

The following article re bell pottinger getting busted editing wikipedia is the tip of the iceberg.
Less us not forget, Alex Woolfall worked in this very division within Bell Pottinger!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8942890/Wikipedia-suspends-accounts-over-Bell-Pottinger-claims.html

We all know exactly what your game is.l,
However paradoxically, you are helping to make our arguments stronger and refining the detail of the investigation into these issues which is not what your clients would want. Through the response to specfic subjects, like the manipulation of the photographs and also 'david payne' we know what is partiularly sensitive and find it encouraging to keep reflecting about those particular subjects!

What your people forget is that there is a wide range of people from all sorts of walks of life and professional backgrounds upon these forums. This isnt digitalspy or dailymail comments... Everyone here is clued up on a variety of issues.

You also forget that the people on these forums are not going to have their CV's ruined and the professional development scuppered by doing the bidding of the corrupt.
The Nuremberg defence does not apply and future employers will look dimly upon it, especially when the truth will out.

Brilliant post LdL! Woolfall - the very man who helped Kate sort out her photographs on the camera, ditching some 150 which were later retrieved by the PJ - only in black and white because they'd been deleted.
Jolly lucky he was there to help.

C.Edwards Wed 6 Mar - 7:46

Loopdaloop wrote:
To suggest paranoia re companies and organisations paid to 'cognitively infiltrate' (in the terms of cass sunstein) is a laughable perspective baring in mind each pr company highlights digital and social media manipulation as their skills. If you search this forum you will find links to details about Alex Woolfall, the man who famously said he taught gerry all he knew, and his biography on his very own company webpages detailing this.

There are many a graduate completing an internship keyword monitoring for sensitive issues at this very moment and then accessing a library of template responses to counter issues raised for clients both individual and business. People got wise to the monotony so more recently they are allowing people to add more character. Hence yourself. This is widely known.

The following article re bell pottinger getting busted editing wikipedia is the tip of the iceberg.
Less us not forget, Alex Woolfall worked in this very division within Bell Pottinger!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8942890/Wikipedia-suspends-accounts-over-Bell-Pottinger-claims.html

We all know exactly what your game is.l,
However paradoxically, you are helping to make our arguments stronger and refining the detail of the investigation into these issues which is not what your clients would want. Through the response to specfic subjects, like the manipulation of the photographs and also 'david payne' we know what is partiularly sensitive and find it encouraging to keep reflecting about those particular subjects!

What your people forget is that there is a wide range of people from all sorts of walks of life and professional backgrounds upon these forums. This isnt digitalspy or dailymail comments... Everyone here is clued up on a variety of issues.

You also forget that the people on these forums are not going to have their CV's ruined and the professional development scuppered by doing the bidding of the corrupt.
The Nuremberg defence does not apply and future employers will look dimly upon it, especially when the truth will out.

Wait, what? Are you seriously saying that you still think I'm some sort of sleeper double agent or something? Incredible. Just let me ask, did you actually bother going and looking at my post history on Stop The Myths before coming to that stunning conclusion or did you invent it all by yourself? It's becoming clear that there are some of you on here who just want to - no, have a NEED to, "believe".

"you know exactly what my game is"... give me a break. This is kindergarten level "I know where you live" stuff. You've demonstrated by your post that you don't know exactly what my game is! You can see by looking back through the last few pages of this thread that there are several that don't agree with your point of view and yet you still persist? Hey, all yours. Go for it. Just don't forget to throw in the accusations that I'm Gerry McCann and/or Clarence Mitchell too. It's obvious you're way to smart for me and you have realised that I spent the best part of two years on the Amazon forum, then registered here and on Haverns, spent ages in "sleeper mode" and/or posting stuff that agreed with the "anti" point of view, registered on "stop the myths" and posted stuff to throw them off the scent ALL in order to one day be able to come in here and tell people they're losing the plot over a photograph or two. Unless you're in espionage, you're wasted. You know that? The Last Photo (again) - Page 10 294124

Bear in mind that the flip side of the coin to your "noise is made about particularly sensitive subjects" is that noise is made by those that are on substantially the same side of the fence when people are putting forward plainly ridiculous theories. This is, in many ways, a preemptive defence against accusations from the "other side" that all doubters are loonies which sometimes comes in handy when trying to discuss the case with those that hold alternative views.

**kitti** Wed 6 Mar - 7:48

The other pictures arent cute and babyish though are they.

They needed the cute and babyish ones because they wanted her to stand out more hence the t shirt
Picture ....cute pictures like the pool pic sell better than the tennis ball pic....sorry but it's true and the Mccanns know that.

