The 'bead' looks to be an elastic, similar to the ones Kate uses in her hair, holding a little 'plait' in place.

Once taken out, her hair would still show the waves from the plait.

Here is the well known post by the Author - What I consider to be part of forum history! http://madeleinemccann.aimoo.com/Mirror ... 60652.html<!-- m -->


You will need a protractor!

None of the links I tried worked but I found the current link for the solar noon.

(1.33pm on May 3rd)
<!-- m -->http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/a ... =-11&day=1<!-- m -->

theAuthor: Madeleine - The FORGED LAST PHOTO
GREETINGS GENTLES!
For reasons that he does not fully understand, the author’s threads seem to attract heavy troll attack. Should the reader be so generously disposed as to find it worthwhile, a short comment or "bump" would be appreciated.
This thread continues from the author’s thread, “Faked Abduction! ��?A thread they won’t let you read��?(the original thread was pulled). Link:
<!-- m -->http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=7911<!-- m -->
Which itself continued from the author’s “Dark Deeds on a Dark Night��?thread, for which the link is:
<!-- m -->http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=5902<!-- m -->
“Dark Deeds on a Dark Night expanded on themes in the author’s “The Great Houdini Reveals All��? link:
<!-- m -->http://forums.mirror.co.uk/vie.....p;start=45<!-- m -->
The intellectual precursor, however, was the author’s “Madeleine ��?Last Photo��?
<!-- m -->http://forums.mirror.co.uk/vie.....mp;start=0<!-- m -->

And Yet Another Post: Thursday 6 Sep 2007, Timed at True High Noon

THE GREAT “LAST PHOTO��?FORGERY
Introduction
It seems to the author that if the photograph of Madeleine, commonly known as “the last photo��? is a forgery, the implications for Dr Gerald and Kate McCann are devastating. Dr Kate McCann took the photograph, and Dr Gerald McCann is one of its three subjects.
Because of its importance then, the author does not apologise for the rather lengthy nature of this post.
Those who persevere through to the end will find that the author provides them with a special treat!
One quick piece of advice, if clicking on the links doesn’t work, simply copy /paste into the browser.

Significance of the Last Photo
On 24 May 2007, the McCanns released the last photograph of Madeleine via the PA (Associated Press) news agency. It received wide coverage in the media.
In the Times of that day it was reported:
“The picture was taken by Madeleine’s mother Kate, 38, on her own camera in the holiday resort of Praia da Luz, Portugal, where they were staying.��?
“The picture was taken at 2.29pm on May 3 - Mrs McCann’s camera clock is one hour out so the display reads 1.29pm.��?
The Times accredits the photo to “Kate McCann /PA��?
Link:
<!-- m -->http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....836171.ece<!-- m -->

Significance of the Photo
If the photograph is genuine, it provides objective and independent witness that Madeleine Mccann was alive at 02.29 pm on 3 May 2007. The significance of this is huge; no other such evidence exists.
Before moving on, permit the author rapidly to dispatch to the trash-can two pieces of hear-say. First, the Sol article of 11 August, is oft quoted as stating that Madeleine was collected from the Creche at 6.00 pm on 3 May. In fact, that article says no such thing. Second, a report of a CCTV video showing Madeleine at a local restaurant at 6.30 pm 3 May was, and remains, pure fiction ��?a total fabrication.
If, on the other hand, the claims of the photograph can be shown to be fraudulent, the Drs McCann find themselves at themselves at the difficult end of some very “unhelpful��?qustions. The most unhelpful of all may be phrased as follows:
“Drs Gerald and Kate McCann, as you have conspired to place, in the public domain, fraudulent evidence that Madeleine was alive at 2.29 pm 3 May, is it not unreasonable for the reader to assume that she was already dead by that time?��?
“And does it not appear to follow that that you are involved, at least, in the concealment of her death?��?
“And, prima facie, does this not make you guilty of criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - not to mention wasting Police time?��?
Gentle reader, as you can see, many legal issues hang from the authenticity or otherwise of “the last photo��?and the claims that it makes.
Other things hang from it as well. Should the photo prove to be a fake, the PA being a long established, and highly regarded press agency would have to take a view on having its repution for accuracy and integrity traduced by a couple of fraudsters and swindlers. Action against the McCanns by the PA in the civil courts is certainly a possibility - even more so should the PA start getting stick the customers who came to the conclusion that they had paid good money for a pack of lies
And then there is Mr Rupert Murdoch to think about. Mr Murdoch, we are led to believe, does not relish either himself or his media interests being made a monkey of. If Mr Murdoch felt that this had been the case, then Mr Murdoch could be very “unhelpful��? And Mr Murdoch might not be alone.
A great deal hangs on the claims of that photograph

