Re: The NEW Tennis Balls Photo Thread - 'Photoshopped photo created on 5th May', claims YouTube video

[Guest]

Blue Bag - quick question....do you work for The Mirror?

No.
 

I've done an image search online using the photo name you supplied and it doesn't come up anywhere. However I note that the link back to this photo goes immediately to an incoming server for The Mirror.

I use google images. It;s very simple to use.

Also please note the very distinctive burn / scar on the child's wrist. If this image is genuine, this is indeed very revealing. Thank you Blue Bag. This photo ranks up there with Gestalt's Last Photo.

Whatever.

Whatever?
You've single-handedly shown us a very nasty burn mark on Madeleine's wrist which has not previously been distinguishable?
I wouldn't be dismissive of this. It's such a distinctive mark, one would have thought the McCanns would have mentioned it when issuing their initial description of their child on the night she went missing.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A reminder of Dr Amaral's concerns regarding the mark on her arm:

Madeleine's Right Arm and the Strange Mark

The issue was raised by Mr. Hernâni Carvalho. Madeleine's right arm has a strange mark, a mark which, according to what Mr. Carvalho has learned with Doctor Natália Vara, a forensic psychologist is not a sun burn - in that case more parts of her body would show signs of sun burnings and it has the signs of a hard slap or similar. The point here, is that interviews were conducted with the baby sitters at the Ocean Club crèche and none of them remembers this very visible mark on Madeleine's arm. There wasn't any statement from the parents regarding this fact. Therefore, the conclusion is that this was made after 17:30, after the parents picked Maddie up from the crèche on the 3rd of May 2007

[jack dexter]

Blue Bag - quick question....do you work for The Mirror?

No.
 

I've done an image search online using the photo name you supplied and it doesn't come up anywhere. However I note that the link back to this photo goes immediately to an incoming server for The Mirror.

I use google images. It;s very simple to use.

Also please note the very distinctive burn / scar on the child's wrist. If this image is genuine, this is indeed very revealing. Thank you Blue Bag. This photo ranks up there with Gestalt's Last Photo.

Whatever.

Whatever?
You've single-handedly shown us a very nasty burn mark on Madeleine's wrist which has not previously been distinguishable?
I wouldn't be dismissive of this. It's such a distinctive mark, one would have thought the McCanns would have mentioned it when issuing their initial description of their child on the night she went missing.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A reminder of Dr Amaral's concerns regarding the mark on her arm:

Madeleine's Right Arm and the Strange Mark

The issue was raised by Mr. Hernâni Carvalho. Madeleine's right arm has a strange mark, a mark which, according to what Mr. Carvalho has learned with Doctor Natália Vara, a forensic psychologist is not a sun burn - in that case more parts of her body would show signs of sun burnings and it has the signs of a hard slap or similar. The point here, is that interviews were conducted with the baby sitters at the Ocean Club crèche and none of them remembers this very visible mark on Madeleine's arm. There wasn't any statement from the parents regarding this fact. Therefore, the conclusion is that this was made after 17:30, after the parents picked Maddie up from the crèche on the 3rd of May 2007

The mark on her wrist looks like a bite mark made by herself. I've seen quite a few kids who when they get in a temper bit their arms.

[Guest]

Have you, Jack? I haven't, ever.

Of course, that is one explanation amidst dozens of others to explain that mark. A very unlikely one indeed, imo.

[sallypelt]

Have you done a close-up of the fingers on her left hand? I don't contribute to "photoshopped threads" but those little fingers look extremely bruised to me, but as I am camera illiterate, it could be just the camera.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[Tony Bennett]

@ Blue Bag

Have you actually looked at the purported EXIF data on the video, Blue Bag? (see here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )

Do the EXIF data not normally shiow both the date created and the date of any amendment?

The EXIF data shown in that video are clear...PHOTO...CREATED...5 MAY 2007 (the Saturday).

It's not EXIF data Tony. This is a screen shot from the video. That is not EXIF data.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's from something created on the 5th of May, by "AP" associated press - possibly a scan of the handout.

Someone is yanking chains. They will suck the life out of discussions by getting people going round in circles over nothing. Meanwhile... the dogs.
It's simple.

@ Blue Bag

Thanks very much for the screenshot and the highlighting of the  items outlined in red.

