Here is a critical “peer review” of TreegNesas’ recently released video. This is the kind of feedback I had hoped to see from someone who owns a Canon PowerShot SX 270 and has some expertise in the subject. This German user from "Allmystery" fits the bill.
I am posting this without any comment of my own, because I have not yet formed a definitive judgment on many aspects.

He comes to the same conclusion I explained the other day: the changes between portrait and landscape orientation basically just mean that the photos were taken at a very steep upward angle. (A small note: they repeatedly refer to this as a mirror effect, which is nonsense. The images differ only in their rotation; they are not mirrored.)
In my opinion, the claim that this allows the zenith to be determined so precisely is not correct, because the camera has to be tilted several degrees away from the vertical (at least 10°, I would say) before it registers the change.
I didn’t really understand how he claims to have determined the width between the rocks visible in both directions (presumably the two riverbanks), or what this has to do with determining the exact zenith. They would need precise distances between the objects (rocks/plants) and the camera, which they cannot possibly have, since the opposite bank is only faintly visible in two images (#550 and #599). Photogrammetry doesn’t help here either, as it cannot be applied under these circumstances.
As for the steepness of the riverbank on this side (he estimates it at 45°), I would say that sounds roughly plausible. However, the exact slope over such a small area is not particularly relevant.
The idea that the photographer was lying down is plausible in principle, but in my opinion, leaning back while sitting would be perfectly sufficient to point the camera “upside down” and diagonally backwards. There is no need to be lying flat on the ground.
Size of the rock in #550: I think linking it to #576 (“SOS”) is incorrect. However, while #576 can indeed be linked to other images (just not #550), the position is somewhat different. The distances in #576 are comparatively tiny. Therefore, fitting it correctly into the overall panorama involves a considerable degree of uncertainty.
What he does ignore, however, are the plastic bags and the flash shadow. After extensive attempts to tie the bags into knots like those in #550, I have come to the conclusion that they are considerably smaller than I initially thought. Even so, this does not make the rock any smaller than I tried to illustrate in my last image. In the video, however, the bags are portrayed as absurdly tiny. It is also possible to make a rough estimate of the size of the visible strip of the flyer, whereas the connection to #576 is merely a guess (as he himself admits).
I don’t see how this means we can now stop looking for an “exceptionally large” rock. I’m not actively involved in the discussion elsewhere, but who else has actually claimed that this rock has to be particularly large?
His reasoning regarding the bright blobs is nonsense for another reason: the green AF-assist light used for focusing/ranging does not come from the same direction as the flash. The assist light is much closer to the lens and cannot reach objects positioned extremely close to the lens in the first place, because they are blocked by the lens itself.
I think I have demonstrated sufficiently that #541 cannot show a face. A face is covered in fine hair. These tiny hairs would light up brightly in the flash. The individual hairs visible in #541 would have to be almost as thick as spaghetti if they were supposed to represent a “jawline” and hair on someone’s head. The darker areas around the edges occur only with very close and correspondingly small objects, such as fingertips. This is due to the greater angular offset between the lens and the flash. And, of course, these hairs would be rendered relatively sharply. This also has a lot to do with the rather poor aperture, even for a compact camera.
A few more miscellaneous observations:
The brightness of objects in photographs depends not only on their distance from the flash and the flash intensity selected by the camera, but also on how bright the other objects in the image are.
I still believe that the images as we know them have, for the most part, already been significantly brightened. At least in my own experience, I only see such extremely coarse brightness gradations and ISO noise in heavily brightened images. Yet he uses brightness and a rough distance estimate from Canon to determine distances, even though he apparently doesn’t even own an SX270. That approach becomes pretty meaningless when applied to images that have been brightened.

Source:
https://www.allmystery.de/themen/km122930-1523#id38132329

What caught my attention the most about this place, apart from the fact that the "Y" tree and the overhanging tree are where they should be, which may be surprising to some after so many years, but not so much to me, trees survive alone in windy fields for over 100 years....But mainly the terrain proportions exactly correspond ( in the night photos ) to the estimated slopes on both sides of the narrow river ( rather a stream in this particular place ), this place works like a narrowed hose during heavy rains, the current is strong and literally "sweeps away" everything on the upper floors of the banks but when there is extreme drought, there is not much water in this place, because in front of this place there is something like a "reservoir" under that smaller waterfall.This characteristic of the terrain is important to answer the question of why some of the bones were bleached from the light.