The Published Photograph
Many papers published the photograph. In some instances it was heavily cropped (trimmed) to make Madeleine the focus. Such was the photo published by the Sun:
<!-- m -->http://www.thesun.co.uk/articl.....42,00.html<!-- m -->
Although the Times photograph is one of the least cropped, the Scotsman published an even more complete version.
<!-- m -->http://images.scotsman.com/2007/05/25/25madb.jpg<!-- m -->
But even the Scotsman does not compare with the compare with the Kataweb /Repubblica version:
<!-- m -->http://www.repubblica.it/2006/.....27_big.jpg<!-- m -->
None of the above images bear any date stamp. Whether the original photograph circulated by the PA bore one is unclear; certainly, the author has not retrieved one. In any event, the presence of a date stamp (or the EXIF file that records such information) is immaterial. If the photo is fraudulent, supplying a false date /time is simply another problem for the forger to solve, and is easily done.

The Composition of the Photograph
The people. Left to right: Dr Gerald McCann, Amelie McCann, Madeleine McCann
A noticeable absentee from the picture is Amelie’s twin brother, Sean, who, we are informed is “away playing��? or in other acounts, the cause of Madeleine’s laughter
No other person or person’s are present, which as we shall see later may be significant.

Significant Features for Identifying the Location of the Photograph:
1. The pool
2. The two large sunbeds in the foreground
3. The parasol pole (between the two sunbeds to the left of Dr Gerald McCann
4. The tree
5. The sunbeds behind the tree
6. The white wall, forming the backdrop to the scene. Note the shrubs /climbers up against it.

The Location
Click on the following link:
<!-- m -->http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/p.....68x321.jpg<!-- m -->
Here you will be able to see the feature described above: pool, sun beds (though not the same colour), tree and wall
The sunbeds behind the tree in the “last photo��?belong to the second, and larger pool, and (if you look closely) are more clearly shown in the following link:
<!-- m -->http://www.guardian.co.uk/grap.....41,00.html<!-- m -->
The link that follows shows clearly, white sun beds and parasols by the small pool (this relates to the parasol post in the “last photo��?.
<!-- m -->http://bp1.blogger.com/_mXbRBc.....ub_Eng.gif<!-- m -->
With the location of the photograph established, let us return to the aerial photograph that is the best of the three for our purposes, but first to the last photo:
Link to the “last photo��?(Kataweb /Repubblica)
<!-- m -->http://www.repubblica.it/2006/.....27_big.jpg<!-- m -->
Link to the aerial photo (Daily Mail)
<!-- m -->http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/p.....68x321.jpg<!-- m -->
If you toggle between the “last photo��?and the aerial photo, it is easy to locate the equivalent position of the three McCanns in the aerial photo: on the pool rim, near to where the. They are at about 10.00 o’clock, close to the left of the three children sitting by the poolside.
Before moving on, may we just note, to avoid yet further confusion, that the areas labelled tapas bars in the Gazetta Digital and the Guardian photographs are no such thing: they are sun bathing areas. Regardless of the conclusions we may reach about the “last photo��? here at least we catch Photos peddling false information
Link to Gazeta Digital “Tapas Restaurant��?falsehood (you can actually see the sun beds):
<!-- m -->http://bp1.blogger.com/_mXbRBc.....ub_Eng.gif<!-- m -->
Link to the Guardian “Tapas Bar��?falsehood:
<!-- m -->http://www.guardian.co.uk/grap.....41,00.html<!-- m -->

Analysing the “Last Photo��?
The methodology that the forensic scientist adopts for artefacts such as the last photo, is rather different to that employed when examining, say, suspect bank notes. In that case, the suspect note can be compared alongside a known, genuine bank note, and checked for differences.
When the artefact is a photograph, such as this one, there is no original with which to compare it. Thus, the approach, at least initially, lies in examining it for inconsistencies, the which fall into two main groups:
1. Inconsistencies between the photograph and the objective world that it purports to record
2. Internal inconsistencies, within the photograph

