Friday, 13 November 2015


Update Friday 20Nov15: We inform readers that we won’t be posting this week. We thought best to keep the current post for another week. At least.

1. Introduction

This week our post will be a non-post. The content it will have is about a non-issue: the photo known as the last photo.

We consider that the only importance the last photo has is that it supports our theory: it was faked to show a family time that didn’t exist within a family supposed to be enjoying a week long family holiday.

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.

We didn’t intend to post this week. 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.

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.


This all started with an opinion, to which he’s fully entitled to have, given by Tony Bennett about our post “Sagresman”.

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.

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.

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.

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. In the original it could have been seen that the photographer wasn’t Kate and that detail had to be removed.

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 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.

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

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 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.

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

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.

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.

3. Sunglasses

Our assessment about the photo having being manipulated is only to with the sunglasses. The reflection on them is physically impossible.

We think it is fake not because of any pixel manipulation but because of physics.

Once one realises the photo shows a physical impossibility then it means it has been manipulated. That simple.

We didn’t measure shadows, compare intensities of sunshine nor look at flowering bougainvilleas although some of the arguments we have seen presented have substance. Others don’t. Like in the case of this picture:

Here we have an example of someone presenting a physical impossibility as reason. It’s physically impossible for a surface to reflect something that is behind it.

The floor arrow 1 says is being reflected cannot be. It’s a physical impossibility for that to happen. It’s an argument that doesn’t serve to prove sunglasses were photoshopped.

Arrow 2 is also untrue, as Gerry’s t-shirt doesn’t appear reflected.

To prove our point we will use 3 pairs of sunglasses.

4. Sunglasses #1: Gerry’s

These are the subject of the study. Prove the reflection they show to be impossible then manipulation is proved.

A circle is represented in 3 dimensions by an ellipse. The horizontal representation of a circle has in both extremes what we call the “vertical element of the ellipse” (green square). To put it simplistically, it’s the bit that connects the near and far horizontal lines of the ellipse.

The defenders of the originality of the photo say that what is reflected on the lens is the “vertical element of the ellipse”.

One can immediately see that the curvature of one has nothing to do with the other but let’s continue.

However the more one lowers the height from which the circle is being looked at the tighter is the ellipse that represents it and smaller is the vertical bit of the “vertical element of the ellipse” (green squares).

This alone shows very clearly that the reflection in Gerry’s sunglasses is a physical impossibility. Unless the kids pool was of gigantic proportions and even then the photo would have to be taken almost vertical to the pool to get such a straight line.

5. Sunglasses #2: Darren Ware’s

Darren Ware is a fierce defender of the originality of the photo. So much so that he has posted 2 videos in which he tries to prove that the “vertical element of the ellipse” reflected in Gerry’s sunglasses is real.

On the first video he used a mannequin with a mirror and sunglasses to represent Gerry and a round bed to represent the pool edge.

Darren Ware used a mirror because it has no convexity, unlike the sunglasses have, and so, he thought, he could show how big the “vertical element of the ellipse” could appear reflected.

It was because the sunglasses do have convexity his experiment was foiled. In trying to prove something he didn’t realise he was showing what would disprove him completely.

What Darren only wanted us to see was the vertical line reflected the flat surface of the mirror, but what he failed to realise was that the realistic reflection was showing on the convex surface of the sunglasses, the exact reflection to be replicated.

The image above shows there’s a HUGE difference between the same thing being reflected on a flat surface and being reflected on a convex one.

A really HUGE difference.

As can be read in the Facebook thread where this was discussed, we immediately corrected Darren Ware by posting the picture above.

Darren Ware first responded by showing the “vertical element of the ellipse” (green rectangle) to which I replied: “That bit you pointed out is but a little bit of the edge, it would represent about a foot of the edge of the pool. Are you saying that the reflection is the reflection of a foot of the edge 10 feet away?”.

There was no response to this question. however he came back with a second video:

This time he cleared a room of furniture and represented the edge of the pool with toilet paper.

This time the mannequin didn’t have either a mirror or sunglasses (which he showed to have with him) but a pair of some kind of acrylic glasses.

The reason given for this was “my sunglasses just are opaque, they are not reflective enough, okay, as you can see you can see through them not like Gerry’s sunglasses at all. It’s very difficult with the dim light of this room to see the effect, however light travels in straight lines, it does NOT get affected by what it is bouncing off, unless you’re in a black hole with incredibly high levels of gravity, light photons travel in straight lines, so reflections happen the same no matter what they being reflected in.”

Darren Ware didn’t need to make the second video. His sunglasses had been reflective enough in the first one.

But with his explanation as to why he doesn’t use them, he has just said that what we see in those funny mirror tents in fairs, where our image is intentionally distorted, isn’t real. We're all just imaging things when we see ourselves completely distorted in those weird reflections.

But the same Darren Ware replies to another poster, Isabel Oliveira, who asked him why the photographer’s reflection doesn’t appear on the lenses of Gerry’s sunglasses:

“Isabel... in answer to your question: It all depends on a complex variety of factors. Key ones are distance between the camera and the subject, and the shape (i.e. convexity) of whatever is reflecting back to you. So, for example, in a portrait taken close up you'll see a very wide angled reflection (such as a whole room) of the area behind the photographer...but in the case of the Lat Photo the photographer was possibly 5 meters away from the subject and so the reflected image would be a very narrow field of view. Why can't you see the photographer in his lenses? Simply because, since at that distance the field of view would be narrow, there's a greater chance of not seeing the photographer than doing so.”

Now the convexity matters. But please note that this response is all about physics. Not a single word about pixels. Angles, distances, shapes (i.e. convexity), angles and fields. And that is correct as only physics matter when discussing reflections.

But do also note how Darren does not refer to this “complex variety of factors” [his words] when simplifying things his way – even having gone goes to the point saying they don’t matter (“it does NOT get affected by what it is bouncing off” and “so reflections happen the same no matter what they being reflected in”) – to explain how the reflection of 1 or 2ft of the edge of the pool would fill up vertically a whole lens located at “possibly 5 meters away” when the reflections of objects on lenses from that distance are a fraction of their real size. Those 1 or 2 feet would be millimetres.

