Re: Holiday weather

by The Snapper 05.01.14 15:02

Well the first thing I notice daffodil is that the scraggy tree on the right didn't have a single leaf when the playground photo was "taken" (allegedly on May 2) but was covered with leaves on May 11. Thanks for those excellent links

by Rasputin 05.01.14 15:11

The Snapper wrote:Well the first thing I notice daffodil is that the scraggy tree on the right didn't have a single leaf when the playground photo was "taken" (allegedly on May 2) but was covered with leaves on May 11. Thanks for those excellent links

I noticed this too snapper I believe the tree is a jacaranda

by Guest 05.01.14 15:17

Rasputin wrote:
The Snapper wrote:Well the first thing I notice daffodil is that the scraggy tree on the right didn't have a single leaf when the playground photo was "taken" (allegedly on May 2) but was covered with leaves on May 11. Thanks for those excellent links
I noticed this too snapper I believe the tree is a jacaranda

Was just about to say the same thing - my favourite tree, blooms in May.

Weren't there some photos (the pool/last photo) with something that looked like bourgainvilla in the background? That flowers June/July

by beijos 05.01.14 15:22

Clay Regazzoni wrote:Thanks for the interesting post Beijos. I know the Algarve very well. Whereabouts do you reside? There is much speculation about the Guadiana river as a final resting place, what do you think? The area between the Eastern Algarve and, say, Aljustrel to the north is just one enormous uninhabited hinterland - I would feel reasonably confident about "losing" a small body out there without much chance of discovery.

We're in Western Algarve, not far from Luz.

I've read the threads speculating about the Guadiana river, and disposal on the way to Huelva (A very odd place to go to in itself). However, I don't buy it given the amount of attention they had. Also, how would you bury the body without mechanical means of digging a hole. It's even hotter there in the summer, and the ground would be stronger than concrete. Also, you have the issue of dogs digging up anything that is buried, and people are out hunting a lot in those parts. Not to mention the locals, who would notice a strange vehicle (even briefly passing through). For example, you've probably noticed either cork, or cut firewood in piles lying by the side of the road. Looking like it's been there for years (it has). But should you disturb, even one piece, you can bet your bottom dollar, by nightfall, the town square rumor mill will have the locals locking everything down for fear of an invasion of "gypsy rogues" .

FWIW. My profile pic is taken on the Spanish side of the river, not far from Ayamonte.

by Guest 05.01.14 15:34

beijos wrote:
We're in Western Algarve, not far from Luz.

I've read the threads speculating about the Guadiana river, and disposal on the way to Huelva (A very odd place to go to in itself). However, I don't buy it given the amount of attention they had. Also, how would you bury the body without mechanical means of digging a hole. It's even hotter there in the summer, and the ground would be stronger than concrete. Also, you have the issue of dogs digging up anything that is buried, and people are out hunting a lot in those parts. Not to mention the locals, who would notice a strange vehicle (even briefly passing through). For example, you've probably noticed either cork, or cut firewood in piles lying by the side of the road. Looking like it's been there for years (it has). But should you disturb, even one piece, you can bet your bottom dollar, by nightfall, the town square rumor mill will have the locals locking everything down for fear of an invasion of "gypsy rogues" .

FWIW. My profile pic is taken on the Spanish side of the river, not far from Ayamonte.

Cheers Beijos. Been to Ayamonte too, back in the days when you could get the train all the way to VRSA Guadiana and straight onto the ferry. I appreciate what you say about the attention but it seems like they acted with a lot of impunity in those days - it would make sense for the PJ to track their vehicle but was it done? And even if you could know where the vehicle had been, you might retrace the route and still not find the body? I didn't think burial would be necessary personally, just get the body far enough off the beaten track and then let the wildlife take care of the rest. You'd be trusting to luck to get away with it, but good fortune is one thing they've never appeared to be short of.

There are of course other theories about the PJ having been in possession of the body from way back, depending on how "tin foil hat" you want to get.

by beijos 05.01.14 16:00

Clay Regazzoni wrote:Cheers Beijos. Been to Ayamonte too, back in the days when you could get the train all the way to VRSA Guadiana and straight onto the ferry. I appreciate what you say about the attention but it seems like they acted with a lot of impunity in those days - it would make sense for the PJ to track their vehicle but was it done? And even if you could know where the vehicle had been, you might retrace the route and still not find the body? I didn't think burial would be necessary personally, just get the body far enough off the beaten track and then let the wildlife take care of the rest. You'd be trusting to luck to get away with it, but good fortune is one thing they've never appeared to be short of.