I would like to know precisely what we take from this screenshot please. Is this correct >>>>


1. The photo was taken some time before 9.50am on 5 May, maybe on 1 May as the McCanns claim?

2. It was transmitted to the PRESS ASSOCIATION by JPEG?

3. The image that we see on this thread was PRODUCED BY the Press Association at precisely 9.50am and 25 seconds

4. The PRESS ASSOCIATION (not anyone else) used Adobe Photoshop 7.0 to create this image at 9.50am, 25 secs on 5 May    

5. We don't know how they photoshopped it? (e.g. by photoshopping things in or out, cropping etc.

6. We don't know from the data which camera it was taken on?


I should be most grateful if you or any other digital camera expert could confirm (or otherwise) the above six points, or help us with any other information that we might be able to extract from those data.

I have to say that I am not that much wiser, except that I assume for now you are correct in saying it was the PRESS ASSOCIATION not anyone else who photoshopped it, using Adobe Photoshop 7.0 ,at 9.50am, Saturday 5 May.

Even that still begs the question of why other photos from the holiday were not released at this time.

Nor is it clear why it had to be photoshopped at all

[Liz Eagles]

So far, there's been bizarre claims/discussions of Madeleine (or the alleged body with the photo-shopped head of Madeleine) wearing a sports bra, being that of an adolescent, being that of Kate, bruises on the arm, bruises on the fingers, bite marks, strange neck folds, marks down the cheek, photo-shopped arms, hands - you name it. More and more unqualified 'observations' from people who know diddly squat about photography emerge - and all from low resolution photographs with no provenance of the original.

The point is, there needs to be provenance of the photograph. It needs to be established when it was taken, who it was taken by, on what camera and importantly on what date and at what time. That's the only thing that matters. Only this will explain why this photograph is so important. I sincerely hope OG have done their job in this respect.

I find the obsession with poring over this photo and coming up with increasingly mawkish 'theories' pointless - apart from my above points.

This is only my opinion.

[ChippyM]

Have you done a close-up of the fingers on her left hand? I don't contribute to "photoshopped threads" but those little fingers look extremely bruised to me, but as I am camera illiterate, it could be just the camera.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's not the camera but the way the picture has been saved. Each time a photo is saved as a jpg after being resized, cropped, contrast adjusted or any number of things, some data will be lost to keep the file size small. You are left with distorted images that as Bluebag mentioned earlier, suffer from what are known as 'compression artifacts'.  Colours that should be blending seamlessley become garish, bleeding and lumped together in blocks. Dark areas can appear darker etc. 

If you look up a better quality version of the image there are no suspicious dark lines, or pronounced colours that look like nail varnish or bruises on the hand etc.

       I think the actually shape of the girl in this photo seems a bit weird but then again, that doesn't make it an impossibility, photos can sometimes make people look odd. If photos are going to be analysed the original would be needed and a forensic photography expert would need to analyse it properly instead of just saying it looks strange somehow.....that really can't be done unless someone is looking at the original image.

  If we say some of the McCann's photos have been altered (just for arguments sake), who would have been expert enough to do it? It would be yet another person privy to the truth of what happened if it was someone outside the original group, so surely a huge risk....or in the group ...or family...who would be adept enough to do it?  To argue the photos have been 'shopped', surely a credible explanation as to who did it needs to be figured out too?   
        Thinking about that question brings a number of possibilities to my mind which are, the McCann relative that did dodgy photoshopped pictures of women in quicksand, perhaps a family friend and professional photographer, or possibly a computer or website expert that was questioned at one point. Just my own opinion and ponderings on the subject!

[ChippyM]

Edited to remove double post.


I also agree with Aquila, nothing can really be analysed meaningfully without the original photo and establishing it's proper context.

[sallypelt]

So far, there's been bizarre claims/discussions of Madeleine (or the alleged body with the photo-shopped head of Madeleine) wearing a sports bra, being that of an adolescent, being that of Kate, bruises on the arm, bruises on the fingers, bite marks, strange neck folds, marks down the cheek, photo-shopped arms, hands - you name it. More and more unqualified 'observations' from people who know diddly squat about photography emerge - and all from low resolution photographs with no provenance of the original.

The point is, there needs to be provenance of the photograph. It needs to be established when it was taken, who it was taken by, on what camera and importantly on what date and at what time. That's the only thing that matters. Only this will explain why this photograph is so important. I sincerely hope OG have done their job in this respect.

I find the obsession with poring over this photo and coming up with increasingly mawkish 'theories' pointless - apart from my above points.

This is only my opinion.