These are what we call Darren Ware’s sunglasses:

6. Sunglasses #3: Textusa’s

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:

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.

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. 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:

These are what we call the Textusa’s sunglasses:

7. The 3 sunglasses

8. The “vertical element of the ellipse” in the 3 sunglasses

Isn’t it VERY CLEAR that the vertical element in Gerry’s glasses is the clear exception? The impossible one?

9. The photographer

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.

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.

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.

And here Darren Ware’s sunglasses help solve the mystery. For the photographer’s reflection to not appear he has to be holding the camera from a significant angle away, vertically or horizontally. Using a mirror:

A mirror has a flat surface. This narrows significantly the angles from which the photographer would be reflected. The convexity of the lenses of sunglasses make this angle much wider. Unless one is taking a profile picture or with the subject looking away from camera, the photographer appears horizontally.

Vertically, it’s easier not to be shown. One just has to photograph the subject from a different height. That’s why in Darren Ware’s photograph there’s no photographer: he’s taken the picture from above the mannequin:

In Textusa’s picture, taken at almost same level of subject, the photographer (red arrow) can be seen:

The blue arrow shows a reflection of where Amelie would have appeared reflected.

The only photograph they would have without the photographer’s reflection would have been one where the glasses were hanging on Gerry’s t-shirt:

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).

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.

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.

10. Experts

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.

“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.

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: ). 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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

Without looking at the detailed reports from experts we don’t know what their opinions are precisely.

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.

It’s our eyes and our brains that tell us what truth is. 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. 

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.

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.


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”.

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, am not an expert 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.

What I think was done, was they cut the image by the middle of the frame of glasses from one picture and superimpose it over the image of the same pair of glasses of another picture. As the pair of glasses was the same in both the pictures so the tonalities of the frame in the image from which was taken would be the same as the one of the frame that was superimposed.

The “scar” would be in the middle of the frame and not on the borders lenses/frame nor on the border frame/head. Those borders would be originals. The first from the image from where it was cut and the latter from the image in which it was pasted.

Thus me saying it would be very hard or impossible to detect.

In this matter I would be very pleased and attentive at what your experts would have to say about it. It would be their area of expertise and they would now be correctly directed was to what they would be looking for, with precision: only the frame of the glasses.

If they said yes, they would prove my point but if they said no they wouldn’t disprove it for the reasons said.”

11. The manipulation of the last photo

Our reader, Nuala Seaton made the following entry on Facebook:

“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.

The reflection in GM's sunglasses is impossible. The photo was photoshopped.

Isabel Oliveira has asked Darren Ware a perfectly valid question about the photographer's reflection not being in GM's sunglasses. So far he's ignored her question, so we await his response.

It's my belief that the reason the reflection in GM's sunglasses had to be photoshopped is because it DID show the reflection of the person taking the photograph, and that person wasn't Kate McCann.

It's also my belief that the base photo (at the pool) was taken around 17th/18th May 2007 and the image of Maddie was added in afterwards. There are photos here of GM wearing the same clothes as in the Last Photo and AM with her pink hat:

I responded to Nuala on 22 September at 11:26:

“Nuala Seaton, agree totally with you.

Isabel Oliveira's question has just unlocked for me the mystery. Gerry is looking straight at the camera, the glasses are perpendicular to the viewer and at about the same height. The photographer would have to be reflected. Not should but had to! The glasses are perpendicular to the camera.

And it could be easily seen it was not Kate.

My opinion is this.

Photo of Maddie taken during week, could be Sunday, could be any other day, under the context of holiday. It could even have been taken by the childcare people or by the McCanns.

There was a need to to create family time. The few pics taken of Maddie dictate what can be done. This probably was the only photo she took around pool.

After Maddie died, and it could be on the date you say (the heat had passed, media were domesticated to reporting when McCanns gave press conference, clothes and sunlight seem to fit and explains why it took so long for picture to surface), Gerry and Amelie pose for pic.

In "studio" the photographer reflection problem is detected. Probably when the whole picture set up. It needs to be solved. They simply took the glasses from other image taken that afternoon and was pasted over the original.

The picture from where they copied glasses from would be one where Gerry would have them vertically on his shirt, and the reflection being of the opposite border of pool from where he's seating.

The choice of picture from where to choose from was most likely conditioned with the photographer's reflection. Most pictures would have it. This one didn't because the glasses were on his chest and the angle makes what is reflected to be beneath the horizon line of camera, thus the other side of the border.

All this, obviously, MY opinion. My thanks to you and Isabel. It's always the bits and pieces of unconditioned debate that allows one to withdraw the best conclusions.”

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:


In response to a comment from Blackcat on 13 Nov 2015, 19:23:00.

Original image from

Post-Scriptum 2: Debunking vertical straight lines and flatness of Gerry’s sunglasses.

We have never said the reflection on the lenses was unreal. We believe it to be very real. The reflection seen existed in our opinion. If one considers the lens a rectangle, there can be seen that a line crosses both long sides of that rectangle.

We say that line is a reflection of an horizontal line as the glasses were hanging on t-shirt. When the lenses were rotated to fit glasses on face, this horizontal line became vertical:

We imagine that if Gerry had been standing next, or near a corner of a building, the projection of it would probably produce a vertical line on the sunglasses.

What we said and maintain is that the reflection of the edge a circle with 7 metres in diameter - the kids pool - cannot produce a vertical line as the one seen at the distance Gerry is sitting from it. THAT is impossible to reflect a near perfect vertical line on sunglasses.

Gerry’s sunglasses:

Getty image #1:

Getty image #2:

The 3 put together for comparison:

Gerry’s sunglasses are NOT vertically flat.

Note, on the last photo, the reflection is of the edge of a building which we know happens to be a straight line.

A straight line, edge of building, appears reflected curved whereas a curved line, edge of pool, appears reflected straight. Go figure.