There are of course other theories about the PJ having been in possession of the body from way back, depending on how "tin foil hat" you want to get.

Faily sure you still can get the train to Vila Real and ferry across. Although we drive (as gas is cheaper in Spain), with a quick trip around the free zoo in the park.

It's not so much the wild life, it's the insects. I read somewhere, about 9 days for a body of that size to be "eaten" for that time of the year. Would have thought it quicker given the amount of ants here.

Talking of hire cars, the PJ files indicate excessive kilometres travelled for both the McCann and Murat vehicles. Wouldn't read to much into that, as I'd suspect the rental companies lent to others, or used the cars themselves. Not everything in Portugal goes through the books.

If the PJ had the body, they'd solve the crime. Don't forget, that concealment of a cadaver is a crime in Portugal.

beijos.

by **PeterMac** 05.01.14 16:03

daffodil wrote:
Weren't there some photos (the pool/last photo) with something that looked like bourgainvilla in the background? That flowers June/July

be careful with Bougainvillea.
I nipped out one minute ago and took these in my patio. 17:01 Hrs local, Sunday 5th Jan 2014
2,500 ft above sea level, Southern Spain.
11ºC outside at the moment, but frost on the cars overnight.
Holiday weather - Page 6 <a href=

" />

" />

by Woofer 05.01.14 16:22

PeterMac wrote:
daffodil wrote:
Weren't there some photos (the pool/last photo) with something that looked like bourgainvilla in the background? That flowers June/July
be careful with Bougainvillea.
I nipped out one minute ago and took these in my patio. 17:01 Hrs local, Sunday 5th Jan 2014
2,500 ft above sea level, Southern Spain.
11ºC outside at the moment, but frost on the cars overnight.
" />" />

Pics didn`t appear until I used the quote box.

Amazing - and you`re further north and higher !

Blimey ...

by beijos 05.01.14 16:36

Same here in the Algarve at sea level with the bougainvillea. All in flowers, and come to think of it, flowers all year around (maybe not in August-October).

by Guest 05.01.14 16:36

PeterMac wrote:
daffodil wrote:
Weren't there some photos (the pool/last photo) with something that looked like bourgainvilla in the background? That flowers June/July
be careful with Bougainvillea.
I nipped out one minute ago and took these in my patio. 17:01 Hrs local, Sunday 5th Jan 2014
2,500 ft above sea level, Southern Spain.
11ºC outside at the moment, but frost on the cars overnight.
" />" />

PM: this time last year I was pruning (hacking) my bougainvillea, so first assumed you meant "take care" with it as it is a vicious shrub.

by Guest 05.01.14 16:53

So sorry; the purple leaves are not flowers but leaves protecting the tiny flowers proper and attracting the occasional humming bird (where these occur)

by The Snapper 05.01.14 19:47

Further proof that the people shadows in the playground photo are impossible.

The very short shadows in this picture DSCF0122 (link below, much thanks to gerrymccannsblogs and Sierralima, scroll down) indicate a high sun between 1pm and 2pm. The photo was taken between 4 and 6 June 2007. Note the direction of the shadows. Allowing for perspective, they are virtually perpendicular to the wire fence enclosing the tennis courts.

High sun

In the playground photo, the shadows have moved through at least 90 degrees and maybe as much as 110 degrees.

This means at least 6 hours and maybe over 7 hours later (the shadow lengths but not the angles are affected by the change of month)

That would take the timing of the playground photo to 7pm at the very earliest but probably a bit later (earlier I estimated 7.30pm as the sun appears to be due west)

This is impossible as the shadows would be much longer by then (6 times the length of the people)

Therefore the playground photo is impossible

by Guest 05.01.14 20:05

The Snapper wrote:Further proof that the people shadows in the playground photo are impossible.

The very short shadows in this picture DSCF0122 (link below, much thanks to gerrymccannsblogs and Sierralima, scroll down) indicate a high sun between 1pm and 2pm. The photo was taken between 4 and 6 June 2007. Note the direction of the shadows. Allowing for perspective, they are virtually perpendicular to the wire fence enclosing the tennis courts.

