Questions and photographs

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


Good grief, I must get photobucket or something, all that terrible advertising around it - however, try and enlarge the bottom photograph and it can be very clearly seen that it was heavily adjusted. The pixel size of the hair and eyes is many times larger than the pink skin.
The overlay of skin tone makes a 90º angle near the left eye and the nose has been further adjusted.

Compare to two unadjusted photographs above, both taken at a playground. It doesn't even look like the same girl.
My opinion is that Maddie wasn't a healthy child and since her health records were withheld from the investigators - which I would agree should be kept from the public but absolutely not from the investigative officers -  only the photographs and e.g. Kate's diary, where she repeats the phrase  'Madeleine and her fear of pain'.  Which to me indicates a possible painful treatment for a condition.

Again, I don't think it's any of our business to delve into the state of health of that poor little girl, but delving into photoshopping is quite another matter. Why such wildly differing photos were released is a mystery to me. Perhaps those who did weren't very observant.

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

Just for good measure, enlarge this one and see a crease from Gerry's shorts continue underneath the transparent arm of Amelie.
It's nothing to do with the width of the sleeve that Amelie has lost her right arm from the elbow up, it's simply bad photoshopping.

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

This photo was flipped as the original had her facing to the right.
I can clearly see another tennisball  'ghost' overlapping her cheek. Many topics on this photo. According to the PJ - I did read this somewhere and have no ref. - this photo was on one of the cameras examined but! it concerns a girl with a tennis racket, not a pile of tennis balls.
That would explain the ghostly tennisball and also the pasted-on head of Maddie on a body that is about two years older than the  body of the girl at the pool.

Quite possible that it's actually Maddie's body but combined with another head shot - they got the proportions wrong as well as the position of the head.
The tennis court has been analysed by people who know OC and the general conclusion is that it wasn't taken at OC.

What do you mean by 'different pixel sizes'?  Pixels are on a uniform grid, each one the same size and shape.

That said, perhaps you mean that the image gives the perception that pixels are different sizes?  If so, what format are these photographs? JPEG Discrete Cosine Transform can create the appearance of multiple resolutions.

Are there any external links you can post?  I'd prefer to look at the images before commenting further :)

Edit: the images are probably being blocked by a firewall, I'll take a look at them later :)

Sockpuppet wrote:What do you mean by 'different pixel sizes'?  Pixels are on a uniform grid, each one the same size and shape.

That said, perhaps you mean that the image gives the perception that pixels are different sizes?  If so, what format are these photographs? JPEG Discrete Cosine Transform can create the appearance of multiple resolutions.

Are there any external links you can post?  I'd prefer to look at the images before commenting further :)

The pixels in the iconic photograph are the ones I'm talking about and they are quite a lot larger  as I've explained. You'll get the same result if you just enlarge the image. I think this is Tiff  - the point is that the overlay can clearly be seen to be in much reduced pixel size and clearly not part of the original shot. The 90º angle where the pixel size changes is proof enough imo.

You could try Google images for higher resolution ones if you like. Must admit it doesn't come over nearly as well as on my laptop. I think it's the photo server. The difference in pixel sizes stands out a mile though.

I've had a good look at the iconic photograph - the one which was on the cover of Kate's book? - and I can't see any evidence of image manipulation, at least none that's obvious to me.  The difference in 'pixel size' can be a result of compression.  TIFF can be compressed using the DCT I mentioned, same as JPEG.  Compression is lossy, at least this method is.

As you say, the reason for manipulating this image would be a mystery, and I find that the simplest answer in this case would be that there isn't any manipulation.

I've commented on Madeleine's 'fear of pain' elsewhere and repeat that I don't believe this is something which would immediately spring to mind when describing a child unless they had specific reason to fear pain, such as experience of painful hospital procedures or physical chastisement.

Sockpuppet wrote:I've had a good look at the iconic photograph - the one which was on the cover of Kate's book? - and I can't see any evidence of image manipulation, at least none that's obvious to me.  The difference in 'pixel size' can be a result of compression.  TIFF can be compressed using the DCT I mentioned, same as JPEG.  Compression is lossy, at least this method is.

As you say, the reason for manipulating this image would be a mystery, and I find that the simplest answer in this case would be that there isn't any manipulation.

Well, you've only  been here 10 days so no doubt you've  missed a number of topics on photoshopping. 

That particular topic always gets the trolls going for some reason.  

It's a pity that the image on my laptop didn't transpose well here but I'll get advice on that and then repost.

tigger wrote:

Sockpuppet wrote:I've had a good look at the iconic photograph - the one which was on the cover of Kate's book? - and I can't see any evidence of image manipulation, at least none that's obvious to me.  The difference in 'pixel size' can be a result of compression.  TIFF can be compressed using the DCT I mentioned, same as JPEG.  Compression is lossy, at least this method is.

