Re: Analyzing position of sun in last photo

by rustyjames 10.11.14 21:41

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.

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

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.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.14 23:10

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

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.14 23:25

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

by Guest 11.11.14 9:04

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'm afraid you're going to have to prove that assertion.

You know, with a diagram, sun angles, body posture, clothing folds.

You can do that can't you?

(Nice work rustyjames BTW).

by rustyjames 11.11.14 9:29

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.

by rustyjames 11.11.14 9:51

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.

by bobbin 11.11.14 10:59

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

So well done Tony, and thank you very much, for your exceptional input.
After a great deal of introspection and analysis form various members of this forum, you have now given us the unquestionable and definitive declaration that the last pool photo has NOT BEEN PHOTO-SHOPPED and is IN FACT a GENUINE PHOTO.
This has been CONFIRMED, firstly by TWO EXPERTS and now, as a result of close scrutiny using various methods of scientific analysis.
You and PeterMac claim that, because of the cool, cloudy and windy weather conditions shown on charts for 3^rd May 2007, this genuine photograph must have been taken on 29^th April 2007.
Unfortunately, a poster has posted a picture of people on the beach, in their swimwear, in the sun, and in the sea, for 3^rd May, in the very close vicinity to Praia da Luz.
This posted photo, with its EXIF data, debunks your argument which rested entirely upon excluding May 3^rd as being a possible day for the last photo.
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.
This now means that Maddie was healthy, happy and very much alive at the time claimed by the McCs, and, if they have told the truth here, then how can anyone assume that they have not told the truth throughout.
They have claimed since the beginning that Madeleine was abducted and with the new SY and PJ questioning of various other people at PdL I fully expect that some ‘burgulator’ will be found to have perpetrated the claimed crime.
With ‘proof ‘from statements placing Maddie at tea at the Tapas around 5.30, and with his statement of seeing Maddie and the siblings around 6.30 in the apartment, David Payne furthermore confirms Madeleine’s happy presence alive.
How the dogs managed to indicate blood (and subsequently blood was found) which apparently matched Maddie’s and how the ‘unreliable’ (according to Gerry) cadavour dog indicated ‘death’ behind the sofa where the blood was indicated and found, I cannot speculate.
Suffice it to say, you, Tony, have stated, in the ‘present tense’ in one of your recent posts that Gonçalo Amaral ‘believes’ (note this implies that he STILL believes) that Maddie was alive that evening.
I really can’t see now what anyone has been doing here for the last 7 years, when it is all so very clear.
The last photo clearly, (as declared by you) a genuine photo, taken, according to the warm sunny weather shown on another photo posted for the 3^rd May, is just as it has been claimed by the parents, and the dogs must be wrong because further analysis of Maddie’s blood was found to be ‘inconclusive’ by the FSS and there would not have been time in between checks for cadavour odour to have developed.
Perhaps Andy Redwood is right not to be investigating the parents.
Perhaps this is not a ‘whitewash’ but a proper investigation to find the real perpetrator who is not part of the Tapas 9.
Perhaps, since there is NO SIGN nor EVIDENCE of any photo-shopping in the last photo, (and the inconsistencies perceived in the last photo by other posters, must all be spurious, including the vertical image on Gerry’s sunglasses, [for which, incidentally, you have not yet given me a convincing explanation]) this genuine photo must be accepted as proof that the parents have been telling the truth all along.
I will now be leaving this forum. There is nothing more that I can do for Maddie.

by Guest 11.11.14 11:06

Bizarre.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.11.14 11:09

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).

Could you please reconsider that, rustyjames?

The sun moves round 360 degrees in 24 hours - 15 degrees per hour.

It is due south (180 degrees) at 1.30pm - 1.35pm in Praia da Luz, we are all agreed on that.

Therefore one hour later, 2.30pm - 2.35pm, it is at 195 degrees.

Isn't this correct?

by **Tony Bennett** 11.11.14 11:18

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.

I have just left this one sentence in your extended and vitriolic rant.

I have done so because it is one of many examples in your rant where you have wholly misrepresented what I've been saying on this matter (the Last Photo) and several other related matters.

I am not going to answer them because I think all fair posters on here will immediately see that your points are untrue, distorted and unfair.