High sun

In the playground photo, the shadows have moved through at least 90 degrees and maybe as much as 110 degrees.

This means at least 6 hours and maybe over 7 hours later (the shadow lengths but not the angles are affected by the change of month)

That would take the timing of the playground photo to 7pm at the very earliest but probably a bit later (earlier I estimated 7.30pm as the sun appears to be due west)

This is impossible as the shadows would be much longer by then (6 times the length of the people)

Therefore the playground photo is impossible

Goodness, you have been working hard Snapper. I think I grasp what you say, but have the question - are you meaning that none,of the figures can be explained, not one of them ?

Or have shadows on all been edited to accommodate certain figures. ?

by The Snapper 05.01.14 20:18

If the people are really there, why would anyone move the shadows, daffodil?

Maybe to indicate a different time of day I suppose, but you would have to choose one that made sense.

All the shadows of the people are impossible except the brown haired girl in the foreground if the time of the photo was 4pm-ish.

Not just unlikely; impossible.

The angle of the shadows of all the others indicates about 7.30pm (that's when the the sun is due west in PdL in summer) but they aren't nearly long enough, by a considerable way.

In any case, at 7.30 the whole tone of the picture would be changing to a golden glow as daylight turns to evening. And all the kids would be in bed including the two being carried by the passers-by.

The playground photo surely can't be an official picture because it's a visual joke.

by Guest 05.01.14 20:34

The Snapper wrote:If the people are really there, why would anyone move the shadows, daffodil?

Maybe to indicate a different time of day I suppose, but you would have to choose one that made sense.

All the shadows of the people are impossible except the brown haired girl in the foreground if the time of the photo was 4pm-ish.

Not just unlikely; impossible.

The angle of the shadows of all the others indicates about 7.30pm (that's when the the sun is due west in PdL in summer) but they aren't nearly long enough, by a considerable way.

In any case, at 7.30 the whole tone of the picture would be changing to a golden glow as daylight turns to evening. And all the kids would be in bed including the two being carried by the passers-by.

The playground photo surely can't be an official picture because it's a visual joke.

I think it's irrelevant anyway because it's not definitively a picture of Maddie. Just "a girl" at best. Why release it? I reckon I have about 5000 photos of my daughter - if someone wanted one why would I release one that didn't show her face?

by The Snapper 05.01.14 20:41

That's one of the reasons why I find it hard to believe the playground photo was officially released to the press, Clay. The other is: why would anyone expose to the scrutiny of the world a photo that is so obviously nonsense? It's like a Dali painting, lots going on but most of it impossible.
Was it perhaps sent to the media by a prankster?

by Guest 05.01.14 20:44

It is on the list of photos officially issued.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MCCANN_HOLIDAY.htm

by Guest 05.01.14 20:46

The Snapper wrote:That's one of the reasons why I find it hard to believe the playground photo was officially released to the press, Clay. The other is: why would anyone expose to the scrutiny of the world a photo that is so obviously nonsense? It's like a Dali painting, lots going on but most of it impossible.
Was it perhaps sent to the media by a prankster?

Heh, if you ask me, the whole thing is a "prank" - albeit not a very funny one. But I suspect there is somebody sat in a media monitoring unit right now laughing their caps off that you and I are wasting our Sunday evening even discussing this when we could be doing something - anything - else.

by ultimaThule 05.01.14 20:52

Gerry gets off on playing jokes - being able to fool others fosters his illusion that he is possessed of superior intelligence whereas, in fact, his iq is no more than average.

He's not even clever enough to stop himself being seen laughing up his sleeve at what he considers to be the stupidity of others, as evidenced by a wealth of footage which shows him virtually hugging himself with glee when he believes he's pulled the wool over the eyes of yet another less than incisive interviewer.

His spouse isn't particularly bright either, but at least she's mastered the art of keeping a straight face while on camera.

