Thoughts on the case from criminal profiler Pat Brown

Hellsbells wrote:

poster wrote:ETA: Agree about the shadows too.

I suspect we all see things in slightly different ways, poster, but when I look at the LP I see a scene in 2 dimensions that is supposed to be in 3D. It's too flat. So to me the LP isn't like a real photo, more like a piece of wallpaper. For many years I've tried to understand why this is the case and have come to this conclusion. When my eyes see something that is lit up by the sun, my brain expects to see a shadow cast behind it. It's what gives the picture its depth, ie its 3rd dimension.

The devil is in the detail. For me it's the water droplets. A detail too far, imo. Where have they come from, that they can be suspended in midair like that? Any splash big enough to result in water droplets captured like that would surely have made legs and clothing wet? Yet not a hint of a splash anywhere.....

I probably risk being lynched by you guys but I have to say I don't think the LP is hugely Photoshopped. Possibly/probably just the lens reflection or sunglasses as a whole (incidentally I think Gerry is squinting/forcing a slight smile).

The reason is down to time and technology. Photoshop (CS3 was the latest version at the time I think) just wasn't as powerful a tool and cameras were less advanced and I just don't think such "clean" results could be achieved if such heavy Photoshopping was done. The sunglasses reflection would be easy and a motive for doing it is there too in the form of what if the reflection showed a man or someone else clearly not Kate?

A lot is made of the lack of curve in the reflected pool but ignored is the apparent pool surround turned 90 degrees in the reflection. This does defy physics. In 9 years I haven't read any argument to convince me it is OK. I so wish someone would go to that damn pool and do a few experiments with various sunglasses and put me out of my misery!

I think that we can agree to differ without the danger of anyone being lynched, TTWO!

I know nothing about shadows or reflections but what makes this photo seem odd to me (in conjunction with everything else that's dodgy about the official story) is that Madeleine (if it is her) is so unlike the child in the other photos supposedly taken within a day or two of each other. 

Add the fact that it took several weeks for it to be produced and the alarm bells go off again.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I probably risk being lynched by you guys but I have to say I don't think the LP is hugely Photoshopped. Possibly/probably just the lens reflection or sunglasses as a whole (incidentally I think Gerry is squinting/forcing a slight smile).

The reason is down to time and technology. Photoshop (CS3 was the latest version at the time I think) just wasn't as powerful a tool and cameras were less advanced and I just don't think such "clean" results could be achieved if such heavy Photoshopping was done. The sunglasses reflection would be easy and a motive for doing it is there too in the form of what if the reflection showed a man or someone else clearly not Kate?

A lot is made of the lack of curve in the reflected pool but ignored is the apparent pool surround turned 90 degrees in the reflection. This does defy physics. In 9 years I haven't read any argument to convince me it is OK. I so wish someone would go to that damn pool and do a few experiments with various sunglasses and put me out of my misery!

Ok TTWO I am going to rise to this challenge this year somehow. Making it my mission to find a similar pool somewhere on this island and with help from the more technical people here I will try to replicate this scenario. I need to know the pool dimensions and also if anyone can calculate what time of year and what date I need to use to be as close to the sun position as possible, maybe we can get somewhere. Bear in mind I am several hundred miles further south here in Cyprus.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I probably risk being lynched by you guys but I have to say I don't think the LP is hugely Photoshopped. Possibly/probably just the lens reflection or sunglasses as a whole (incidentally I think Gerry is squinting/forcing a slight smile).

The reason is down to time and technology. Photoshop (CS3 was the latest version at the time I think) just wasn't as powerful a tool and cameras were less advanced and I just don't think such "clean" results could be achieved if such heavy Photoshopping was done. The sunglasses reflection would be easy and a motive for doing it is there too in the form of what if the reflection showed a man or someone else clearly not Kate?

A lot is made of the lack of curve in the reflected pool but ignored is the apparent pool surround turned 90 degrees in the reflection. This does defy physics. In 9 years I haven't read any argument to convince me it is OK. I so wish someone would go to that damn pool and do a few experiments with various sunglasses and put me out of my misery!