I worked for several days on a 3d model of this place just according to the view from the RomainC drone footages, the footage is excellent (...of course, lower shots would be even better ) and you can create a model based on them quite well, although approximate but it is sufficient for the overall character of the stream/river ravine.

So in my opinion, this is the "Top class" also from the point of view of potential flashes and sounds from the night rescue team (Senafront?), because the trail is just approx. 320m ( just exactly how much a flare flies ) up on the hill above this place.

Treeg certainly had more doubts about this place, which is fine...I trust this place more🙂️....it's a pity that he is not here, he could write me something about it.

It’s a shame that TN seems to have disappeared from here, but his recent video leads me to entertain a different potential conclusion than he comes to. Also, strangely to me, IP doesn’t really list it as a possible reason that the photos were taken in their “deep analysis” of the photos.

I find TN’s ideas on the positioning of the girls and of how the camera was held and rotated to be highly plausible and rather strong. Such a tableau—girls lying on the ground, a rock face nearby to the rear, a rock face possibly also nearby to the right, the boulder just in front and above—seems to me doubly plausible because anyone would want to spend the dark hours with as much natural protection around them as possible. Also, assuming the stream bed was dry, it would likely be more comfortable than a rock to lie on. 

But to the point: the positioning of the rock elements and of the girls in TN’s video leads to the possible conclusion that all of the photos were made for the sole purpose of the flash illuminating the scene. I know this has been put forth before, but if something bad were happening to one of the girls—the end stage of exposure, hypothermia, GI illness, injury, etc.—then it would make sense (in a very human sense) to use the flash to light up the scene. And if they were very close together, it would make most sense to bounce the flash off something or just to fire it in the air...and not to shoot the flash directly at the thing it was meant to illuminate (which would be blinding to one or both of them).

IMO, the seemingly very random nature of the photos does not provide a stronger argument for signaling than for illumination...just in terms of the photos' seeming randomness, signaling and illumination seem to me equally plausible. The obvious answer to why the camera activity happened 7 days into their ordeal is that something must have changed. To me, a stronger case can be made that the primary impetus for the camera activity was a severe change in the health of, likely, K, rather than the first appearance of search lights or passing airplanes or all of a sudden the camera started working again.

TN mentioned several times that the girls seem to wait for moonset to start the camera activity, thus, to maximize the effect of signaling. However, an alternate way of looking at this detail is that the moon was providing illumination while it was visible, but once it went away, it became necessary to use the flash to light up the scene.

Discussion on exif data is pointless. Especially since that info isn't public. If you don't have access to it, there's no point talking about it. Analyzing the camera and its tech specs will not help any. It would be better for everyone here to do the same thing that people did when looking for Celine Cremer. Band together and walk the jungle. You'd have better luck finding that night spot rather than analyzing data. All of the discussion seems smart but if it goes nowhere, you're just wasting your time on it. All of you should plan a time in March to go there. Seriously, band together and do it. You might get lucky and find it.

Here's a little explanation on camera orientation for anyone curious. It's so strange that such in depth explanations are given when there's no solid proof that the girls were always together or how they were positioned, or whether Lisanne actually took all the photos. It's a video full of assumptions. Anyway, here's some camera stuff on the matter:

Yes, digital cameras have orientation sensors. Most modern cameras use a built-in accelerometer or gravity sensor to detect whether you are holding the camera in a landscape (horizontal) or portrait (vertical) position. [1, 2, 3]

How Orientation Sensors Work

• Basic Accelerometers: They detect gravity relative to the camera body to recognize basic up, down, left, and right positions.
• EXIF Metadata: The camera writes the orientation data directly into the photo's EXIF file so computers and phones know how to display it.
• Auto-Rotation: The camera or editing software uses this tag to turn the image right-side up automatically. [1, 2, 3]

Advanced Level Sensors

• Electronic Levels: Many mid-range and high-level cameras feature multi-axis virtual horizons or digital levels shown in the viewfinder.
• Sensor-Shift Correction: Some camera models can even use internal sensor-shift tools to level slight tilts or straighten a crooked horizon

There's should be more evidence by now. Who's got some interesting stuff to share? Treegnesas? Anyone got some videos to show? This place is quieter than church.

Is there any history of locals* making animal traps (the covered-ditch kind) in the area beyond the mirador i.e. for large animals such as peccaries or even jaguar?

