Translate

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

Galileo, Galileo, Galileo, Figaro...........

Yes, ladies and gentlemen!

From her stunning mastery of Biochemistry - who can forget her claim that cadaverine would have oozed out over Madeleine's skin like a layer of olive oil? - Textusa turns her razor-sharp analytical skills to Physics in general and Optics in particular

Prepare to be truly amazed

Gasp - at the mastery of complicated graphics as Textusa makes some big oval shapes and some little oval shapes.

Marvel - as she constructs complex and accurate ray diagrams to explain the two rules of reflection for convex mirrors (A little question I posed her yesterday and which I suspect she has been swotting up ever since, once she was able to contain her grief. Strangely, she has refused to publish either the question or the answer. I cannot imagine why)

Laugh - at the simplistic analysis and hilarious argument.

Hold on tight, folks

Non-post

The McCanns had been enjoying a day in the sun en famille until security spotted Textusa dangling from the tree above them, with a compass and protractor.

1. Introduction

This week our post will be a non-post.
No change there, then
The content it will have is about a non-issue: the photo known as the last photo.
Or there.

We consider that the only importance the last photo has is that it supports our theory:
No it doesn't
it was faked to show a family time that didn’t exist within a family supposed to be enjoying a week long family holiday.
Of course it was. Matron, the restraints please.

The fact that holiday time didn’t exist was, in our opinion, because the parents were there to enjoy adult time with other adults and that’s how they spent most of the time that week.
For a group that were supposedly shagging each other like theme park chimps at every given opportunity, they seemed to spend a lot of time playing tennis. Perhaps they opted for a ''Get your end away and improve your backhand'' package deal?

We didn’t intend to post this week.
Yes you did.
Life is what life is and not what we would like it to be and much less what we want it to be and personal problems have drawn our attention away from the case.
Uh huh.


But an anonymous posted this comment:

“Anonymous 10 Nov 2015, 17:33:00

Can I ask if you will be doing a post on the Last Photo in the near future?

I'm a bit torn. I definitely think there is something wrong with the sunglasses reflection but also think it would be very, very difficult to create a convincing composite outdoors days apart in 2007.

So I'd be really interested in your thoughts on this.

Cheers.”
Naughty, naughty anonymous.......


This all started with an opinion, to which he’s fully entitled to have, given by Tony Bennett about our post “Sagresman”.
There now follows a reprise of the bleating twattishness of the argument between the two biggest nutters on the net. I will point things out from time to time, when I can be arsed.
However, in it he wrote a passage that clearly suggests that we may have changed our minds about the last photo, and would now believe or think it credible that it could have been taken on the 29th.

This being untrue, we sought clarification by placing the following comment in the blog:

“A word to Tony Bennett. There is one thing in your post on JH Forum that we would like to clarify, because you appear to attribute a belief about the last photo that we certainly do not have:

“Maria says that the photo was not taken on Sunday 29 April as claimed by Lourenco. She says that the date and time stamp was altered so as to give the date of 29 April to fit in with the bogus story of the alleged kidnapping at Sagres that day. I agree with all those conclusions, and would add that this reminds us, of course, to the discussion about the ‘Last Photo’ which now suggest that it could have been taken on Sunday 29 April and not Thursday 3 May as claimed.”

We do NOT believe that this photo of Maddie was taken on Sunday 29 April.

We do NOT believe that this photo of Maddie was taken on Thursday 3 May.

This photo is so evidently fake that we are thinking of calling it “How-not-to-fake-a-photo-photo” instead of last photo.
"So evidently fake"
Once again Textusa nails her knickers to the wall. This is going to come back to haunt her.


We believe that this photo is a composite of 2 photos. One taken of Maddie alone, WE DON’T KNOW WHEN, a copy of which appears in the Mockumentary. The other of Gerry with Amelie, which we believe was taken on 18 May. These 2 photos were then superimposed one over the other resulting in what is this photo.
Why does she believe they were taken on the 18th?

She says it is because they were wearing the same clothes

That would be unconvincing even if they were, given as they only took enough clothes for a week.

But they weren't. Fabulous research, there, Textusa!


We also believe a third photo was used, one where Gerry has the sunglasses hanging vertically on his t-shirt. We suppose it was also taken on 18 May during the session by the pool with Gerry and Amelie.
We believe,........... we suppose............. 18th May..........