If it is any consolation TTWO I don't believe the LP was photoshopped either. A possible
date change, yes, and I could understand the reasons why.Just my thoughts.

just asking, TTWO and costello, do you not have shadows behind you either when you sit facing the sun? or have you never looked? they will be there, honest!!
the clean result you are questioning (though to me it looks a shambles), TTWO, is easier if you photograph the subjects in the SAME place as you are going to insert them. You don't then need a clean line cut around the edge of the body/clothing - you can incorporate a slither of paving/grass etc outside the cut and blend it in.

Excellent Chirpy!

The pool is 7.32 metres/24 feet using Google Maps measure tool. You are in a great location to do it that's for sure. Guaranteed sun and plenty of pools.

@Hellsbells

I honestly haven't really looked into the shadows but my immediate thought would be that as the sun was at its highest and given the shallow angle the photo are they hidden behind each subject?

Or should they be on one side? I honestly don't have my bearings here so I'm probably wrong....?

Hellsbells wrote:just asking, TTWO and costello, do you not have shadows behind you either when you sit facing the sun? or have you never looked? they will be there, honest!!

To be honest Hellsbells I have never paid that much attention. But I will check it out on the next really' hot day' we have here in Scotland. It could take some time though!!!

Ha ha I understand both of you, it's the sort of thing we take for granted so don't normally look for!!! If the sun were straight above your head (mid day on the equator) there wouldn't be a shadow to speak of, but at 1.29pm on may 3rd in the algarve it would be about half the length of the thing that's creating the shadow.
TTWO - they are facing the sun so the shadows would be behind them but they wouldn't be completely hidden..... it's clear to me that there isn't one behind either Maddie or Amelie.

A lot is made of the lack of curve in the reflected pool but ignored is the apparent pool surround turned 90 degrees in the reflection. This does defy physics. In 9 years I haven't read any argument to convince me it is OK. I so wish someone would go to that damn pool and do a few experiments with various sunglasses and put me out of my misery!

----

I know exactly what you mean! I've read so much about this case that I am really quite curious to see Ocean Club now. Also happen to have (wider) family who live in Luz so it might happen one of these days.

On the subject of the photo, I also think GM's body looks wrong.

chirpyinsect wrote: Making it my mission to find a similar pool somewhere on this island and with help from the more technical people here I will try to replicate this scenario. I need to know the pool dimensions and also if anyone can calculate what time of year and what date I need to use to be as close to the sun position as possible, maybe we can get somewhere. Bear in mind I am several hundred miles further south here in Cyprus.

you are going to have a wait a couple of months until the sun is high enough chirpy, but to make it nice and easy for yourself, if you do it at 1pm on may 3rd this year, with everyone facing south, you won't be far out.

canada12 wrote:The devil is in the detail. For me it's the water droplets. A detail too far, imo. Where have they come from, that they can be suspended in midair like that? Any splash big enough to result in water droplets captured like that would surely have made legs and clothing wet? Yet not a hint of a splash anywhere.....

I don't think the water droplets have been discussed much if at all, canada12, so an interesting point. A photographer friend tells me it is possible to capture them in mid air with a fast shutter speed but it would require some movement (prob legs) on the part of the subjects to create them. However the 3 of them are just sitting there apparently motionless.

Freedom wrote:I think that we can agree to differ without the danger of anyone being lynched, TTWO!

I know nothing about shadows or reflections but what makes this photo seem odd to me (in conjunction with everything else that's dodgy about the official story) is that Madeleine (if it is her) is so unlike the child in the other photos supposedly taken within a day or two of each other. 

Add the fact that it took several weeks for it to be produced and the alarm bells go off again.

IF the photo was taken on the Sunday and not the Thursday, why would anyone change the time on the camera's metadata? I can understand changing the day but not the time, especially as things like length of shadows can be scientifically assessed. Surely it would be more sensible to leave the time alone. I read somewhere ( maybe here ) that the twins were signed back into the crèche at 14.35 on Sunday so if the camera metadata on the 'time' hasn't been changed from 2.29 this gives KMC SIX MINUTES to gather the twins up ( and we're not even sure where Sean was ) and get them signed into the creche. Bearing in mind there was no need at this point on Sunday afternoon to forge any crèche record. Bit flummoxed by this one.