Undoubtedly the balance of technical, forensic argument on this and other 'Last Photo' threads has been in favour of the Last Photo being genuine, with no photoshopping but with, shall we say, a strong possibility of it having been taken on another day.

I will be sorry to see you leave the forum, but if you do leave, it will be after you have not patiently tried to counteract the evidence presented by e.g. rustyjames and BlueBag, but instead with an angry and somewhat abusive rant.

On the Last Photo, as in all matters on this case, I seek only the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

by HelenMeg 11.11.14 11:21

Post deleted

by Guest 11.11.14 11:32

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!

I'm not Tony Bennett any more now, I'm on TM?

I'm a robust debater and I take no prisoners. I don't like foolishness and I don't like disinformation designed to cloud a real issue.

Instead of attacking me, why not tell us why I'm wrong about the last photo.

You can pick any of the points I've made in this and the other thread.

by The....truth 11.11.14 11:49

Post deleted

by Guest 11.11.14 11:54

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

I fixed that for you.

This topic has been unlocked so that useful discussions about the Last Photo and the position of the sun etc. can continue.

Would all posters please stick to the topic and refrain from any abuse of other posters.

Reply by rustyjames to Tony Bennett post below

rustyjames wrote:

The calculation is more complex than 15 degrees an hour, I guess because of the way it arcs overhead and not around the horizon.

Wikipedia has the calculation [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], but it's much easier to use one of the online calculators such as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Best regards,
rustyjames

by **PeterMac** 11.11.14 14:56

Perhaps the Force 4 wind directly into Gerry's face moved the shadows round

by juliet 11.11.14 15:03

Bobbin I agree with your findings 100%. Thank you for your clarity. Atomic Peanut made the point a long time ago that there was sunshine on May 3 and Gerry was hot and red because he came straight from tennis. QED.

by Guest 11.11.14 15:28

juliet wrote:Bobbin I agree with your findings 100%.

What specifically are you agreeing with? That the shadow on the shirt is impossible?

Thank you for your clarity. Atomic Peanut made the point a long time ago that there was sunshine on May 3 and Gerry was hot and red because he came straight from tennis. QED

Is that what Kate said in the book?

by **PeterMac** 11.11.14 16:38

juliet wrote:Bobbin I agree with your findings 100%. Thank you for your clarity. Atomic Peanut made the point a long time ago that there was sunshine on May 3 and Gerry was hot and red because he came straight from tennis. QED.

Atomic Peanut did indeed make that point. Even though it is wrong.
But don't let the facts get in the way of an exculpatory theory.

by **PeterMac** 11.11.14 17:54

Bring me sunshine
On the Third
Bring me . . .

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

by **Tony Bennett** 11.11.14 18:33

juliet wrote:Bobbin I agree with your findings 100%. Thank you for your clarity. Atomic Peanut made the point a long time ago that there was sunshine on May 3 and Gerry was hot and red because he came straight from tennis. QED.

juliet, sorry, but your attempts to prove that the photo really was taken at 2.29pm on 3 May are getting feebler and feebler.

'Straight from tennis' at 2.29pm???

Have you read 'madeleine' by Dr Kate McCann?

On pp. 65-6 she gives a detailed description of how she and Madeleine 'met up with' Gerry and the twins, they had a leisurely lunch together, then sat quietly by the pool during the luncl-time period.

'Straight from tennis'??

Gerry is in his ordinary clothes, not his tennis gear.

Straight from tennis??

Where do you get this from please?

You state it is a fact. But it is not, is it? If it is not a fact, you need to withdraw that statement.

Talking of tennis, if you read the accounts of what Gerry McCann did that afternoon, he was either playing tennis or 'hanging around the tennis courts' most of the time from around 3pm to 8pm.

This included the most remarkable feat of playing a game of 'social tennis' sometime between 7pm and 8pm with his Tapas friends, despite having been unable to continue at 4.30pm - when he 'knocked up' for yet another tennis session - due to an extremely painful 'Achilles tendon injury'.

This appears to be the most dramatic recovery from an Achilles tendon injury in world history.

But then he is a doctor

by j.rob 11.11.14 18:36

No-one is under any obligation on this forum to 'prove' anything. An opinion is just that - an opinion.