C.Edwards Wed 6 Mar - 7:50

tigger wrote:

Brilliant post LdL! Woolfall - the very man who helped Kate sort out her photographs on the camera, ditching some 150 which were later retrieved by the PJ - only in black and white because they'd been deleted.
Jolly lucky he was there to help.

Yes, "brilliant". Every last word apart from the bits that were wrong. I can see, however, from your standpoint that it would appeal, however.

Just one thing... you've got it wrong - again - on the photograph thing. Deleted photos do not turn black and white! Good grief... To go from colour to black and white is a conversion process that has to manifestly alter (and not to a random value) the numeric value of every byte of a binary file. This cannot happen by chance and/or being deleted. Of course, I realise this is not what you want to hear and therefore you'll ignore me on this but for those that may have the tiniest bit of faith in me knowing what I'm talking about it could be useful information.

You do, of course (I presume) have a link to the evidence of these 150 deleted photos? I didn't know that many existed. Must have missed that briefing session at McCann HQ eh? ;-)

C.Edwards Wed 6 Mar - 7:57

kitti wrote:The other pictures arent cute and babyish though are they.

They needed the cute and babyish ones because they wanted her to stand out more hence the t shirt
Picture ....cute pictures like the pool pic sell better than the tennis ball pic....sorry but it's true and the Mccanns know that.

Seriously now. Can you just explain briefly the argument here. Are you saying that the McCanns deliberately released photos of Madeleine at a younger age in order to gain more sympathy/raise more money for the fund? Or for obfuscation purposes? Or both? I'm losing track a bit in here, we're well off the "last photo" topic now.

I agree there are questions about the length of time it took the "last photo" to appear as it should have been available immediately from Kate's camera. The fact it appeared after Gerry's visit home may be significant or it may not. It does not, in itself, prove there was manipulation of the picture as it's entirely feasible that a manipulated photo could have been emailed (albeit if someone WAS trying to cover their tracks they'd perhaps be a bit paranoid about leaving a trace, so a memory stick would be a safer method). It could, of course, be argued that it may have been there all along but as Madeleine was pulling a face in the picture, they didn't think it was a true representation of how she looked? Therefore it didn't get released until later? Just thinking out loud really.

**cass** Wed 6 Mar - 8:08

i agree with kitti on this there is a lot of photoes that could have been used - they are still putting that baby pic in the press now over and over -- as someone said in a post they wanted a baby immage to stick in peoples minds -- they wanted people to know madeleine was small for her age -why imo other children used to take part of madeleine long after she was gone -- if a child goes missing they ask for the latest pic -- family friends in the uk could have them one sent via hrs

C.Edwards Wed 6 Mar - 8:14

cass wrote:i agree with kitti on this there is a lot of photoes that could have been used - they are still putting that baby pic in the press now over and over -- as someone said in a post they wanted a baby immage to stick in peoples minds -- they wanted people to know madeleine was small for her age -why imo other children used to take part of madeleine long after she was gone -- if a child goes missing they ask for the latest pic -- family friends in the uk could have them one sent via hrs

Well, more to the point, they could have used one from the digital cameras of the group out there as there were, apparently, recent photos of Madeleine on it. I don't think the McCanns any longer have an control over what images are used. If the iconic "look into my eyes" picture is the one that has become "Madeleine" in the eyes of the lazy journalists then I think they'll just keep using that photo. With respect, I don't see how you can state "they did this" or "they thought that" just because it suits your belief that the McCanns, from the outset, wanted to plant a false image of Madeleine in the minds of the public. You may have those suspicions, but in the absence of actual evidence that they deliberately did that, it is plausible that somebody advised them that was the best image to use in good faith.

Guest Wed 6 Mar - 8:25

It is patent that the selection and use of Images is almost entirely Media led, not Healy & McCann led. Each Media organisation has library pictures which they may (or may not) add to from time to time.

In the latter case, newer pictures of Healy & McCann themselves seem nowadays to be chosen to reflect a certain mood. Defeated seems to be a common theme. Of course, taking a whole series of photos at one opportunity always gives scope for a really unfortunate pose or look to be captured - or even just apparently captured. Selective Publication is manipulation of a different type.

We tend to interpret such photos in ways that suit us and in much older discussions where I pointed this out one response was "how dare I defend the McCanns" when I'd absolutely done no such thing. I simply pointed out that one static image really cannot be relied upon in terms of what the person viewing can deduce.

Guest Wed 6 Mar - 9:20

The End Is Nigh wrote:It is patent that the selection and use of Images is almost entirely Media led, not Healy & McCann led. Each Media organisation has library pictures which they may (or may not) add to from time to time.

In the latter case, newer pictures of Healy & McCann themselves seem nowadays to be chosen to reflect a certain mood. Defeated seems to be a common theme. Of course, taking a whole series of photos at one opportunity always gives scope for a really unfortunate pose or look to be captured - or even just apparently captured. Selective Publication is manipulation of a different type.