Not very convincing, is it?


The lenses of the sunglasses on the composite picture is taken from this 3rd photograph. The reason being that it was the only one where the photographer didn’t appear in the reflection of the sunglasses.
So now we have three imaginary photos, two containing the imaginary reflection of an imaginary photographer
In the original it could have been seen that the photographer wasn’t Kate and that detail had to be removed.
Could have.......................

Convinced yet?


We have not changed our minds in any way about what we think of that photo as you seem to be implying in your post.

If you would be kind enough to edit your post to make this clear it would be appreciated because we don't want readers misled.”
''We don't want readers misled''

Of course you don't. The fact that your family motto is

 ''Textusaris ale stupidus. Misledius redus sinceus 1654''

 is a complete mystery


We did not seek discussion about the photo. We gave our thoughts about it only to substantiate our request for Tony Bennett to edit his post. He made a statement about us which was incorrect, it was our duty to ask to have it corrected.
Ahhh - your duty. Okay. So nothing to do with you having your knickers in such a twist, the washing instructions were sticking to your armpit, then?

However it seems that this has spawned a debate about whether the photo is or isn’t manipulated thus the comment from anon above.
Naughty, naughty anon............


2. To be manipulated or not to be manipulated

Again, we repeat, we think the photo to have little importance to the material truth.

IF, we repeat IF, it was genuine and taken on the 29, it would ONLY prove that Maddie didn’t die on Saturday.

IF the photo was genuine and taken on the 29 that wouldn’t disprove that she died on the 3rd. Or 30th, 1st or 2nd.

However, if proven to be genuine and taken on 3rd then, obviously, the theory of death before that day would collapse.

Because of that, we think that for the people defending this theory the photo must be genuine and to have been taken on the 29th. And even if hell freezes around them on this issue, they will find a match somewhere, light up and say “look how hot the weather is today”.

We believe that Maddie died on the 3rd. For us, it would be highly convenient to say that the photo to have been taken on that day as the McCanns allege.

We don’t. It’s not our policy to twist fact to tale
Er - yes it is
and we very much doubt that anything on that photo was taken on that day.

Does saying the photo is not from the 3rd disprove anything we have stated? No.

The only importance that photo does have in our opinion happens to be in our favour: it shows the absence of photos of what would be expected in a week long family holiday.
Rubbish. There may be dozens more, for all you know

One thing that the defenders of April 29 have to agree on is that the photo was manipulated.
Oh really?

They must agree to that. The McCanns say it was taken on the 3rd, they say it was on the 29. For that to happen the McCanns had to have manipulated one of its elements: the date.

So, according to them it’s clear, that there was on the part of the McCanns the intention to deceive. That the McCanns made an effort to deceive.

Once that intent is detected and acknowledged, where then does one draw the line of manipulation and say where there is deceit and where there isn’t?

If there was the intention, which will be the case if date altered, how much was that photo manipulated?

They say it’s only on the date. Only the date was changed.

Why? Because that’s what fits their theory.
Ah - so you claim that the photo is manipulated because it fits your theory, in that case. That isn't how evidence works, you know? The theory should be developed from the evidence, not the other way round.

We think intellectual integrity demands that once one accepts there was the intention, for whatever reason, to manipulate one should keep an open mind to all possibilities of manipulation.
You wouldn't know ''intellectual integrity'' if it crapped in your handbag, dear.


3. Sunglasses

Our assessment about the photo having being manipulated is only to with the sunglasses. The reflection on them is physically impossible.
No it isn't.

We think it is fake not because of any pixel manipulation but because of physics.
Ah. Physics. This is going to be fun.

I'm going to cut a whole load out of this because it's irrelevant or bollocks







No argument with Darren, it is certainly possible for part of a circle to appear as a straight line in a reflection.
Personally, I believe it's easier than that. 