In determining whether the “last photo��? and the claims made for it, are fraudulent, both of the above are relevant.
In order to test for the above, the assumption is made, at least initially, that the photograph is an honest document; that it was taken as claimed at 02.29 pm (14.29 hrs) local time on 3 May 2007; and that it has not been tampered with, subsequently, in order to deceive.
Before proceeding, let us note that the photograph is aligned vertically to a high degree of accuracy. The figures, the tree, and the parasol pole all indicate this.
Readers who wish to closely scrutinise the arguments that are presented below, will find it helpful to print a copy of the last photo, so as to have it to hand. Alternatively, opening the photo in a new tab or window, so as to be able to toggle between photo and this text may be useful. Either or both - it’s up to you. In any event the link is:
<!-- m -->http://www.repubblica.it/2006/.....27_big.jpg<!-- m -->
The author has placed the analysis of the photograph’s internal consistencies in an appendix at the end of this post. He is able to confirm that inconsistencies are identified. He has done this so as to concentrate on the altogether more significant analysis that follows.
The Photograph and the Objective World
We will now examine the relationship between the photograph, and what we know of the objective world that it purports to represent. As stated, we will start with the supposition that the photograph is genuine, and that it was taken, as claimed, at 02.29 pm (14.29 hrs) on 3 May 2007.
From what is presented to us, we know at least three things about the objective world. First, we know the location, having established that earlier in this post. Secondly, we know the time /date in the objective world, that is to say 14.29 hrs. Thirdly, we know that the sun was shining.
From the above, using an ephemeris (a set of astronomical tables) we can calculate to a very high degree of accuracy two very useful pieces of information:
1. The height of the sun in the sky, this is determined by what is termed its altitude - the angle that a line from the sun to the observer makes with a line from the observer to the horizon. At 14.29 hrs (02.29 pm) on 3 May 2007, Praia da Luz, although the sun is high in the sky, it is far from vertical. In fact it is at an altitude of 65 degrees (to the nearest 0.5 of a degree).
2. The direction of the sun (its compass bearing, or “azimuth��?for the technically minded). To the nearest 0.5 of a degree this is 214.5 degrees (E from true N), or, for readers who prefer compass bearings to the West of true SW.
We will deal with the significance of each of these in turn.
But first allow the author to provide a link whereby the above information may be verified - should the reader wish to do so. A free ephemeris (astronomical table) site may be found at:
<!-- m -->http://www.skyviewcafe.com/index.php<!-- m -->
The online ephemeris takes a little getting used to, but, ultimately, it is far quicker than the author’s old parchments and quill pen. But as he has remarked before, it is not more accurate.

The Sun’s Height in relation to the Length of Shadow
The long shadow cast by Dr McCann’s chin requires the sun to be at the high angle of about 80 degrees (we will demonstrate this later).
Thus, it impossible to reconcile the length of the shadow cast by Dr McCann’s chin with the actual (and lower) sun altitude of 65 degrees, as it was at 14.29 hrs, 3 May 2007.
Now, we are told that the camera clock time is one-hour slow, reading13.29 hrs, but let us suppose that this was the actual time that the photograph was taken. At 13.29 hrs, the sun’s attitude is higher, at 68.5 degrees (again to the nearest 0.5 of a degree). The sun’s angle is slightly better, but a long way short of the 80 degrees required.
In fact, nowhere on the earth at 14.29 hrs, 3 may 2007 did the sun have an altitude of 80 degrees. Keeping to Praia da Luz’s line of longitude, at that time, the sun’s greatest altitude (about 76 degrees) would have been found in the tropics, some 1500 miles (2400 km) to the south of Praia da Luz and at about latitude 16 North.

Determining the Angle of the Sun Required to Cast Dr McCann’s Head Shadow
A number of approaches may be used to crack this problem, ranging from imaging software through to trigonometry. The accuracy of all of them, however, depends on a single fact. How far does the tip of Dr McCann’s chin protrude, horizontally, beyond his chest?
The method that the author has chosen for this post is determined by his normal practice of only relying only on methods or facts that readers can verify for themselves ��?always assuming of course that they are inclined to do so. It is accurate, and, what is more, has the additional benefit of NOT resorting to trigonometry. provided that you can measure accurately with a ruler; can divide one number by another, and use a protractor to measure angles, you will have no difficulty following the method.