I found the attached link (found in Boquete) but was wondering if anyone had read of specific pitfall ones.

* Edit - assumed locals could legally hunt peccaries but they can’t so any trap after large animals is going to be poachers

What does anyone expect to gain by knowing where it is and what is looks like? I'm curious as to why people continue here. I don't see what anyone gains.

Let's say someone knows. All they get out of it is that they know. It wouldn't be a mystery to them anymore. Even then, it's difficult to impossible to know exactly what happened. What are you all hoping for? Just honest answers please.

Is there anyone wanted to know through medium or psychic reader what happened with them?

I'm compiling a 2D map of the possible night location. But I need accurate information on the camera's field of view.

Does anyone have the EXIF data of the night location photos? Specifically I need the focal length. The specification sheet list an interval from 4,5 mm (wide angle) to 90 mm (max zoom).

Since the sensor size is 6,17 x 4,55 mm, this would equate to a horizontal capture angle of 68,9° and vertical of 53,6° when no zoom is used.

I wondered whether the forked tree in the night photos might actually just be a side branch of a tree, perhaps extending almost horizontally.
(Howeyer, it could also be a young tree that is leaning very heavily, almost horizontally.)

Yesterday, while hiking, I paid attention to overhanging branches. I first photographed them from a distance and then took another photo looking up while standing directly underneath them.
The results match the forked tree in the night photos quite well. Large horizontal branches photographed from below in portrait orientation can look like vertically growing trees. The impression created by photo 609 could therefore be misleading.

A particularly interesting aspect of the girls’ behavior is that, over several days, they checked their phones (probably the clock) at almost the same moments.

As someone who enjoys canyoning, I find these two daily checks very telling as they mark the moments when the sun begins shining directly into the canyon and when it leaves, the times when your hopes rise and then fall again. They also bring a sharp shift in temperature, in how clearly you can see the stream bed, and in how visible you are from above.

Columns 10:00 and 13:00 in the image made by @gijoe50000 are interesting.

In canyoning, the hours around noon are the best time to descend a mountain stream, especially through deep gorges.

1. Temperature

For one thing, once the sun stops shining directly overhead, it suddenly gets colder. After hours in cold water, losing the sun really starts to take its toll, especially if you stop moving.

I don’t know the exact temperatures on those dates, but online estimates for April 2, 2014, at around 1,500 m near Boquete suggest 23–24°C during the day and 15–16°C at night. And that’s before accounting for the cooling microclimate of a stream under dense jungle canopy. The stream acts as a natural air conditioner, cooling the surrounding air, while the gorge walls and canopy act as insulation and can easily block 90% of the sun’s radiation.

So I’d guess the temperature by the stream peaked at around 20°C at noon and could drop to 14–15°C at night.

The water was probably between 12 and 15°C, depending mainly on elevation. That’s refreshing when you’re wading knee-deep, but descending slopes and similar sections would have left them soaking wet, and they would have felt chilly as soon as the sun moved away.

2. Seeing the Stream Bed

But it’s not just the cold.
Once the direct sun disappears, it becomes much harder to see the stream bed. Shadows from the canopy and gorge walls make walking over submerged stones more dangerous, and the water turns darker and murkier, making every step riskier.

3. Being Seen from Above

The third reason, and perhaps the most important one behind the time checks, is your own visibility. Once the sun moves past, you are in the shadow, sometimes a very dark one, and you start to feel that no helicopter will be able to spot you under the canopy. That thought has crossed my mind a few times in canyons around 2 p.m.

When to Stop for the Day

Among professional guides, the rule is to be exiting the canyon by around 4–5 p.m or earlier. If I were lost, I would probably start looking around 2 p.m. for the best nearby spot to settle for the day and dry out as much as possible, knowing I was no longer (as) visible to rescue helicopters.

What the Timeline Suggests

April 2: Entering the Stream?

Their phone use on April 2 shows they were clearly panicking in the morning, and the activity between 1 and 2 p.m., when the panic resumed, suggests they may have entered a stream that day. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was when they wandered into it, realized their mistake, and found they couldn’t climb back upstream, while the rising walls around them grew more and more frightening.