We tend to interpret such photos in ways that suit us and in much older discussions where I pointed this out one response was "how dare I defend the McCanns" when I'd absolutely done no such thing. I simply pointed out that one static image really cannot be relied upon in terms of what the person viewing can deduce.

I agree completely, this being one of them -

The Last Photo (again) - Page 10 Mccannsamsterdamde240611

-and then, purged from all media at the request of the McCanns. What a surprise that was. Not.

**margaret** Wed 6 Mar - 10:17

tigger wrote:

Brilliant post LdL! Woolfall - the very man who helped Kate sort out her photographs on the camera, ditching some 150 which were later retrieved by the PJ - only in black and white because they'd been deleted.
Jolly lucky he was there to help.

Sorry? Run that past me again? They deleted 150 photos - was Maddie in any of them. Very strange thing to do imo! in the circumstances those photos could be evidence.

want the truth Wed 6 Mar - 10:59

margaret wrote:
tigger wrote:

Brilliant post LdL! Woolfall - the very man who helped Kate sort out her photographs on the camera, ditching some 150 which were later retrieved by the PJ - only in black and white because they'd been deleted.
Jolly lucky he was there to help.

Sorry? Run that past me again? They deleted 150 photos - was Maddie in any of them. Very strange thing to do imo! in the circumstances those photos could be evidence.

This is very worrying. I didn't know where the black and white photos had appeared from. I have wondered if something went wrong at Mark Warner's and with previous problems highlighted by the BBC re the inadequate training of the nannies, thought it odd that the PR Woolfall was there so quickly.
Any of the photos could be capable of showing some oddity in the background so to delete them, along with deleting phone calls, just seems completely contrary to any form of common sense or normal behaviour.
This case has not been 'apparent' since Gerry and Kate's very bad acting in their first ever interview. Now that I see that it was PR intervention that helped Kate to 'delete' what could have been essential forensic evidence for the police and investigation, I am once again 'shocked' and forced to think about any implications that such action might imply.

C.Edwards Wed 6 Mar - 11:02

want the truth wrote:
This is very worrying. I didn't know where the black and white photos had appeared from. I have wondered if something went wrong at Mark Warner's and with previous problems highlighted by the BBC re the inadequate training of the nannies, thought it odd that the PR Woolfall was there so quickly.
Any of the photos could be capable of showing some oddity in the background so to delete them, along with deleting phone calls, just seems completely contrary to any form of common sense or normal behaviour.
This case has not been 'apparent' since Gerry and Kate's very bad acting in their first ever interview. Now that I see that it was PR intervention that helped Kate to 'delete' what could have been essential forensic evidence for the police and investigation, I am once again 'shocked' and forced to think about any implications that such action might imply.

Wouldn't it be better to wait for evidence of these 150 deleted photos before treating it as being true and a scandal?

Guest Wed 6 Mar - 11:05

tigger wrote:

Brilliant post LdL! Woolfall - the very man who helped Kate sort out her photographs on the camera, ditching some 150 which were later retrieved by the PJ - only in black and white because they'd been deleted.
Jolly lucky he was there to help.

I thought that we only got to see these pics in black and white because they were scans or photocopies of the original pictures. Deleted pictures might lose bits of the picture, depending on whether that part of the file had been overwritten, but it wouldn't erase colour or transparency information. There must still be the original colour pictures going around somewhere - maybe the PJ just didn't release them as part of the DVD files.

tigger Wed 6 Mar - 11:20

margaret wrote:
tigger wrote:

Brilliant post LdL! Woolfall - the very man who helped Kate sort out her photographs on the camera, ditching some 150 which were later retrieved by the PJ - only in black and white because they'd been deleted.
Jolly lucky he was there to help.

Sorry? Run that past me again? They deleted 150 photos - was Maddie in any of them. Very strange thing to do imo! in the circumstances those photos could be evidence.

Indeed, consider also that in the name of CEOP and the McCanns a request went out not long afterwards to all holiday makers in PdL to send them their holiday snaps. They would be looking for suspicious characters in the background apparently.
CEOP - in the form of Jim Gamble, Gerry's mate, opened a website for people to post these on. We've never heard of the results whilst apparently thousands of snaps were posted.

Perhaps for another reason altogether. E.g. the Paraiso Bar CCTV gives quite a different timeline to the afternoon of 3/5 than the statements of the T9.
Maybe photographs would do that too, or there is always the possibility of the wrong people in the background - who should not have been there at that time and place.

