Analyzing position of sun in last photo

rustyjames wrote:

bobbin wrote:I think you should read rustyjames' post above. Perhaps you will then 'get' that people don't accept what you are saying.

Not sure what's being attributed to me here, but for the most part I generally agree with BlueBag, although I may disagree a little in the post after this one.

For example please see my post on posts (so to speak) earlier showing how the apparent angles of a row of identical posts are different, both in respect to the shadow they cast on the ground, and the apparent angle to the ground.  The sun appears as a relatively small disc in the sky and the shadow and the thing making the shadow has to be tracked back to that position.

BlueBag wrote:Oh yeah?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Wide angle lenses can help reduce parallax effects because a wide angle lens accentuates perspective"

Anyway.

Are you ignoring the point about parallax?

This IS the key issue as I have been saying over and over and over.

Parallel lines are not parallel in photographs - (see the shadows of railing picture that confused you).

Shadows from a subject in the centre of a picture are going to appear to be different angle to those further to the sides whilst in reality they are not.

Any "science" based on "angles should be the same" is bunk.

Saying the last photo is photoshopped because Gerry's shadow is at a different angle to the tree and background is pure rubbish.

rustyjames wrote:The issue of perspective is the one I (mostly) disagree with.  The biggest factor is movement towards or away from the subject whilst changing the focal length, i.e. keeping the subject the same size.  In that case perspective will change.

Staying in the same place, changing the focal length and then cropping will give very similiar results - although for example a very wide angle lens will distort the image in a fish eye effect.

Some decent examples here - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and here - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

BlueBag wrote:
That's a moot point (and much debated).

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But that's not the issue here.

The issue here is people who don't understand cameras and parallel lines.

biggles wrote:Sir,
I have made no statement so far about 'parallax'. Nor have I claimed that the last photo is photoshopped because the angle of shadows are perceived to be right/wrong/whatever.

What I am suggesting is that the time of day the last-photo was taken at can be estimated by looking at the shadows, and comparing that to what we know about the position of the sun relative to the subjects being photographed. That's all.

Did you try the experiment yet?

BlueBag wrote:

biggles wrote:Sir,
I have made no statement so far about 'parallax'. Nor have I claimed that the last photo is photoshopped because the angle of shadows are perceived to be right/wrong/whatever.

Others have.

That's what this thread is about.

biggles wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

biggles wrote:Sir,
I have made no statement so far about 'parallax'. Nor have I claimed that the last photo is photoshopped because the angle of shadows are perceived to be right/wrong/whatever.

Others have.

That's what this thread is about.

It is? I seem to recall the thread having a rather different topic when I started it

I know there's been a lot of discussion on the 'last photo' and 'group photo' (or whatever its called) and people wondering if shadows are fake or not. I'm afraid I don't know the ins & outs well enough to be sure, but I used the suncalc tool to see what direction the sun is at on 3rd May 2007 at 2.29pm (the supposed date&time of the last photo I think?).

bobbin wrote:rustyjames, thankyou. I had seen your post and it was that which made me go looking further.
I add, above, the site for the last photo.
I agree your camera (wo)man position as pretty spot on.
With Maddie looking over her left shoulder, sitting on the edge of the pool, her face would be pretty well southerly facing. Gerry's line of vision being just fractionally to the left of Maddie's line of vision.
I look forward to your independent observations later.

rustyjames wrote:One more image - I've put a yellow line on at a heading of 214 degrees which is the direction at 2:39pm.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

bobbin wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thank you biggles. It took me quite a while to work out how to make the different options for dates etc. work but I've got it now.

A very useful app indeed and it confirms my suspicions. Bravo for sticking at it, to find such a tool, and bring it to this forum.

It's a nice visualisation but it doesn't show any additional information than other sites such as findmyshadow which have been used for a while.

With the tree trunk directly behind Maddie, and the sun shade to the right side of Gerry (our left side in the picture) it is possible to get an exact position on the pool edge of where the photo is supposed to have been taken.

This we agree on.

With the sun calculator set for 3rd May 2007, the sun is coming almost exactly face on to Maddie and Gerry whose faces are turned to their left towards the supposed camera position.