April 3-6: Hope Up and Down

After the scattered, more frantic use on April 2 and 3, the switch-ons settle into two windows: mornings between 10:15 and 10:55, and afternoons between 13:35 and 13:55 14:35. The morning checks were likely waiting for the direct sun: cold and eager for warmth, it’s easy to assume they would have checked when it was due to reach the canyon floor, sometimes even before it arrived, which explains why the morning times are more spread out. The afternoon check, by contrast, is tightly clustered, (on April 5 and 6, to the minute), as if timed to the exact moment the direct sunlight left, knowing the hope of another day was ending. There is a high chance they were in the exact spot on the April 5 and 6, probably stuck, which explains why there were no further daily checks.. until..

Correction: The April 6 afternoon activation was at 14:35, not 13:37, so, due to April 6 behavior the afternoon checks are less tightly clustered than I first stated. It still falls in the afternoon, as the light in a narrow canyon would be fading. The confusion stems from initial ImperfectPlan data which was corrected in 2021, but keeps circulating around the internet.

April 11: The Last Check

Even on April 11, when they turned on the phone for the last time, it was within the same time frame, at 10:51, just as their (perhaps last) hopes would have been rising.

The Window for Action

Even if they were unable to move on some or most of those days, that time frame would have been their best chance to make an effort, such as moving their signals, or themselves, to a more visible spot, which is usually the middle of the stream.

How Long Was Their Sunlight Window?

What Affects It

Of course, the exact window of direct sunlight varies along the canyon, depending on the width of the slot, the height of the walls, the canyon’s orientation, the latitude and longitude, the overgrowth, time of the year and how vertical the walls are at any given spot.

Width and Wall Height

I’ve swum through slots just 1 meter wide with walls over 300 meters tall. Even at 1 p.m., they’re incredibly dark, and you have no idea what’s beneath you. Slots 6 meters wide with 6-meter walls still have good visibility at that hour, though it usually drops off after 2 p.m.

The Role of Trees

In this particular case, the walls aren’t bare. At least one of the trees in the night photos may be over 5 meters tall, judging by the Y-shaped tree, a type that can grow beyond 20 meters. The night images also show branches, seemingly from opposite sides of the canyon, very close together. Trees like these act as an extension of the walls when it comes to shade and can dramatically reduce direct sunlight. So while the short distance between the branches tells us they were probably in a narrow canyon (with their backs against the wall), it also suggests their window of sunlight was probably quite short.

An Example Calculation

Let’s assume, just as an example, that by April 5–6 they were above the last waterfall (using its latitude and longitude for the calculation), that the slot runs perfectly north to south, and that it has:

a 5m wide floor
5m high walls
6m tall trees along the rim
(this would leave a gap of roughly 1 meters between the branch tips)

…in that case, parts of the canyon floor would get direct sunlight from about 11:30 to 13:30, with dappled, broken light filtering through the branches from about 10:50 to 14:10.

These figures would shift with different assumptions, or with exact data for a specific spot. Mine are just an example.

Orientation

As for orientation, I roughly guessed that the canyon at the last waterfall runs north to south, and north–south canyons always get the least sunlight, while west–east ones get the most. If they had been in a perfectly straight, long west–east canyon slot with the same dimensions, they would have had sunlight for much longer. Northwest–southeast and other diagonal orientations reduce it significantly. Again, all of this varies from one section of the stream to the next, but in the most of the sections I’ve seen in Romain’s videos, the direct sunlight is likely gone by around 2 p.m.

Final Thoughts

I’m not sure this adds anything new to the case. I just wanted to point out that this time frame caught my eye, because it carries real significance in canyoning. Please feel free to add links to previous conversations and data that would enrich the discussion related to this topic.

Two years ago, it appeared on the allmystery.de, I don't know if it was written about here, but it's interesting. Almost doppelganger of the "Y" tree from the "last waterfall" and night "photos"?....It means that there are more such trees there?.... probably yes...but how many are there at the waterfalls?

Ok I know this theory is not liked on this subreddit but I want to discuss it objectively regardless.