As you say, the reason for manipulating this image would be a mystery, and I find that the simplest answer in this case would be that there isn't any manipulation.

Well, you've only  been here 10 days so no doubt you've  missed a number of topics on photoshopping. 

That particular topic always gets the trolls going for some reason.  

It's a pity that the image on my laptop didn't transpose well here but I'll get advice on that and then repost.

Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong, just giving my own verdict - either of us could be right :)

can anyone tell me when the mccanns are going to be on piers morgans life stories? Lol

I bloody dreamt that they were on and piers well and truly got them to slip up

Sockpuppet wrote:

tigger wrote:

Sockpuppet wrote:I've had a good look at the iconic photograph - the one which was on the cover of Kate's book? - and I can't see any evidence of image manipulation, at least none that's obvious to me.  The difference in 'pixel size' can be a result of compression.  TIFF can be compressed using the DCT I mentioned, same as JPEG.  Compression is lossy, at least this method is.

As you say, the reason for manipulating this image would be a mystery, and I find that the simplest answer in this case would be that there isn't any manipulation.

Well, you've only  been here 10 days so no doubt you've  missed a number of topics on photoshopping. 

That particular topic always gets the trolls going for some reason.  

It's a pity that the image on my laptop didn't transpose well here but I'll get advice on that and then repost.

Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong, just giving my own verdict - either of us could be right :)

For those of you who don't speak geek, Sockpuppet is saying that when you save a photo image some of the blocks of colour get pushed together making the pixels look different sizes.

Therefore:

• the moving coloboma
  
• the bleached skin
  
• the airbrushed eye walls 
  

in Sockpuppet's opinion, are not as a result of image manipulation.

Kate McCann wrote: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 --

The photo shows a coloboma rather than a "brown fleck" either Kate is lying (again) or the image has been shopped.

Poe wrote:For those of you who don't speak geek, Sockpuppet is saying that when you save a photo image some of the blocks of colour get pushed together making the pixels look different sizes.

Therefore:

• the moving coloboma
  
• the bleached skin
  
• the airbrushed eye walls 
  

in Sockpuppet's opinion, are not as a result of image manipulation.

Kate McCann wrote: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 --

The photo shows a coloboma rather than a "brown fleck" either Kate is lying (again) or the image has been shopped.

I at no point stated that there was a 'moving coloboma', nor did I mention 'bleached skin', neither did I write about 'airbrushed eye walls'.  I said that my opinion was the photograph did not show any evidence of image manipulation.

'snipped'

As studier of atatement analysis there was one phrase spoken by gerry mccann that stood out and also led me to think of a motive for her disappearance.

Gerry mccann proudly talked about her birth and said the following "She was born ALMOST PERFECT"

This is not the first time he has said this and coming from a parent, even if he is a doctor, it is concerning to say the least.

When a child is born the new parents feel instant love (despite the gunk as one of my friends so succinctly put it)

10 tiny fingers, 10 tiny toes and a set of healthy lungs is what they look for, their new arrival is perfect.

Why does gerry need to tell us Maddie was born almost perfect?

What was wrong with her that was clearly noticeably not perfect?
A missing limb, extra fingers and/or toes, an extra head?

We know all 3 children were IVF and we also know they are fly by night catholics (staunch catholics when they need somewhere to talk/get to meet the pope/collect donations)
IVF is a sin in the catholic church.

Given what we know, that Madeleine vanished sometime during the week of their vacation, That blood and cadaver dogs reacted in the aprtment , to items of clothing and to the hire car, that 2 items went missing after being photographed by the PJ ( blue bag and pink blanket) is gerry telling us the motive for her death? She wasn't perfect?

They have twins a boy and a girl, the perfect family set up, cute blonde babies, perfect for their social circle.

It is clear that Maddie didn't fit in, this is often heard by the subtle demeaning of the victim, which is unexpected in any missing child case from family. We know she was demanding, had a temper, had a coloboma and interestingly enough that kate thought Maddie would turn out just like her.

If Maddie who we know wasn't perfect does this mean kate isn't perfect?

kate talked not only about suicide, she talked about pressing a button so they would ALL be togeather, in other words contemplating killing the twins and gerry ( justifiable homicide) and herself.

Think about this though.

The key word here is ALL.

Given they have banged on about no evidence she has come to serious harm ( what is their definition of serious harm is daily rape and abuse isn't it)

All means everthing, her words only make sense if she knows Maddie is dead, it is the only way they can all be togeather, otherwise, she has murdered 2 children and gerry and herself and left Maddie an orphan.

SockPuppet, I think Poe is on your side. These image conversations go on and on but it's usually people who are not experienced with image manipulation arguing with people who are not experienced with image manipulation.

