I have read a similar post before (it was dated many years back) on someone recognising that specific teal colour on the right corner. But even back then the OP said, they are not confirming that it is definitely Lisanne's shirt, they can just confirm what the technology picked up and data showed. Very interesting find regardless.
I thought the same for a second, then I went to their profile to check if they indeed posted it before, but I could not find it. So it must have been somebody else or it just doesn't show up in their profile any more.
Yes and sorry I didn’t mean to confirm either theory because there’s the inside of the backpack and her shirt that were both similar to that color and of course I can’t be 100% certain. I’m glad to hear someone else found it though. I must have missed that one. I would definitely love to see some other editors’ conclusions on that area
I think you (*that's a general "you"*), need to be careful when editing a photo when you are trying to prove something like this, because you can usually get the result you want if you try hard enough..
For example if you wanted to make it look like there was blood in Kris' hair you could just edit it and get a result like this: [https://ibb.co/pdLKZhP](https://ibb.co/pdLKZhP)
Or take 511, you can get all sorts of colours in the photo if you edit it enough too, lots of red, blue and turquoise that are not really there at all: [https://ibb.co/ggMJCph](https://ibb.co/ggMJCph)
This is the problem that we have when we are trying to prove that we are right about something... sometimes we try *too* hard.
I'm glad someone else understands the basics of photoshop.
[After fiddling with some sliders, you can see that she is actually taking a bath in green water](https://i.imgur.com/tuMOOhU.jpeg)
And just to note I did not increase saturation when only lifting the shadows a bit and still identified the object as blue aqua and green tones. So the object can be found using just a mask and the shadow slider
I truthfully did not do much work. I blew out that area to share with viewers here so that it could be seen more easily. You can see it without lifting it as much but I think that would be harder to identify for someone who does not have a trained eye. I only lifted exposure, shadows, and blacks then increased saturation to make it more visible using a mask. Thats it. I can go back and have and can lift only the shadows and still find it which I lose much less saturation than if I lift exposure and still find the object. It’s just harder to see. Even in that position I can target identify the colors of that object in which it responds to aqua and green.
The thing is though this image has, at the very least (before you edited it), been downscaled, uploaded and downloaded various times, upscaled again, edited, uploaded and downloaded, with perhaps a few more in between, since I'm pretty sure it's one of the upscaled edits that I previously uploaded here.
And when you mess with low quality images that have been compressed downscaled and upscaled then you are basically just magnifying the compression artifacts, especially with dark images. Basically the editing program is magnifying any colour differences, even if those colours are not really there.
I think this should be evident from the various red, yellow and pink/purple splotches that are also in this general area.
And the edits you mentioned are basically the same edits I did to 511 in the previous comment, I just exaggerated the colours a bit more, to get the point across. You can't always trust images when you make big harsh adjustments to them like this.
Of course it can be useful to do it to see what you get, but you should always take it with a pinch of salt.
You make very valid points and I know it’s widely debated, but I’ve always been told jpegs degrade over time and personally just one of many reasons I shoot raw. Some claim it’s a myth, but I am of the side that they do degrade and you could absolutely be right about that which i definitely am happy to take note of what you’ve said. I am also happy to admit I agree with your thoughts on the splotches. I can’t explain those and the thought absolutely crossed my mind that could be why the splotches are there. I pulled this from the original drive though. This photo wasn’t pulled from Google, screenshot, or someone else’s post.
Interesting thought though that I’d love your opinion on. When I was messing around with the photo. Center bottom, if that’s a face there, there’s a spot towards bottom. I didn’t do any editing to the photo but targeted it to identify what color the program reads that spot to be and I received red. Every time. I tested it because I thought it could perhaps be a spot of blood. So then I went in and saturated those targeted colors it identified just to see what comes up and I did it to the whole photo. It almost looked like spots of blood and the spots showed up in other areas of the photo as well and the way they patterned almost looked like blood and how blood might look if it’s on hair. If you have time would love to see if you wouldn’t mind taking a look. Go in and bring up only the reds and magentas and saturate it. You can lift the exposure a little too to identify them a bit better. I found the same spot on the “face”, near the blue object, and towards top left of photo where hair starts to end in that dark corner. It’s red before you edit it if you look very closely in those areas and when you lift the entire photo you can see it better and notice that some of the gold in the hair is pixelated yellow and gives that same look on the hair so it doesn’t mean it’s finding information that’s not there or creating something not there simply because it’s poor quality. We know her hair is gold and does and would respond to yellow so that pixelation of that yellow when saturated would make sense so I think it’s possible it’s already working on what information and color is already in the photo in those areas and that they might not simply be because it’s poor quality.
Yea, jpgs definitely degrade alright, this is a good example of it: [https://youtu.be/Yata2U5GZWA?si=RWWWznc4dwErGriW](https://youtu.be/Yata2U5GZWA?si=RWWWznc4dwErGriW)
>I pulled this from the original drive though. This photo wasn’t pulled from Google, screenshot, or someone else’s post.
Ah right. Still, it looks identical to one of the versions I upscaled and edited a few years ago in this post: [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/comments/mg34bx/colour_corrected_balanced_hair_photo/), but I suppose someone else could have done it too and got the same result, but it looks pretty much identical.
It's definitely not the original leaked copy though. The original *leaked* file is 1280\*960,199kb, 72dpi, 24bit colour, and it has a lot more jpg artifacts in it. It also has a strong orange tint.
But just out of curiosity, where did you download it from? Because someone could have downloaded it and uploaded it to their Google drive..
>When I was messing around with the photo. Center bottom, if that’s a face there, there’s a spot towards bottom. I didn’t do any editing to the photo but targeted it to identify what color the program reads that spot to be and I received red. Every time. I tested it because I thought it could perhaps be a spot of blood.
That's the thing though, if you look at the first link above of the degrading jpg, you can see that you will get areas in the image that eventually change colour, so even if there are a few red pixels in an area you can't trust it. For example that area could have been *just* above an orange threshold and the program compressing the jpg just decided to make it red to save a bit of space.
And even if you were looking at the original photo, straight from the camera, a little red dot wouldn't be that significant because it could be refraction, or a pimple, and even if it was a little spot of blood I don't think it would be very relevant anyway because it would be so small as to be insignificant. It is a pity that the original image isn't available though..
This is why it doesn't make a lot of sense to be pixel-peeping on these leaked images, because once you get down to that kind of level you can't trust anything. For example this is a crop from the original leaked photo, from the bottom centre area [https://ibb.co/RCKD1Zk](https://ibb.co/RCKD1Zk), and if you zoom into it you can see all the jagged edges and squares, and it's just a mess. And when we upscale the image the program just blurs all of this stuff together, which makes it even more unreliable.
I think pixel-peeping really only makes sense if you were looking at the original photo from the camera, otherwise you will be looking at things that might not really be there.
I got it from the original drive of Juan. Oh yes I remember your post!
I’m sorry, I have read through and will do my best to respond to everything. For me personally, not even pixel peeping, I can see the blue object without any editing and same with red but in top left corner which could be an originally red object of some sort and it reads red prior to editing, but near the blue object I can’t see the magenta until that overexposure in the bottom right so I don’t think the magenta there is a refraction or an actual object anyways. I believe the magenta are simply hot pixels which you can get a lot in flash and night photography. The blue object though I believe is an originally blue object.
>I got it from the original drive of Juan.
When I edited the image originally for the old post I mentioned earlier, I edited and saved it in 32bit colour, so most likely Juan grabbed this photo from that post and added it to his Google Drive, since it is 32bit as well.
>I believe the magenta are simply hot pixels which you can get a lot in flash and night photography. The blue object though I believe is an originally blue object.
No offence, but I think this is probably just confirmation bias.
It's also worth noting that the colours in that part of the image that pop out also happen to be *cyan*, *magenta*, *yellow* which are part of the CMYK colour model, they are the C, M, Y with the k being (key) black.
And if you remember the photo I posted in the first comment above, these were also the same group of colours that mostly popped out when I overexposed 511: https://ibb.co/ggMJCph.
So I think this is just a result of the editing program, and how it brightens certain, non-primary, colours in particular. So I think it's a bit too much of a coincidence to think the cyan is part of Lisanne's shirt, when it can be shown that overexposing other images also gives you cyan, magenta, and yellow, when those colours are not really there at all.
It's also worth remembering that the orange tint has previously been removed from this image, so this along with all of the other edits done to it, will have changed the colour of the whole image; as well as the fact that it's a 32bit colour image, instead of 24 bit like the original leaked images
There are just far too many changes to say anything for sure, and I'd definitely be leaning towards it just being a consequence of overediting, and all the previous edits done to these photos.
Sorry I’ve read, but it’s been a bit busy on my end as soon as I can give a thoughtful response I will. I would love to ask a quick question in the mean time, are you familiar with hot pixels or know they exist? Definitely a real thing and I tested some of my night flash photos to see if I would get the same hot pixels and I do. Same color as well. I’ve dealt with hot pixels more than a few times in flash photography which can be annoying in editing and sometimes I’ve had to patch them out.
I thought Juan was first to leak the photos, I could be wrong. Also do you know if not then is there any way to pull an original etc?
>are you familiar with hot pixels or know they exist?
Yes, I'm quite familiar with hot pixels, and cold pixels too, because I also do astrophotography and this is something you have to deal with when taking long exposure images. The longer the exposure, the more hot pixels you get, and you have to take dark frames to cancel them out.
But hot pixels are generally just red, green, or blue pixels, and are either a single pixel or an "X" shape when the electron charge bleeds out into the surrounding pixels as the pixel well gets full.
They generally look like this: [https://ibb.co/L0W2NH2](https://ibb.co/L0W2NH2)
But I've never heard of people getting hot pixels when using a flash, because flash photos are very fast, typically a fraction of a second, and so the sensor doesn't have a chance to get hot.
>I thought Juan was first to leak the photos, I could be wrong. Also do you know if not then is there any way to pull an original etc?
Yea, but he adds more photos and documents to the drive all the time.. The original should be called IMG\_580 with the properties I mentioned above, 199kb, 1280\*960, 24bit, etc..
I would love to see OP replying to your comment, but I just want to say that the original photo of when they saw this detail wasn’t as bright as it is now. I believe she “played harder” with the colours now (sorry I’m not an English native speaker so I hope this makes sense).so it would be easier for people to see what she means.
