Holiday weather

The Snapper wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:There was NO time difference between Portugal and the U.K. .....!

But BST is one hour ahead of GMT too, so it may also have been an hour out in the UK
If I hadn't been told that the photo was taken at 2.29pm in early May, I would have thought it was more like midday (1pm BST) because the sun is almost directly overhead the three subjects
It doesn't even look like early May, even on the southern tip of Portugal, but that doesn't make any sense so I must be mistaken
Oddly, the tree does cast a shadow away from the camera, and the same is probably true of the parasol, which according to Google Earth overlaps the grass but not by that much. But the shadows on the people are almost directly downwards
Interesting that they are directly facing the direction of the sun too because the shadows on them are symmetrical
The head shadow on the white T shirt and the one cast by Amelie's hat look more vertical than you would expect for mid afternoon in early May
And there are no shadows behind them mirroring the tree shadow
It's baffling

First of all, The Snapper, can I give you a warm and unequivocal welcome to this forum!

You have told us that you have been fascinated with the so-called 'Last Photo' 'since 2007' - seven years ago now!

How truly brilliant it is that you have now joined us nearly 7 years and about 2,500 days after the Last Photo was first published (somewhat mysteriously, a full three weeks after the photo was taken on Dr Kate McCann's camera). I think we are all truly grateful to you.

Earlier among your 13 posts so far today, you stated:  "...until now it nobody has been able to disprove [the] authenticity [of the Last Photo]. If however it can be shown that such a timing is impossible, you have to ask why. I admit I don't have answers, just observations..."

These are wise words.

Looking at the bits I've bolded in your post above, I see you find it all 'baffling'.

So, a few facts.

Yes, the shadows do look 'near-vertical'

A few facts:

1. As has been established elsewhere, the maximum height of the sun at Praia da Luz in Portuguese & British Summer Time (which is the same) is 1.35pm.

2. IF 'the Last Photo' was taken at 2.29pm, it was taken nearly an hour after the sun was at its maximum.

3. What height is the sun at 1.35pm in southern Portugal during the period 28 April to 3 May? Answer: about 67 degrees i.e. 23 degrees from the vertical.

4. At this height (which compares of the maximum angle of the sun in London on 22 June each year, 61 degrees), shadows do look very short. You can try this at home by placing an object under a light bulb so that the angle of the light is at 67 degrees to the object. It will throw a short shadow.

5. By the time the 'Last Photo' is said to have been taken, the sun's angle would be less than 67 degrees. It would only be about 59 degrees.

6. The very short shadows therefore suggest that the 'Last Photo' msut have been taken close to 1.35pm, rather than one hour later.

Thank you for that clarification Mr B, I've been on other forums but had given up years ago and only recently discovered this one

As I said earlier, the timeslot that the photo most closely fits is lunchtime on Saturday 28 April, but I understand they arrived about 3? That's no good because the sun is too high in the picture

I can't find any other moment of the week that matches the photo for all the criteria: wind, clouds, elevation of sun, temperature, time of day

Surprisingly, the CW 'Reconstruct' showed us a buxom KH in a black swimming suit sitting down next to the child-actress porting little Maddie.

Clearly, the message being:

1. Kate did not take the 'last picture' herself, and
2. Kate was there for a swim (otherwise: why the suit?)

Please note: Maddie the actress had her clothes on -> still had to change to get into the water

This may narrow it down a little further, as KH tells us in the Book, that Maddie insisted on going for a swim together with KH on the day of arrival

So Kate herself, by (1) the Book and (b) the Reconstruct, seems to date the last picture back to the day of their arrival.

The Snapper wrote:Thank you for that clarification Mr B, I've been on other forums but had given up years ago and only recently discovered this one.

Well I never.

As I said earlier, the timeslot that the photo most closely fits is lunchtime on Saturday 28 April, but I understand they arrived about 3? That's no good because the sun is too high in the picture.

I disagree with your proferred 'most closely fits' timeslot.

Therefore we have a problem.

One that you've created by getting the 'most closely fits' bit wrong.