About the reflections on sunglasses we have this video:in which, as a reader as pointed out, are not the ones worn in the last photo but only similar:

From it we took the following printscreens:

We would like to call the attention to this photo:

As can be seen in video, Gerry is driving. What one sees above is the reflection of a truck crossing with the vehicle he’s driving.

This truck would be approximately at the distance the “vertical element of the ellipse” would be from where Gerry is sitting in the final photo.

Please observe what is the size of the reflection of the truck with what its actual size would be and how its straight lines are curved, distorted according to the convexity of the lenses.

Post-Scriptum 3: Similarities

It one rotates the lenses of Getty photo # 2 and Gerry's sunglasses one gets very similar reflections as can be seen.

The reason for this to happen is because both are the reflection of a straight line (in the case of the opposite side of pool a near horizontal line) on the “southern hemisphere” of the convexity of lenses.

Either Gerry has a building or wall to his left (and it must be a leaning one like the Tower of Pisa) or then the reflection as is shown is just impossible.


  1. Great post!!!!!
    ...speaks for itself - concerning the "experts"

  2. Excellent post textusa. Spot on! However, can you please tell me why it mattered that Kate was not the photographer?

    1. EF,

      It was a family picture. If mum not in it then she had to be taking it. One only hands over camera to stranger of friend if one wants the entire family to be in photo.

    2. The photographer was probably one of the extended family as they spent a lot of time lounging around the pool while the local people hunted for Maddie and the police were sent off on wild goose chases. Philomena or Trisha or wee Johnny McCann would all have been instantly recognisable if reflected in the glasses. Excellent work, Textusa, I do congratulate you.

  3. Why bother to put sunglasses on Gerry at all? If someone who wasn't meant to be there was reflected, just leave them off the photo.
    Just realised I answered my own question. That would mean his eyes would have to be photoshopped in?

    1. I was thinking the same thing myself! Why bother at all with sunglasses if it meant photoshopping them onto Gerry's nose? But I don't understand your reference to his eyes having to be 'inserted'...?

    2. Anon 15:33:00

      I meant if Gerry was wearing glasses in the original, he needed to have them in the altered version or his eyes would have to be photoshopped in.

    3. I see - so if Gerry was wearing glasses in an original photo, the reflection in the glass didn't help 'their story' so it had to be removed and altered. In this case it was copied from the glasses on his t-shirt and photoshopped in?

  4. Good analysis Textusa and all makes logical sense. But where is Amelie's right arm? If you look at her left arm it fills the sleeve without any spare room so there is no way her right arm is in that sleeve. Of course, as children do, she could have her arm inside the top but doesn't look like it. Was she photoshopped in seperately for some reason? I have read various suggestions regarding why she could be placed there - possibly to hide a wristwatch (time, date etc) on GMs right arm.

    1. Blackcat,

      We see a bit of that arm in the area of Gerry's shorts.

    2. Textusa - I originally thought that that the flesh-coloured sliver by GM's shorts was A's arm but if you blow it up it is clear it is part of her orange top. It is slightly in shadow so it is a slightly different colour to the rest of the top and it does look flesh coloured. You can see the triangular shaped shadow running up from the bottom of this section and then over onto GM's shorts. (The shadow must be A's hat?).

      Towards the top of this flesh coloured area just under the armhole there is also a slightly different coloured fuzzy patch - why is the picture so out of focus in just this patch when the rest of it is as clear as a bell?

      Even if that WAS Amelie's arm - why is it not in the sleeve? Going by her other arm it is impossible for her arm to be in that position and not in the sleeve unless she had a further armhole cut out slightly behind the existing armhole.

      A's arm clearly indicates to me that this photo has been manipulated. Hell we have even seen manipulation of this photo in the form of a further photo of M on her own which appears to be related to this photo. Just don't try discussing it on CMOMM.

      I would be interested to know what you think, but you need to blow it up.


    3. Blackcat,

      We have now put as a post-scriptum the detail we think you are referring to. Note we have not given any opinion there so to allow readers to form their own opinions without taint.

      We think it is Amelie’s arm. We could be right or we could be wrong. We do not have sufficient expertise to give an opinion on this matter.

      However, as we said in the post, once we have detected that it contains manipulated elements – which we determined by a physical impossibility and not because of any pixel out of place via photoshopping – we cannot close any doors to any other manipulation the photo may present.

      Some suggestions we agree with, with others we don’t. We, for example don’t agree with yours. That doesn’t make us throw our toys out of the pram. In the end you may be right and we wrong.

      The fact the photo was manipulated is a FACT. We have given reason for the photo to have been manipulated but we realise and acknowledge they are speculative.

      Only those present in the manipulation know for certain how, why and when all manipulation was done.

      But that it was manipulated there's no question about it. Not because we say it but because we have shown it is in this post.

      Note that no one has contested the physics of our arguments. No one says that what is reflected on Darren Ware’s sunglasses is not the edge of the bed he purports to show reflected on his mirror.

      It’s like being confronted with a body with a knife through the heart, the police would say “we see no reason for this man to be dead or for anyone to want to kill him, so there’s no motive for him to be dead so he’s not dead. Please take this sleeping man with a knife in his heart away.”

      We see manipulation and try to find reasons while others apparently because they can’t find reasons they state, adamantly, that there’s no manipulation. Even though they see it – we say this because it seems they cannot deny it and we do think if they could they wouldn’t pass on the chance to do it.

      It’s interesting – if the matter wasn’t serious It would be amusing – to see those accused that their theories are convoluted, far fetched and unrealistic to use the exact same arguments against us. But who are we to stop people from revealing their true colours?

      Finally we would like to warn that we will not discuss any more pixelling details of this photo. We repeat that we consider it unimportant to the case.

      We only wish that the booking sheets would get half of the attention and commitment that this photo has received.

      To those who say “oh, I didn’t know there was something wrong with the sheets” here are the links again:

      All the people coming here so much interested about the last photo, and it seems there are many, can now read about them.