I've said my bit on it. My one and only observation. As I've said so often in the past, I know nothing about photography, and I deliberately keep away from "photoshopped" threads. I am in agreement with Bluebag on these photograph issues. To suggest that EVERY photograph of the McCann family is "photoshopped" or shows something sinister, is, imo, doing a discredit to the forum, when every photograph is poured over.

There. I'm better now!

[jack dexter]

Have you, Jack? I haven't, ever.

Of course, that is one explanation amidst dozens of others to explain that mark. A very unlikely one indeed, imo.

I have seen this at least 4 times. Has anyone else?

[Liz Eagles]

So far, there's been bizarre claims/discussions of Madeleine (or the alleged body with the photo-shopped head of Madeleine) wearing a sports bra, being that of an adolescent, being that of Kate, bruises on the arm, bruises on the fingers, bite marks, strange neck folds, marks down the cheek, photo-shopped arms, hands - you name it. More and more unqualified 'observations' from people who know diddly squat about photography emerge - and all from low resolution photographs with no provenance of the original.

The point is, there needs to be provenance of the photograph. It needs to be established when it was taken, who it was taken by, on what camera and importantly on what date and at what time. That's the only thing that matters. Only this will explain why this photograph is so important. I sincerely hope OG have done their job in this respect.

I find the obsession with poring over this photo and coming up with increasingly mawkish 'theories' pointless - apart from my above points.

This is only my opinion.

I've said my bit on it. My one any only observation. As I've said so often in the past, I know nothing about photograph, and I deliberately keep away from "photoshopped" threads. I am in agreement with Bluebag on these photograph issues. To suggest that EVERY photograph of the McCann family is "photoshopped" or shows something sinister, is, imo, doing a discredit to the forum, when every photograph is poured over.

There. I'm better now!

[sallypelt]

So far, there's been bizarre claims/discussions of Madeleine (or the alleged body with the photo-shopped head of Madeleine) wearing a sports bra, being that of an adolescent, being that of Kate, bruises on the arm, bruises on the fingers, bite marks, strange neck folds, marks down the cheek, photo-shopped arms, hands - you name it. More and more unqualified 'observations' from people who know diddly squat about photography emerge - and all from low resolution photographs with no provenance of the original.

The point is, there needs to be provenance of the photograph. It needs to be established when it was taken, who it was taken by, on what camera and importantly on what date and at what time. That's the only thing that matters. Only this will explain why this photograph is so important. I sincerely hope OG have done their job in this respect.

I find the obsession with poring over this photo and coming up with increasingly mawkish 'theories' pointless - apart from my above points.

This is only my opinion.

I've said my bit on it. My one any only observation. As I've said so often in the past, I know nothing about photograph, and I deliberately keep away from "photoshopped" threads. I am in agreement with Bluebag on these photograph issues. To suggest that EVERY photograph of the McCann family is "photoshopped" or shows something sinister, is, imo, doing a discredit to the forum, when every photograph is poured over.

There. I'm better now!

Maybe I should proof-read my posts before pressing send. I can't believe I make so many typos, until I read them back, AFTER they have been posted. I've corrected my original post, but where it's quoted by other members, it's there for all to see  

[Liz Eagles]

So far, there's been bizarre claims/discussions of Madeleine (or the alleged body with the photo-shopped head of Madeleine) wearing a sports bra, being that of an adolescent, being that of Kate, bruises on the arm, bruises on the fingers, bite marks, strange neck folds, marks down the cheek, photo-shopped arms, hands - you name it. More and more unqualified 'observations' from people who know diddly squat about photography emerge - and all from low resolution photographs with no provenance of the original.

The point is, there needs to be provenance of the photograph. It needs to be established when it was taken, who it was taken by, on what camera and importantly on what date and at what time. That's the only thing that matters. Only this will explain why this photograph is so important. I sincerely hope OG have done their job in this respect.

I find the obsession with poring over this photo and coming up with increasingly mawkish 'theories' pointless - apart from my above points.

This is only my opinion.

I've said my bit on it. My one any only observation. As I've said so often in the past, I know nothing about photograph, and I deliberately keep away from "photoshopped" threads. I am in agreement with Bluebag on these photograph issues. To suggest that EVERY photograph of the McCann family is "photoshopped" or shows something sinister, is, imo, doing a discredit to the forum, when every photograph is poured over.

There. I'm better now!

Maybe I should proof-read my posts before pressing send. I can't believe I make so many typos, until I read them back, AFTER they have been posted. I've corrected my original post, but where it's quoted by other members, it's there for all to see  

I wouldn't worry about it.

What fascinates me about this photograph is that its provenance has yet to be established - just like the last photo.