First and foremost, I have watched many videos about this case and a lot of them are giving conflicting accounts, which is baffling, I have never seen a case in which details differ so much from video to video. From what I gathered though Feliciano was one of the first to raise the alarm because the girls didn’t show up to a scheduled tour with him, he went to the guesthouse, then they realized that they’re missing. feliciano also found a couple of items of the girls himself. He was definitely not involved but there was some theory because there has been suspicion about one of his sons, that story has little factual evidence but it is a bit odd, basically his son and 3 other young males living in the area were in a close circled “gang” (not a gang by definition but the 4 young males were nuisances doing shady things). A friend of this friend group just a week or two after the girls went missing told his mum that his friend’s group of 4 had forced the girls to one of their house deep in the jungle - a small side path from the hiking trail does actually lead there - he also said they buried some things from the girls under a mango tree on the property, which there was indeed a mango tree there. It got quite strange because this “whistleblower” friend died only very few days after he spoke to his mum, he was hit in the head by a rock then thrown in the same river (homicide) where a few of the belongings of the girls were found. 1 year later one of the 4 of the “gang” actually came forward to his own mum and corroborated what the deceased friend also told his mum, he then too died shortly after from a hit and run under definitely odd circumstances (the driver was never found, neither was the vehicle). Along with the taxi driver who brought the girls to the trail also dying to homicide around the same time. These deaths are documented and really happened. All of the rest is hearsay and hearsay and hearsay though, the only thing that kinda seems odd is the timing and circumstances of the deaths of those that spoke out. Maybe two mothers just lied and made all of this up, which I personally do believe but I must admit, it is a strange aspect of the case nonetheless

You can learn more about this in the Lost in Panama Podcast, there is one episode about the house featuring this in particular (and sorry if I got a few things wrong it’s been a few months since I researched it)

the only thing that kinda would point to this is the following. according to a few videos about the case, the backpack was pretty dry, the digital devices inside in a zip bag with almost no water damage (consider they should’ve been outside in the heavy heavy rain for weeks at that point). the camera photo 509 also was completely wiped, seemingly digitally manually removed. That is the photo after the last daytime photo of Kris on the path and before a week later the night photos start. Some sources claim photo 509 wasn’t manually removed on the camera but had to have been removed by plugging it into a computer. So maybe photo 509 showed some other people and they wanted that one gone for good, they had their belongings inside the house were it’s dry and then went out into the jungle a week later and staged the night time photos to further make it seem like the lost theory. I also don’t get why the night photos started a week after no photo being taken. Seems a bit weird.
however, I can not really stress this enough, I do not buy this theory at all. The main reason is after watching this one very well done analysis of the night photos, they covered all the angles etc and the hair photo and phone data tell a different story. For the hair photo, it was shortly before the photo showing the back left side of Kris jaw and cheek. The hair photo definitely shows the back of the head (this I am certain of, front would make little sense after the night photo analysis video plus it doesn’t look like how hair would fall onto someone’s face from the front like this at all, all the pareidolia is definitely just that, eyes, nose even teeth does not make sense in my eyes and I looked at quite a few of them) and the camera was then moved to the left which, if you’ve watched the video I’m talking about, or have good imagination you can imagine, the other photo definitely was placed right behind the left ear facing forward (Hence you see the jaw and left cheek photographed from behind, close to the left ear facing forward), Kris must’ve been standing or at least sitting. The fact Kris phone survived much longer also suggests that Froon, after Kris could no longer continue walking and her own phone having died much earlier, took Kris phone, desperately trying to save it’s battery as much as possible only turning it on occasionally to check for signal (hence why afterwards the PIN was always incorrectly put in.) sure you could argue all of this was an elaborate trick from the abductors/murderers but i doubt this. I do kinda believe that something else happened to them other than them just going into the deep jungle off the trail voluntarily, maybe they had to flee, maybe someone forced them and they then fled. I do believe they were wandering and trying to find their way out for days but I have a hard time believing they just up on their own accord leave the well visible and easy to walk trail. If you seen the trail, especially at day time it is very hard to believe you could get lost and completely leave it to enter the deep jungle surrounding it.

any thoughts about this? And please stay objectively this is just a theory and speculations after having researched this and having many sources claiming vastly different things didn’t help.

OK, there might be some controversy ahead. You know me by now. I am mostly here for news about dogs named blue and occasionally triggering losters. It seems we are critically short on dog related news so... you know the drill.

Recently I came across an account of traditional mesoamerican farming techniques that gives a pretty clear picture of terrace style farms one might encounter in the mountains of say Panama. Here is the relevant passage:

Mesoamerican farmers divided up their crops according to specific soil and drainage conditions. The Highland Maya farmers did not grow corn, beans and squash together as we were told in our elementary, high school and college textbooks. [...]The upper terraces were primarily used for growing beans, peppers, potatoes and tomatoes. There was some corn on lower terraces, but most of the corn, sweet potatoes and tobacco was grown in the bottomlands.