Firstly, let's look at Textusa's comparison, though, because I could use a laugh






During the day we spent together in our hotel we asked friends of ours to pose by the kids pool of the hotel. The idea was to replicate the last photo. Only missing a small child to make it perfect:
Oh yes, absolutely perfect. I can hardly tell them apart. No wait, I can. Maybe because they are sitting at and have been photographed at an entirely different angle 

Textusa wishes to thank her relatives who agreed to take part in this pretendy reconstruction on condition that their identities were disguised, and wishes them well in the future which they will be spending in witness protection

We have censored all elements that may identify this couple. Experience has unfortunately shown that there are some out there who in their desperate attempts to discredit us will go and do anything even disrespecting the privacy of others who have nothing to do with the case.
You mean like the other week when you stole pictures from someone's blog and used them to represent yourself and your Cling-Ons? Don't worry, I let the blog owners know about that.

The pool, we have checked later on Google Maps was the exact same size of the kids pool at Tapas, with an approximate diameter of 7 metres.
It cannot be simultaneously the ''exact same size'' and ''approximately 7 metres in diameter''
The red circle was drawn over the kids pool at our hotel.

So what is seen reflected is very similar in distortion as to was expected to be seen in Gerry’s sunglasses:
Try that again in an Earth language 

These are what we call the Textusa’s sunglasses:
Presumably because they cause the wearer to suffer visual hallucinations?


Anyway, here is her mock up - photographed from the subject's left.......... 




And here's Gerry, photographed from the right.
Well done missus!

Right, we can get rid of some more which is also bollocks.... 


What unravelled for us the last photo “mystery” was Isabel Oliveira’s question to Darren Ware as to why no photographer appeared on the lenses of Gerry’s sunglasses.

We saw that the glasses had been photoshopped but we simply could not understand why. And the mistake seemed so evident that this particular photoshopping baffled us. We even thought it was on purpose so as to spawn discussions around it by conspiracy theorists.
You ''even thought it was deliberate so as to spawn discussions around it by conspiracy theorists''? Well, if that isn't the last word in tinfoilhattery, I really, truly do not know what is 

But Isabel’s question made us realise that with the angle (straight ahead) and height (almost the same as photographer) which Gerry is looking at the camera the photographer had to be reflected in the lens. He or she wasn’t. To hide that could only mean in the original photo it would be visible that the photographer wasn’t Kate.
Ah - and so we come to the physics bit.

Strangely, Professor Textusa Hawkings has been reluctant to answer questions relating to the ''physics'' she claims such familiarity with. In fact, she has been reluctant to even publish the questions. Now, I may be going out on a limb, but it suggests this is because she hadn't a clue what they meant. So let us continue, and we'll deal with them as we go. 

That realisation made us ask, why not then use another picture to photoshop, one with an horizontal reflection?

The answer is that the Tapas kid’s pool is not a photographic studio. Pictures were taken there and the realisation that photographer appeared in all photos with the horizontal reflection of pool.
Okay - well none of that made any sense, so let's put it in very very simple terms. Terms that even a textaloon could understand.

 When light strikes a flat mirror, the angle of incidence and the angle of reflection are the same. If you are standing directly in front of a flat mirror, the angle of reflection is basically back down the same path, and the viewer would appear in the middle of the reflection. But when it comes to a small reflective surface, one does not have to be at that great an angle before one is not visible in the reflection. Photographers use several tricks to avoid unwanted reflections in spectacles, for example; usually it is as easy as moving themselves, moving the light source, or even getting the subject to drop or turn  their head slightly





So, it is as simple as this - what will be seen reflected in Gerry's sunglasses depends on the angle between the person taking the photo and the glasses. We know his head is bent slightly forward, or the glasses are because the bulk of the reflection appears to be of the water. As the picture has been taken from a slight angle, the angle of incidence will also be slight, hence the sunglasses are reflecting what is in Gerry's peripheral vision, ie, his own shirt, parts of the path, and a little bit of Amelie's hat. It's nothing to do with the poolside, in my opinion.

The picture is complicated by the fact that the surface of the lens appears to be slightly curved and this may cause some distortion in both the lines of and the size of the reflected image and the fact that we also do not know if the lenses were polarised as these can create odd effects when used with a polarising camera filter.




This stunning diagram, entitled ''Some green bits and some yellow bits'' secured Textusa's research grant to study ways of telling her arse from her elbow.








Bullshit

The vertical angle from where it was taken, makes only the reflection of the other side of the pool appear (one would have to see the original to see exactly what is being reflected).

cobblers

That would explain the vertical lines in Gerry’s reflection. They are not vertical lines at all, they are horizontal lines rotated when the lenses of glasses are photoshopped.