      Around these, the booking sheets, the silence IS strange.

    4. Thank you for your reply Textusa, how refreshing to be able to debate this subject on your blog properly, I will add a short reply as soon as I can - that is if you are still 'approving comments' ;) BC

  5. As the wheat is carefully sorted and separated from the proverbial chaff, all true soulless mocking characters shamelessly reveal themselves.

    Even if one hundred percent wrong, no-one deserves the torrent of ridicule propagated by such so-called justice seekers.

    They are their own worst enemies.

    1. Anonymous 15 Nov 2015, 00:47:00

      The "torrent of ridicule propagated by such so-called justice seekers" is because Textusa is absolutely right about the Last Photo and they know it. They have no valid counter arguments or they would use them. Instead they mock and deliberately misrepresent what she's said because that's all they have left.


  6. Surely you mean that the photo is a composite of four pictures because of the arms of the glasses over the ears which could not have been been in any original photo hanging from hos shirt?
    Also someone very skillfully created the shadow of the glasses on the shirt and face.
    Now why go to all that trouble when it would be much easier to remove the glasses and leave the face alone, or just change the image in the glasses to reflect a blue of the pool as it hangs from the shirt?
    I'm afraid this theory of photoshopping glasses doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

    1. 09.00,
      Textusa has a pic in the post she says she photosopped How many pictures do you think she used?

    2. Anonymous 15 Nov 2015, 09:00:00

      No, the photo is a composite of three photos. It's quite simple, only the reflection in the lenses of GM's sunglasses was photoshopped, nowhere in Textusa's post does she mention anything about the sunglasses themselves being photoshopped.

      GM was wearing sunglasses when the photo of him and AM was taken at the pool and his sunglasses showed the reflection of the person taking the photo. That person was supposed to be Kate McCann but wasn't, so the reflection had to be photoshopped.

      There were several photos taken that day at the pool and in one of those photos GM wasn't wearing his sunglasses but instead had them hanging from his shirt. It was decided to take the reflection in the photo of the sunglasses hanging from GM's shirt and photoshop that reflection into the photo showing the reflection of the photographer.

      So to be clear, there are three elements that make up the Last Photo:

      1) The photo of GM and AM sitting by the pool.
      2) A photo of MM photoshopped into that photo.
      3) The reflection (reflection ONLY not the sunglasses themselves) from another photo and used to change the reflection in GM's sunglasses.


  7. Don't know if allow this here (not much swearing so I'll try) but it really struck me as funny! From Not Textusa:

    " Evening all

    It'll probably be tomorrow before I get around to replying to Textusa's latest heap of shite, but I thought I would just drop this in.

    There seems to be a great deal of discussion about the reflection in the sunglasses of ''the edge of the pool'', which is truly absorbing.

    However, as the reflection in question is clearly of the wall or whatever it is to Gerry's left, it's all rather moot.

    More tomorrow."

    1. Anonymous 15 Nov 2015, 12:42:00,

      This invisible wall will go up there with the 5A's backyard graveyard and the rotate-90-degrees-left-polarised sunglasses in Insane's brilliant ideas. :)

  8. Thanks Textusa it's taken me a few times to read in order to u understand but having done so it amazes me that people continue to argue the point. Thanks again for the work you do. I know you think this is a non post but it has been important in showing the lengths these people are prepared to go and the risks they are prepared to take to cover up their activities. You can imagine their horror when when th e y discovered that there was not one picture to demonstrate that this was a " family holiday". The taking of photos especially of kids on Holliday is just an extension of who we are today and their absence is something that most of us failed too appreciate.

  9. Unpublished Anonymous 15 Nov 2015, 13:52:00,

    We have been informed from elsewhere that Darren Ware has posted a 3rd video.

    This time he attempts to explain how the pink bit appears and why photographer’s reflection doesn’t appear.

    We are not publishing your comment because we refuse to provide the link to something we consider not appropriate to say the least: there’s a minor appearing in this pantomime playing Amelie's role.

    Readers will just have to take our word when we say Darren Ware continues to insist on using the flat acrylic glasses instead of his sunglasses pretending to ignore that convexity affects significantly reflections.

    He also uses a magnifying mirror, which the child holds at a distance, to prove the point about the photographer’s reflection. We tried to see when it was he was saying he appeared on it (he says he does) and couldn’t see.

    To be noted is that the lighting of the room was much better, not dim at all, so we don't know why he didn't use his sunglasses.

  10. Your theory is wrong because the picture of Madeleine on her own has been proven to be made from the last photo not the other way round.

    1. Anonymous 15 Nov 2015, 19:31:00,

      What has that to do with the physical impossibility of the reflection?

    2. Your theory is also that the photo is a composite of three pictures.
      It's been proven that the picture of Madeleine on her own is made from the last photo,
      Are you now going to argue for four photos? ie. the one that had Madeleine on her own with a different background to that seen in the last photo and the solo photo? How complicated are you going to make this?

    3. Anonymous 15 Nov 2015, 19:46:00,

      Our theory says because the reflection that appears in the lenses of sunglasses is physically impossible the photo is manipulated.

      Is that simple enough?

    4. You have a picture of the three photo composite right here in this blog entry.
      You are also using the wrong type of glasses for analysis.
      Gerry's glasses are flat in the vertical plane as you probably are well aware of now!
      Darren Ware is much closer to the mark than you are.

  11. You do realise that you've used the wrong type of sunglasses for your analysis? Gerry wore glasses that were flat in the vertical plane, there are photos of him in the first few days wearing them. So it looks like Darren Warren ware is much closer to the mark than you.

    1. Flat sunglasses? Whatever next?

    2. You haven't checked have you.
      His glasses are flat in the vertical plain, like Ray-Bans. You can see him wearing them on May 7th pictures.
      Are you following the dismantling of your theory on CMOMM?
      I think you are.