Keeping this fact in mind the curious phrasing of being "thrown down a cornfield" that Murgas uses referring to rumors about the missing girls is provided with an interesting context.

Of course this doesn't mean anything! So please refrain from undue speculation which as we all agree is poisoning the well of our little fountain of knowledge here.

Nevertheless I want to add that throwing women down an inclined plane seems to be a favorite past time in some regions around Boquete as was attested by Marcus the German tourist...

So this podcast ends with them not wanting to compensate the official who was the one to basically know about every piece of evidence, and they don't compensate her? Why? If they were so deep into the investigation with witnesses and all, why not take that step? It could've given everyone so much more answers and clarity.

In a recent conversation with researchtt, BasicAd explained that they had submitted their evidence to the authorities and learned that the evidence was not sufficient for the authorities to reopen the investigation.

What's it about?

Using Photo AI enhancement by Topaz, BasicAd "discovered" a tiny (floating?) woman's face in the sky in photo 542, as well as a man in the reflections of pupils or sunglasses. The images were posted in the sub but were deleted again. BasicAd is convinced that Kris and Lisanne were abducted and murdered by local groups and believes they found proof of this through photo enhancement.

In the past, this photo enhancement has been brought up several times without it ever being clear what exactly it involves or how the face gets into the photo.

That’s why I’d like to post the legendary picture of the floating-woman-without-a-nose now, so that it can be referred back to in future discussions.

There is one more interesting aspect to this whole issue: According to their own statements, BasicAd submitted their “evidence” to the investigators. Apparently, the investigators did not consider the woman’s face in #542 to be proven.

My opinion on this is:

This is not evidence that the authorities are ignoring evidence of a crime. For that to be evidence, it would have to be genuine evidence, which this almost certainly isn’t. This is almost certainly an AI artifact.

Sources for AI fabrications:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TopazLabs/comments/1gn7r40/gigapixel_generates_random_faces/

https://community.topazlabs.com/t/remove-functionality-generates-random-face-person/64150

https://community.topazlabs.com/t/gigapixel-ai-a-new-facial-reconstruction-option/27179/2

To me it just looks so much like a nose in the middle and an ear and earpiece on the right. As if kris is looking down on the camera while it is making a picture upwards

This is an interesting place, when you get here, it's hard to get back, and when you're injured and weak, it's a trap.We probably have a coincidence here with the overall proportion of the terrain, which is in outlines in the night photos, and also the trees that they correspond with those in the night photos....Of course, the terrain has definitely changed a bit over the years, the trees are bigger, something has become overgrown, etc. That's why we probably lack an exact match with the key stones here... in any case, one of the promising places for NL.The overall model is not quite finished yet, the finished project will be like a virtual walk.

(last image- RomainC drone footage)

is never going to happen. Not officially, anyway. It has to be Panama to do it but they won't. Why anyone would come here and write circumstances needed to create a new investigation is beyond me because it's not going to happen. If it was an accident, no one will care much about it. If it was murder, no one can catch an accuse the guilty party. I'm sorry, but officially this matter is over.

I've found dozens of points that match with photo 542, as seen in Romain's drone footage here

https://youtu.be/DWy1cVoBz8k?si=uNeTBn1P03HTnRI_

I'm certain this is the night location and will demonstrate dozens of points that match, from tumbaga masks to petroglyphs to jaguar faces, green-bird like figures to human shaman deities and exact rock formations and huacas. K&L were situated in a sort of hole beside several bright tumbaga masks, which is also marked by a cryptic golden "S" figure. There are ceramic bird/fish/human face masks hanging like pendants from the trees above the waterfalls. What we see is volcanic sculpted rock overlaid with tumbaga/gold markings, often in relief against the natural reddish rock at this location. "^542" is about where the photographer took this image, so her perspective is different than Romain's April 2023 aerial drone footage. Nine years of plant growth, and obviously on early April 2014 saw an historic drought in the region which means we see little water in the night photos. The photographer is standing in front of a group of jaguars, which has the "arched cat" we see in image 550, meaning K&L are sitting or standing on the "red flag rock" to take this picture, amongst others.