In my opinion the 'last photo' is fake. It looks like a desperate attempt by the McCanns to place the family in a happy little gathering on Thursday lunchtime. When that was not what was happening.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.11.14 18:40

j.rob wrote:No-one is under any obligation on this forum to 'prove' anything. An opinion is just that - an opinion.

In my opinion the 'last photo' is fake. It looks like a desperate attempt by the McCanns to place the family in a happy little gathering on Thursday lunchtime. When that was not what was happening.

Fine, but may I ask you to summarise your evidence that it is fake - thanks

by j.rob 11.11.14 18:48

I've written extensively on this thread why in my opinion the photo appears to be a fake. The body proportions are wrong. Amelie's right arm is missing. Gerry's upper body is far too big for his lower body. Amelie's right hand is not flat on the pool-side but appears to be hanging down which is inconsistent with the bent elbow of the left arm.

Madeleine's head is at an impossible angle to her body and appears 'stuck on'. Gerry is 'floating' above the pool.

What they are wearing is inconsistent with a relatively cool day with a fairly strong wind. The water would be chilly so I think it is unlikely they would be sitting with their legs in the water in such light clothes.

And so on. The whole photo looks like a composite to me. With no interaction between any of them. Gerry staring in desperation at whoever is taking the photograph. Despite Gerry and Amelie being so close together there is no interaction at all between them. And his right arm fades somewhat strangely behind her.

As others have said, Gerry's legs also look odd.

Those are just my views on the 'last photo'.

Plus, why did it take so long to be published? Three weeks - that is ludicrous, as Gerry would say.

by j.rob 11.11.14 19:05

Another link to discussions on 'the last photo':

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

I would be fascinated in getting some more opinions from professional photographers on 'the last photo'.

by Guest 11.11.14 19:11

j.rob wrote:I've written extensively on this thread why in my opinion the photo appears to be a fake. The body proportions are wrong.

OK baby steps again...

One at a time.

Show us how you measured the body proportions as wrong?

by **PeterMac** 11.11.14 20:27

Tony Bennett wrote:
On pp. 65-6 she gives a detailed description of how she and Madeleine 'met up with' Gerry and the twins, they had a leisurely lunch together, then sat quietly by the pool during the lunch-time period.

In the teeth of a full Force 4 stiff breeze blowing in from the WSW across waste land, a road and a very low wall with minimal vegetation, right in their faces
On an already fairly cold day, where the wind chill factor would have made this very unpleasant, but Madeleine's hat perched cheerily on her head, the stands of her baby soft fine hair hang loosely down
and Gerry sits, perspiring gently, with sunglasses on . . .

If anyone wants to SEE the wind conditions have a look at
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by j.rob 11.11.14 20:28

Okay, baby steps, bluebag.

The human eye and the human brain are highly sophisticated devices. My eye and my brain are signalling to me that there are many things wrong with 'the last photo'.

Just as they are signalling to me that the whole story as concocted by Team McCann is a pile of poo.

And not just 'the last photo' - nearly every single photo that the McCann's have released. They nearly all look very odd.

The human brain and eyes and perceptions have been honed over hundreds of thousands of years.

I find my perceptions very useful in guiding me in certain directions.

So, bluebag, show me how the body proportions are right?

by Guest 11.11.14 20:43

j.rob wrote:Okay, baby steps, bluebag.

The human eye and the human brain are highly sophisticated devices. My eye and my brain are signalling to me that there are many things wrong with 'the last photo'.

Is that it?

You must have some scientific way, surely?

So, bluebag, show me how the body proportions are right?

I don't have to. I'm not making an extraordinary claim.

I accept that cameras are not great at capturing proportions. It's that focal length and distance thing again.

Maybe you could watch this:

by juliet 11.11.14 20:49

I cannot believe TB!! I don't believe the photo was taken on May 3. But then I don't believe the photo was taken on the Saturday or Sunday or any other day. I have said repeatedly it is fake and I am baffled that TB and Bluebag try to force their views on everyone. But then TB has even started promoting the playground photo as genuine...

by juliet 11.11.14 20:55

May I say jrob, that imo TB and Bluebag are so fixated on the weather and shadows that they have forgotten how to use their eyes. Or common sense. I am now goggling at McCann's huge fat Popeye lower arm which you pointed out. As big as Amelie's head.