Hellsbells wrote:

canada12 wrote:The devil is in the detail. For me it's the water droplets. A detail too far, imo. Where have they come from, that they can be suspended in midair like that? Any splash big enough to result in water droplets captured like that would surely have made legs and clothing wet? Yet not a hint of a splash anywhere.....

I don't think the water droplets have been discussed much if at all, canada12, so an interesting point. A photographer friend tells me it is possible to capture them in mid air with a fast shutter speed but it would require some movement (prob legs) on the part of the subjects to create them. However the 3 of them are just sitting there apparently motionless.

Um..Is it possible these drops are located on the lens of the camera? Just throwing that out there.

maesi wrote:

IF the photo was taken on the Sunday and not the Thursday, why would anyone change the time on the camera's metadata? I can understand changing the day but not the time,  especially as things like length of shadows can be scientifically assessed. Surely it would be more sensible to leave the time alone.  I read somewhere ( maybe here ) that the twins were signed back into the crèche at 14.35 on Sunday so if the camera metadata on the 'time' hasn't been changed  from 2.29 this gives KMC SIX MINUTES to gather the twins up ( and we're not even sure where Sean was ) and get them signed into  the creche. Bearing in mind there was no need at this point on Sunday afternoon  to forge any crèche record. Bit flummoxed by this one.

***
IIRC the discussion is whether they changed the date, whereas the McCs claimed that they forgot to change the time on their camera, ignoring that GB and Portugal are in the same timezone ...

Châtelaine wrote:

maesi wrote:

IF the photo was taken on the Sunday and not the Thursday, why would anyone change the time on the camera's metadata? I can understand changing the day but not the time,  especially as things like length of shadows can be scientifically assessed. Surely it would be more sensible to leave the time alone.  I read somewhere ( maybe here ) that the twins were signed back into the crèche at 14.35 on Sunday so if the camera metadata on the 'time' hasn't been changed  from 2.29 this gives KMC SIX MINUTES to gather the twins up ( and we're not even sure where Sean was ) and get them signed into  the creche. Bearing in mind there was no need at this point on Sunday afternoon  to forge any crèche record. Bit flummoxed by this one.

***
IIRC the discussion is whether they changed the date, whereas the McCs claimed that they forgot to change the time on their camera, ignoring that GB and Portugal are in the same timezone ...

That is the way I read it too Chatelaine.

Châtelaine wrote:

maesi wrote:

IF the photo was taken on the Sunday and not the Thursday, why would anyone change the time on the camera's metadata? I can understand changing the day but not the time,  especially as things like length of shadows can be scientifically assessed. Surely it would be more sensible to leave the time alone.  I read somewhere ( maybe here ) that the twins were signed back into the crèche at 14.35 on Sunday so if the camera metadata on the 'time' hasn't been changed  from 2.29 this gives KMC SIX MINUTES to gather the twins up ( and we're not even sure where Sean was ) and get them signed into  the creche. Bearing in mind there was no need at this point on Sunday afternoon  to forge any crèche record. Bit flummoxed by this one.

***
IIRC the discussion is whether they changed the date, whereas the McCs claimed that they forgot to change the time on their camera, ignoring that GB and Portugal are in the same timezone ...

So okay if the time is right , how did KMC manage to get the twins to the crèche within six minutes of taking the photo IF it was taken on Sunday? They had no need on Sunday afternoon to forge anything at all on the crèche sheets.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

Hellsbells wrote:

canada12 wrote:The devil is in the detail. For me it's the water droplets. A detail too far, imo. Where have they come from, that they can be suspended in midair like that? Any splash big enough to result in water droplets captured like that would surely have made legs and clothing wet? Yet not a hint of a splash anywhere.....