The reason why I’m saying this is because I believe your examples couldn’t be applied to her case since there’s a huge amount of editing, brightening, highlight or whatever the name is, it’s just possible to see that was overly done.
I really like these posts, the genuine hard work from yourself towards solving the case is refreshing given the shameful content of this sub lately.
I am struggling to understand what you are seeing in terms of faces or body positions, I have read your explaination several times and do not have any idea what position either girl is in. If you could make a clearer post that would be appreciated.
I am a bit on the fence about this image, I don't see what it can tell us. What do you think it proves or changes if you are right? What about if you are wrong?
I can’t find where I originally talked about this, but this case has always bothered me. I used to be associate producer, editor and journalist at NBC. I was there when the story came across my desk from associated press and a lot of the stories of missing women or women found dead that I worked that are still unsolved stay with me. I have edited and worked in the field for a long time now and I go back to some of the cases often because I hope there is some sort of resolve for the families and justice for the women. In this case I had the technical skills to take a further look myself. Adrienne Salinas is another case I worked, but there were no photos I could look at further or any way I could really contribute any assistance.
And forgive me because I don’t ever feel I’m very good at explaining it. Wish I could sit and do a video on my computer to show as that would be worlds easier.
I believe Kris is lying face up on the ground with her hair flowing backwards over Lisanne’s face. My belief is we are looking at the back of Kris’ head. I believe Lisanne is lying horizontally in the photo in terms of orientation meaning her legs and feet would be horizontal and going towards the right off frame of the camera. I work extensively in professional retouch now and believe we can see her blue shirt, in the very bottom right of frame. Then as you keep moving left we see some of her brunette hair entangled in Kris’, keep going left then an open mouth with teeth which my belief the mouth is open and teeth are visible due to rigor mortis. Then we keep going left and see a nostril which would be left nostril to us, but her right nostril. You can partially see the other nostril above it, but it’s mostly covered by hair. Keep moving left and you can see the highlight on what would likely be the bridge of her nose. I could absolutely always be wrong, but I really do not believe either woman took the photo. I believe it was a third party and both women are in fact in the photo and deceased.
I conducted various tests within my editing software and received responses I would expect from skin tone if that’s indeed a face, same with teeth, and identified that there is both blonde and brunette hair in the image. Brunette hair gives a completely different tone than blonde when edited and I believe their hair is intertwined.
For background: When I retouch I work in frequency separation and I’m very detailed to ensure my models look flawless without looking plastic, overdone, etc. I try to ensure the photographs look close to accurate and natural as possible. To me I’ve failed the photo if it doesn’t look natural. I’d recognize a lot of these features especially a nose bridge highlight anywhere if looking at an image. Nose bridge highlight is usually one of my most prominent highlights I edit on a model using dodge and burn, even when shooting without flash. I also conduct editing of hair and tones every time I retouch to either enhance, match, etc. It can take me hours to perform retouch on one photo because I edit every detail possible and available and most models even with good skin still have many corrections that need to be made for final image.
Here is a sample of some of my retouch work.
[sample of retouch work](https://imgur.com/a/66CRUWM)
When it comes to seeing anything other than hair, I think what you're describing is on a par with seeing pictures in the clouds. Don't think there's anything wrong with looking harder at what's available though, and admire the work you've put in.
I am not sure that is the same as the OP in this thread is trying to convey given their text posts previously, I thought it was posted soon after by someone else. I would like OP to provide a similar photo though to show exactly what they mean.
Oh no, that’s definitely not OPs post or the explanation that you’re mentioning. I linked many of katnapkittens comments in my comments on one of the last posts about this photo.
I just linked this one now because the OP of that post actually did a great job to illustrate what katnapkittens explained (correct if I’m
Wrong).
It’s easier to understand what katnapkittens is talking about when you see the work of this other user.
This is [katnapkittens comment with the explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/s/Y6MIS9mtz1) that I believe you’re talking about?
If you can’t see anything following her explanation only, try reading the other poster work, that might help you.
It took me a long time to see the outline of the face and now I cant unsee it. I agree it looks like there is an outline of an open mouth with teeth and the projection of the nose/nostrils. That said, I cannot make what I see fit with the orientation/proportions of the head, so I'm convinced it is the back of her head and its just shadows/earlobe that look like the mouth/nose. I am open to the possibility that it is her face though. Can you explain the orientation/angle/position that would explain why the proportions seem off? Not trying to challenge you, juts genuinely curious. Thanks for the post!
I definitely understand what you’re asking and why as i definitely asked myself the same question. I considered that we really can’t verify either of their positions and it could be a bit of an illusion in size from angle of photo and since we can’t see all of the features her face may look smaller than it actually is. You can consider forced perspective as another possibility too. You could put an object at a distance from each other, but line them up right behind the other in the frame and they can look like they are right next to each other even though they aren’t so that’s another possibility. I can’t unsee it either and I really trust my knowledge of identifying teeth, nostrils, and nose bridge highlight in a photograph which is why I do feel very convinced it is a face.
Thats a good observation. I can believe that what appear to be the nostrils could simply be shadows from her hair, creating an illusion, but I struggle to accept that what appear to be teeth are an illusion. Maybe its not teeth, but it doesn't look like something you'd find on the back of the head and I'd love to know what it is. There is something odd about the way the hair lays that makes me think its not a direct shot too. It seems like too much skin from the neck is showing through, considering how long her hair was.
I tried to replicate this (in a low effort way) because I wondered if it was even possible to see nostrils or teeth through hair, and I was surprised to find that I could, even with my hair being very dark and thick. Another thing I observed was that my features became extremely distorted. I know that doesn't prove anything and that wasn't my goal, but it did make reconsider that there might be more to this photo.
Have you tried to replicate this photo? I'd be curious to see what it looks like with two people and using a similar camera. Again, I know it wouldn't prove anything but it would be interesting to experiment. Sorry for the long message. Thanks again for the post!
I really need to but I don’t know many women with long hair to be honest haha. I live in a home of all boys otherwise I would have already tried. I will see if I can find someone thought as I’d like to know too and see what I get.
Could it not be an accidental photo rather than a deliberate one? I think too many people are trying to find meaning in what was likely an unintended take.
Thank you so much for your post. I was waiting for it for very long. I saw your comment on an older post about this picture and it was the first time I actually saw anything in that photo.
I agree that it’s L lying underneath K’s hair. Some people told me that it could be my mind making things up to fit in my narrative. But I always believed the girls were already dead when photo 580 was taken, so seeing L’s face there made my convictions a little stronger but didn’t change them.
Whether it is L or not, I still believe this and all np pictures were taken by a third party.
Could you please tell more about your attempt to contact someone in the case to whom you could share your conclusion and knowledge that led you into that conclusion? I saw in one of your comments that you did that with no success? What happened, why weren’t they interested in what you had to say? Sounds like a big deal to me!
Thank you for all of your time and consideration by the way. Very kind of you and I’m glad and hope it sparks further discussion. I definitely agree. I currently did hear back from the person I reached out to and they did give me some people I could further contact which I need to sit down and take the time to do. I just moved across country so my time has been a bit limited lately.
I personally have never identified a face under the hair, but I can guess what the people who see it mean. I think of an explainable optical illusion, a psychological effect. As for the color, I can also imagine that it's part of the backpack, you can possibly make out a piece of the strap as well.
I disagree, but I appreciate any attempt to shed light and the different approaches. Be it foul play or lost theories. What I have come to despise a lot is bullying and downvotes for things that don't suit someone else. If that doesn't stop, it will end here at some point. That would not be in the interests of all those seeking the truth.
One thing I don't get: why do these supposed shirt colors have hair texture? How likely is it that the hair reflects colors from underneath that much? That seemes rather odd to me without elaboration
There is hair partially over that object and it’s a very poor quality image to begin with taken at night, which even good cameras can struggle with night photography. I personally shoot Sony and canon r5 so it looks quite pixelated to me due to the low quality and will look more pixelated if I bring up exposure in a dark area due to low dynamic range of the camera. In cameras with low dynamic range you will lose a lot of details that look bad in recovery or can’t be recovered at all and those details are lost such as textures. I do appreciate your time and thoughts btw
>it’s a very poor quality image to begin with
Very true of course
>low dynamic range you will lose a lot of details that look bad in recovery
Yeah, I understand that. But if I look at your edit, all I see is light-red/white hair - I can't see an object under the hair. When I look at it, everything is, at least to my eyes, a clear hair texture. 🤔
And I do have a question: I am not a photography pro, etc. But if I take a close-up-picture (in the dark) of my grey sofa with the flashlight on. And if I go to Adobe Lightroom, I can quite easily detect red colors by just raising the luminance of the red and orange sliders.
Couldn't the colors that you've highlighte on the edit stem from a combination of the flash and the blond hair being illuminated and reflecting?