    3. I thought in CMOMM it was agreed that these were the glasses G wore, quite curvy:

    4. Are these Ray bans? Are the glasses G is wearing Ray bans? Did K buy Ray bans at a Market stall?!

    5. The video in 10:31 comment PROVES G’s glasses reflecting exactly what you would expect and not straight lines as in photo!!!

    6. I meant to write vertical lines not straight lines....

    7. Next they'll be saying they are concaved! You cant be flat on 1 plane if a surface is convexed.

  12. "Leave it to the experts who know what they are talking about, M'Lord." Famous last words.

  13. 16 Nov 2015, 12:53:00

    We have deleted your comment due to the "small child" reference. Please rephrase and submit again, if you will.

    Thank you

  14. You suggest that this picture was posed by Gerry with Amelie after Madeleine went missing, and that the photo session included shots of Gerry wearing his glasses and at least one with shot with them hanging down from the neckline of his T shirt. If that's the case, once they realised the photographer was shown is the shots in which Gerry wore the glasses (but not in the shots where the glasses hung from his neck) why not simply choose one of the "glasses off" shots? Seems a lot of bother to go to if there were pictures of a bare-eyed Gerry with Amelie sitting by the pool which told the "family holiday" story just as well. Gerry didn't need to be wearing glasses, so why add them?

    1. Anonymous 16 Nov 2015, 13:24:00,

      That is a question you have to ask photoshopper. We have only stated there was manipulation. The impossible reflection tells us that.

      Your question ventures into reasons why there was manipulation. We have raised hypothesis but as we have said, only those who manipulated the pictures can say why, how and when they did it.

      The obvious speculative answer to your question would be to say it's much easier to photoshop lenses than an entire human head. But your question does raise the possibility of another different picture being used, for example the original in which the sunglasses are hanging. The answer to that is we don't know. Only those involved do.

      In our opinion, for the final product, for whatever reason, a picture of Gerry wearing glasses was chosen to be used. The reflections on them had to be replaced because photographer appeared reflected there.

      And probably because the error was only noticed after the shoot was over, it would have meant photoshopping Gerry in without wearing sunglasses, a more complex task than simply replacing lenses within the frame. He may have been in a difficult pose to add him convincingly into the scene.

      The "photoshopper" thought he could get away with people thinking it would be side of the pool (he would be right to have thought that as he has convinced many to near religious belief that was the case) and so went ahead and did it.

      Nobody expected the scrutiny the photo would be subjected to. And it still convinces many that it's genuine, so the "photoshopper" did a reasonable job.

      We repeat: there was manipulation. Why, we can only speculate.

  15. Seems like Gerry must have been product-testing a new brand of sunglasses that changes vertical lines into horizontal, or that pushes a horizontal wall across a swimming pool so that it reflects in his sunglasses. All this in 2007 - a game changer for sunglasses.

    The image is photoshopped. QED

  16. "Gerry bought sunglasses," Kate has stated. We need to drive this home!

  17. Thread supporting your theory on sunglasses has now been locked:

    Definitive proof that the 'last photo' has been manipulated.
    bobbin Today at 12:48 pm
    Above is the video of the ‘forum expert’.

    This expert closed his video with the statement that anyone NOT accepting his experiment and claiming that the reflection in Gerry’s sunglasses is impossible (re the last photo) were either ‘shilling, paid to discredit this photo, trolling or they are pig ignorant’ the choice being ours to decide.

    There is another option, namely that those NOT accepting the above experiment as being valid, can be right to do so.

    There was a period in history when the flat-earthians declared that any people believing the world to be round were wrong.

    In the polls on the Maddie case, there are more people who in their gut instinct feel that the image in Gerry’s sunglasses in the last photo is incorrect and therefore it must have been manipulated into place rather than occurring naturally.
    It is always a sound reaction to trust gut instincts even if it takes a while to find definitive proof to support the belief.

    Here is that definitive proof.

    I found it in grade 8 Mathematical Geometry texts and although complex, I have tried to reduce it to everyday common language.

    Firstly, an explanation of the X and Y axes and how a page/an image, may be cut in two, for reflective purposes.

    The X axis is Horizontal.
    It is almost exclusively used to refer to a line going horizontally, from left to right, as it were. Cutting a view in two, along a horizontal line will give a top and a bottom part.

    The Y axis is Vertical.
    It is almost exclusively used to refer to a line going vertically, from above to below. Dividing a view vertically will give a left hand and a right hand side.


  18. cont

    Quote from
    · A reflection swaps all of the x or y values across the y- or x-axis, respectively. It can be visualized by imagining a mirror lies across that axis.
    · A vertical reflection is given by the equation y = −f(x) and results in the curve being "reflected" across the x-axis.
    · A horizontal reflection is given by the equation y = f(−x) and results in the curve being "reflected" across the y-axis.

    Source: Boundless. “Reflections.” Boundless Algebra. Boundless, 21 Jul. 2015. Retrieved 15 Nov. 2015 from
    end quote.

    Across the X axis, and a Vertical reflection.
    This means that a vertical reflection is like a lake. The houses on the other side of the lake from the viewer will appear to be copied, but upside down in image. Top to bottom, head to toe.

    Across the Y axis and a horizontal reflection.
    This means that a horizontal reflection will be like standing in front of a mirror. If you raise your left hand in front of the mirror, it will look, in the mirror, as if you have raised your right arm, and vice versa. The image is reversed, but in the sense of Left appearing to be Right, and Right appearing to be Left.

    The photo of Gerry is of a vertically sitting person, looking full front onto the person with the camera, the picture ‘taker’. The distance is a good few meters between the ‘taker’ and the subject.

    Gerry’s view/ the view from behind the lenses of the glasses would be one of the pool immediately below, rising up in his field of vision, this would be followed by the poolside wall, and in the mid picture range, with grass beyond towards the tennis courts (which dropped away) and possibly some roofing of buildings beyond, with sky in the upper part of his view. His sideways views would be of the landscape to left and right in his field of vision.

    His view of the scene then, would be that which is contained in his field of view.
    The closer he would be to an object, the smaller his range of vision would be, the further back he would be from an object, the larger his range of vision.