This also explains the little pink bit, which would be Amelie’s hat reflected where she was in the original picture – not the last photo, as the original from where the glasses were taken from has nothing to do with it.
Ah - so Amelie's hat was coincidentally reflected in the "Not the Last Photo"  in exactly the same place as it would have been reflected in the "Actual Last Photo"

Amazing!

To show how easy it is to photoshop the lenses, we did just that:


Only we didn’t use photoshop. We used a much less powerful and basic image editing tool: paintbrush. Just cropped the left lens (left from the point of view of a person looking at Gerry), flipped it horizontally and placed it over the pixels that were in the right lens.

The left lens is the original. Please tell the difference.

That simple. A photoshopped image leaving all shadows and other pixels intact.
Which wouldn't fool an expert for a second and which immediately looks completely wrong as that lens would not be reflecting what is now in it. You seriously think an expert would not spot that?


The defenders of the originality of the photo say that it’s genuine because 2 experts say it is. We have never heard this. The best we heard to that effect was that they thought that it was “fairly certain” that it was an original.
Yes, but they are experts. You're not 

“Fairly certain” is quite far from saying “this was NOT 'several generations' away from the original, that in fact it was NO 'generations' away from the original, and indeed was an ORIGINAL, GENUINE, UNPHOTOSHOPPED photo”. 

By the way, if any expert had said that then they would show themselves not to be experts at all. No expert could, in a technological area, say for certainty that a photo has not been tampered with.
That is why they don't say ''absolutely certain'' you fucktard.  

Reason being that in this area one can only use the tools one knows technology has at that moment. One is not aware if there is new technology that renders the tools one has useless.

An expert can determine if a photo has been manipulated but no expert would give absolute certainty that it was not. The best an expert can do is to say that with the tools available he detected no manipulation. That is not saying it was not manipulated.

This is what the experts in question have said:

“PeterMac on Wed Oct 15, 2014 4:23 pm

“20.1 I have taken an initial look at the image. The artefacts alluded to in the pdf document that you sent are simply JPEG compression artefacts (as described here: http://www.fourandsix.com/blog/2011/6/29/that-looks-fake.html ). If you magnify other parts of the image you will see similar artefacts. I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent -- they are. I see no other anomalies in the photo. So, at first glance, I see no evidence of photo tampering.

I will add that it is fairly easy to change dates in an image's metadata or for these dates to be wrong. As such these dates should not be solely relied upon.

Regards,

Y Y Y Y

20.2 “From what I saw I couldn't see anything that would lead me to believe beyond reasonable doubt it had been doctored. The fringing mentioned can be caused by auto sharpening used in consumer digital cameras to make 'better' or 'sharper' images. These artefacts can often be made worse from image compression algorithms out of photoshop or other image manipulation software.”

Neither are stating without doubt that it was not doctored.
I have highlighted the important words for you to see if we can get it into your thick skull

''Beyond reasonable doubt'' is the standard of proof required in a court of law. It is the standard of proof required to convict. In some countries, it is the standard of proof required to send a convict to their execution. It is therefore a perfectly adequate standard of proof for a menopausal halfwit with a swinging fixation and the IQ of a small haggis. 

We don’t know what was asked of the experts. We don’t know if they were paid for their opinion. If they weren’t we don't what was their motivation to collaborate nor what was their commitment when they answered.
Doesn't matter 

We could be confronted with a brush-off answer like we saw was given by the Wayback Machine with its first reply.

We don’t know the pressure they felt in saying the photo was genuine because of fear of being sued if they said otherwise.
Cobblers 

We don’t know what photo they looked at, as we very much doubt the McCanns sent the originals to the expert for said analysis.
So have you got the original then? So they had the same as you, idiot. 

Without looking at the detailed reports from experts we don’t know what their opinions are precisely.
Then get it analysed yourself 

Experts do not create truth. Experts explain truth. Truth was always there before they explain it. It’s their expertise that makes us see it when previously our ignorance did not allow us to do so. But what experts can't do is to invent truth.
Which is what they have done 

It’s our eyes and our brains that tell us what truth is.
Not in your fucking case. Your brain tells you there was no big round table and that the film of Brunt sat on it was  - and I quote - ''digitally remastered'' to make a small table look like a big one.  
No one and nothing else. Experts’ opinions guide us to more solid reasons to what we believe to be truth. Because we believe it to be so and not because they tell us it is. 
So if you were ill and your doctor said to you ''It's kidney cancer'' would you insist it was actually just a kidney stone because ''you believed it to be so''? Actually, you probably would, but imagine you're a normal person for a moment.