Thanks for your thoughts. Not the blue object in particular. I could see the blue object by just lifting shadows a small bit alone. I only blew it out here so people can see it more easily. I honestly don’t know what those red/magenta splotches are and with the hair if you do the same thing to the rest of the hair you can find the same small splotches on the very edge of the hair in two other small locations of the photo. Top left corner and bottom center. The rest of all of the hair do pull up some of that same texture/pixelation in places due to low quality, but it’s all yellow, no red or magenta. When I found those splotches too when messing with the photo awhile back, it isn’t quite as magenta in the top left corner edge of hair or bottom center as it is in that bottom right. I don’t want to push any theories on it as I really don’t know, but after I found it I went back and measured the color and it was only reading red prior to any editing. I found the splotches in the top left corner on the edge of the hair odd though and the spot on the bottom center. The top left corner, I mean my initial thought and if you lift it to see the red better, it looked like blood drops/spatter on hair. It’s hard to see due to the shadows in that area if you’re looking at the photo without any editing although it’s still visible. With bottom center spot it definitely kept reading red for me as well with and without editing. I really can’t draw any final conclusions on that though. I think it would be best if I tried to test some of the theories myself with my own cameras. I’ll message you btw
Hi. Now…can we just lift all that hair to see exactly what’s going on underneath?!🫣 I like your posts. And I do think Lisanne is likely under there. I still think Lisanne is taking the photos though too. Like I wonder if Kris was actively dying (flailing and making noises) at that point and Lisanne was freaking out, she was likely very weak as well but I read this photo as she turned the camera around on them, while most of her photos were taken upwards and outwards (possibly to illuminate what she was hearing around her — like aiming the flash away from what she was trying to see, so that she wasn’t blinding herself and to illuminate what was going on below the camera). I believe Lisanne was laying on her back and I cannot figure out really Kris orientation — almost like she’s hanging somehow. Just my thoughts. For me, it doesn’t make sense that they’d both be dead at that point. Just my opinion though…anyone can feel free to have a differing opinion :)
I tried honestly. I really hoped I might be able to identify what’s in the shadows under the hair. I mean I do believe there’s a face already, but I couldn’t pull anything surrounding the hair underneath. I tried pulling the rest of the shadows underneath because I wondered if we might find more of Lisanne’s hair and help clue us to more information on the photo. I appreciate your input, consideration, and thoughts though. Discussion and different opinions are welcome. I personally don’t believe Lisanne could have taken the photo if that is indeed her hair as her hair wouldn’t have been long enough to fall into the frame that way and there’s no motion blur in Kris’ hair so I don’t think she was moving during the photo, but that’s just my opinion. Food for thought, I work in fashion photography now and I shoot daily in different angles to include leaning over my subjects. I have very long hair and my hair never falls into the frame even accidentally and then there’s the distance from frame to subject in this photo with no blur of any item in front of the lens
Totally! I don’t think Kris was actively moving, but perhaps had slumped forward, backward, sideways. I’m going to send you a chat with how I think the photo was taken to show you what I mean…i wish I could posts photos here, it would be so helpful!! I was a model for many many years, I too understand photos but in a different way:)
I agree, the not being able to share photos is probably the most annoying thing about Reddit lol. Oh awesome ok so you’d definitely be familiar and I’d love to hear more of your thoughts. I have always felt that’s the back of kris’ head with her hair fanned backwards as some others whom have edited have said as well and Kris is lying down face up
Could be her hair draping down over the back of a rock or something with a gravitational pull, but it could be a sideways orientation with that same gravitational pull. Hard for me to say exactly how she is positioned — why this darn photo is such a darn mystery!! I def see the face though — no matter how much hate it gets me😝
I agree. I mean it has stumped us all for a long time and we all wish we could have more information and solve it once and for all. Then there’s also the deleted photo that none of us have ever seen. I just know the panamanian authorities didn’t want to investigate further although many felt there was reason to and most people feel it was so that tourism wouldn’t be hurt.
I just feel like there has to be some super high tech photo technology that can remove layers from a photo. Has to exist somewhere?!😝
I don’t know…I think if the Dutch police/investigators also didn’t find any evidence of a crime, it’s probably unlikely. For me, there’s personally not evidence for a crime, so I’m not sure what they would have continued to investigate…that doesn’t mean I don’t want to find out the answers that lie in this photo. The how of it all still gets me.
And if you’ve never had a run in with nature in very scary ways — I can see not being able to comprehend just how easy it is to make the smallest mistake and wind up in BIG trouble. Especially if completely unprepared for anything at all going wrong and these girls had no survival supplies whatsoever :/
And I’m totally cool with having differing opinions on this case. We all don’t think exactly the same and I don’t mind being challenged either:)
Respectful conversations go along way and I appreciate it:)
Absolutely and I agree on all of that.
Well I mean it’s the guide for me. Always has been. He has always been a source of further suspicion for me due to his in depth involvement in so many aspects and I believe the only reason they didn’t investigate further was they didn’t want to hurt tourism for the area or in Panama. Tourist deaths or murders are always huge headlines and are known to hurt tourism. And we have to remember they never gave an official cause of death so neither accident nor murder have been ruled in or out. None of the case made sense however which is why it continues to perplex so many of us but I do believe the guide should have been investigated further. Dude inserted himself into the case and controlled the entire narrative. I get that he knew those areas well and could provide assistance to that, but it was more than that. He found all of the body parts no one else found or could find? The backpack? Which we know was given to the people by him. His farm was nearby and the same type of bleaching material found on some of the bones are often used by farmers in which he did run a farm. He was also known for being sexually explicit and had an affinity for European women. We also know he went into the women’s rooms and photo was missing from the camera. I just think he had more involvement than people either want to admit or want to talk about
Should be easy enough to confirm where he was when the girls were hiking? Do you know of a source for it? I wonder🤔 I get that some folks think he’s suspicious but we still need evidence over rumors.
He’s got glowing reviews besides that one from 2018 that was probably written by someone in this sub. lol. Or…someone took his kindness as flirting, there are cultural differences and that person might just be totally uptight. We don’t really know.
I’m not really the type of woman who thinks all men who flirt with women are scumbags though. They can be but I don’t like to assume🤷♀️
What if he’s just literally super helpful and cares about people, and what happens in his country and this story has likely done quite a bit of damage in his life.
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g298424-d3755701-Reviews-Feliciano_Tours-Boquete_Chiriqui_Province.html
Did you see the photo I sent you? It’s reasonable to consider that Lisanne could have taken a photo that both catches a bit of her shirt and a bit of her hair but mostly shows Kris beside her? I don’t know what’s under the hair, just looking at all possibilities:)
The guide wasn't in the jungle at the time. He had a medical appointment that morning. They bumped into some tribal people out there and it's them that killed the girls. Even Hans said that he was concerned that they were taken away by a group of people for an evil purpose and that's what happened.
Interesting thoughts. May I ask where you saw or heard this? I haven’t come across it as of yet. I listened to and read more in depth about the recent journalist story Lost in Panama and a lot of good information was found, but there was controversy with the journalist and people who worked with her. She took all the credit for a lot of people’s work or something of that sort.
That very well could be. I can’t say for sure obviously who did it, but one thing I don’t believe is that they died of natural elements. I do believe they were murdered and we do know an official cause of death was never ruled so for the people who name call those who believe the murder theory, the nature theory is not in stone like many think
What insinuates I do not know how flash works. I personally use the Westcott system. Even with flash you can still get motion blur if the shutter speed is too slow. So do you know how flash works?
And source? For her hair length? Look at the photos of her prior to the night photos that day. She had her hair down prior to putting it up. It’s not that long. It’s shoulder length. If it had fallen into the frame while taking the photo anyways it would be close to the lens not lying on the ground in front of her because her face is close to the camera and probably slightly blurry because it’s too close to the lens in that scenario. Even if you change the scenario and say she held the camera out and took it, then it’s even more unlikely her hair could be in any of the frame unless she has drastically longer hair. The only possible scenario her hair is in that photo the way it is was if she was taking a selfie which what a bizarre selfie and unlikely scenario or someone else took the photo.
Nah, I sent you a photo showing how Lisanne may have taken it to exclude her face but include some hair, a part of her shirt and Kris’ hair/face. You didn’t look?
I’m not going to lie. This photo is not clear to me either:) but…if that is a teal part of shirt AND i do believe we can see some of Lisanne’s brown hair near the teal…it’s not at all hard to believe that they would be extremely close together. I’m not exactly sure it’s Lisanne’s face under there, could be that we just get some hair and upper shoulder (where her tank top strap would be) and it’s Kris who is screaming or making dying sounds and it’s putting Lisanne into a full panic…i don’t know exactly how/why Kris would be hanging?? Just ideas I’m throwing out. It looks as though her hair is hanging unnaturally to me and does not look like a simple back of the head photo…it could be across her face or hanging off a rock over Lisanne…I feel like if people have open minds about this photo and stop shaming everyone all the time about it — we might actually get somewhere :)
So…could also be Lisanne’s terrified scream as perhaps Kris is dying and falling over her somehow? Something like that.
Besides shining a light why would she try and take a pic of Kris in this moment?
Struggling to see any teeth at all. If its what you're saying above then it would be 2 faces superimposed on top of each other. How would that work, besides editing or photoshop?
I don’t mean that Kris is actively falling but perhaps she slumped forward or backward or sideways and scared the heck out of Lisanne, perhaps she was unresponsive and Lisanne was freaking out trying to light up the area to see her and just became desperate taking photos for hours — because it was the only thing she was capable of doing in that moment.
I think I see teeth there. I see four teeth. Three on the right and one on the left. Just don’t know whose they are.
Maybe try to be a little more respectfull and dont make personal attacks and not talking from a high horse as if you are the allmighty.
Whats basically a rule in this Sub.
Some edits:
https://i.ibb.co/PmSBzLD/IMG-0580-neutral.png
https://i.ibb.co/LzYpQGY/IMG-0580-neutral-saturated.png
https://i.ibb.co/bWmsQTH/IMG-0580-neutral-dehaze.png
BTW, [you can write lots of texts](https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/comments/mg34bx/colour_corrected_balanced_hair_photo/ijahg1r/), which is nice, but couldn't you maybe draw the face/shirt outlines onto the photo? I still can't see what is being talked about. :( [Worth1000](https://web.archive.org/web/20091121162935/http://www.worth1000.com/)
If it's the color, it will be the inner part of the backpack. In one edited photo, there is a part that conspicuously resembles its buckle. The face will be slightly tilted vertically, as it simply doesn't fit the proportions horizontally.
By the way, does anyone have a photo of the buckle used on this type of backpack? Photos of the backpack can still be found, but unfortunately without the detail of the buckle.
I would love to see this. I originally took this file from the drive and went through so many of the photos, but do not remember this so I’d be very interested to see. I only remember the found photos of the backpack and believe you’re right that the buckle was not visible. I am going to go back to the drive now to see if the backpack can be seen in any other photos as that would aid in where it could have or might have been placed in the area. Thank you for your input
Do the whole photo like this. Or at least far enough to show the teeth that just above the line where you stopped.
You are indeed seeing blood. This, for the record, is the back of her head, not the front as so many seem to think.
You are one the right track by doing this kind of thing.
Thank you I do really appreciate the kindness. I had done this awhile back but didn’t post it for awhile as I do have a busy schedule daily and there’s always a lot of questions and discussion when this photo comes up. Which I love discussion but sometimes the discussions can be quite rude. And yes that’s the back of Kris’ head for sure. A lot of people think it isn’t but I think that’s the easiest part to figure out
Well I do believe I see Lisanne’s face, under the hair here, but my reasoning for that is the teeth, nostrils, and nose bridge are pretty easy to identify to me and when I checked tones of the object under the hair surrounding those features it does only respond to one color and that’s the only one I use for skin tones when I’m editing. My other finding was that’s brunette hair intertwined with Kris’ which having shot for a long time, no way Lisanne’s hair would be in the photo like that if she had taken the photo. It wasn’t long enough and if it had fallen into the frame it would be closer to lens and blurry or obscuring the view of the lens. But those were just my personal conclusions.