This is the list of photos - most of which were retrieved from the 'trash' in the camera. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm

**malena stool** Wed 6 Mar - 11:23

I believe that the deleted photos identify the person who is supporting the McCanns in their campaign to silence any criticism of their 'family holiday' where everyone was having such a wonderful time not carry cameras, watches or mobile phones...

But that would suggest a cover up... and we all know that cannot be right.

tigger Wed 6 Mar - 11:23

Iris wrote:
tigger wrote:

Brilliant post LdL! Woolfall - the very man who helped Kate sort out her photographs on the camera, ditching some 150 which were later retrieved by the PJ - only in black and white because they'd been deleted.
Jolly lucky he was there to help.

I thought that we only got to see these pics in black and white because they were scans or photocopies of the original pictures. Deleted pictures might lose bits of the picture, depending on whether that part of the file had been overwritten, but it wouldn't erase colour or transparency information. There must still be the original colour pictures going around somewhere - maybe the PJ just didn't release them as part of the DVD files.

Thanks for that info. I was under the impression they would only be present in grey scale once deleted. This is just black and white, so very hard to see.
However, the PJ held back a significant number of files.

C.Edwards Wed 6 Mar - 12:03

tigger wrote:

This is the list of photos - most of which were retrieved from the 'trash' in the camera. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm

Sorry, but how do you KNOW the bit in bold. Is it stated in the file? Does it have an annotation next to those photos stating, "recovered from 'trash' in the camera" (which, incidentally, doesn't exist on almost all digital cameras, let alone those in use in 2007. I certainly can't find any mention of such a feature on the Canon Powershot A620).

**ann_chovey** Wed 6 Mar - 12:18

C.Edwards wrote:
tigger wrote:

This is the list of photos - most of which were retrieved from the 'trash' in the camera. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm

Sorry, but how do you KNOW the bit in bold. Is it stated in the file? Does it have an annotation next to those photos stating, "recovered from 'trash' in the camera" (which, incidentally, doesn't exist on almost all digital cameras, let alone those in use in 2007. I certainly can't find any mention of such a feature on the Canon Powershot A620).

The little dustbin symbol (delete) is often referred to as 'trash'. Seen here on the CP A620

The Last Photo (again) - Page 10 Canon_powershot_a620_4B

tigger Wed 6 Mar - 12:22

ann_chovey wrote:
C.Edwards wrote:
tigger wrote:

This is the list of photos - most of which were retrieved from the 'trash' in the camera. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm

Sorry, but how do you KNOW the bit in bold. Is it stated in the file? Does it have an annotation next to those photos stating, "recovered from 'trash' in the camera" (which, incidentally, doesn't exist on almost all digital cameras, let alone those in use in 2007. I certainly can't find any mention of such a feature on the Canon Powershot A620).

The little dustbin symbol (delete) is often referred to as 'trash'. Seen here on the CP A620

Thank you Ann-Chovey!. I have always been told that anything deleted - put in the trash bin on camera or computer is only stored there as minimal bytes so that it can be overwritten. The 'trash' still contains a lot of information until it is overwritten.

C.Edwards Wed 6 Mar - 12:28

tigger wrote:
ann_chovey wrote:
C.Edwards wrote:
tigger wrote:

This is the list of photos - most of which were retrieved from the 'trash' in the camera. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm

Sorry, but how do you KNOW the bit in bold. Is it stated in the file? Does it have an annotation next to those photos stating, "recovered from 'trash' in the camera" (which, incidentally, doesn't exist on almost all digital cameras, let alone those in use in 2007. I certainly can't find any mention of such a feature on the Canon Powershot A620).

The little dustbin symbol (delete) is often referred to as 'trash'. Seen here on the CP A620

Thank you Ann-Chovey!. I have always been told that anything deleted - put in the trash bin on camera or computer is only stored there as minimal bytes so that it can be overwritten. The 'trash' still contains a lot of information until it is overwritten.

That answers nothing. That's a delete button. A digital camera does not have a "recycled folder" or "trash" areas as you are implying (tigger). As soon as you delete a file, that area of memory is fair game to any other photos being stored. There is no trash, no recycing bin, nothing like that whatsoever. You are confusing computer technology with camera technology. Computers move "deleted" (unless you permanently delete) files and folders into a reserved area of memory from where the untouched files can be recovered. Once permanently deleted they can still be recovered, but only by deep scan technology that looks for file patterns matching known types, hence you can do an "undelete" on any files that are on a memory card that have not been partially or wholly overwritten by data from other photos taken since the deletion.

I ask again. How do you KNOW that "most" of those photos were retrieved from a non-existent feature on the camera? Is it written anywhere that you can refer to or do you concede that you have no proof of 150 deleted photos and that most of the photos in the file were recovered from the camera's "trash"?

Sponsored content