Galileo Galilei was surrounded by experts that at the time stated without doubt that the earth was flat. These experts and those supporting them, did not allow anyone to question such expertise.
No - Galileo was the expert, you dimwit, surrounded by religious zealots and fruit loops, who proved that the Earth and other planets orbited the Sun and not the other way round, for which they locked him up as a heretic. They'd worked out it was spherical about a thousand years earlier. Seriously, did you attend school?  

The point is that he was the expert - and was right. Unlike you, who is not the expert, and is wrong. Again. 

This is what I said to Tony Bennett on Facebook, on September 22, concerning the experts:

“I have already pointed out to you that the experts you keep repeating have deemed the last photo as “photoshop-free” are completely useless for the discussion we have had here, unless they have expertise in other areas than the ones you’ve mentioned.

I am not putting them down or minimising their opinions. As you’ll see I would very much like to hear their opinion on something. But this is NOT about photoshopping this is about the physics of imagery. This is not their area of expertise.
And it's clearly not yours - what you know about physics could be written on the back of a small trifle sponge.  

(…)

To your photoshopping experts I would put only one question: are the lenses of the sunglasses photoshopped?

However, I would only be satisfied with only one answer from them: “yes”. And I can tell you right now that I would expect for their answer to be “no”.
Oh fuck off, do. 

Before you criticise me I am not being disrespectful to them or stubbornly accepting only one answer as I’ll explain next.

The answer “no” would be the most likely but for me would be inconclusive.

Why? Because I think the lenses shown belong to the frame and that the frame belongs to the face. So I’m almost certain that the analysis by experts of the border between lenses/frame and the border between frame/head would both result in a conclusive “no, it’s not photoshopped”. And they would be correct.

I have some limited experience in image formatting,
Very fucking limited 
am not an expert
Ain't that the truth 
and my “work” is exposed in the images I publish on the blog. It’s limited but it is experience and is enough to allow me to know that what I would be asking your experts to detect (now we’re talking pixels and not physics) is very hard or even impossible to detect: the superimposition of solid colour over the exact same solid colour.
Okay, bollocks to this, you are talking out of your arse as usual, I'm deleting the rest 



Our reader, Nuala Seaton made the following entry on Facebook:
She can fuck off too, dozy arrogant bitch.

“Anthony Bennett I'm not interested in what your experts had to say. We don't know who they are and we don't know what questions they were asked. Besides which no-one should blindly take the word of an expert and I'm surprised that you do. Anyone who has seen expert witnesses giving testimony in court cases knows two experts on the same subject can have totally opposing views.

So expecting to shut down this debate with the "experts" argument isn't going to work. We're intelligent people with minds of our own and we use them.
Ha ha, ha, oh god, she really means that, bless her.
Back to more of Textusa's blether


This is what we think happened with the manipulation:

A photo of Maddie was taken during the week:


A photo session by the pool, in the weeks after Maddie disappeared, was arranged to create the idea the McCann family spent time together by the pool. One photo was chosen:


In a studio, when doing the composition, it was realised that the photographer appeared in the reflection. Another photo taken during that session by the pool where such a reflection didn’t appear was chosen:


The three put together made up the last photo:

You believe it if you like, Textusa. After all, you believe there was no big table and the entire crime is a conspiracy involving thousands of people including Martin Brunt and the Pope, so........... 

This was brought to you by an expert in drawing on things with a crayon. Please give generously


Footnote

Not for one second do I think the last photo is a cut & paste job. 

It is, however, important to make clear that there is absolutely no evidence supporting Bennett's bonkers theory either

''It was sunnier on the Sunday''

So what? It isn't as if there was an absence of sun on the Wednesday, that is perfectly clear.

''They are more tanned''

Nonsense - you cannot make a comparison with a photograph taken in the dark and one in bright sunshine. As is well illustrated by the fact that Gerry's hair looks several shade darker in the one taken in the dark.

We know there are other photos in the possession of the police which PROVE madeleine was alive on the Thursday, so stop making arses of yourselves.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.