Thank you so much for your input. I had yet to visit the gallery, but there is every chance I would have overlooked the relevance of the credit 'string'.
Whether the erroneous dates represent error on the part of the 'device' or the user, I take it we may conclude that errors are endemic, in these instances at least?
Your observation regarding the Catholic Mass confirms my purpose in keeping a record of the 10 May press conference specifically (captured on 5 May, apparently).
Bad record-keeping coupled with image plagiarism makes a complete nonsense of claims elsewhere regarding 'proof' of Luis Forra's actions does it not?
Someone over on the alternative comment thread has begun to evaluate the photographs from a photographer's perspective. So far, it seems my conjecture remains valid.
Kate McCann (C) leaves a church after a service for her missing daughter Madeleine on May 10, 2007 in Praia da Luz, Portugal. Madeleine, aged three, dissappeared May 3 from her bedroom holiday resort apartment in Praia da Luz.
And yet at the epa: http://www.epa.eu/crime-law-and-justice-photos/police-photos/british-missing-girl-photos-01004828
Either epa data is consistently true and the rest of the world is wrong. Or it is this small clutch of Forra's photos that have been consistently misrecorded as "05.05.07 230000."
And there are others on the Getty site of the same church "event" ALL are dated 10.05.07
The claims of "proof" are risible. We might just as well assert that the church "event" happened on the 5th as well.
And again, why do the files include the pyjama photograph amongst those attributed to Kate McCann's marina excursion.
I remember "whodunnit" once commenting to the effect that at least we shall know. Persuading people is now of no consequence (to me at least). Certain others are not here to discover, but to deflect.
Kind regards, and thanks for all of your hard work.
"Either epa data is consistently true and the rest of the world is wrong. Or it is this small clutch of Forra's photos that have been consistently misrecorded as "05.05.07 230000."
It's the 'consistently' bit that I wonder about!
"Persuading people is now of no consequence (to me at least)"
That was Teddy's stance when I 'exploded' last night, having just seen a 'twitter' exchange on the subject - you are both correct of course, as was Mrs W.
I must learn to adopt the Teddy (Roosevelt) position more often ('Talk softly - carry a big stick')
By way of Post Scriptum (to quote textusa!)...on the point of plagiarism. I don't think it extends even that far. The descriptions are explicit: he was photographing what was put on "display."
Admittedly a grey area. But in the case of an appeal for a missing child I don't think there would be any point to answer. He (LF) was just doing his job - probably amongst dozens of others "snapping" at the same handouts and posters.
I'll try to "look in" on the photography discussions. I've spent the best part of a lifetime photographing original artworks - with lamps, filters, diffusers and god knows what - only to emerge into a world where even the simplest digital camera can reproduce, with alarming accuracy, anything that is plonked in front of it!
Personally, I think that is all that was happening.
When all is said and done it isn't incumbent upon us to explain the "05.05.07" because we have repeated instances of the same phenomena that are demonstrablyimpossible!!
Your second link is most interesting. Did neither Kate nor Jane take the picture (copyright the JB Archive) or do we have here another example of 'photo laundering'?
I've just searched the James Boardman Archive without result I should add. (His forte seems to be PR photography - surprise, surprise)
Well, if that isn't the next best thing - a suite of images supplied by JB archive for distribution via alamy. Quite ala(r)ming.
You mentioned authority worship earlier as perhaps underlying Denise Thomson's spoiling tactics. Whatever her motive may have been, there is one simple fact that she has overlooked:
No police force would invite a paparazzo to record EVIDENCE for them.
The PJ did not do so in this case either, because they were never handed the evidence in question.
All of these indexed photos. Only to grab a freelance press photographer from off the street on the 5th? And then to file "his work" alongside that of Kate McCann?
215 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 215 of 215http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm#24
Maren @06:53
You have a mind like a laser. 'Find a solution for the situation, eh?'
To which 'finding the child' takes second place (after no more than a fortnight).
Ministerial involvement in the 'search' must surely tell us something as regards what this was all about (not Madeleine unfortunately).
Ag @07:18
Good Morning to you sir.
Thank you so much for your input. I had yet to visit the gallery, but there is every chance I would have overlooked the relevance of the credit 'string'.
Whether the erroneous dates represent error on the part of the 'device' or the user, I take it we may conclude that errors are endemic, in these instances at least?
Your observation regarding the Catholic Mass confirms my purpose in keeping a record of the 10 May press conference specifically (captured on 5 May, apparently).
Bad record-keeping coupled with image plagiarism makes a complete nonsense of claims elsewhere regarding 'proof' of Luis Forra's actions does it not?