My previous post to this one shows the angle of the sun at 2:29pm.  I think Gerry is looking straight at the photographer but from his viewpoint slightly to the left of the sun.  As for Maddie she is looking further South.

This means that the shadow falling from the tree/sunshade and dandelion would be totally correct but the shading on Gerry's nose/chin face and T shirt are NOT possible since the sun would be shining directly at him.

I agree with the tree/sunshade direction though without knowing the height of either, and a picture that covered a bigger area, it's hard to tell where exactly the shadow from the sun at 65 degress (the elevation at 2:29pm) would fall on the ground.

Have you seen the images I posted of the effect of a 65 degree sun on Gerry's face profile, (I can repost them)?  We can argue about the length of the shadow, but with the sun coming nearly from the front at that angle I can't understand why you would consider that there wouldn't be some shadow on his front.  It's also at an angle and direction to show some of the sunglasses frame in the shadow.

Nor do I think Madeleine's hat and nose could be so shaded with a 'full on face' sun.

The sun is coming from her towards her right and the hat is only just shading her - the tip of her nose isn't.

In one months time, June 3rd, the sun is at its almost highest range / angle (21st June). This would give a more over head view than that available for 3rd May where the sun is not at its highest.

At no time however can the sun be high enough, with the orientation of the photo, for a shadow to be cast of Gerry's nose onto his chin.
This would require a sun from somewhat of an overhead position.

I'll refer you back to my images of Gerry's profile that show at 65 degrees lit from the front this would in my opinion be possible?  I would be interested to know why you consider that impossible?

Under what circumstances could the nose shadow occur. If the face were turned downwards, collecting the full frontal sun at an oblique angle. However, although Gerry's shoulder may looked hunched, his face is on a direct horizontal if not slightly raised angle relative to the camera, i.e. directly towards the sun.

As determined elsewhere, the angle of sun on 3rd May 2007 was 68.6 degrees.

That was at 13:29 but the same argument applies.

Gerry's long T shirt shadow, emanating from a position capable of casting a nose shadow down to short of his chin, is now possible to DISCOUNT AS TRUE.

I would argue completely the opposite :-)

The position at the pool edge is identifiable (relative to background tree, wall etc.)
The position of the pool /tree etc. relative to North, South, East and West is identifiable (google maps).
The vertical (height) angle of the sun is identifiable.

Agree on all three points with a bit of margin for error.

Sun & Moon Today Sunrise & Sunset Moonrise & Moonset Moon Phases

The horizontal angle (angel of attack) of the sun on the family faces is identifiable because of their facial position relative to the camera man (woman).

The exact altitude and azimuth are harder to calculate.  If we had a side on view of something of a known height and could see the relative shadow length it would be easy.  Using something like the grip on Amelie's hat and the shadow it casts to try and determine the angle is the best bet.

This is secondarily confirmed by the position of the family faces, relative to the background tree, wall etc.

The members of this forum who have persisted, in spite of serious pressure against them, to argue that the sun angle / shadow on Gerry McC is not consistent with the laws of physics, will be re-assured by the scientific information now available to analyse the photo and remove the guess work.

I'm sorry but I haven't seen anything vaguely scientific that shows the shadow is not possible.

I would trust that, in the face of this analytical information, the pressure to oblige us to disbelieve our own eyes and powers of assessment, in favour of some expert's view, will no longer be maintained.

It is possible that all three family members bear the same or similar traits of shadow impact, and this may be the premise upon which the 'expert analyst' based his assessment.

The evidence however, in the full background setting which is now corroborated by the criteria of the laws of physics, shows that the persons in the last pool photo, do not belong in the positions in which they find themselves.

Again I'd say completely the opposite.

Photo-shopping can now be suspected in its fullest sense.

bobbin wrote:

rustyjames wrote:One more image - I've put a yellow line on at a heading of 214 degrees which is the direction at 2:39pm.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thanks rustyjames, very useful visual information.
It would still put the sun in a position which would make Gerry's T shirt shadow impossible.
If anything it would cause the shadow to move towards his left shoulder/side and not towards the source of the sunlight i.e. tending towards his  right hand side as showing in the last photo.

rustyjames wrote:

bobbin wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thank you biggles. It took me quite a while to work out how to make the different options for dates etc. work but I've got it now.