Now, with all those PR professionals (helloooo to Clarence) and Alex Woolfall (bless him for his altruistic help in collecting photographs) and the media (who'd sell their own granny for a scoop on Madeleine) it does sort of let the Tapas Crew off the hook if you know what I mean.

[j.rob]

Why is she holding tennis balls that are not the type used for mini-tennis?

[Tony Bennett]

Why is she holding tennis balls that are not the type used for mini-tennis?

The claim is made by the McCann camp that the children were asked to go round the court after their mini-tennis picking up all the balls::
'madeleine', p. 57:

"At the end of the session, the children had been aked to run around the court and pick up as many balls as they could. Madeleine had done really well...Gerry loves that picture".

[JohnyT]

So far, there's been bizarre claims/discussions of Madeleine (or the alleged body with the photo-shopped head of Madeleine) wearing a sports bra, being that of an adolescent, being that of Kate, bruises on the arm, bruises on the fingers, bite marks, strange neck folds, marks down the cheek, photo-shopped arms, hands - you name it. More and more unqualified 'observations' from people who know diddly squat about photography emerge - and all from low resolution photographs with no provenance of the original.

The point is, there needs to be provenance of the photograph. It needs to be established when it was taken, who it was taken by, on what camera and importantly on what date and at what time. That's the only thing that matters. Only this will explain why this photograph is so important. I sincerely hope OG have done their job in this respect.

I find the obsession with poring over this photo and coming up with increasingly mawkish 'theories' pointless - apart from my above points.

This is only my opinion.

Agreed!

[JohnyT]

Have you, Jack? I haven't, ever.

Of course, that is one explanation amidst dozens of others to explain that mark. A very unlikely one indeed, imo.

I have seen this at least 4 times. Has anyone else?

I've seen it......so can't understand anyone saying it's unlikely.
       IMHO I think some people are looking for things that aren't there!
JohnyT

[j.rob]

Why is she holding tennis balls that are not the type used for mini-tennis?

The claim is made by the McCann camp that the children were asked to go round the court after their mini-tennis picking up all the balls::
'madeleine', p. 57:

"At the end of the session, the children had been aked to run around the court and pick up as many balls as they could. Madeleine had done really well...Gerry loves that picture".

Hmmmmm. I wonder why?

[rustyjames]

@ Blue Bag

Thanks very much for the screenshot and the highlighting of the  items outlined in red.

I would like to know precisely what we take from this screenshot please. Is this correct >>>>


1. The photo was taken some time before 9.50am on 5 May, maybe on 1 May as the McCanns claim?

2. It was transmitted to the PRESS ASSOCIATION by JPEG?

3. The image that we see on this thread was PRODUCED BY the Press Association at precisely 9.50am and 25 seconds

4. The PRESS ASSOCIATION (not anyone else) used Adobe Photoshop 7.0 to create this image at 9.50am, 25 secs on 5 May    

5. We don't know how they photoshopped it? (e.g. by photoshopping things in or out, cropping etc.

6. We don't know from the data which camera it was taken on?


I should be most grateful if you or any other digital camera expert could confirm (or otherwise) the above six points, or help us with any other information that we might be able to extract from those data.

I have to say that I am not that much wiser, except that I assume for now you are correct in saying it was the PRESS ASSOCIATION not anyone else who photoshopped it, using Adobe Photoshop 7.0 ,at 9.50am, Saturday 5 May.

Even that still begs the question of why other photos from the holiday were not released at this time.

Nor is it clear why it had to be photoshopped at all

I'd taken a couple of snapshots of the data in that video earlier as I still can't find anything vaguely high resolution or containing exif data.  I was going to post them at lunch but ran out of time, and also really want to get the time to go through all the previous posts, however in the meantime a few comments from me:

• The resolution at the top is listed as 300dpi - I'm not certain but that suggests to me something that has been scanned or at least created with a view to publishing
  
• That's further reinforced by the references to a handout as the source, although there is also the term 'HO' used in the last photo
  
• This (and the last photo) have a significant amount of XMP and IPTC data.  XMP is metadata stored by Adobe and IPTC is metadata stored by the photo agencies to record the captions, headlines and any other information.  Adobe will have been used to edit and manage this information.
  
• In the case of this version of the photo it is set for "Progressive Scans" probably also using Adobe - that's where it is saved in such as way that the photo can be progressively loaded on a webpage - you initially see a poor version that gets better as it loads, but it has the advantage you don't have to wait for it to completely load to see something.
  