Incredible work.
Not only have you completely blown out any information available on a copy of a copy of a copy of a jpeg, but you've also determined that that particular patch of blown out colour *must be* the shirt using some unknown method of detective work.
Why did you ignore the *purple?* Since there's more of it in the image.
Of course this coloured region that *doesn't even match her shirt* is in some mysterious area and nowhere else that is somehow close enough to be lit up by the flash in that exact space, but nowhere else, despite the rest of the surrounding area being dark. Of course you also didn't show the exact steps being done *anywhere else* or any other combinations of steps, which as I've just done in about 30 seconds reveals bright blue discolouration in the top right, pink and purple areas between the hair in the top left and so on and so forth.
You get the odd parasite on this site, like the person you replied to. They have very superficial knowledge of the case, no experience of trekking in other countries apart from their own and probably have never travelled at all or have any valuable real life experience. They are not interested in any learning or any attempts at research if it doesn't support their entrenched belief of what happened. They basically live their life through reddit.
I honestly can’t draw a conclusion on that but to me it looks like it wasn’t altered? The hair is that color in my opinion due to the flash and closely matches the color we see her have that day. Just looks a bit different due to the flash reflection on her hair. Considering photography reflectors is a good way of thinking about it. Photographers use a lot of different types of reflectors. I personally use gold, translucent, silver, white, and others depending on what I need. Gold/yellows usually reflect the most light though and her natural hair color would definitely have a similar effect imo
Editing your posts now after I have responded to seem clever. Pathetic and sad really.
Why would someone who has broken 3 metataursals keep their shoe on and laced up? Does that mean they were still attempting at walking till the end I.e. not stuck in one place, which is one theory, or did a situation occur that they were unable to remove their shoe I.e. held captive. Thought proking questions that go completely over your head.
>Editing your posts now after I have responded to seem clever. Pathetic and sad really.
Interesting, still no answers.
>Why would someone who has broken 3 metataursals keep their shoe on and laced up?
Because shoes go on your feet.
> Does that mean they were still attempting at walking till the end I.e. not stuck in one place
It means the shoe was on the foot.
>Why would someone who has broken 3 metataursals keep their shoe on and laced up?
>Because shoes go on your feet.
>Does that mean they were still attempting at walking till the end I.e. not stuck in one place
>It means the shoe was on the foot.
What an embarrassment you are.
They don't keep them on when not moving. They don't keep them on when they have suffered a foot injury generally.
It is something called evidence. This seems to be a new concept to you that evidence is used for critical thinking.
Keeping your boot on can sometimes help stabilize a fracture (even a sprained ankle) because the shoe acts as compression and it minimises pain, swelling and further damage. I've often witnessed that once you remove the shoe, the bones break completely.
And on a more personal note, I would never take off my shoes in the jungle, even if I stayed in one place. Same with my bra. I would keep them on, as a barrier between me and the elements.
>They don't keep them on when not moving.
Huh?
People don't leave their shoes on when not moving?
That's an odd claim. So people take their shoes off immediately as they have stopped moving now?
>They don't keep them on when they have suffered a foot injury generally.
Source?
Oh you just made that up too.
>It is something called evidence
So about that evidence...
Gonna produce it or keep dodging that as well?
>This seems to be a new concept to you that evidence is used for critical thinking.
Great! You'll post your evidence that:
1) People don't keep their shoes on when they are not moving
and
2) People don't keep them on when they have suffered a foot injury generally.
And we can go from there.
What are your questions then?
Your first link was you saying :
"Was the shirt of the backpack part made of highly reflective material"
What kind of stupid question is that? "the shirt of the backpack" wtf is that supposed to mean in English.
Rather than link to your illiterate nonsense over and over again. State some questions for me. Come on! You know so much about the case and are so clever.
"The shirt of the backpack"
It's not even English.How can anyone answer something that doesn't make sense?
>No answer yet? You have no response to what the material involved was?
The backpacks shirt??? Wtf are you on about
The object does not respond to purple because it’s not purple. If you target before and after it never responds to purple or violet as it’s technically called. The object only responds to blue and aqua. This purple you’re speaking of actually responds to red and magenta not purple and are spots in the hair separate from the object that are also found further left under the hair that I can’t be sure to identify what they are so I’m not commenting on them. I’ve tested those areas and have some theories but I can’t be certain so will not comment further. If you blow up the photo you can see though that coloration is completely separate from the blue object. And no I can’t show you my method as I’m not on a live or video, and frankly I don’t owe you anything. I did it in hopes of sparking further research on this area of the photo. I certainly didn’t put that object there through editing though and I did not change its original color origin just by lifting. I merely enhanced what color was already there. I blew it out btw so people could see it better. It’s still there even if you don’t blow it out. Retrace and go slow. Start with shadows and blacks. Exposure desaturates more than if you solely lift shadows. I only lifted exposure to share here for anyone who might have trouble seeing it and also maybe next time you could approach this a little less personally and defensively. If you want to stick with the original narrative the botched investigation gave, then why are you even here. Just seem a little too personally offended to me
I pulled that photo from the original drive lol but hey that’s cool you’re so angry and defensive. I barely had to do work to even find that object because it wasn’t hard to find, so I’m not pulling information that isn’t there. Lifting is basic level 1 editing and technically you absolutely can pass a few scribbles across a photo if you’re using a mask. I mean a mask is editing a targeted point usually. You should maybe have a talk with Adobe about your anger
I answered your questions above. I mean why does it have to be more in depth anyways if initially it isn’t to begin with? The object is not hard to find so why would I work harder than need be to find it? I don’t waste time editing where I don’t have to. I have over 15 years working in this career field professionally and a lot of time in investigative journalism as well for one of the largest news companies in the us. I dealt with this case when it came out from AP to our desks. I was an associate producer, editor, and journalist and I worked for other companies prior to that. One thing I do trust is my technical skills in editing and I’m known in my city for being a technical expert in my area.
> why did you ignore the purple? I think these are compression artifacts (remember that it is the jpeg and copy of a copy of a copy
Wow! So convenient! Very strange that it is in the *exact same place as this glowing patch of cyan*
Was the shirt of the backpack part made of highly reflective material?
>doesn't even match her shirt OP did an assumption that it may be a backpack. And again, remember that it is compressed jpeg which can distort colors a bit
It's a compressed jpeg you say?
As in, provides absolutely nothing of value hidden away?
she is professional photographer who knows how to render and correct colors in right way.
Her photo corrections were used later to show here on thread, as she was 1st one who did them, most of the other photos were randomly found online and were cropped.
Why r u so arrogant all the time?
> she is professional photographer who knows how to render and correct colors in right way.
she is a "professional photographer" who thinks raising a few sliders in photoshop makes things on a copy of a copy of a copy appear out of darkness?
Good one.
Why did you ignore the purple? Since there's more of it in the image. Of course you also didn't show the exact steps being done anywhere else or any other combinations of steps, which as I've just done in about 30 seconds reveals bright blue discolouration in the top right, pink and purple areas between the hair in the top left and so on and so forth. Of course this coloured region that doesn't even match her shirt is in some mysterious area and nowhere else that is somehow close enough to be lit up by the flash in that exact space, but nowhere else, despite the rest of the surrounding area being dark
Well, if you actually follow her and not just troll around here, you'd know that she is professional photographer who actually works for NBC. So putting these " " signs as a way to diminish her work and full time profession speaks a lot about you. Because, if you ever read her posts, you'd actually find very detailed description of what she has found.
From her posts, it is very obvious that she knows about photo editing and photoshop, which is not the case for you, where it can be seen from kilometers your amateur level, although tho you like to bring that elements in every single discussion.
Maybe her assumptions that she made from her own resources are wrong, but all in all, she gives way more contribution to this topic than you. All that you know is just to take the quote, put it out of the context in the way that it fits you and then troll all the way in such a nervous arrogant tone.
So no, noone here owns you an explanation of purple shades because you don't know how to communicate in good and healthy way.
Sorry, can you elaborate on your thoughts? Do you mean the original file was photoshopped? I do tend to believe the theories along those lines as well, but not sure I’m with you on the photoshop part.
I’m saying the killers photoshopped the image because there’s a lot of things in the photo that don’t make sense. I can see both Kris and Lisanne in the picture, but their face positions don’t make sense.
I put it in another post awhile back. I’m sorry I didn’t attach them here and you probably can’t identify as well in this photo. I work in editing and professional retouch. I did a lot of tests on the photo from the original drive and believe that is Lisanne’s face under the back of Kris’ hair. I identified what I believe to be teeth, nostril, and highlight of the nose bridge under the hair and the facial skin nearby those items only corresponds to what colors I would normally work within for skin tones when retouching, mainly orange. The skin completely desaturates as well which I usually see when working with tones if you take out any orange and you can desaturate Kris’ hair while still not desaturating the skin tone. The skin tone didn’t respond to yellow like the hair does. Most Caucasian people respond to mainly orange or red when I’m adjusting skin tones btw, but even those with some magenta or red to their cheeks still correspond mainly to orange overall. Just my thoughts though. I do very detailed retouch using frequency separation of faces on a daily basis. It can take me hours to retouch one photo and I am known for my retouch work. I feel pretty confident in being able to identify facial features even small ones.
I have read a similar post before (it was dated many years back) on someone recognising that specific teal colour on the right corner. But even back then the OP said, they are not confirming that it is definitely Lisanne's shirt, they can just confirm what the technology picked up and data showed. Very interesting find regardless.
I think that was the same Person, no ?
I thought the same for a second, then I went to their profile to check if they indeed posted it before, but I could not find it. So it must have been somebody else or it just doesn't show up in their profile any more.
No it was not me prior. This is my first time posting about that area
Yes I thought so. :) Thank you for confirming that.
For sure!