Principle of the Method
Let us take another look at the last photo. Link:
<!-- m -->http://www.repubblica.it/2006/.....27_big.jpg<!-- m -->
If only it were in profile, we could measure the angle that a ray of light has to make, in order to cast the shadow.
But, we do have profile images of Dr McCann. Take for instance this one:
Link:
<!-- m -->http://cache.gettyimages.com/x.....FF2D277875<!-- m -->
If the link does not open when clicked, you may have to copy /paste it into your browser ��?Getty links can be temperamental. Once done, those with PCs may choose to take a better view, enlarge to 125 %, and press F11. We will refer to this image as “the profile photo��?
If only we were able to map the shadow, from “the last photo��?onto “the profile photo��? all we would have to do is draw a line (“the altitude line��? from the lowest part of the shadow and so as just to graze Dr McCann’s chin. The angle that the “altitude line��?makes with the horizontal provides the altitude that the sun would have to reach to cast such a shadow.
Having done this, we could then draw in a second “altitude��?line, this time at a predetermined 65 degrees, to show where the true shadow would have reached at 14.29 hrs, 3 May 2007.
The principle that lies behind the mapping is to determine the ratio of (a) the length of “the head plus shadow��? to (b) the length of “the head��? Once we have this ratio, we can position the length of the shadow on any photograph of Dr McCann’s head.

Undertaking the analysis
You will need: a sharp pencil (or drawing pen), a ruler, and a protractor (a half-round perspex /plastic thing for measuring angles - you probably had to buy one for school and then hardly ever used it.
You will also need good quality prints of “the last photo��?and “the profile photo��?��?one of each ��?the best your printer will afford. Although you may be tempted to do so, there is little advantage in making huge blow-ups of the prints. This simply enlarges the noise associated with the image edges, and doesn’t help with measurement. And “yes��?you could use sharpening software (e.g. Adobe Photo Shop in edit mode), but it’s best to keep things simple and under your own control.
1. Working as carefully as possible. Draw three horizontal lines on the “last photo��?
· through the bottom centre of Dr McCann’s hairline on his forehead (“the hair line��?
· through the bottom centre of his chin (“the horizontal chin line��?, and
· through the bottom centre of the chin shadow (“the horizontal shadow line��?
2. Carefully Measure and record the following distances between the lines:
· The (vertical) distance between “the hair line��?and “the shadow��?line, and
· The (vertical) distance between “the hair line��?and the “chin line��?
Do this at least twice and take the average.
3. Using a calculator, divide the distance given by “a��?above by the distance given by “b��?above. Incidentally, if you don’t have a calculator to hand, just enter the figures in the Google search bar. Use the forward slash sign, /, for “divided by��? then click go. We will call this number “the ratio��?
The author does not wish to influence your readings, but it is hardly a secret that you will find “the ratio��?to be just over 2.
4. Take the “profile photograph��? and draw the following lines
· Horizontal line through the hairline
· Horizontal line through the lowest part of the chin
5. Measure the vertical distance between the two lines, and multiply this by “the ratio��? For the profile photograph, this gives you the vertical distance between the “hair line��?and the new “horizontal shadow line��? You can now draw in this new “horizontal shadow line��? parallel to the other two lines on the “profile��?photo. And, in doing so, of course, you have just determined where the bottom of the shadow in the last photo would be.
6. Finally, all we now have to do is to draw where a ray of light at 65 degrees to the horizontal, and just grazing Dr McCann’s chin, would hit the front of his body.
To do this, you need to use your protractor. The protractor must be used so that its straight edge is accurately horizontal and at the bottom. Then, keeping the central “dot��?or “cross lines��?exactly at the edge of Dr McCann’s chest, position the protractor so that 65-degree mark just grazes the chin. Check that the protractor is horizontal, and recheck the 65-degree position. When you are quite satisfied that you have positioned the protractor as accurately as possible, mark the two ends of the protractor’s 0-180 degree base line. Now, remove the protractor and draw in the line. Where the line crosses Dr McCann’s chest indicates where the end of the shadow would have been at 14.29 hrs on 3 May 2007.
Of course, one can also use the protractor to determine what the actual altitude (angle) of the sun would have to have been to cast the “last photo shadow