I can't find any other moment of the week that matches the photo for all the criteria: wind, clouds, elevation of sun, temperature, time of day.

I can.

.

Is the idea on this forum that you have to go through a process of humiliation before you are accepted?

The Snapper wrote:Is the idea on this forum that you have to go through a process of humiliation before you are accepted?

No. The process of humiliation is a given, but acceptance is by no means guaranteed.

The Snapper wrote:Is the idea on this forum that you have to go through a process of humiliation before you are accepted?

It really depends on who you are.

Or who you are not.

It might be an idea if you could put forward a credible explanation for why this 'Last Photo' was held up for a full three weeks, and only after Dr Gerald McCann returned to England for the wekeend, before being shown to the public.

We had a previous claimed expert in photoshopping on here, Veritas, which in Latin means 'truth'. He couldn't think of one. 

Maybe at the same time you could also suggest why there are so few photos of Madeleine that week and also why there was no DNA of her. 

As you've had the 'Last Photo' on your mind for a full 7 years, you must have given this a thought.

Or two.

Or ten.

Please don't misunderstand me. I find your contributions of real interest.

No need for you to get snappy.

Well I don't have an explanation for any of those things and I'm not an expert in photoshopping either. My photos don't need photoshopping because they are good enough to start with.

However as someone who takes a lot of photos of people, one thing about the last photo immediately stands out for me as being strange. You don't have to know about sun elevation, shadows, wind etc.

The moment it was released I thought it was a pretty bad photo because everybody's looking in different directions.

Assuming it was taken with a digital camera, you would take one look at it and get them to pose again.

That would make it the penultimate photo.

So where is the actual last one, the good one that's a bit like this one only with the subjects looking like an ensemble?

If the sun was at its highest at 13.35, how far would it have 'moved' after 1 hr 25 mins, ie at 1500?

Or, even 1 hr, at about 14.35?

How much longer would the shadows be?

Maybe it's true what the McCanns say, that this is the last photo. It may be the last photo taken of Madeleine except not in Portugal.
Surely they should have taken scores of photos of the kids that week, that's what people do on holiday.
Maybe Madeleine wasn't there to photograph for most of that week so they had to use old ones for the posters and then Gerry had to return home in order to pick up the very last photo of Madeleine ever taken.
Who knows?

Found a website that helps with the sun position/shadows.

www.findmyshadow.com

I punched in the approx location and date (Sat 28th April 2007) - here are the results:



Your Results
You specified the following details:

Location:

37.072° N 8.720° W

Date:

28-04-2007

Timezone:

(GMT)

Sun position table:

Local Time (GMT)	Azimuth (deg. from N)	Altitude (deg.)	Shadow length (multiplyer)
05:47	71.891	RISE	-
06:00	73.839	1.912	29.955
06:30	78.238	7.723	7.374
07:00	82.570	13.626	4.125
07:30	86.926	19.588	2.810
08:00	91.410	25.575	2.090
08:30	96.144	31.549	1.629
09:00	101.287	37.467	1.305
09:30	107.052	43.273	1.062
10:00	113.738	48.886	0.873
10:30	121.767	54.189	0.722
11:00	131.719	58.996	0.601
11:30	144.274	63.017	0.509
12:00	159.869	65.841	0.449
12:30	177.889	67.010	0.424
13:00	196.213	66.276	0.439
13:30	212.485	63.801	0.492
14:00	225.733	60.019	0.577
14:30	236.232	55.368	0.691
15:00	244.653	50.164	0.834
15:30	251.611	44.613	1.014
16:00	257.563	38.848	1.242
16:30	262.834	32.956	1.542
17:00	267.652	26.997	1.963
17:30	272.187	21.018	2.603
18:00	276.570	15.056	3.718
18:30	280.906	9.146	6.211
19:00	285.288	3.322	17.229
19:21	288.431	SET	-

From the above, it seems that there is negligible difference in shadow length between the times 13.30 and 1500. The angle is minimally different.

What does everyone else think?