A very useful app indeed and it confirms my suspicions. Bravo for sticking at it, to find such a tool, and bring it to this forum.

It's a nice visualisation but it doesn't show any additional information than other sites such as findmyshadow which have been used for a while.

With the tree trunk directly behind Maddie, and the sun shade to the right side of Gerry (our left side in the picture) it is possible to get an exact position on the pool edge of where the photo is supposed to have been taken.

This we agree on.

With the sun calculator set for 3rd May 2007, the sun is coming almost exactly face on to Maddie and Gerry whose faces are turned to their left towards the supposed camera position.

My previous post to this one shows the angle of the sun at 2:29pm.  I think Gerry is looking straight at the photographer but from his viewpoint slightly to the left of the sun.  As for Maddie she is looking further South.

This means that the shadow falling from the tree/sunshade and dandelion would be totally correct but the shading on Gerry's nose/chin face and T shirt are NOT possible since the sun would be shining directly at him.

I agree with the tree/sunshade direction though without knowing the height of either, and a picture that covered a bigger area, it's hard to tell where exactly the shadow from the sun at 65 degress (the elevation at 2:29pm) would fall on the ground.

Have you seen the images I posted of the effect of a 65 degree sun on Gerry's face profile, (I can repost them)?  We can argue about the length of the shadow, but with the sun coming nearly from the front at that angle I can't understand why you would consider that there wouldn't be some shadow on his front.  It's also at an angle and direction to show some of the sunglasses frame in the shadow.

Nor do I think Madeleine's hat and nose could be so shaded with a 'full on face' sun.

The sun is coming from her towards her right and the hat is only just shading her - the tip of her nose isn't.

In one months time, June 3rd, the sun is at its almost highest range / angle (21st June). This would give a more over head view than that available for 3rd May where the sun is not at its highest.

At no time however can the sun be high enough, with the orientation of the photo, for a shadow to be cast of Gerry's nose onto his chin.
This would require a sun from somewhat of an overhead position.

I'll refer you back to my images of Gerry's profile that show at 65 degrees lit from the front this would in my opinion be possible?  I would be interested to know why you consider that impossible?

Under what circumstances could the nose shadow occur. If the face were turned downwards, collecting the full frontal sun at an oblique angle. However, although Gerry's shoulder may looked hunched, his face is on a direct horizontal if not slightly raised angle relative to the camera, i.e. directly towards the sun.

As determined elsewhere, the angle of sun on 3rd May 2007 was 68.6 degrees.

That was at 13:29 but the same argument applies.

Gerry's long T shirt shadow, emanating from a position capable of casting a nose shadow down to short of his chin, is now possible to DISCOUNT AS TRUE.

I would argue completely the opposite :-)

The position at the pool edge is identifiable (relative to background tree, wall etc.)
The position of the pool /tree etc. relative to North, South, East and West is identifiable (google maps).
The vertical (height) angle of the sun is identifiable.

Agree on all three points with a bit of margin for error.

Sun & Moon Today Sunrise & Sunset Moonrise & Moonset Moon Phases

The horizontal angle (angel of attack) of the sun on the family faces is identifiable because of their facial position relative to the camera man (woman).

The exact altitude and azimuth are harder to calculate.  If we had a side on view of something of a known height and could see the relative shadow length it would be easy.  Using something like the grip on Amelie's hat and the shadow it casts to try and determine the angle is the best bet.

This is secondarily confirmed by the position of the family faces, relative to the background tree, wall etc.

The members of this forum who have persisted, in spite of serious pressure against them, to argue that the sun angle / shadow on Gerry McC is not consistent with the laws of physics, will be re-assured by the scientific information now available to analyse the photo and remove the guess work.

I'm sorry but I haven't seen anything vaguely scientific that shows the shadow is not possible.

I would trust that, in the face of this analytical information, the pressure to oblige us to disbelieve our own eyes and powers of assessment, in favour of some expert's view, will no longer be maintained.