• If it was a scan then it looks as if AP or someone did it on the 5th - note just a date and no time (I'm not sure where references to 9:50am have come from).  I don't know why this version has references in the Document History to events on the 10th and then a modify date of the 11th.  Possibly picked up from AP and repurposed for wherever it was being published?
  
• I can't find a proper version of this photo on the AFP ImageForum site - the first one I can see is a cutting tied to railings in Rothley on the 9th.
  

It's also not clear why there is the comment in the special instructions that "UNITED KINGDOM OUT NO SALES NO ARCHIVE - PHOTOGRAPH CAN NOT BE STORED OR USED FOR MORE THAN 14 DAYS AFTER THE DAY OF TRANSMISSION"

[lufc50337]

Thanks TB.

Offered for your perusal, a closeup of the head and hands area of the tennis ball photo.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Just a few observations, in support of the suggestion that this is Madeleine's head on a different body:

A peculiar roll of skin running around the neck area, which may indicate a join where the head has been pasted onto the body

An odd vertical pink line running down the right cheek, from about mid-ear, to her chin.

An odd strip of white on the left side of her head (right side as we look at the photo), just above the second tennis ball, running up into her hair. What is it?

Additionally, if you're a child running around picking up tennis balls and wearing that hat, the brim is going to flop forward when you bend over to pick up the balls. It's not fixed in place by the clip (which we can see in her hair). We know the hat can appear in the brim-down position as we've seen it on Amelie in The Last Photo. So, my question is, when and how did the brim get pushed back after picking up the tennis balls? Her hands are full.

ETA: Also a dark blue or black line drawn between her sleeve and her arm - looks like it was added after the fact to delineate the edge of the sleeve. Makes it look like a shadow. However - there's no sun and no shadows anywhere else.

Seeing the photo enlarged is really moving and sad, it takes me back to the start when it was concern for a missing child, that she didn't IMO reach the age of 4 is heartbreaking.  It then also became about justice for Madeleine, Amarel & others destroyed by this case.

[jack dexter]

Have you, Jack? I haven't, ever.

Of course, that is one explanation amidst dozens of others to explain that mark. A very unlikely one indeed, imo.

I have seen this at least 4 times. Has anyone else?

I've seen it......so can't understand anyone saying it's unlikely.
       IMHO I think some people are looking for things that aren't there!
JohnyT

What is is with this forum Johny ? As soon as you raise something all the regulars gang together and try to discredit you or just ignore the obvious or your comments. Comment deleted - Moderator  This site is full of pro's . Children biting there own arm is common if you google it, but not on here. they try to make you look stupid or just ignore you.That is a clear bite mark on her arm but only one person even bothers to recognise my point. Comment deleted - Moderator

[canada12]

Just a very small point, but thanks to Blue Bag, we can now see that this child has no coloboma whatsoever. Thanks BB!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[Guest]

Absolutely,  Canada. But not a small point. The fact that this child clearly has no coloboma whatsoever is massive, imo. Who is she? And who is Madeleine?

[canada12]

Absolutely,  Canada. But not a small point. The fact that this child clearly has no coloboma whatsoever is massive, imo. Who is she? And who is Madeleine?

Hmm. Well, if Madeleine never had a coloboma...then all of the photos we've seen that purport to be her with a coloboma have been photoshopped. ALL of them. A not insignificant number of pictures.

[Guest]

Have you, Jack? I haven't, ever.

Of course, that is one explanation amidst dozens of others to explain that mark. A very unlikely one indeed, imo.

I have seen this at least 4 times. Has anyone else?

I've seen it......so can't understand anyone saying it's unlikely.
       IMHO I think some people are looking for things that aren't there!
JohnyT

What is is with this forum Johny ? As soon as you raise something all the regulars gang together and try to discredit you or just ignore the obvious or your comments. Comment deleted in original post - Moderator. Children biting there own arm is common if you google it, but not on here. they try to make you look stupid or just ignore you.That is a clear bite mark on her arm but only one person even bothers to recognise my point. Comment deleted in original post - Moderator 

No one has 'ganged up' on you. I have no particular friends on here with whom to 'gang up'.

It was merely your ludicrous suggestion that Madeleine may have created her own mark - the mark which so concerned Goncalo - the one which you consider 'isn't there', Johny - that prompted my scorn.

And still does. Can you provide evidence of the numerous children of your acquaintance who self-harm when in temper? I repeat, I have never once seen children bite themselves to cause such marks. But I await your contra-evidence with open mind and interest.