    With a distance to the ‘taker’ he would have a good picture of the lower area of vision, namely the pool, then the park, the ‘taker’ him/herself and beyond, upwards, sideways.

    Put a transparent screen in front of Gerry’s eyes, he will still have the same field of vision.

    If the screen is reflective, as well as translucent, then the same image seen by Gerry, will be reflected also in the reflective material.

    The difference in view would be that, what the onlooker, looking at the reflection, would see with his left eye, would be what Gerry is seeing with his right eye, and vice versa.


  19. cont

    If the onlooker were to go around to the back of the translucent, yet reflective screen, and join Gerry’s head, the onlooker would have the same view as Gerry, seeing with the left eye what Gerry is seeing with his left eye and vice versa.

    So if Gerry were seeing a flat level of water (pool) flat/horizontal grass area, flat/horizontal top edge of tennis court chain-link fencing, horizontal line of roof tops, horizontal line of ocean (if visible) joining sky, then the images showing on the two lenses of Gerry’s glasses would need to be horizontally laid across both lenses, as if replicating the field of vision seen by Gerry.

    Now let’s move this on to the specifics of the reflection seen in the left lens of Gerry’s glasses in the last photo.

    Both flat-earthians and instinctives agree the imagery to be pool side and pool water.
    So let us consider these two elements as cream coloured and blue coloured.

    Now those who say that the glasses were photographed in an upright position, namely hanging off Gerry’s T shirt neckline, will see cream at the top and blue underneath.

    Let us say the shape of the hanging sunglasses is like a glass bottle and the colours are like oil (cream coloured) and water (blue coloured) in a glass bottle.
    The oil floats to the top.

    If we now turn the bottle onto its side, in order to replicate sunglasses lying horizontally across Gerry’s nose and eyes, what happens to the distribution of the oil and water.
    Yes, it settles out flowing horizontally.

    Every photo of sunglasses worn perpendicular to the face of an upright person, looking face on, will show reflection of the lines in the true image of the field of vision.
    That is, if a vertical door jam is in the field of vision, it will be vertical in the reflection. If a horizontal lake, field, sea horizon is in the field of image /vision it will be horizontal in the reflection.

    What has appeared in the last photo is the equivalent of the left eye lens of the hanging glasses (possessing all the cream colour/the oil) being shifted from the vertical plane, to be placed horizontally, without understanding that the reflected image would flow and settle horizontally across both lenses and not be restricted to 'vertical' in one lens only.


    In the video above, the expert does not replicate the conditions of the last photo.

    Anyone knows that holding a mirror and tilting it around will change the reflective view considerably. Whether tilting a mirror or moving around a fixed mirror object, the effect of changing perspective is the same.

    The ‘expert’ takes pictures, purporting alignment to the toilet paper with a vertical image in the ‘not sunglasses’.


  20. cont

    BUT he does it often times from a very close up position,
    from a face tilted towards the toilet paper,
    and from a position above the model’s head, as opposed to full face on.

    At times he is almost vertically above the plastic lens, (veering towards 90 degrees above).

    Yet the vertical door in the room and door jam, the horizontal skirting board, the reflection of the string holding the left lens in place, show much more accurately what the true reflective behaviour is, of independent items in reflection.

    Shifting all of the constants is not good research and will not replicate the conditions of the sunglasses in the last photo.

    The common experience of the instinctives is that when they are looking at reflective sun glasses, the sun glasses will reflect the scenery behind them, as if they were looking at the true image themselves but with left eye instead of right and vice versa.

    Since the brain is able to take two images from two eyes and combine them in the visual processing part of the brain to deliver one image, then left/right handedness, are merely spatial awareness considerations. They do not change or alter the ‘content of the imagery’.

    The laws of mathematical geometry confirm the instinctives’ belief.

    Last edited by bobbin on Mon Nov 16, 2015 12:57 pm; edited 2 times in total

    1. Interesting the reason given to lock thread:

      [ Thread locked. Members & guests are referred to the video referred to in the OP:
      which clearly explains how vertical images can be produced on sunglasses - Mod ]

      No one can question Darren's video. It's sacred word

    2. Hopefully - most of us with brain cells are able to see what is going on. Those of us who abide by the Laws of Physics. Just smile and turn away

  21. Textusa,thanks again for yet another great post, Maybe I missed it ,but am I right to assume the actual photo now in question ,was only "available" after Gerry came back to the UK to collect Madeleine,s pillowcase to provide a sample of her DNA,or was photo" developed" in Portugal?sorry if I have missed any previous mention re the people who were responsible .

    1. Lynn,

      We believe the photo first surfaced on May 24

  22. Don't know if you will publish this but I must ask this question: where is PeterMac in all this? I would grateful even if you didn't publish my comment you could give me your opinion. Thanks.

    1. Anonymous 16 Nov 2015, 18:51:00,

      We don't know and here is not the right place to put your question although we understand why you made it.

    Some good photos of reflections

  24. The pool is round. Even if Gerry was wearing flat glasses with flat lenses like a mirror the curved line of the pool's edge would still have to show. It doesn't take a genius to see the obvious. The convexity only makes the line more curved like Ware has showed.

  25. To Tony Bennett you saying manipulation is down to a line. They have drawn a line on the floor and will give their lives to defend it:
    4. Textusa’s entire theory hangs on one assumption – namely that it is impossible to get vertical lines on sunglasses.

    1. Anonymous 17 Nov 2015, 16:35:00,

      This is becoming tedious and boring. To say such absurdity is ridiculous.

      We have never said the reflection on the lenses was unreal. We believe it to be very real. The reflection seen existed in our opinion. If one considers the lens a rectangle, there can be seen that a line crosses both the long sides of that rectangle.

      We say that line is a reflection of an horizontal line as the glasses were vertical. When the lenses rotated, became vertical.

      We imagine that if Gerry had been standing next, or near a corner of a building, the projection of it would probably produce a vertical line on the sunglasses.