The problem is that people comment on copies of copies of copies of images. With each compression and change of format by people to fit spaces or change aspect ratio (that is height to width ratio) errors, or artifacts as they're known, are introduced into the image. 

The image your have put up, Tigger, is a very degraded copy of a much larger original.The copy you have referenced has been compressed, re-sized and re-saved too many times. The errors in it are introduced.  There's no reason why you should know this. It's arcane web design / photoshop knowledge - most people don't have any need to know. Here, check out Wikipedia on this topic and you'll see the effect that you've noticed:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact

Here is a large version that I pulled off the web. You can see that it is a lovely image with no obvious evidence of manipulation. That's not to say that skillful person couldn't have altered it, but I see no evidence of it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Curioser

Sorry I cant quote your post as the image of Madeleine comes up huge!

But, am I seeing things, or is her iris on what would be her left eye bigger than the right?

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

This photo was flipped as the original had her facing to the right.
I can clearly see another tennisball  'ghost' overlapping her cheek. Many topics on this photo. According to the PJ - I did read this somewhere and have no ref. - this photo was on one of the cameras examined but! it concerns a girl with a tennis racket, not a pile of tennis balls.
That would explain the ghostly tennisball and also the pasted-on head of Maddie on a body that is about two years older than the  body of the girl at the pool.

Quite possible that it's actually Maddie's body but combined with another head shot - they got the proportions wrong as well as the position of the head.
The tennis court has been analysed by people who know OC and the general conclusion is that it wasn't taken at OC.

Very interested to read this Tigger; I have felt for a long time that the body of the child in this pic is of an older child than Madeleine.

soundworks wrote:can anyone tell me when the mccanns are going to be on piers morgans life stories? Lol

I bloody dreamt that they were on and piers well and truly got them to slip up

Piers treats them with kid gloves and seem to have fallen completely for their whine story. Not completely a surprise since he is a murdoch protege.

I don't know anything about photoshopping and leave that to the experts. But the one thing that cannot be contested about the photo with the tennis balls is the bruising on her right arm. This was explained away as sunburn. It is not. It is a bruise. And one in an unusual place for an accident. Most likely from someone gripping her arm tightly.
Which leads me to the question of why Maddies medical records have not been released.
For what possible reason can the medical records of a 3 year old girl who is missing be withheld?
It is certainly not in Maddies interest. Which leads to the question in whos interest is it?


As a minor it is the parents who have the right to decide the release or not, IF she is still alive.
If she is dead then there are pathways to obtain the records via a judge or court.
Is this one of the reasons the MCs insist that Maddie is still alive?
What is in those records?

Do they contain recordings of other injuries, concerns from health care workers etc.?
This is not to do with IVF and parentage. That is a red herring.
If I was Mr Redwood I would want to see the medical records before I started implicating any innocent bystander.
Start at the beginning is his mantra. And is where this story begins.
In so many cases in the news and not, where a child has been murdered or disappeared there have been concerns raised by healthcare professionals about the childs safety. And unfortunately not acted upon.

@dantezebu 
You make a very good point there. There are a number of early photographs (one year  old by the tulips) and many others where imo she doesn't look at all healthy.

@ curiouser 
Thanks for the info. I ran that picture past a former head of IT at Delft University. I was aware of compression issues but not that it occurs in blocks. 

Even so the degraded picture does have a tale to tell. Much more compression on the skin area , less on the eyes and hair, this means there was a lot more going on in the skin area. The eyes - on your version are enhanced with 
A) the coloboma
B) the very black and artificially treated eyelashes.

tigger wrote:(snip)
@ curiouser 
Thanks for the info. I ran that picture past a former head of IT at Delft University. I was aware of compression issues but not that it occurs in blocks. 

Even so the degraded picture does have a tale to tell. Much more compression on the skin area , less on the eyes and hair, this means there was a lot more going on in the skin area. The eyes - on your version are enhanced with 
A) the coloboma
B) the very black and artificially treated eyelashes.

Tigger, compression calculations take into account the differences in hue, brightness and shade of each 8x8 square of pixels and calculates for difference between the pixels and lots of other technical things. 

Check out the complex calculation used to create jpg images:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

With the greatest of respect, whatever you're seeing doesn't mean there was a lot more going on in the skin area at all. It means the image has been changed and resaved and cropped and resized until its integrity is shot. If that image had been taken directly from a high resolution image like the huge one I posted then maybe, maybe it might mean something but the image you posted is too degraded to conclude much at all. 

I know that's not what you believe and I'll stop trying to convince you now - you have a right to your opinion. It's a free country. Sort of.

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

Meant to add this one here, cropping was just a little too low.

It may just be me, Tigger, but there's no photo with your post.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It may just be me, Tigger, but there's no photo with your post.

And again, Tigger!

Is anyone else having the same problem? If it is just me, I'll shut up, which will be a relief for everyone.