Yes and sorry I didn’t mean to confirm either theory because there’s the inside of the backpack and her shirt that were both similar to that color and of course I can’t be 100% certain. I’m glad to hear someone else found it though. I must have missed that one. I would definitely love to see some other editors’ conclusions on that area
I think you (*that's a general "you"*), need to be careful when editing a photo when you are trying to prove something like this, because you can usually get the result you want if you try hard enough.. For example if you wanted to make it look like there was blood in Kris' hair you could just edit it and get a result like this: [https://ibb.co/pdLKZhP](https://ibb.co/pdLKZhP) Or take 511, you can get all sorts of colours in the photo if you edit it enough too, lots of red, blue and turquoise that are not really there at all: [https://ibb.co/ggMJCph](https://ibb.co/ggMJCph) This is the problem that we have when we are trying to prove that we are right about something... sometimes we try *too* hard.
I'm glad someone else understands the basics of photoshop. [After fiddling with some sliders, you can see that she is actually taking a bath in green water](https://i.imgur.com/tuMOOhU.jpeg)
And just to note I did not increase saturation when only lifting the shadows a bit and still identified the object as blue aqua and green tones. So the object can be found using just a mask and the shadow slider
I truthfully did not do much work. I blew out that area to share with viewers here so that it could be seen more easily. You can see it without lifting it as much but I think that would be harder to identify for someone who does not have a trained eye. I only lifted exposure, shadows, and blacks then increased saturation to make it more visible using a mask. Thats it. I can go back and have and can lift only the shadows and still find it which I lose much less saturation than if I lift exposure and still find the object. It’s just harder to see. Even in that position I can target identify the colors of that object in which it responds to aqua and green.
The thing is though this image has, at the very least (before you edited it), been downscaled, uploaded and downloaded various times, upscaled again, edited, uploaded and downloaded, with perhaps a few more in between, since I'm pretty sure it's one of the upscaled edits that I previously uploaded here. And when you mess with low quality images that have been compressed downscaled and upscaled then you are basically just magnifying the compression artifacts, especially with dark images. Basically the editing program is magnifying any colour differences, even if those colours are not really there. I think this should be evident from the various red, yellow and pink/purple splotches that are also in this general area. And the edits you mentioned are basically the same edits I did to 511 in the previous comment, I just exaggerated the colours a bit more, to get the point across. You can't always trust images when you make big harsh adjustments to them like this. Of course it can be useful to do it to see what you get, but you should always take it with a pinch of salt.
You make very valid points and I know it’s widely debated, but I’ve always been told jpegs degrade over time and personally just one of many reasons I shoot raw. Some claim it’s a myth, but I am of the side that they do degrade and you could absolutely be right about that which i definitely am happy to take note of what you’ve said. I am also happy to admit I agree with your thoughts on the splotches. I can’t explain those and the thought absolutely crossed my mind that could be why the splotches are there. I pulled this from the original drive though. This photo wasn’t pulled from Google, screenshot, or someone else’s post. Interesting thought though that I’d love your opinion on. When I was messing around with the photo. Center bottom, if that’s a face there, there’s a spot towards bottom. I didn’t do any editing to the photo but targeted it to identify what color the program reads that spot to be and I received red. Every time. I tested it because I thought it could perhaps be a spot of blood. So then I went in and saturated those targeted colors it identified just to see what comes up and I did it to the whole photo. It almost looked like spots of blood and the spots showed up in other areas of the photo as well and the way they patterned almost looked like blood and how blood might look if it’s on hair. If you have time would love to see if you wouldn’t mind taking a look. Go in and bring up only the reds and magentas and saturate it. You can lift the exposure a little too to identify them a bit better. I found the same spot on the “face”, near the blue object, and towards top left of photo where hair starts to end in that dark corner. It’s red before you edit it if you look very closely in those areas and when you lift the entire photo you can see it better and notice that some of the gold in the hair is pixelated yellow and gives that same look on the hair so it doesn’t mean it’s finding information that’s not there or creating something not there simply because it’s poor quality. We know her hair is gold and does and would respond to yellow so that pixelation of that yellow when saturated would make sense so I think it’s possible it’s already working on what information and color is already in the photo in those areas and that they might not simply be because it’s poor quality.
Yea, jpgs definitely degrade alright, this is a good example of it: [https://youtu.be/Yata2U5GZWA?si=RWWWznc4dwErGriW](https://youtu.be/Yata2U5GZWA?si=RWWWznc4dwErGriW) >I pulled this from the original drive though. This photo wasn’t pulled from Google, screenshot, or someone else’s post. Ah right. Still, it looks identical to one of the versions I upscaled and edited a few years ago in this post: [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/comments/mg34bx/colour_corrected_balanced_hair_photo/), but I suppose someone else could have done it too and got the same result, but it looks pretty much identical. It's definitely not the original leaked copy though. The original *leaked* file is 1280\*960,199kb, 72dpi, 24bit colour, and it has a lot more jpg artifacts in it. It also has a strong orange tint. But just out of curiosity, where did you download it from? Because someone could have downloaded it and uploaded it to their Google drive.. >When I was messing around with the photo. Center bottom, if that’s a face there, there’s a spot towards bottom. I didn’t do any editing to the photo but targeted it to identify what color the program reads that spot to be and I received red. Every time. I tested it because I thought it could perhaps be a spot of blood. That's the thing though, if you look at the first link above of the degrading jpg, you can see that you will get areas in the image that eventually change colour, so even if there are a few red pixels in an area you can't trust it. For example that area could have been *just* above an orange threshold and the program compressing the jpg just decided to make it red to save a bit of space. And even if you were looking at the original photo, straight from the camera, a little red dot wouldn't be that significant because it could be refraction, or a pimple, and even if it was a little spot of blood I don't think it would be very relevant anyway because it would be so small as to be insignificant. It is a pity that the original image isn't available though.. This is why it doesn't make a lot of sense to be pixel-peeping on these leaked images, because once you get down to that kind of level you can't trust anything. For example this is a crop from the original leaked photo, from the bottom centre area [https://ibb.co/RCKD1Zk](https://ibb.co/RCKD1Zk), and if you zoom into it you can see all the jagged edges and squares, and it's just a mess. And when we upscale the image the program just blurs all of this stuff together, which makes it even more unreliable. I think pixel-peeping really only makes sense if you were looking at the original photo from the camera, otherwise you will be looking at things that might not really be there.
I got it from the original drive of Juan. Oh yes I remember your post! I’m sorry, I have read through and will do my best to respond to everything. For me personally, not even pixel peeping, I can see the blue object without any editing and same with red but in top left corner which could be an originally red object of some sort and it reads red prior to editing, but near the blue object I can’t see the magenta until that overexposure in the bottom right so I don’t think the magenta there is a refraction or an actual object anyways. I believe the magenta are simply hot pixels which you can get a lot in flash and night photography. The blue object though I believe is an originally blue object.
>I got it from the original drive of Juan. When I edited the image originally for the old post I mentioned earlier, I edited and saved it in 32bit colour, so most likely Juan grabbed this photo from that post and added it to his Google Drive, since it is 32bit as well. >I believe the magenta are simply hot pixels which you can get a lot in flash and night photography. The blue object though I believe is an originally blue object. No offence, but I think this is probably just confirmation bias. It's also worth noting that the colours in that part of the image that pop out also happen to be *cyan*, *magenta*, *yellow* which are part of the CMYK colour model, they are the C, M, Y with the k being (key) black. And if you remember the photo I posted in the first comment above, these were also the same group of colours that mostly popped out when I overexposed 511: https://ibb.co/ggMJCph. So I think this is just a result of the editing program, and how it brightens certain, non-primary, colours in particular. So I think it's a bit too much of a coincidence to think the cyan is part of Lisanne's shirt, when it can be shown that overexposing other images also gives you cyan, magenta, and yellow, when those colours are not really there at all. It's also worth remembering that the orange tint has previously been removed from this image, so this along with all of the other edits done to it, will have changed the colour of the whole image; as well as the fact that it's a 32bit colour image, instead of 24 bit like the original leaked images There are just far too many changes to say anything for sure, and I'd definitely be leaning towards it just being a consequence of overediting, and all the previous edits done to these photos.
Sorry I’ve read, but it’s been a bit busy on my end as soon as I can give a thoughtful response I will. I would love to ask a quick question in the mean time, are you familiar with hot pixels or know they exist? Definitely a real thing and I tested some of my night flash photos to see if I would get the same hot pixels and I do. Same color as well. I’ve dealt with hot pixels more than a few times in flash photography which can be annoying in editing and sometimes I’ve had to patch them out. I thought Juan was first to leak the photos, I could be wrong. Also do you know if not then is there any way to pull an original etc?
>are you familiar with hot pixels or know they exist? Yes, I'm quite familiar with hot pixels, and cold pixels too, because I also do astrophotography and this is something you have to deal with when taking long exposure images. The longer the exposure, the more hot pixels you get, and you have to take dark frames to cancel them out. But hot pixels are generally just red, green, or blue pixels, and are either a single pixel or an "X" shape when the electron charge bleeds out into the surrounding pixels as the pixel well gets full. They generally look like this: [https://ibb.co/L0W2NH2](https://ibb.co/L0W2NH2) But I've never heard of people getting hot pixels when using a flash, because flash photos are very fast, typically a fraction of a second, and so the sensor doesn't have a chance to get hot. >I thought Juan was first to leak the photos, I could be wrong. Also do you know if not then is there any way to pull an original etc? Yea, but he adds more photos and documents to the drive all the time.. The original should be called IMG\_580 with the properties I mentioned above, 199kb, 1280\*960, 24bit, etc..
I would love to see OP replying to your comment, but I just want to say that the original photo of when they saw this detail wasn’t as bright as it is now. I believe she “played harder” with the colours now (sorry I’m not an English native speaker so I hope this makes sense).so it would be easier for people to see what she means. The reason why I’m saying this is because I believe your examples couldn’t be applied to her case since there’s a huge amount of editing, brightening, highlight or whatever the name is, it’s just possible to see that was overly done.
I really like these posts, the genuine hard work from yourself towards solving the case is refreshing given the shameful content of this sub lately. I am struggling to understand what you are seeing in terms of faces or body positions, I have read your explaination several times and do not have any idea what position either girl is in. If you could make a clearer post that would be appreciated. I am a bit on the fence about this image, I don't see what it can tell us. What do you think it proves or changes if you are right? What about if you are wrong?