Results and their Interpretation
Q. Do the lengths of the “last photo��?shadow and the true, ie 65-degree shadow reconcile?
A. No, gentle reader they do not.
Q. Is the last photo shadow longer?
A. Yes, gentle reader. Considerably.
Conclusion: the last Photo is a fraud. The shadows have been added by means of an editing program
Q. But has the author selected a photo that is particularly advantageous to the fraud theory?
A. No, gentle reader, he has not. Try these for size ��?the author has:
1. Link:
<!-- m -->http://maddiereviens.skyrock.c....._small.jpg<!-- m -->
2. Link: <!-- m -->http://cache.gettyimages.com/x.....19712410E9<!-- m -->
3. Link: <!-- m -->http://cache.gettyimages.com/x.....EE0BFFB021<!-- m -->
4. Link: <!-- m -->http://cache.gettyimages.com/x.....3F3D4F587C<!-- m -->
5. Link: <!-- m -->http://cache.gettyimages.com/x.....768E90B52D<!-- m -->
6. Link: <!-- m -->http://cache.gettyimages.com/x.....52B95DF7E0<!-- m -->
7. Link: <!-- m -->http://images.ctv.ca/archives/.....070515.jpg<!-- m -->
8. Link: <!-- m -->http://www.elpais.com/recorte/.....Madrid.jpg<!-- m -->
9. Link: (edit note: the original link provided here no longer functions)

They are not all equally good, but with appropriate interpretation, all yield essentially the same result.

The Sun’s Direction in Relation to the Dr McCann
As demonstrated earlier, the location of “the last photo��?is known. We also know that Dr Gerald McCann is facing almost directly into the sun. Because at 2.14 pm 3 May, 2007 the sun is at 214.5 degrees (E of true N), Dr McCann must be facing in that direction.
Comparing the photograph of the pool with the Google Map satellite image of the complex, showing the pool allows the direction in which Dr McCann is facing to be estimated.
Do not be misled by the fact that the Google image seems to show the tree in a different position. This is because the satellite image records the trees shadow. Because the colour of the tree’s foliage matches the grass, it cannot be seen the available resolution.
Once you have positioned the tree, it is a simple matter to work out the broad direction in which Dr McCann faces, and to compare his with the sun’s actual position.
Is it possible to reconcile this with the sun’s direction?
Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is “yes��?

Modus Operandi of the Forger
A Conundrum
Well it appears that we have a puzzle. We have false shadows that are:
1. Right for the sun’s direction (effectively its compass bearing), so the alleged time is right, but
2. Wrong for the sun’s altitude, so the alleged time is wrong.
What can be the explanation?

An Earlier, “Doctored��?Photo?
How can these apparently contradictory facts be reconciled? We now know that the photograph was not taken when it was claimed, could it have been taken earlier? Initially, this appears to be the most likely scenario, and is the one, which most sceptics have favoured. But is it likely?
Photographs released to the press reveal that the McCann’s seem quite competent photographers. Where possible, photographs such as the “last photo��?are taken with the sun behind the photographer. It certainly would be possible to do so here. Let us assume that he photograph is, in a sense, genuine, but as it were “one that was prepared earlier��?
In this case, one would expect Dr Gerald McCann to be looking towards the photographer, Dr Kate McCann, who would have her back to the sun, ie Dr Gerald McCann would be looking towards the sun. The fact that Dr McCann, (unusually for him) is wearing sunglasses reinforces this. But if Dr McCann is looking into the sun, then we know that the photo time, if not the date, would be about right. In which case the shadow length would also be about right ��?but of course, it’s wrong! So an earlier but “doctored��?photo doesn’t fit comfortably with the facts: not impossible, perhaps, but unlikely.