I don't think the water droplets have been discussed much if at all, canada12, so an interesting point. A photographer friend tells me it is possible to capture them in mid air with a fast shutter speed but it would require some movement (prob legs) on the part of the subjects to create them. However the 3 of them are just sitting there apparently motionless.

Um..Is it possible these drops are located on the lens of the camera? Just throwing that out there.

Wouldn't the water droplets be out of focus if they were on the camera lens, though?
These are perfectly formed very clear droplets of water in the same focal plane as the subjects.

I think it's supposed to be a bit like this

canada12 wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

Hellsbells wrote:

canada12 wrote:The devil is in the detail. For me it's the water droplets. A detail too far, imo. Where have they come from, that they can be suspended in midair like that? Any splash big enough to result in water droplets captured like that would surely have made legs and clothing wet? Yet not a hint of a splash anywhere.....

I don't think the water droplets have been discussed much if at all, canada12, so an interesting point. A photographer friend tells me it is possible to capture them in mid air with a fast shutter speed but it would require some movement (prob legs) on the part of the subjects to create them. However the 3 of them are just sitting there apparently motionless.

Um..Is it possible these drops are located on the lens of the camera? Just throwing that out there.

Wouldn't the water droplets be out of focus if they were on the camera lens, though?
These are perfectly formed very clear droplets of water in the same focal plane as the subjects.

I'm not sure about the focus Canada12. You're probably right though.

Looking at another water droplet image and one thing occurs to me. There doesn't appear to be any movement in the droplets in the LP which is odd looking at this image: https://osiochina.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/img_8048.jpg

At the very top of the image the droplets are nicely focused but not blurred because they have effectively stopped traveling upward (before falling and blurring) and those at the bottom are blurred indicating movement up or down. The LP 2/3 droplets are in the bottom half of the frame yet show no movement/blurring which I thought they would given they must be the last few droplets falling?

Don't worry though, I've already ordered stronger meds!

Just had a quick look again at the 'hi - res' version of the last pic.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/lastphotohighres2.jpg&target=tlx_picw30p

Those water droplets are surely impossible without any movement at all.

If A, for example splashed her legs earlier then those said water droplets would not be hanging in the air.

There is no time to be able to 'splash' then position legs back in the pool but the droplets are still 'floating'.

I'm no expert but that does seem an impossible feat.........

I say this only in passing as I don't like photograph threads(we don't need them IMO.) ,but could it be someone has thrown something to plop in the pool. Amelie looks very focused on looking down to the water. JATYK......lol

Bampots wrote:I say this only in passing as I don't like photograph threads(we don't need them IMO.) ,but could it be someone has thrown something to plop in the pool. Amelie looks very focused on looking down to the water. JATYK......lol

I didn't think of that Bampots. Could well be... Although I can't fathom what would cause a dozen or so droplets and so close to A as well....

If a tennis ball (for example) was thrown in, then surely that would cause a bigger splash/more droplets.

For the scenario (re: the LP) to work then someone would have to directly stand behind A and forcefully drop something the size of a small pebble in. I would of thought anyway.....

IMO and just purporting probably rubbish as in all honestly I haven't got a clue about photo's etc.

Although do trust my eyes.

I'd prefer to look at it the other way round and say that as it's obvious that nothing has dropped in the water, the droplets are as manufactured as the 3 people behind them.

Andrew wrote:Just had a quick look again at the 'hi - res' version of the last pic.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/lastphotohighres2.jpg&target=tlx_picw30p

Those water droplets are surely impossible without any movement at all.

If A, for example splashed her legs earlier then those said water droplets would not be hanging in the air.

There is no time to be able to 'splash' then position legs back in the pool but the droplets are still 'floating'.

I'm no expert but that does seem an impossible feat.........

Look at Madeleine's right arm if you blow the photo right up - you can see neither her shoulder nor an elbow crease but look how long and straight it is! Impossible for a child of nearly four to have such a long upper arm.

And, given the angle that Amelie is sitting at, you should definitely be able to see some of her right arm.

Sorry, but I think that photo is (badly) photoshopped.

There is also something weird about the angle of Madeleine's head - but this is very often the case with TM photos.