I daresay those two have enjoyed many a laugh at the gullibility of goodnatured folk while they counted the money and enjoyed the highlife it brought them but, despite the rictus grins they pinned on for yesterday's performance at Everton, I suspect the sound of laughter is rarely heard in Rothley Towers these days.

by The Snapper 05.01.14 20:53

While it's possible to have a debate about the last photo because that's all about solar elevation, when you know where the sun is in the sky at certain times of the day, it's impossible to make sense of the playground pic.
(for the record it's noon - south, 6pm - west, midnight - north, 6am - east, but you have to add an hour for BST/summer time in Portugal and there is a further adjustment of 30 mins for PdL because it's to the west of the meridian, hence the sun is in the S at 1.30pm and W at 7.30pm because it takes a bit longer to get there).
If the people really are there, the angle of their shadows has been changed from 4pm - bottom right to top left (when the background was photographed) to make it all look later in the day. But they've been swung round too far, and not lengthened enough, to be possible.
To bed now, to try to work it all out. Maybe I will have a explanatory dream about what was so significant about late afternoon on May 2.

by canada12 05.01.14 21:41

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
The Snapper wrote:That's one of the reasons why I find it hard to believe the playground photo was officially released to the press, Clay. The other is: why would anyone expose to the scrutiny of the world a photo that is so obviously nonsense? It's like a Dali painting, lots going on but most of it impossible.
Was it perhaps sent to the media by a prankster?

Heh, if you ask me, the whole thing is a "prank" - albeit not a very funny one. But I suspect there is somebody sat in a media monitoring unit right now laughing their caps off that you and I are wasting our Sunday evening even discussing this when we could be doing something - anything - else.

Depending on when the Playground photo was issued, I could see Gerry and Kate throwing out an obviously very badly Photoshopped picture, knowing people would look at it and say, "But this is so obviously Photoshopped, that must be how a Photoshopped picture must look!" Thus drawing attention away from certain other pictures which have been altered, with much more skill.

On one of the other forums I had an entire section which showed all of the photos and when they were released to the press, in chronological order. Alas, all deleted now, including off my hard drive.

My other thoughts are that:
1. It could have been a "practice" photo, created by whoever they had working on pictures
2. It was an inside joke by Kate and Gerry to make fun of people who were seriously looking at other photos and analyzing them

by Guest 05.01.14 22:59

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
The Snapper wrote:If the people are really there, why would anyone move the shadows, daffodil?

Maybe to indicate a different time of day I suppose, but you would have to choose one that made sense.

All the shadows of the people are impossible except the brown haired girl in the foreground if the time of the photo was 4pm-ish.

Not just unlikely; impossible.

The angle of the shadows of all the others indicates about 7.30pm (that's when the the sun is due west in PdL in summer) but they aren't nearly long enough, by a considerable way.

In any case, at 7.30 the whole tone of the picture would be changing to a golden glow as daylight turns to evening. And all the kids would be in bed including the two being carried by the passers-by.

The playground photo surely can't be an official picture because it's a visual joke.

I think it's irrelevant anyway because it's not definitively a picture of Maddie. Just "a girl" at best. Why release it? I reckon I have about 5000 photos of my daughter - if someone wanted one why would I release one that didn't show her face?

Because then it would appear the child in the snapshot is not your missing daughter?

by The Snapper 06.01.14 8:11

One of the things I find most fascinating about the playground photo is that the shadows of most of the people (but not the background) would appear to indicate the sun was almost exactly due west.

This does seem to be an amazing coincidence when you consider that the shadows in the last photo appear to show that the sun was almost exactly due south.

Of course these special moments in the solar day make it easy to know what time it is if you have a compass or map.

As I said above, as a general rule the sun is due west at 6pm. However, an extra 90 minutes has to be added for PdL in the summer.

One wonders if the shadows in the playground photo were supposed to suggest 6pm (which might have been believable). Instead, they indicate 7.30pm, which is impossible for the reasons given a few posts back - shadows not long enough, too much light in the sky, kids still out.

If that's the case, why would anyone want to create a scene denoting 6pm rather than approx 4pm, when the background to the photo appears to have been taken?

by **PeterMac** 06.01.14 8:22

Portia wrote:So sorry; the purple leaves are not flowers but leaves protecting the tiny flowers proper and attracting the occasional humming bird (where these occur)

Bracts, in fact.

by Guest 06.01.14 9:21

PeterMac wrote:
Portia wrote:So sorry; the purple leaves are not flowers but leaves protecting the tiny flowers proper and attracting the occasional humming bird (where these occur)
Bracts, in fact.

Good morning PM,

What, pray, is a bract?

Log in for more topics