Casey5 wrote:Maybe it's true what the McCanns say, that this is the last photo. It may be the last photo taken of Madeleine except not in Portugal.
Surely they should have taken scores of photos of the kids that week, that's what people do on holiday.
Maybe Madeleine wasn't there to photograph for most of that week so they had to use old ones for the posters and then Gerry had to return home in order to pick up the very last photo of Madeleine ever taken.
Who knows?

In which case the "very last photo of Madeleine ever taken" would appear to have been taken in the summer following her third birthday and begs the question of who the child with crimped hair and teeth that have grown in accordance with age appropriate physical development is?

Quite apart from the teeth, the allegedly 2 year old Amelie as pictured in the 'last photo' looks to be not dissimilar in size to her older sibling who was, again allegedly, rising 4 years when the shot was taken.

Remember that Portuguese time in May is GMT plus 1 hour, Lance

So for 13.30 you should look at 12.30 on your table

according to your table the sun was at its highest around 12.30 GMT (67 degrees)

the photo was said to have been taken at approx 13.30 GMT (63.8 degrees)

at 15.00 (ie 14.00 GMT) the sun was at 60 degrees

have some fun with this shadow length calculator -

Shadow Length Calculator

It isn't so much the difference in shadow lengths that I don't understand, it's the fact that there are no shadows extending from the personnel, only downwards and at a very small angle. In contrast, the tree and parasol shadows look ok from your table and my calculator

So where are they?

The sun appears to be almost directly overhead (nearly 90 degrees). Otherwise why is Maddie's face in the shade when the brim of her hat is only a small one? There should also be a shadow about 8 inches long behind her. But there isn't. Strange to say, the sun is never that high.

Hello Snapper.

It gets even weirder when you look at the 'playground picture', where the shadows seem to come in from three different directions.

This is the picture with GM bending forward to a Maddie with 2 left legs and a bald man looking on behind them

I've never understood that photo, it's got too much going on in it and looks more like a grab from a movie. You are suggesting that the playhouse should cast a shadow in the same direction as the legs?

Incidentally, using our shadow length calculator and Lance's sun elevation chart, the shadows look about 2/3 of the height of the people, which means the photo was taken around 11.30am or 3.30pm. Weren't the kids in the creche then?

Silly me - here it is with GMT +1:

My hunch on the last pic is that it was taken soon after arrival on the Saturday. But I know that many disagree.

Lance De Boils wrote:My hunch on the last pic is that it was taken soon after arrival on the Saturday. But I know that many disagree.

***
Maybe not soon after arrival on Saturday, yet very well possible. But Sunday at the latest, I would say. For more than one reason ...

Portia wrote:Hello Snapper.

It gets even weirder when you look at the 'playground picture', where the shadows seem to come in from three different directions.

This is the picture with GM bending forward to a Maddie with 2 left legs and a bald man looking on behind them

In that pic, we are facing roughly east, between the small pool and the tennis courts, and looking towards the tapas bar, so the length of the shadows (such as they are) suggest it is mid afternoon

but the sun appears to be almost due west, maybe even slightly north of west, which would make it around 7.30pm - ie 6.30pm GMT - (but this would make the shadows six times longer then the people)

and people aren't dressed for early evening

Yes that is truly weird

Playground photo

Lance De Boils wrote:From the above, it seems that there is negligible difference in shadow length between the times 13.30 and 1500. The angle is minimally different.
What does everyone else think?

It hardly matters, because the sun was not shining on Thursday lunchtime, not until very late afternoon / early evening, when the week long cloud cover began finally to clear away.
As all the Tapas group helpfully confirm. See their rogatories for first hand confirmation.
There was however a force 3 - 4 breeze which would have whipped hats off and chilled little children to the marrow.
Kate tells us that a very light end of Force 3 "Whooshed" the curtains from trapped behind the bed and the chair, and slammed the door twice, so a child's sun hat would stand no chance in a full Force 4
It was also still freezing cold - see the ever helpful Jane Tanner's rogatory about flapping around in her flip-flops and Partner's thick fleece and making such a song and dance about it
Friday was much better, however, and most of them left on Saturday.