Someone over on the alternative comment thread has begun to evaluate the photographs from a photographer's perspective. So far, it seems my conjecture remains valid.
QED?
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/74118174
Kate McCann (C) leaves a church after a service for her missing daughter Madeleine on May 10, 2007 in Praia da Luz, Portugal. Madeleine, aged three, dissappeared May 3 from her bedroom holiday resort apartment in Praia da Luz.
Date created: MAY 10th
And the same moment from Solarpix
Date: May 10th
And yet at the epa: http://www.epa.eu/crime-law-and-justice-photos/police-photos/british-missing-girl-photos-01004828
Either epa data is consistently true and the rest of the world is wrong. Or it is this small clutch of Forra's photos that have been consistently misrecorded as "05.05.07 230000."
And there are others on the Getty site of the same church "event" ALL are dated 10.05.07
Agnos
Martin,
The claims of "proof" are risible. We might just as well assert that the church "event" happened on the 5th as well.
And again, why do the files include the pyjama photograph amongst those attributed to Kate McCann's marina excursion.
I remember "whodunnit" once commenting to the effect that at least we shall know. Persuading people is now of no consequence (to me at least). Certain others are not here to discover, but to deflect.
Kind regards, and thanks for all of your hard work.
Ag
Agnos 09:13/09:37
"Either epa data is consistently true and the rest of the world is wrong. Or it is this small clutch of Forra's photos that have been consistently misrecorded as "05.05.07 230000."
It's the 'consistently' bit that I wonder about!
"Persuading people is now of no consequence (to me at least)"
That was Teddy's stance when I 'exploded' last night, having just seen a 'twitter' exchange on the subject - you are both correct of course, as was Mrs W.
I must learn to adopt the Teddy (Roosevelt) position more often ('Talk softly - carry a big stick')
"thanks for all of your hard work."
Doubly reciprocated I assure you.
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-kate-mccanns-book-about-her-missing-daughter-madeleine-for-sale-in-36814148.html
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-handout-photo-of-madeleine-mccann-who-has-been-missing-since-may-3-65442730.html
By way of Post Scriptum (to quote textusa!)...on the point of plagiarism. I don't think it extends even that far. The descriptions are explicit: he was photographing what was put on "display."
Admittedly a grey area. But in the case of an appeal for a missing child I don't think there would be any point to answer. He (LF) was just doing his job - probably amongst dozens of others "snapping" at the same handouts and posters.
I'll try to "look in" on the photography discussions. I've spent the best part of a lifetime photographing original artworks - with lamps, filters, diffusers and god knows what - only to emerge into a world where even the simplest digital camera can reproduce, with alarming accuracy, anything that is plonked in front of it!
i.e. with help such as this?
Personally, I think that is all that was happening.
When all is said and done it isn't incumbent upon us to explain the "05.05.07" because we have repeated instances of the same phenomena that are demonstrably impossible!!
Kind regards all,
Ag
Anonymous @10:20
Your second link is most interesting. Did neither Kate nor Jane take the picture (copyright the JB Archive) or do we have here another example of 'photo laundering'?
I've just searched the James Boardman Archive without result I should add. (His forte seems to be PR photography - surprise, surprise)
Agnos @10:33
I concur. I wouldn't randomly impugn Forra's professionalism as a photographer.
"even the simplest digital camera can reproduce, with alarming accuracy, anything that is plonked in front of it!"
All except Kate McCann's maybe (lol)
Kind regards
Martin R.
http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx?pseudoid=%7b6E5D18B2-CB6D-4470-B606-C5A2D2208148%7d&name=James+Boardman+Archive&st=11&mode=0&comp=1
Anonymous @11:10
Well, if that isn't the next best thing - a suite of images supplied by JB archive for distribution via alamy. Quite ala(r)ming.
You mentioned authority worship earlier as perhaps underlying Denise Thomson's spoiling tactics. Whatever her motive may have been, there is one simple fact that she has overlooked:
No police force would invite a paparazzo to record EVIDENCE for them.
The PJ did not do so in this case either, because they were never handed the evidence in question.
Martin R. @11:31
"No police force would invite a paparazzo to record EVIDENCE for them."
In a nutshell.
Regards,
Maren
(Lol I was just about to post!)
And the most obvious farce of all:
All of these indexed photos.
Only to grab a freelance press photographer from off the street on the 5th? And then to file "his work" alongside that of Kate McCann?
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_PHOTO_REPORT.htm
Ag 13 March 2016 at 21:14
Wasn't it just? Fascinating man and art.
M 14 March 2016 at 07:25
Thank you dearheart.
Post a Comment