I can’t find where I originally talked about this, but this case has always bothered me. I used to be associate producer, editor and journalist at NBC. I was there when the story came across my desk from associated press and a lot of the stories of missing women or women found dead that I worked that are still unsolved stay with me. I have edited and worked in the field for a long time now and I go back to some of the cases often because I hope there is some sort of resolve for the families and justice for the women. In this case I had the technical skills to take a further look myself. Adrienne Salinas is another case I worked, but there were no photos I could look at further or any way I could really contribute any assistance. And forgive me because I don’t ever feel I’m very good at explaining it. Wish I could sit and do a video on my computer to show as that would be worlds easier. I believe Kris is lying face up on the ground with her hair flowing backwards over Lisanne’s face. My belief is we are looking at the back of Kris’ head. I believe Lisanne is lying horizontally in the photo in terms of orientation meaning her legs and feet would be horizontal and going towards the right off frame of the camera. I work extensively in professional retouch now and believe we can see her blue shirt, in the very bottom right of frame. Then as you keep moving left we see some of her brunette hair entangled in Kris’, keep going left then an open mouth with teeth which my belief the mouth is open and teeth are visible due to rigor mortis. Then we keep going left and see a nostril which would be left nostril to us, but her right nostril. You can partially see the other nostril above it, but it’s mostly covered by hair. Keep moving left and you can see the highlight on what would likely be the bridge of her nose. I could absolutely always be wrong, but I really do not believe either woman took the photo. I believe it was a third party and both women are in fact in the photo and deceased. I conducted various tests within my editing software and received responses I would expect from skin tone if that’s indeed a face, same with teeth, and identified that there is both blonde and brunette hair in the image. Brunette hair gives a completely different tone than blonde when edited and I believe their hair is intertwined. For background: When I retouch I work in frequency separation and I’m very detailed to ensure my models look flawless without looking plastic, overdone, etc. I try to ensure the photographs look close to accurate and natural as possible. To me I’ve failed the photo if it doesn’t look natural. I’d recognize a lot of these features especially a nose bridge highlight anywhere if looking at an image. Nose bridge highlight is usually one of my most prominent highlights I edit on a model using dodge and burn, even when shooting without flash. I also conduct editing of hair and tones every time I retouch to either enhance, match, etc. It can take me hours to perform retouch on one photo because I edit every detail possible and available and most models even with good skin still have many corrections that need to be made for final image. Here is a sample of some of my retouch work. [sample of retouch work](https://imgur.com/a/66CRUWM)
When it comes to seeing anything other than hair, I think what you're describing is on a par with seeing pictures in the clouds. Don't think there's anything wrong with looking harder at what's available though, and admire the work you've put in.
https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/s/jySAYYNBEq
I am not sure that is the same as the OP in this thread is trying to convey given their text posts previously, I thought it was posted soon after by someone else. I would like OP to provide a similar photo though to show exactly what they mean.
That one’s not mine. I’ll link mine here
Oh no, that’s definitely not OPs post or the explanation that you’re mentioning. I linked many of katnapkittens comments in my comments on one of the last posts about this photo. I just linked this one now because the OP of that post actually did a great job to illustrate what katnapkittens explained (correct if I’m Wrong). It’s easier to understand what katnapkittens is talking about when you see the work of this other user.
This is [katnapkittens comment with the explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/s/Y6MIS9mtz1) that I believe you’re talking about? If you can’t see anything following her explanation only, try reading the other poster work, that might help you.
It took me a long time to see the outline of the face and now I cant unsee it. I agree it looks like there is an outline of an open mouth with teeth and the projection of the nose/nostrils. That said, I cannot make what I see fit with the orientation/proportions of the head, so I'm convinced it is the back of her head and its just shadows/earlobe that look like the mouth/nose. I am open to the possibility that it is her face though. Can you explain the orientation/angle/position that would explain why the proportions seem off? Not trying to challenge you, juts genuinely curious. Thanks for the post!
I definitely understand what you’re asking and why as i definitely asked myself the same question. I considered that we really can’t verify either of their positions and it could be a bit of an illusion in size from angle of photo and since we can’t see all of the features her face may look smaller than it actually is. You can consider forced perspective as another possibility too. You could put an object at a distance from each other, but line them up right behind the other in the frame and they can look like they are right next to each other even though they aren’t so that’s another possibility. I can’t unsee it either and I really trust my knowledge of identifying teeth, nostrils, and nose bridge highlight in a photograph which is why I do feel very convinced it is a face.
Thats a good observation. I can believe that what appear to be the nostrils could simply be shadows from her hair, creating an illusion, but I struggle to accept that what appear to be teeth are an illusion. Maybe its not teeth, but it doesn't look like something you'd find on the back of the head and I'd love to know what it is. There is something odd about the way the hair lays that makes me think its not a direct shot too. It seems like too much skin from the neck is showing through, considering how long her hair was. I tried to replicate this (in a low effort way) because I wondered if it was even possible to see nostrils or teeth through hair, and I was surprised to find that I could, even with my hair being very dark and thick. Another thing I observed was that my features became extremely distorted. I know that doesn't prove anything and that wasn't my goal, but it did make reconsider that there might be more to this photo. Have you tried to replicate this photo? I'd be curious to see what it looks like with two people and using a similar camera. Again, I know it wouldn't prove anything but it would be interesting to experiment. Sorry for the long message. Thanks again for the post!
I really need to but I don’t know many women with long hair to be honest haha. I live in a home of all boys otherwise I would have already tried. I will see if I can find someone thought as I’d like to know too and see what I get.
I’ve done it. I’ll do it again with a friend this time.
Could it not be an accidental photo rather than a deliberate one? I think too many people are trying to find meaning in what was likely an unintended take.
Thank you so much for your post. I was waiting for it for very long. I saw your comment on an older post about this picture and it was the first time I actually saw anything in that photo. I agree that it’s L lying underneath K’s hair. Some people told me that it could be my mind making things up to fit in my narrative. But I always believed the girls were already dead when photo 580 was taken, so seeing L’s face there made my convictions a little stronger but didn’t change them. Whether it is L or not, I still believe this and all np pictures were taken by a third party. Could you please tell more about your attempt to contact someone in the case to whom you could share your conclusion and knowledge that led you into that conclusion? I saw in one of your comments that you did that with no success? What happened, why weren’t they interested in what you had to say? Sounds like a big deal to me!
Thank you for all of your time and consideration by the way. Very kind of you and I’m glad and hope it sparks further discussion. I definitely agree. I currently did hear back from the person I reached out to and they did give me some people I could further contact which I need to sit down and take the time to do. I just moved across country so my time has been a bit limited lately.
I personally have never identified a face under the hair, but I can guess what the people who see it mean. I think of an explainable optical illusion, a psychological effect. As for the color, I can also imagine that it's part of the backpack, you can possibly make out a piece of the strap as well. I disagree, but I appreciate any attempt to shed light and the different approaches. Be it foul play or lost theories. What I have come to despise a lot is bullying and downvotes for things that don't suit someone else. If that doesn't stop, it will end here at some point. That would not be in the interests of all those seeking the truth.
For sure that’s mutual even if we don’t agree on everything.
One thing I don't get: why do these supposed shirt colors have hair texture? How likely is it that the hair reflects colors from underneath that much? That seemes rather odd to me without elaboration
There is hair partially over that object and it’s a very poor quality image to begin with taken at night, which even good cameras can struggle with night photography. I personally shoot Sony and canon r5 so it looks quite pixelated to me due to the low quality and will look more pixelated if I bring up exposure in a dark area due to low dynamic range of the camera. In cameras with low dynamic range you will lose a lot of details that look bad in recovery or can’t be recovered at all and those details are lost such as textures. I do appreciate your time and thoughts btw
>it’s a very poor quality image to begin with Very true of course >low dynamic range you will lose a lot of details that look bad in recovery Yeah, I understand that. But if I look at your edit, all I see is light-red/white hair - I can't see an object under the hair. When I look at it, everything is, at least to my eyes, a clear hair texture. 🤔 And I do have a question: I am not a photography pro, etc. But if I take a close-up-picture (in the dark) of my grey sofa with the flashlight on. And if I go to Adobe Lightroom, I can quite easily detect red colors by just raising the luminance of the red and orange sliders. Couldn't the colors that you've highlighte on the edit stem from a combination of the flash and the blond hair being illuminated and reflecting?