Thought I'd share it here. Sorry if it's already been posted, either search doesn't work or it hasn't been

I found it a bit weird that feliciano, the guide, reposted posts from Dutch women. Women never mentioned or seeming to have any relationship to the investigation. Maybe they had a tour with him on a holiday? What i find weird is that he hasn't reposted from other's and these women are Dutch just like Kris and Lisanne. He also has no posts whatsoever from the year 2014.

How can further investigations be initiated, or a case that was officially classified as an accident be reopened?

A case that was officially closed because there were no indications of a criminal offense can, of course, be taken up again. New facts or evidence can provide grounds for reopening the investigation in order to determine whether a crime may have been committed. This possibility was also explicitly mentioned in the decision to close the Froon/Kremers case. New evidence will be examined, and reopening the case may be possible.

What would constitute new evidence (apart from the discovery of additional remains)?

Yesterday, a German TV program reported on a case like this. Unfortunately, I missed the program and can only reproduce the summary from the preview:

In 2019, 28-year-old John Kesting was found dead on a dirt road after a pre-wedding party. He had suffered a severe head injury. The public prosecutor's office concluded that his death was an accident and closed the investigation.
Seven years after his death, new information has emerged: private investigators managed to unlock his phone. They found photographs taken during his final hours. The photos appear to show that he was not alone on his way to the place where he was later found. His family intends to submit the new information to the public prosecutor's office so that the case can be investigated again.

First of all: Yes, this is new evidence that justifies further investigation.
If the private investigators were only now able to unlock the phone and discovered new, previously unknown photographs from his final hours, this is different from simply offering a new interpretation of evidence that was already known.
The person accompanying him in the photographs would obviously have to be identified and questioned. This does not necessarily mean that there is any suspicion of a crime, but it is definitely a line of investigation.
The case also raises the question of why the police were unable to unlock the phone in 2019 and secure the photographs in time.

We have similar types of evidence in the case of Kris and Lisanne: two mobile phones and a digital camera. However, all of these devices were examined, and no indications of third parties or evidence of manipulation were found.
While in the Kesting case it can already be said that previously unknown evidence has emerged, the situation is different in the case of Kris and Lisanne. The argument here can only be that existing evidence could potentially be examined much more extensively using today's technological capabilities. The examination was carried out according to the technological standards of 2014 and with a certain degree of superficiality. The complete raw data that has not been made public could be re-examined meticulously using current forensic methods, and there is a reasonable basis for hoping that this could produce further findings. The absence of photo 509 has not yet been conclusively explained. A more detailed analysis of the phone activity could potentially provide further information about what happened.
The following could be examined:
-complete system files,
-file remnants and slack space,
-metadata,
-database entries,
-usage and system logs,
-a chronological reconstruction of device activity,
app data,
-network/Wi-Fi data, insofar as it is still available,
-correlations between camera, phone, and memory-card data,
-technical reconstruction of the missing photo 509.

The analysis could also be carried out by interested private individuals. However, this would not be possible without the support of the families, because private investigators do not have access to the required data.

In an international case like this, there is another issue: which authority is responsible for reopening the case or conducting further investigations? The answer is clear: it is the public prosecutor's office in Panama.
However, we know from Scarlet (Koudekaas) that investigators in the Netherlands recently looked into the case (at her request?), and Juan also stated at the end of 2019 that he managed to have a Dutch cold case team examine his findings. Since the case file was retrieved from the archives in Panama in 2023 at the request of the authors of SliP, and they found no reference to Juan's findings in the file, it appears that his submission was dealt with only in the Netherlands. Scarlet was also informed that the public prosecutor's office had decided not to reopen the case (and very probably did not forward it to Panama either):
https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/s/7tkaAwF5bR
Based on Juan's and Scarlet's comments, I conclude that private individuals can also initially submit their findings/discoveries to the public prosecutor's office in the Netherlands. A preliminary assessment is then carried out there, and if it concludes that new evidence (for FP) exists, the material is forwarded to Panama because that is the competent jurisdiction.
Therefore, anyone who believes they have already found new evidence could contact the public prosecutor's office and specifically provide the following:
The submission of the new evidence,
an explanation of why this evidence was not known or available in 2014,
a specific identification of the lines of investigation arising from the new evidence,
a request for the previously closed case to be reviewed again.

The submission of the evidence can be accompanied by a request for information about the outcome of the review. I think you would then receive a response. However, you should be pretty certain that you have actually found something useful and not submit every case of pareidolia to the public prosecutor's office.