      What we said and maintain is that the reflection of the edge a circle with 7 metres in diameter - the kids pool - cannot produce a vertical line as the one seen at the distance Gerry is sitting from it. THAT is impossible to reflect a near perfect vertical line on sunglasses.

      Anthony Bennett should be more careful with what he says we say and perhaps with what he says other people say. We caution him on the use of the name of one of his experts as it hasn't been made clear to this moment, at least to our knowledge, if the gentleman in question has indeed given permission for his name to be exposed.

  26. It has just come to our knowledge that a poster on JH Forum has made a very serious accusation against us:

    “Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion
    BlueBag Today at 16:48

    I think TextUsa has stopped approving posts on that blog entry.

    I posted several pointing out the flaw in her theory as above.

    Not approved.

    Must be embarrassing.”

    We have withheld 2 comments, one from the 14th and the other from the 15th, which we though were abusive to Anthony Bennett. For that reason we will not disclose them now.

    We have withheld 3 “technical” comments that we thought didn’t bring anything valuable to the debate and only distracted from what was essential:

    - 7 days ago, 10/11/15:
    “The apparent eyeliner - congenital, achieved with sedation or photoshopped in?”

    - 4 days ago, 13/11/15:
    “Surely simply easier to say to kate get your skates on and go and take the picture..??”

    - 3 days ago, 14/11/15:
    “Fascinating. As Textusa is clearly something of an expert in Physics, perhaps she could explain the two rules of reflection for a concave mirror and explain how these may cause the reflected image to be inverted?”

    We published yesterday, 16/11/15 a comment and then deleted it because it made a reference (now censored) which we didn’t think appropriate for publication:
    “I'm still waiting for anyone to produce an image of anyone wearing sunglasses of any description or lens with a vertical image reflected!
    Yet if it's such a usual occurrence, we should be inundated with proof that doesn't involve toilet roll, disembodied heads and (censored)”

    We are on the 17th. We challenge Bluebag to publish on the forum ALL the SEVERAL posts that point out flaws and that he now accuses us of withholding.

    1. Exactly, instead of going to the trouble of setting
      up experiments that offer up nothing bar clutter, just go and photograph somebody looking into a camera from a few different distances, wearing similar glasses. Not exactly a tough one to set up. This doesn' t get done because the conclusion is an open and shut case.

  27. We would like to call the attention of our readers to Post-Scriptum 2: Debunking vertical straight lines and flatness of Gerry’s sunglasses, that we have just published.

    Thank you.

  28. We would like to call the attention of our readers to Post-Scriptum 3: Similarities, that we have just published.

    Thank you.

  29. Why are you using a picture of him in a car when he is clearly wearing a different pair of sunglasses?

    1. Anonymous 18 Nov 2015, 16:24:00,

      Thank you for pointing that out. Post Scriptum 2 corrected accordingly.

      Interesting how some people are attentive to the minutest details but fail to "see" the obvious. Really interesting.

  30. To quote you:

    ''As can be seen in video, Gerry is driving. What one sees above is the reflection of a truck crossing with the vehicle he’s driving.

    This truck would be approximately at the distance the “vertical element of the ellipse” would be from where Gerry is sitting in the final photo.

    Please observe what is the size of the reflection of the truck with what its actual size would be and how its straight lines are curved, distorted according to the convexity of the lenses.''

    There is not a single word of that which makes any sense at all. Different sunglasses, viewed from an entirely different angle and distance, capturing a moving object.

    Please stop with these meaningless, fraudulent comparisons which illustrate nothing, and which seem designed to deceive

    1. Anonymous 18 Nov 2015, 17:21:00,

      "Please stop with these meaningless, fraudulent comparisons which illustrate nothing, and which seem designed to deceive"

      If your verbal bullying is allowed elsewhere we can't do anything about it. Here we can. Next time such language will be censored.

      You have made your point, please let readers come to their own conclusions.

      By the way, we are still waiting for the publication of the several comments we are supposed to have withheld.

    2. Verbal bullying? How is asking you to please stop using fraudulent comparisons, bullying? Which language do you intend to censor - the language that says you are wrong? I object most strongly to that accusation. It seems designed to throw up a smokescreen for you to hide behind.

      You made a comparison and expect people to draw a conclusion using filmed footage of a different pair of sunglasses, shot from an entirely different angle and distance, in a moving vehicle. How are they supposed to draw a conclusion which the comparison is completely invalid?

      As regards your closing sentence, I literally have no idea what you are talking about. I assume you have confused me with someone else.

      Look, I really don't care what fairy story you want to make up, but it's completely dishonest to pretend there is any factual or scientific basis to your claims when there simply isn't.

    3. It seems to us that if we were so wrong you would be begging for us to continue and make fools of ourselves instead of asking for us to stop.

      One would be mislead to think you care about us.

      By the way, as one cannot replicate Newton's experience with the original apple, does that mean to you that there's no gravity?

    4. Oh by all means continue to make a fool of yourself, you are doing awfully well on that score, but I thought the point of you accepting comments was so that people could debate the point ? You claim to welcome debate and corrections if you make a mistake, but in fact anyone doing so is met with barely-concealed hostility. It would be one thing if you claimed that your theory is built on opinion, but if you claim a factual, scientific basis to it, then you should accept that leaves it open to challenge. Your rather snide remark about Newton and the apple is interesting, as you seem incapable of realising that his observation is capable of being tested and of giving reproducible results. Your attempt to do so with your observation was completely flawed.
      I realise you generally preach to the already-converted, but the danger of trying to disseminate your message to a wider audience is that your wider audience is a touch more intelligent than your regular one, and less likely to fall for your guff.

    5. When is Nottextusa - not Textusa? When he's pretending to be someone else, but the 'style' gives him away.

    6. @20:07
      Exactly the point about Newton.
      Why is the photo of G's sunglasses the only evidence provided so far as the evidence? Where are the other photographs of people wearing sunglasses which demonstrate this repeatable phenomenon?