It is possible that all three family members bear the same or similar traits of shadow impact, and this may be the premise upon which the 'expert analyst' based his assessment.

The evidence however, in the full background setting which is now corroborated by the criteria of the laws of physics, shows that the persons in the last pool photo, do not belong in the positions in which they find themselves.

Again I'd say completely the opposite.

Photo-shopping can now be suspected in its fullest sense.

bobbin wrote:

rustyjames wrote:One more image - I've put a yellow line on at a heading of 214 degrees which is the direction at 2:39pm.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thanks rustyjames, very useful visual information.
It would still put the sun in a position which would make Gerry's T shirt shadow impossible.
If anything it would cause the shadow to move towards his left shoulder/side and not towards the source of the sunlight i.e. tending towards his  right hand side as showing in the last photo.

Tony Bennett wrote:


I would like to echo my thanks to rustyjames and also the poster of the OP (biggles).

rustyjames: Thanks

The above picture, with the yellow line, is very helpful indeed. I accept what others have said about where the three would be sitting and agree with the positioning of rustyjames' red lines for the likely position of the photographer and the angle of shot. 

I was trying to work out where due North was on this picture.

rustyjames: The compass is in the top right corner and was left due North.  My understanding is Google Earth uses true North rather than magnetic north.  Note: Google Earth does give a view with some perspective as it's from an aerial/satellite view, (e.g. you can see shadows from buildings), which may confuse directions slightly.  As you navigate it adjusts the perspective.  The centre of the image is pretty much true North.  Note when adding ruled lines though the heading is calculated and fixed.  The apparent direction as you scroll around will change but the compass heading of them will not.

It doesn't make a great deal of difference to my argument, but I would suggest from my examination of a number of maps that we are looking - from bottom to top - a few degrees WEST of true NORTH.

The road on the LHS - Rue 1 Maio (1st May) runs approx NNW to SSE.

What this means for practical purposes is that the angle from photographer to the middle of the photograph (the 'Last Photo') is approximately SSW to NNE.

rustyjames: Using the ruler and drawing a line through what would be the centre of the angle of view of the photo gives a heading of 17.5 degrees, so approximately yes.

Gerry, then, is facing roughtly SSW, maybe with his head turned a little towards DUE SOUTH. In short, I suggest his face is pointing somewhere between due SOUTH (180 deg) and SSW (202.5 deg).

rustyjames: If he is facing the camera directly then 197.5 degrees so yes.

Madeleine of course is looking SOUTH-EAST TO EAST.

rustyjames: I wouldn't like to guess.  The angle relative to Gerry looks under 45 degrees so the best I would guess is it was South of SE.

Now, IF THE PHOTO WAS TAKEN AT 1.30pm to 1.35pm, i.e. when the sun was at its highest, namely DUE SOUTH, then you would expect the shadow of Gerry's nose and chin to be exactly below his nose and chin.

rustyjames: That doesn't take into account his head is tilted or he is not facing exactly due South.

And that is exactly what we see. I think we see here a picture taken around 1.30pm to 1.35pm.  

If in fact the picture was taken at say 2.29pm, then the sun in that time has moved round 15 degrees.

rustyjames: It would have moved more like 34 degrees, (approx 214 versus 180).

To sum up, all three are sitting facing S to SSW, Gerry's face more towards due SOUTH, and I find the shadows to conform perfectly with that.

I do not know if we can refine this analysis any further.

If I have fallen into error in the above analysis, please tell me

rustyjames: So would I - since "scientific" was mentioned in an earlier post I would be happy if there was a review of the "evidence" presented.

Tony Bennett wrote:
... SNIP ...

Again this detailed exchange of views and analysis is very valuable - thanks due to both of you.

I think rustyjames has persuasively argued that no scientific, astronomical or other evidence has been produced to counteract the view that this is a genuine photo, taken with all three individuals looking broadly south - in the direction of the sun at its highest.

The sun height at 1.30pm to 1.35pm is 68.6 deg; at an hour later, 65 deg.