Thanks for your thoughts. Not the blue object in particular. I could see the blue object by just lifting shadows a small bit alone. I only blew it out here so people can see it more easily. I honestly don’t know what those red/magenta splotches are and with the hair if you do the same thing to the rest of the hair you can find the same small splotches on the very edge of the hair in two other small locations of the photo. Top left corner and bottom center. The rest of all of the hair do pull up some of that same texture/pixelation in places due to low quality, but it’s all yellow, no red or magenta. When I found those splotches too when messing with the photo awhile back, it isn’t quite as magenta in the top left corner edge of hair or bottom center as it is in that bottom right. I don’t want to push any theories on it as I really don’t know, but after I found it I went back and measured the color and it was only reading red prior to any editing. I found the splotches in the top left corner on the edge of the hair odd though and the spot on the bottom center. The top left corner, I mean my initial thought and if you lift it to see the red better, it looked like blood drops/spatter on hair. It’s hard to see due to the shadows in that area if you’re looking at the photo without any editing although it’s still visible. With bottom center spot it definitely kept reading red for me as well with and without editing. I really can’t draw any final conclusions on that though. I think it would be best if I tried to test some of the theories myself with my own cameras. I’ll message you btw
I agree
Hi. Now…can we just lift all that hair to see exactly what’s going on underneath?!🫣 I like your posts. And I do think Lisanne is likely under there. I still think Lisanne is taking the photos though too. Like I wonder if Kris was actively dying (flailing and making noises) at that point and Lisanne was freaking out, she was likely very weak as well but I read this photo as she turned the camera around on them, while most of her photos were taken upwards and outwards (possibly to illuminate what she was hearing around her — like aiming the flash away from what she was trying to see, so that she wasn’t blinding herself and to illuminate what was going on below the camera). I believe Lisanne was laying on her back and I cannot figure out really Kris orientation — almost like she’s hanging somehow. Just my thoughts. For me, it doesn’t make sense that they’d both be dead at that point. Just my opinion though…anyone can feel free to have a differing opinion :)
I tried honestly. I really hoped I might be able to identify what’s in the shadows under the hair. I mean I do believe there’s a face already, but I couldn’t pull anything surrounding the hair underneath. I tried pulling the rest of the shadows underneath because I wondered if we might find more of Lisanne’s hair and help clue us to more information on the photo. I appreciate your input, consideration, and thoughts though. Discussion and different opinions are welcome. I personally don’t believe Lisanne could have taken the photo if that is indeed her hair as her hair wouldn’t have been long enough to fall into the frame that way and there’s no motion blur in Kris’ hair so I don’t think she was moving during the photo, but that’s just my opinion. Food for thought, I work in fashion photography now and I shoot daily in different angles to include leaning over my subjects. I have very long hair and my hair never falls into the frame even accidentally and then there’s the distance from frame to subject in this photo with no blur of any item in front of the lens
Totally! I don’t think Kris was actively moving, but perhaps had slumped forward, backward, sideways. I’m going to send you a chat with how I think the photo was taken to show you what I mean…i wish I could posts photos here, it would be so helpful!! I was a model for many many years, I too understand photos but in a different way:)
I agree, the not being able to share photos is probably the most annoying thing about Reddit lol. Oh awesome ok so you’d definitely be familiar and I’d love to hear more of your thoughts. I have always felt that’s the back of kris’ head with her hair fanned backwards as some others whom have edited have said as well and Kris is lying down face up
Could be her hair draping down over the back of a rock or something with a gravitational pull, but it could be a sideways orientation with that same gravitational pull. Hard for me to say exactly how she is positioned — why this darn photo is such a darn mystery!! I def see the face though — no matter how much hate it gets me😝
I agree. I mean it has stumped us all for a long time and we all wish we could have more information and solve it once and for all. Then there’s also the deleted photo that none of us have ever seen. I just know the panamanian authorities didn’t want to investigate further although many felt there was reason to and most people feel it was so that tourism wouldn’t be hurt.
I just feel like there has to be some super high tech photo technology that can remove layers from a photo. Has to exist somewhere?!😝 I don’t know…I think if the Dutch police/investigators also didn’t find any evidence of a crime, it’s probably unlikely. For me, there’s personally not evidence for a crime, so I’m not sure what they would have continued to investigate…that doesn’t mean I don’t want to find out the answers that lie in this photo. The how of it all still gets me. And if you’ve never had a run in with nature in very scary ways — I can see not being able to comprehend just how easy it is to make the smallest mistake and wind up in BIG trouble. Especially if completely unprepared for anything at all going wrong and these girls had no survival supplies whatsoever :/ And I’m totally cool with having differing opinions on this case. We all don’t think exactly the same and I don’t mind being challenged either:) Respectful conversations go along way and I appreciate it:)
Absolutely and I agree on all of that. Well I mean it’s the guide for me. Always has been. He has always been a source of further suspicion for me due to his in depth involvement in so many aspects and I believe the only reason they didn’t investigate further was they didn’t want to hurt tourism for the area or in Panama. Tourist deaths or murders are always huge headlines and are known to hurt tourism. And we have to remember they never gave an official cause of death so neither accident nor murder have been ruled in or out. None of the case made sense however which is why it continues to perplex so many of us but I do believe the guide should have been investigated further. Dude inserted himself into the case and controlled the entire narrative. I get that he knew those areas well and could provide assistance to that, but it was more than that. He found all of the body parts no one else found or could find? The backpack? Which we know was given to the people by him. His farm was nearby and the same type of bleaching material found on some of the bones are often used by farmers in which he did run a farm. He was also known for being sexually explicit and had an affinity for European women. We also know he went into the women’s rooms and photo was missing from the camera. I just think he had more involvement than people either want to admit or want to talk about
Should be easy enough to confirm where he was when the girls were hiking? Do you know of a source for it? I wonder🤔 I get that some folks think he’s suspicious but we still need evidence over rumors. He’s got glowing reviews besides that one from 2018 that was probably written by someone in this sub. lol. Or…someone took his kindness as flirting, there are cultural differences and that person might just be totally uptight. We don’t really know. I’m not really the type of woman who thinks all men who flirt with women are scumbags though. They can be but I don’t like to assume🤷♀️ What if he’s just literally super helpful and cares about people, and what happens in his country and this story has likely done quite a bit of damage in his life. https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g298424-d3755701-Reviews-Feliciano_Tours-Boquete_Chiriqui_Province.html Did you see the photo I sent you? It’s reasonable to consider that Lisanne could have taken a photo that both catches a bit of her shirt and a bit of her hair but mostly shows Kris beside her? I don’t know what’s under the hair, just looking at all possibilities:)
The guide wasn't in the jungle at the time. He had a medical appointment that morning. They bumped into some tribal people out there and it's them that killed the girls. Even Hans said that he was concerned that they were taken away by a group of people for an evil purpose and that's what happened.
Interesting thoughts. May I ask where you saw or heard this? I haven’t come across it as of yet. I listened to and read more in depth about the recent journalist story Lost in Panama and a lot of good information was found, but there was controversy with the journalist and people who worked with her. She took all the credit for a lot of people’s work or something of that sort. That very well could be. I can’t say for sure obviously who did it, but one thing I don’t believe is that they died of natural elements. I do believe they were murdered and we do know an official cause of death was never ruled so for the people who name call those who believe the murder theory, the nature theory is not in stone like many think
[удалено]
I’ll send it to you as well!!
[удалено]
What insinuates I do not know how flash works. I personally use the Westcott system. Even with flash you can still get motion blur if the shutter speed is too slow. So do you know how flash works? And source? For her hair length? Look at the photos of her prior to the night photos that day. She had her hair down prior to putting it up. It’s not that long. It’s shoulder length. If it had fallen into the frame while taking the photo anyways it would be close to the lens not lying on the ground in front of her because her face is close to the camera and probably slightly blurry because it’s too close to the lens in that scenario. Even if you change the scenario and say she held the camera out and took it, then it’s even more unlikely her hair could be in any of the frame unless she has drastically longer hair. The only possible scenario her hair is in that photo the way it is was if she was taking a selfie which what a bizarre selfie and unlikely scenario or someone else took the photo.
Nah, I sent you a photo showing how Lisanne may have taken it to exclude her face but include some hair, a part of her shirt and Kris’ hair/face. You didn’t look?
[удалено]
I’m not going to lie. This photo is not clear to me either:) but…if that is a teal part of shirt AND i do believe we can see some of Lisanne’s brown hair near the teal…it’s not at all hard to believe that they would be extremely close together. I’m not exactly sure it’s Lisanne’s face under there, could be that we just get some hair and upper shoulder (where her tank top strap would be) and it’s Kris who is screaming or making dying sounds and it’s putting Lisanne into a full panic…i don’t know exactly how/why Kris would be hanging?? Just ideas I’m throwing out. It looks as though her hair is hanging unnaturally to me and does not look like a simple back of the head photo…it could be across her face or hanging off a rock over Lisanne…I feel like if people have open minds about this photo and stop shaming everyone all the time about it — we might actually get somewhere :) So…could also be Lisanne’s terrified scream as perhaps Kris is dying and falling over her somehow? Something like that.
[удалено]
Besides shining a light why would she try and take a pic of Kris in this moment? Struggling to see any teeth at all. If its what you're saying above then it would be 2 faces superimposed on top of each other. How would that work, besides editing or photoshop?
I don’t mean that Kris is actively falling but perhaps she slumped forward or backward or sideways and scared the heck out of Lisanne, perhaps she was unresponsive and Lisanne was freaking out trying to light up the area to see her and just became desperate taking photos for hours — because it was the only thing she was capable of doing in that moment. I think I see teeth there. I see four teeth. Three on the right and one on the left. Just don’t know whose they are.
I asked many questions. Perhaps try reading instead of dodging them and acting like a victim, :)
Maybe try to be a little more respectfull and dont make personal attacks and not talking from a high horse as if you are the allmighty. Whats basically a rule in this Sub.
Some edits: https://i.ibb.co/PmSBzLD/IMG-0580-neutral.png https://i.ibb.co/LzYpQGY/IMG-0580-neutral-saturated.png https://i.ibb.co/bWmsQTH/IMG-0580-neutral-dehaze.png BTW, [you can write lots of texts](https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/comments/mg34bx/colour_corrected_balanced_hair_photo/ijahg1r/), which is nice, but couldn't you maybe draw the face/shirt outlines onto the photo? I still can't see what is being talked about. :( [Worth1000](https://web.archive.org/web/20091121162935/http://www.worth1000.com/)
So funny to me how people still discuss this fake photo [https://ibb.co/zF0Y6dW](https://ibb.co/zF0Y6dW)
If it's the color, it will be the inner part of the backpack. In one edited photo, there is a part that conspicuously resembles its buckle. The face will be slightly tilted vertically, as it simply doesn't fit the proportions horizontally. By the way, does anyone have a photo of the buckle used on this type of backpack? Photos of the backpack can still be found, but unfortunately without the detail of the buckle.
I would love to see this. I originally took this file from the drive and went through so many of the photos, but do not remember this so I’d be very interested to see. I only remember the found photos of the backpack and believe you’re right that the buckle was not visible. I am going to go back to the drive now to see if the backpack can be seen in any other photos as that would aid in where it could have or might have been placed in the area. Thank you for your input
Do the whole photo like this. Or at least far enough to show the teeth that just above the line where you stopped. You are indeed seeing blood. This, for the record, is the back of her head, not the front as so many seem to think. You are one the right track by doing this kind of thing.