A Later “Doctored��?Photograph?
By later, of course, is meant, one taken after 3 May. Perhaps “later in parts��?would be a more accurate description, as this would seem to imply that an earlier image of Madeleine had been stitched in.
We cannot of course be absolutely certain how The Drs McCann concocted the forgery, but the author supposes a scenario something like this:
1. After Madeleine’s death (some time early on 3 May, or possibly the previous night) the Drs McCann discover, but do not release, a photo of Madeleine that they intend to put to later use. This may well have been taken at the pool.
2. They plan to complete the forgery by taking another “the base��?photograph at the pool, bearing the date stamp, 13.29 hrs, 3 May 2007, but of course the actual date will be later, but before 24 May when the forgery was released.
3. The camera time is set to 13.29 hrs 3 May 2007, but this is not “entered��? The McCann’s now have four plans: A, B, C, & D. They need a flexible approach because of (at least) two very important criteria that have to be met.
First, the chosen location on the pool rim must be available, ie not occupied by anyone else Second there must be no other holiday-makers or staff in the photo’s field of view. If left in, such person’s could expose the forgery. True they could be edited out, but in order to supply convincing background, yet another photo, without them, is required. Everything, including the editing, gets more difficult. The author supposes that the forgers have another solution in mind
The plans are as follows
A. Take the photo at 13.29 hrs at an appropriate position on the pool rim (facing more-or-less south). The preset clock will be started, and the photograph taken.
Excellent. The shadows and sun direction match the time
B. Take the photo one hour later at 14.29 hrs at an appropriate position on the pool rim (facing more or less WSW). The preset camera clock (now wrong at 13.29 hrs) will be started, and the photograph taken.
Almost as good. The shadows and sun direction match the actual time of 14.29 hrs. The wrong camera time is easily explained away by the camera clock being one hour out.
C. Take the photo at ANYTIME, but at the “A��?position i.e. facing more or less south. The preset camera clock will be started at 13.29 hrs, and the photograph taken.
Not so good. The apparent sun direction is right for 13.29 hrs (it doesn’t matter that the real sun is elsewhere). However, the photograph’s shadows will be wrong, and will have to be edited.
D. Take the photo at ANYTIME, but at the “B��?position on the pool rim, i.e. more-or-less facing WSW. The preset camera clock (now wrong at 13.29 hrs) will be started, and the photograph taken.
Least good. The apparent sun direction is right for 14.29 hrs (it doesn’t matter that the real sun is elsewhere), but the photograph’s shadows are wrong, and will have to be edited. Also, The camera clock is now one hour out, but as before this is easily explained
The choice fell to plan “D��? We are not privy to the precise reasons why, and the author does not speculate further.

The Key to the Timing of the Photograph
It would appear that the hour slot somehow relates to the crèche mid-day break of 3 May, when the twins would be available for photography. Regrettably, Madeleine, who was already dead did not attend the crèche that day, hence the need for the photograph proving she is alive. The fake abduction which was staged between about 9.30 pm and 10 00 pm that day requires a “live��?Madeleine.
But why 13.29 hrs / 14.29 hrs? Discussion, such as there has been, has concentrated on 14.29 hrs. The key to the whole mystery, however, is 13.29 hrs.
The author reveals “why��?gentles. And if you have got this far, you have earned your treat!

Click on the following link:
BUT BEFORE YOU DO THIS, BEWARE!
YOU ARE ABOUT TO PEER INTO THE MIND OF THE FORGER!
WILL YOU ALSO GLIMPSE THE MIND OF A KILLER?
WE DO NOT KNOW.
BUT IT WOULD BEST TO BE PREPARED!
<!-- m -->http://www.timeanddate.com/wor.....&day=1<!-- m -->

Current link added....
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=133&month=5&year=2007&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1
Scroll down to 3 May 2007, and read across to the time of solar (or true) noon.
EUREKA - A TRUE EPIPHANY MOMENT
Someone has used an almanac ��?and not for the first time.
At solar noon, the sun is at its highest point in the sky ��?and more significantly is due south. The exact position on the pool rim for plans “A��?and “C��?is easily located ��?a small (even) toy compass would suffice for this.
The plan “B��?and “D��?position poses a slightly more difficult problem. One simple solution would be to visit the pool (say) the previous day, and identify or mark the spot on the rim where you face directly into the sun at 14.29 hrs. You could identify, or mark the “A��?and “C��?positions at the same time.
Had the author been the forger, he would have started the camera clock, let it run on for a couple of minutes so as to disguise the solar noon connection, and then taken the picture. He supposes that this was the original plan.
It seems likely, however, that things did not go entirely smoothly that day - we’re using plan “D��?don’t forget. Was that little detail forgotten? Maybe it was thought that by switching to using the 14.29 hrs time, the solar noon time wouldn’t be noticed. But it was: the author noticed it, and gentles he has pointed this out to the police.

A COMMON MODUS OPERANDI
The forging of the photograph and the staging of the fake abduction share a number of common features:
1. Both are fraudulent, one an artefact, the other an event
2. Both involve an illusion: there was no abduction ��?and the sun Dr McCann looks towards is not there
3. They both involve access to an almanac or almanac-type information
The author concludes that it is highly likely that a single mind was behind both.

A Final Look at the Last Photo
<!-- m -->http://www.repubblica.it/2006/.....27_big.jpg<!-- m -->
Of course, once you’ve proved the forgery, it’s difficult to understand how you were ever taken in by it. Do look at it for a moment or two.
It’s a most peculiar photo.
Madeleine is not just glancing away at the crucial moment. She has a fully formed laugh
It’s almost as if she is in another photo altogether.
And regrettably, that is the case. Madeleine was already long dead when her image was stitched into this forgery.