Unless I am mistaken, rustyjames, you would say that the picture and shadows that we see (excluding all other factors like the weather on the respective days, could have been taken on any day between 29 April and 3 May inclusive and between say 12.30pm and 2.35pm on any of those days?

rustyjames: The difference in the sun azimuth and altitude between those dates is in both cases only a few degrees - I don't think we have anything within the photo to distinguish to that accuracy so yes.  Considering the sun is coming from behind the photographer and imagining that 65+ degree angle, then for Gerry's sunglasses frame to cast a distinct shadow, and the hair grip on Amelie's hat to cast its shadow ,(amongst other examples), the sun would have to be a number of degrees further west compared to the photographer's direction which would put the time at the later end.  However the brightest points on Gerry's face, hand and knees, on Amelie's legs and Madeleine's shoulder are all close to the direction of the photographer so the time must in my opinion be in that range, though would really appreciate further input and thoughts.

It only remains for me to point out that two experts consulted by PeterMac were both of the view, after forensic analysis, that the shadow lengths were consistent with each other, and that neither saw any evidence of fakery/photoshopping.

Tony Bennett wrote:

bobbin wrote:

rustyjames wrote:One more image - I've put a yellow line on at a heading of 214 degrees which is the direction at 2:39pm.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thanks rustyjames, very useful visual information.
It would still put the sun in a position which would make Gerry's T shirt shadow impossible.
If anything it would cause the shadow to move towards his left shoulder/side and not towards the source of the sunlight i.e. tending towards his  right hand side as showing in the last photo.

I would like to echo my thanks to rustyjames and also the poster of the OP (biggles).

The above picture, with the yellow line, is very helpful indeed. I accept what others have said about where the three would be sitting and agree with the positioning of rustyjames' red lines for the likely position of the photographer and the angle of shot. 

I was trying to work out where due North was on this picture.

It doesn't make a great deal of difference to my argument, but I would suggest from my examination of a number of maps that we are looking - from bottom to top - a few degrees WEST of true NORTH.

The road on the LHS - Rue 1 Maio (1st May) runs approx NNW to SSE.

What this means for practical purposes is that the angle from photographer to the middle of the photograph (the 'Last Photo') is approximately SSW to NNE.

Gerry, then, is facing roughtly SSW, maybe with his head turned a little towards DUE SOUTH. In short, I suggest his face is pointing somewhere between due SOUTH (180 deg) and SSW (202.5 deg).

Madeleine of course is looking SOUTH-EAST TO EAST.

Now, IF THE PHOTO WAS TAKEN AT 1.30pm to 1.35pm, i.e. when the sun was at its highest, namely DUE SOUTH, then you would expect the shadow of Gerry's nose and chin to be exactly below his nose and chin.

And that is exactly what we see. I think we see here a picture taken around 1.30pm to 1.35pm.  

If in fact the picture was taken at say 2.29pm, then the sun in that time has moved round 15 degrees.

To sum up, all three are sitting facing S to SSW, Gerry's face more towards due SOUTH, and I find the shadows to conform perfectly with that.

I do not know if we can refine this analysis any further.

If I have fallen into error in the above analysis, please tell me

rustyjames wrote:

And that is exactly what we see. I think we see here a picture taken around 1.30pm to 1.35pm.  

If in fact the picture was taken at say 2.29pm, then the sun in that time has moved round 15 degrees.

rustyjames: It would have moved more like 34 degrees, (approx 214 versus 180).

bobbin wrote:

Since, according to you, the photo has not been photo-shopped and since it could very well have been taken on 3^rd May, it only remains to ACCEPT that it is a GENUINE CLAIM on the part of the McCanns that the photo proves that Madeleine and Gerry were actually present at the pool side at the claimed time of 2.29 on 3^rd May 2007.

HelenMeg wrote:If Bobbin goes then I will certainly follow.
The tone and attitude of the forum has changed.
Amiable discussion has disappeared.

Still I have always and still do suspected Blue Bag of being on the other side.
He's subtle though!

Thetruth wrote:All discussion on this forum is between probable disrupters critical thinkers, around the last photo, or Smithman.