I agree that it doesn't fit with Thursday.

I'm really testing whether 3pm ish on the Sat is a possibility.

It's Gerry's t-shirt that bugs me - makes me think arrival day. I'm just seeing if the shadows/weather/anything else would be consistent with that. 

(And as an aside, the whooshing curtain/slamming door story would be more pausible if Kate had been talking about Monday.)

I've tried to do a similar weather analysis on the playground photo but it isn't possible because the shadows are contradictory so it's impossible to say what time of day it is

Playground photo

The shadow inside the playhouse suggests a sun elevation of about 50 degrees, which would make it about 4pm.

but the direction of the shadows of the people indicates a sun in the west (very close to due west I would say if you look at Google Earth), which would occur at PdL that day at about 7.30pm

So is it 4pm or 7.30pm? The problem with 7.30pm is that the shadows aren't nearly long enough and the kids wouldn't be out playing at that time

The general feel of the photo says 4pm.

So why is the sun in the wrong place in the sky and why aren't the shadows 6 times the length of the people, as they should be for 7.30pm?

The other point about this photo I don't understand is the subject material - it's a mess, two passers-by plus a stranger looking on, and the subjects just getting on with what they're doing.

In a publicity photo you always stress the subject, so why release this as a photo illustrating Maddie when you can't see her face?

The Snapper wrote:I've tried to do a similar weather analysis on the playground photo but it isn't possible because the shadows are contradictory so it's impossible to say what time of day it is

Playground photo

The shadow inside the playhouse suggests a sun elevation of about 50 degrees, which would make it about 4pm

but the direction of the shadows of the people indicates a sun in the west (very close to due west I would say if you look at Google Earth), which would occur at PdL that day at about 7.30pm

So is it 4pm or 7.30pm? The problem with 7.30pm is that the shadows aren't nearly long enough and the kids wouldn't be out playing at that time

The general feel of the photo says 4pm

So why is the sun in the wrong place in the sky and why aren't the shadows 6 times the length of the people, as they should be?

  

Pure guess, based, not on the photos themselves, but mostly on a lifetime of experience of holidays and people watching on a "communidad"
and re-inforced by what Kate described in the book about arrival day - rushing off and M throwing herself in the pool, and needing 3 hours to warm up afterwards . . .
On arrival people often drop the suitcases, unpacking only to the extent of putting on shirts and T shirt and sandles with socks - whatever the weather !
Then they charge around, nip into the mini-market, pick up some booze and nibbles, flick round the pool and the shop and the kids play area
Look at the available eateries, examining the menus outside in great detail,
Find the tennis courts and ask about booking procedures and kit rental,
and if they have kids, play on the equipment for a short time, the kids being totally hyper-active
and TAKE PHOTOS.
Lots of PHOTOS these days, when a camera memory stick can hold thousands
And those initial photos are "snaps" not set up, not framed, just point and click.
(Later in the holiday people may become more discerning and may try to compose photos, macros of individual flowers, zoom in and out, change angles and take account of sun direction, and ensure that only the family are in shot - but not on day 1)

Then, when the kids are tired, return to the apartment, settle the kids down with the TV, then unpack properly, pull the furniture round to suit, move beds, put stuff in the wardrobes,
look at the kitchen equipment,
then have a drink, and go out again fairly early for dinner.

Does that sound familiar to anyone, either through personal experience or observation ?
That make it very possible that all the playground pictures were taken on day 1, the Satuday, mid to late afternoon, when we know the weather was good.
And incidentally why everyone else was also out and about, and many people feature in the background to the photos, which they don't in subsequent one.

Saturday was good, Sunday was a good day, Monday was cloudy, Tuesday horible, Wednesday it rained, Thursday it gradually began to clear later on, and Friday was more of less OK again though there was still a big cloud bank out to the West as it finally cleared away
It was then clear and sunny mid June, as we see from all the pictures available of the following three months free holiday frantic searching.

Can't prove it obviously, but it fits not only with the weather reports, but with common sense and human experience.