As ever, gentles, your shadowy correspondent, the author, leaves you to your thoughts.
He returns to where he abides -deep in the heart of Umbra
Yours ��?author

APPENDIX
The Internal Consistency of the Photograph with respect to the Shadows Cast

The Shadows Cast by Dr McCann’s Chin and Nose
Let us examine the shadow cast by Dr McCann’s chin. For this analysis, we must remember that we have established that the photograph is vertically framed. To avoid confusion, it is also important to remember that Dr McCann’s (say) right ear or right sun glass lens will appear to the observer to be on the left side, as seen in the photograph.
The key to analysing this is to draw (or imagine) a line that passing through the bottom centre of Dr McCann’s chin and the bottom centre of the chin’s shadow. Had the photograph been able to record it, this would have been revealed as the line taken by the ray of sunlight falling upon the tip of Dr McCann’s chin. We will call this the “chin line��?
We will now concentrate on Dr McCann’s shadow nose - about 1/3 of the way up the head shadow on the (observer’s) left hand side.
Consider a ray of light falling on the tip of Dr McCann’s nose, his actual nose that is, not the shadow nose. This ray of light will be parallel (to a very high degree of accuracy) to the “chin line��? So let us draw, or, if you prefer, imagine, this second, and parallel line it. We will call it the “nose line��? and we note that it almost coincides exactly with the chin line. Now, it follows that that the point of the shadow nose must lie somewhere along the line of the “nose line��? This is an inescapable result of a combination of geometry and the laws of physics.
And is the tip of the shadow nose along the “nose line��?
Gentle reader- it is not.
Consistency of the Chin and Nose Shadows ��?Another Point of View
Perhaps the reader requires a little more evidence. It is clear from the shadow cast by Dr McCann’s head, that he is looking directly towards the sun. Let us qualify that - in fact it is “almost��?directly towards the sun.
Let us draw (or again, imagine) a vertical line passing through the bottom centre of Dr McCann’s actual chin. We will call this the “vertical chin line��?
Were Dr McCann looking in the exact direction of the sun, the “vertical chin line��?would pass through the bottom centre of his shadow chin In fact, of course, it doesn’t. The shadow chin is to the (observer’s) right of the “vertical chin line��?
Instead of the sun’s rays hitting Dr McCann’s chin, as it were, square on, they must be very slightly angled from (the observer’s) left to right
Next, draw a vertical line through the tip of Dr McCann’s nose. Gentle reader ��?you’re probably getting the hang of this by now - we’re going to call this the “vertical nose line��?
The consequence of the light entering the photograph from the (observer’s) left to right (however slight) is as follows. In the same way that the shadow chin point is to the (observer’s) right of the “vertical chin line��?so the shadow nose point must also be to the (observer’s) right of the “vertical nose line��?
And is it?
Gentle reader, it is not.

Appraisal of the above
To maintain our assumption that the photograph is an honest document, the only possibility seems to be that we have misidentified the nose shadow. In other words that the bulge in the shadow is cast by something other than Dr McCann’s nose.
But what object might that be? Once again, our starting point has to be the fact that the suns rays are slanting in to Dr McCann’s head very slightly from left to right. Consequently, only features on the left (as observed) side of Dr McCann’s face could cast such a shadow. We can identify two:
1. Dr McCann’s right (observer’s left) ear?
Is this possible? The answer is no. For the first time in this analysis we shall consider the sun’s altitude (elevation, or height in the sky) for the swelling to be the ear, the sun would have to be behind him (not only inconsistent with the chin shadow, but actually impossible at this time /date /location). Perhaps if we were charitable, we might concede that a vertical sun might cast such a shadow, but again Portugal being outside the tropics, this is never possible, on any occasion, anywhere in Portugal.
2. Dr McCann’s sunglasses ��?that is to say his right (the observer’s) left lens /frame?
Once again, the answer is no. There are several ways in which this can be demonstrated. The simplest is as follows. Were the shadow swelling caused by the (observer’s) left lens /frame, then the right lens /frame would cast a broadly symmetrical shadow, and there would be a swelling on the other side of the chin shadow as well.
Alternatively, we can return to the approach adopted at the beginning of this analysis. Here, we draw a line through the left-most point of the (observer’s) left lens /frame that is parallel to the “chin line��? The shadow lens /frame would have to be on this line. It is close, but not close enough.