    7. 20:07
      Do you think Darren Ware's video is credible?

  31. “Reading back through it I was wrong on my theory of polarised glasses causing what I thought at the time was a rotated reflection. I am kicking myself now for not realising the real cause for the reflection and it seems so flaming obvious now when considering how the reflection would look with curved glasses and curved pool as demonstrated in the youtube video. Those who still doubt, consider this: If there was a flat mirror in place of Gerry's left lens, how would the reflection of the curved pool look? Yes, it would appear to curve away to the right from our point of view looking at the mirror. Now think about a curved lens and a straight edged pool... yes, it would still appear curved because the reflection of the curved lens would affect the straight line of the pool edge reflection. Now add the two together and what do you get? Curved edge, curved pool... voila.”

    Seriously?? A curve to the left on a mirror is reflected curving to the right? SERIOUSLY???

    1. Anonymous 19 Nov 2015, 16:29:00,

      Could you please provide a link to where this is from?

    2. Read it here:

    3. It's interesting that this photoshopped discussion is now being used to try and undermine virtually all of Textusa's blogs. I find it cowardly in the extreme. On the one hand, Textusa is accused of not being 'scientific' enough. Then this is used to dismiss other postings on a hunch!

    4. Anonymous 19 Nov 2015, 18:04:00,

      When criticised by the wise, worry; when by fools, smile.

      “When you judge others, you do not define them, you define yourself”
      ― Earl Nightingale

  32. I agree to the physical impossibility of the reflection.

    The blue parts of the lenses, whether these are sky or pool water reflections shows ripples in the vertical, which is NOT possible.

    1. Very good point Daisy!

      The blue can either be the sky or the water. It makes no sense being the sky. If the water the rippling is also impossible.

      All makes sense when one rotates the glasses to the vertical position.

      Thank you!

    2. Surely it's more than curious to have the SAME reflected image on sunglasses that are hooked/hanging from Gerry McCann's t-shirt as when said sunglasses are on his nose? Would be nice for the 'experts' to explain that one, please.

  33. This post has been very revealing - - not simply through it's content, which I have to say is excellent (as expected from you) but especially through the reactions to it. Very revealing!

  34. Good. Keep it up, Textusa Sisters. Look forward to your posts every week.
    1,682,322 views surely mean your blog is a reference for information.

  35. It seems that for you to prove your point you have to sit Gerry (face be the same) with those sunglasses (glasses be the same) to sit on that pool (pool be the same) in April or May (to be same light) next year. Otherwise it's junk.
    On the other hand they can say it's taken on 29 because there's sunlight.
    And that it's the original picture is not open for debate because an expert has said there was no tampering on 'a first glance'.

  36. Brilliant stuff Textusa! I suspect "Insane" must be feeling like Ronda Rousey right now (...)

  37. 300 VIPs
    This shows there's no way SY can cover-up. It comes out in the end, we hope.
    Not saying Mc case is linked to this in any way - just that when a lot of people are involved, total secrecy is never guaranteed forever.


    ** Most sex abuse 'in families and missed' **
    The prevalence of child sexual abuse in England has been vastly underestimated, particularly within families, a Children's Commissioner report suggests.

    9 is most likely age.
    Mostly within families.
    Why in OC would families take their small children for others to abuse?
    It doesn't make sense. A lot of distressed children. Where would it take place?
    Paedo ring theory is nonsense.

  39. Textusa, with this new post of yours the Last photo will now die down I think. I think it is important to bring over the results of the 2 polls that CMOMM did regarding the photo:

    First Poll:

    Textusa releases new statement (6 Nov 2015) on 'The Last Photo' - says it is a photoshopped composite of THREE different photographs, two of which were taken on Friday 18 May 2007
    Views: 13,297
    Replies: 231
    Last comment by: joyce1938 on Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:27 pm

    The Last Photo…
    1. I agree with Textusa; this is a composite of three different photographs, like she says: 31% [ 62 ]
    2. I don't agree with Textusa but do agree that this photo has been photoshopped in some way:23% [ 46 ]
    3. I agree with the two experts consulted by PeterMac that the Last Photo is a genuine photograph, and probably taken on Sunday or Monday that week: 36% [ 70 ]
    4. I have some other explanation for the Last Photo: 1% [ 2 ]
    5. I don't know: 9% [ 17 ]
    Total Votes : 197

    Second poll:

    Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion
    Views: 11,483
    Replies: 182
    Last comment: j.rob on Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:55 pm

    I've carefully read the explanation of Textusa's Last Photo theory of the composite of 3 images and I think...
    1. She's right: 58% [ 76 ]
    2. She's wrong: 32% [ 42 ]
    3. I don't know: 9% [ 12 ]
    Total Votes : 130

  40. Hello Textusa I love your site. I noticed, on the very first photograph on this post, there appears to be a third lens, just above Gerry's head and to the right slightly. It appears as a blue, lens shape in the shrubbery - I think this is further proof of photo shopping, if I'm right!

  41. Hello Textusa - I have been looking at a site called mmKnowthetruth and Chapter 17 shows a photograph (from Kate's book, I believe) of a group of different photos of Madeleine. One is the picture of Madeleine as she appears on 'the last photo' but there is no sign of Gerry's elbow which is odd as it appears very close to her head on 'the last photo' ..... there is some background there but no sign of an arm.. (Textusa - I understand if you don't wish to publish my comment with my referring to another blog). Kind regards. Wistle

  42. Apologies for the error - the picture mentioned above is from GA's book, "The Truth of the Lie" and not from Kate's book. Kind regards. Wistle

  43. Hi - sorry to go on about this again ... just read my posts above and realise that I didn't make it clear that the photo I referred to is one of a group of photos of Madeleine that were in Kate and Gerry's room (on what looks like a bedside table). One photo of Madeleine is the one of her at the poolside but alone - no Gerry, Amelie or elbow. Just felt I wanted to make it clear it was a photo in Kate and Gerry's possession that GA included in his book. Thank you and best wishes.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.