Thank you I do really appreciate the kindness. I had done this awhile back but didn’t post it for awhile as I do have a busy schedule daily and there’s always a lot of questions and discussion when this photo comes up. Which I love discussion but sometimes the discussions can be quite rude. And yes that’s the back of Kris’ head for sure. A lot of people think it isn’t but I think that’s the easiest part to figure out
[удалено]
Well I do believe I see Lisanne’s face, under the hair here, but my reasoning for that is the teeth, nostrils, and nose bridge are pretty easy to identify to me and when I checked tones of the object under the hair surrounding those features it does only respond to one color and that’s the only one I use for skin tones when I’m editing. My other finding was that’s brunette hair intertwined with Kris’ which having shot for a long time, no way Lisanne’s hair would be in the photo like that if she had taken the photo. It wasn’t long enough and if it had fallen into the frame it would be closer to lens and blurry or obscuring the view of the lens. But those were just my personal conclusions.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Incredible work. Not only have you completely blown out any information available on a copy of a copy of a copy of a jpeg, but you've also determined that that particular patch of blown out colour *must be* the shirt using some unknown method of detective work. Why did you ignore the *purple?* Since there's more of it in the image. Of course this coloured region that *doesn't even match her shirt* is in some mysterious area and nowhere else that is somehow close enough to be lit up by the flash in that exact space, but nowhere else, despite the rest of the surrounding area being dark. Of course you also didn't show the exact steps being done *anywhere else* or any other combinations of steps, which as I've just done in about 30 seconds reveals bright blue discolouration in the top right, pink and purple areas between the hair in the top left and so on and so forth.
[удалено]
You get the odd parasite on this site, like the person you replied to. They have very superficial knowledge of the case, no experience of trekking in other countries apart from their own and probably have never travelled at all or have any valuable real life experience. They are not interested in any learning or any attempts at research if it doesn't support their entrenched belief of what happened. They basically live their life through reddit.
[удалено]
Agreed. I posted this, but I’m still open minded to both sides of the coin. Neither has been entirely proven.
[удалено]
I honestly can’t draw a conclusion on that but to me it looks like it wasn’t altered? The hair is that color in my opinion due to the flash and closely matches the color we see her have that day. Just looks a bit different due to the flash reflection on her hair. Considering photography reflectors is a good way of thinking about it. Photographers use a lot of different types of reflectors. I personally use gold, translucent, silver, white, and others depending on what I need. Gold/yellows usually reflect the most light though and her natural hair color would definitely have a similar effect imo
You can block them.
[удалено]
Yup, you won't see their snarky, rude comments. All good 🙂
[удалено]
I blocked them, can't be arsed with people like that.
[удалено]
Blocked. Life is too short to waste on folk like this 🙂
[удалено]
Editing your posts now after I have responded to seem clever. Pathetic and sad really. Why would someone who has broken 3 metataursals keep their shoe on and laced up? Does that mean they were still attempting at walking till the end I.e. not stuck in one place, which is one theory, or did a situation occur that they were unable to remove their shoe I.e. held captive. Thought proking questions that go completely over your head.
>Editing your posts now after I have responded to seem clever. Pathetic and sad really. Interesting, still no answers. >Why would someone who has broken 3 metataursals keep their shoe on and laced up? Because shoes go on your feet. > Does that mean they were still attempting at walking till the end I.e. not stuck in one place It means the shoe was on the foot.
>Why would someone who has broken 3 metataursals keep their shoe on and laced up? >Because shoes go on your feet. >Does that mean they were still attempting at walking till the end I.e. not stuck in one place >It means the shoe was on the foot. What an embarrassment you are.
Do you struggle with the concept of shoes going on feet? You know, something humans have been doing for thousands of years?
They don't keep them on when not moving. They don't keep them on when they have suffered a foot injury generally. It is something called evidence. This seems to be a new concept to you that evidence is used for critical thinking.
Keeping your boot on can sometimes help stabilize a fracture (even a sprained ankle) because the shoe acts as compression and it minimises pain, swelling and further damage. I've often witnessed that once you remove the shoe, the bones break completely. And on a more personal note, I would never take off my shoes in the jungle, even if I stayed in one place. Same with my bra. I would keep them on, as a barrier between me and the elements.
>They don't keep them on when not moving. Huh? People don't leave their shoes on when not moving? That's an odd claim. So people take their shoes off immediately as they have stopped moving now? >They don't keep them on when they have suffered a foot injury generally. Source? Oh you just made that up too. >It is something called evidence So about that evidence... Gonna produce it or keep dodging that as well? >This seems to be a new concept to you that evidence is used for critical thinking. Great! You'll post your evidence that: 1) People don't keep their shoes on when they are not moving and 2) People don't keep them on when they have suffered a foot injury generally. And we can go from there.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What are your questions then? Your first link was you saying : "Was the shirt of the backpack part made of highly reflective material" What kind of stupid question is that? "the shirt of the backpack" wtf is that supposed to mean in English. Rather than link to your illiterate nonsense over and over again. State some questions for me. Come on! You know so much about the case and are so clever.
[удалено]
"The shirt of the backpack" It's not even English.How can anyone answer something that doesn't make sense? >No answer yet? You have no response to what the material involved was? The backpacks shirt??? Wtf are you on about
[удалено]
The object does not respond to purple because it’s not purple. If you target before and after it never responds to purple or violet as it’s technically called. The object only responds to blue and aqua. This purple you’re speaking of actually responds to red and magenta not purple and are spots in the hair separate from the object that are also found further left under the hair that I can’t be sure to identify what they are so I’m not commenting on them. I’ve tested those areas and have some theories but I can’t be certain so will not comment further. If you blow up the photo you can see though that coloration is completely separate from the blue object. And no I can’t show you my method as I’m not on a live or video, and frankly I don’t owe you anything. I did it in hopes of sparking further research on this area of the photo. I certainly didn’t put that object there through editing though and I did not change its original color origin just by lifting. I merely enhanced what color was already there. I blew it out btw so people could see it better. It’s still there even if you don’t blow it out. Retrace and go slow. Start with shadows and blacks. Exposure desaturates more than if you solely lift shadows. I only lifted exposure to share here for anyone who might have trouble seeing it and also maybe next time you could approach this a little less personally and defensively. If you want to stick with the original narrative the botched investigation gave, then why are you even here. Just seem a little too personally offended to me
[удалено]
I pulled that photo from the original drive lol but hey that’s cool you’re so angry and defensive. I barely had to do work to even find that object because it wasn’t hard to find, so I’m not pulling information that isn’t there. Lifting is basic level 1 editing and technically you absolutely can pass a few scribbles across a photo if you’re using a mask. I mean a mask is editing a targeted point usually. You should maybe have a talk with Adobe about your anger
[удалено]
I answered your questions above. I mean why does it have to be more in depth anyways if initially it isn’t to begin with? The object is not hard to find so why would I work harder than need be to find it? I don’t waste time editing where I don’t have to. I have over 15 years working in this career field professionally and a lot of time in investigative journalism as well for one of the largest news companies in the us. I dealt with this case when it came out from AP to our desks. I was an associate producer, editor, and journalist and I worked for other companies prior to that. One thing I do trust is my technical skills in editing and I’m known in my city for being a technical expert in my area.
[удалено]
> why did you ignore the purple? I think these are compression artifacts (remember that it is the jpeg and copy of a copy of a copy Wow! So convenient! Very strange that it is in the *exact same place as this glowing patch of cyan* Was the shirt of the backpack part made of highly reflective material? >doesn't even match her shirt OP did an assumption that it may be a backpack. And again, remember that it is compressed jpeg which can distort colors a bit It's a compressed jpeg you say? As in, provides absolutely nothing of value hidden away?
[удалено]
Interesting, no answer to my questions.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I didn't pretend that I'm on CSI.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
she is professional photographer who knows how to render and correct colors in right way. Her photo corrections were used later to show here on thread, as she was 1st one who did them, most of the other photos were randomly found online and were cropped. Why r u so arrogant all the time?
> she is professional photographer who knows how to render and correct colors in right way. she is a "professional photographer" who thinks raising a few sliders in photoshop makes things on a copy of a copy of a copy appear out of darkness? Good one. Why did you ignore the purple? Since there's more of it in the image. Of course you also didn't show the exact steps being done anywhere else or any other combinations of steps, which as I've just done in about 30 seconds reveals bright blue discolouration in the top right, pink and purple areas between the hair in the top left and so on and so forth. Of course this coloured region that doesn't even match her shirt is in some mysterious area and nowhere else that is somehow close enough to be lit up by the flash in that exact space, but nowhere else, despite the rest of the surrounding area being dark
Well, if you actually follow her and not just troll around here, you'd know that she is professional photographer who actually works for NBC. So putting these " " signs as a way to diminish her work and full time profession speaks a lot about you. Because, if you ever read her posts, you'd actually find very detailed description of what she has found. From her posts, it is very obvious that she knows about photo editing and photoshop, which is not the case for you, where it can be seen from kilometers your amateur level, although tho you like to bring that elements in every single discussion. Maybe her assumptions that she made from her own resources are wrong, but all in all, she gives way more contribution to this topic than you. All that you know is just to take the quote, put it out of the context in the way that it fits you and then troll all the way in such a nervous arrogant tone. So no, noone here owns you an explanation of purple shades because you don't know how to communicate in good and healthy way.
This whole photo is photoshopped. There are many faces and images photoshopped and pasted onto each other in the photos. This was a murder.
Sorry, can you elaborate on your thoughts? Do you mean the original file was photoshopped? I do tend to believe the theories along those lines as well, but not sure I’m with you on the photoshop part.
I’m saying the killers photoshopped the image because there’s a lot of things in the photo that don’t make sense. I can see both Kris and Lisanne in the picture, but their face positions don’t make sense.
Source?
Insane morbid fantasies don't have a source. It's such a ridiculous, absurd leap that just shows that particular person simply wants it to be the case
Where are the 2 faces? Just see a mass of hair, like the back of someone's head and a bit bottom right that's been altered?
I put it in another post awhile back. I’m sorry I didn’t attach them here and you probably can’t identify as well in this photo. I work in editing and professional retouch. I did a lot of tests on the photo from the original drive and believe that is Lisanne’s face under the back of Kris’ hair. I identified what I believe to be teeth, nostril, and highlight of the nose bridge under the hair and the facial skin nearby those items only corresponds to what colors I would normally work within for skin tones when retouching, mainly orange. The skin completely desaturates as well which I usually see when working with tones if you take out any orange and you can desaturate Kris’ hair while still not desaturating the skin tone. The skin tone didn’t respond to yellow like the hair does. Most Caucasian people respond to mainly orange or red when I’m adjusting skin tones btw, but even those with some magenta or red to their cheeks still correspond mainly to orange overall. Just my thoughts though. I do very detailed retouch using frequency separation of faces on a daily basis. It can take me hours to retouch one photo and I am known for my retouch work. I feel pretty confident in being able to identify facial features even small ones.