But if that does not convince, all we have to do is to draw a second line. This time it goes through the right-most point of the (observer’s) right lens frame parallel to the chin line. If the swelling on the left were due the glasses, there would have to be an equivalent shadow along this line: there is not.

Other Internal Inconsistencies
Before concluding, we should just note that there are many other inconsistent shadows: Shadows where there ought not to be; shadows cast in the wrong direction; the absence of shadows where there ought to be shadows; not to mention shadows that are too dark or too light. The author, however will not burden the reader further in this regard.
Last edited by theAuthor on Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

Certain parts of the EXIF data or code in a jpeg image can be modified but only if the right software is used. So in the hi res version of the last photo <!-- m -->http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/gest ... TPHorg.jpg<!-- m --> when you run it through JPEGSnoop it produces the following data

[Make ] = "Canon"
[Model ] = "Canon PowerShot A620"
[Orientation ] = Row 0: top, Col 0: left
[XResolution ] = 180/1
[YResolution ] = 180/1
[ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
[Software ] = "Adobe Photoshop CS Windows"
[DateTime ] = "2007:05:24 17:41:22"
[YCbCrPositioning ] = Centered
[ExifOffset ] = @ 0x00E0

Notice the Adobe Photoshop CS Windows and notice the time. The author of JPEGsnoop suggests this image is a copy of an original image that has been saved using Photoshop. But even though its copy it still retains same code from the original image:

[ExposureTime ] = 1/1000 s
[FNumber ] = F4.0
[ExifVersion ] = 02.20
[DateTimeOriginal ] = "2007:05:03 13:29:51"
[DateTimeDigitized ] = "2007:05:03 13:29:51"

There is more data but its too much to display. So it appears the original image was created on 3rd May 2007 at 1:29pm and modifed in some way via Photoshop on 24 May 2007. I am not sure if the orignal date/time can be modified but if it could why wasn't changed to 2:29pm instead of 1:29pm?

More JPEGSnoop data

*** Marker: APP13 (xFFED) ***
OFFSET: 0x00002482
length = 732
Identifier = [Photoshop 3.0]
8BIM: [0x0404] Name=[] Len=[0x02C0]
IPTC [0x1C02:005] Object Name = [CORRECTION-PORTUGAL-BRITAIN-CRIME]
IPTC [0x1C02:015] Category = [CLJ]
IPTC [0x1C02:020] SuppCategory = [Crime]
IPTC [0x1C02:040] Special Instructions = [CORRECTING SOURCE IN IPCT]
IPTC [0x1C02:055] DateCreated = [20070524]
IPTC [0x1C02:060] TimeCreated = [152129+0000]
IPTC [0x1C02:085] By-line Title = [HO]
IPTC [0x1C02:090] City = [Lagos]
IPTC [0x1C02:100] CountryCode = [PRT]
IPTC [0x1C02:101] CountryName = [Portugal]
IPTC [0x1C02:103] OriginalTransmissionRef = [POR01]
IPTC [0x1C02:105] Headline = [-]
IPTC [0x1C02:110] Credit = [AFP]
IPTC [0x1C02:115] Source = [FAMILY HANDOUT]
IPTC [0x1C02:116] CopyrightNotice = [ImageForum]
IPTC [0x1C02:120] Caption-Abstract = [CORRECTING SOURCE IN IPCT:
Picture released by the McCann family 24 May 2007 and was taken 03 May 2007, the same day Madeleine McCann (R) went missing from the family's holiday apartment in the southern Algarve region. The photo also shows Madeleine's father Gerry and sister Amelie. Madeleine was abducted as she slept with her brother and sister in a hotel apartment at the Ocean Club Resort while her parents dined at a nearby restaurant. AFP PHOTO/HO]
IPTC [0x1C02:122] ? size=3
IPTC [0x1C02:135] LanguageID = [EN]
IPTC [0x1C02:243] ? size=10

So it appears the hi res last photo is the press release version or at least modified by the press agency.
BUT I dont think its been trimmed or cropped because the dimensions match the highest resolution picture a CanonA620 can take ie 3072 x 2304 pixels.

The Daily Mails spin on the last photo
<!-- m -->http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -gone.html<!-- m -->

It also mentions Kate removing the "trendy" bead.