The Fatima D115 Photo

Scroll down to read

Solar noon: the best time of day for our estimate!

Analysis of the D115 Fatima picture

Thanks to the kind collaboration of the Archives of the Sanctuary of Fatima, we analyzed six high-resolution photographs D110, D113 to D116 and D118 out of a series of photos taken at the Cova da Iria, Portugal, Saturday October 13, 1917, around 12 pm solar time (13h 21' 04'' local time). Those were taken by Judah Bento Ruah for the O Seculo newspaper founded by the Grand Master of Portuguese Masonry Sebastião de Magalhães Lima (Minister of Education in the Republican government after the liberal coup of 1915). Some photos were published two days later, and the more interesting ones for us, on October 29, 1917, in the O Seculo's illustrated magazine "Ilustração Portuguesa". Only committed laymen published photos, and these were only shots of the crowd. Not having a direct picture of the main light source (was it the sun ?) is certainly unfortunate: with some more details of the photo of the sun (to determine the horizon and the field of view), it would than have been much easier to calculate the light source elevation (as the center of the sun is the vanishing point on its photo).

Actually, the real question is: Why didn't committed secular photographers and journalists (the only ones who certify having brought professional cameras), take and publish direct photos of the "sun" ? This may be a surprise for those who know little about Press Photography a century ago. We see several possible reasons for this (see also my paper):

1° There were few photographers when cameras and light-sensitive plates were bulky and difficult to use; few photographers ventured to take pictures in this dreary weather and remote place, risking damage to their cameras and to miss pictures;

2° Although the crowd and press came to witness or not, a miracle predicted 3 months earlier, nobody thought they had to photograph the sun, which required additional special equipment. This was a surprise solar event : meteo- or astro- photographers would have taken sophisticated equipment if scientifically notified of the location, time, and type of some aerial event.

3° Many press photographers did not use filters, as any extra manipulation could slow down the taking of pictures. They very rarely take pictures of the sky, being usually interested in terrestrial events, leaving the task of photographing the sky and its stars to specialists.

4° Why didn't free thinker journalist Avelino de Almeida ask Bento Ruah to take a picture of the so-called "Sun": hypnotized by the vision? impractical shot ? or... simply, because this object was moving quickly in the sky ? Lots of witnesses reported that the "sun" moved, danced and spun quickly, varying intensity and colors, as evidenced in particular by Almeida's article published in O Seculo on Monday October 15, 1917, with the eloquent title : "Amazing things! How the Sun danced at noon in Fatima". So it seemed impossible for those reporters, even if they had all the needed instruments, to take a successful shot, without tracking the jerky movements with the right diaphragm's opening and shutting speed. Besides, as the solar disk is only ~0.5° wide, it required a telephoto lens to discern its fine details. Moreover, the fast rotation and the multicolored sparks would have had a photographic rendering particularly blurred in black and white (B/W chemical emulsions of the negative plates had a spectral response that strongly amplified the bluish lights, as in the case of a sunny or overcast sky, with a color temperature > 6000 °K; without adequate filters, the problem is that of the contrast dynamics in bluish lights, and not so much that of their intensity, which can be compensated for in the developer).

Any press photographer, like Bento Ruah, knew very well that, if he had used filters, he would not have been able to take about 10 photos in 10 minutes, but 2 or 3 at most, and which would only show a small very white spot on a light white background, without any distinct crowd... nothing easier to falsify, and therefore... inadmissible as scientific proof! So, in view of what was happening, it is much more likely that Avelino de Almeida and/or Bento Ruah did not consider to take a shot of the sun, at the risk of missing the photos and losing precious time to take photos of the crowd, easier to get and harder to falsify as many witnesses were identifiable and contactable.

We will estimate the elevation of the sun from one of these photos, number D115, presented here below with reduced resolution.

The denoised photo D115 (original https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:People_looking_miracle_sun.jpg; resolution: 1669x1181 - 1.5K. Credit: Judah Ruah, for the newspaper O Seculo, published the 1917-09-29 on the magazine"Illustracao Portugueza", slight 2D denoising by DENOISE® projects standard).

Actually, for our research, we used the far better 6K resolution version (from the "Arquivo do Santuário de Fátima"). The aspect ratio is ~1.413. We estimate that the original negative plate was a standard 12 x 9 cm continental plate used by Press photographers. The corrected aspect ratio is then 1.333.

See below a more detailed explanation on how to estimate the position of VP and the focal length, in particular this video.

This video analyses the D115 photo taken around solar noon at Fatima on October 13, 1917. Using the template presented here, the "sun's" elevation is estimated to be ~28°, quite less than the expected ~42° for the real sun, so that the actual light source cannot be the sun. This estimation plus the distant directional effect "towards the Fatima Mountains" questions almost all current scientific explanations presented so far of the miracle of the "sun": meteorological (sundogs, ice or dust particles, auroras, etc.), physiological (eye conditions, phosphines, brain illusion, etc.), or psychological (mass hallucination or suggestion, lies, etc.).

The main arguments are given by:

1. some of the most credible eyewitnesses (Garrett, Lopes Vieira, etc.)
2. the meteorological data from the press and the CERA-20C European Project to rebuild 20th-century temperature and precipitation maps
3. the incoherence of meteorological hypotheses (sundogs or others) with halo simulation software
4. the in-depth analysis of Judah Ruah's photos taken around solar noon (13:21:04 local time), showing evidence of
  - some heavy rain closely before, followed by fast evaporation (wet and dry cloth IR-shadow patterns), and
  - the presence of two light sources in the sky, a sharp moonlike "sun" and a wide blurry light source at almost 90° height (i.e. around the vertical zenith), possibly a well-lit cloud
5. the comparative analysis of distant witnesses entailing the largely ignored "towards Fatima Mountains" directional effect, that contradicts most of the current hypotheses
6. the calculation of the 25 to 32° sun's elevation φ in the D115 photo, from the estimation of the sunray's Vanishing Point VP and the camera's center of view C, horizon center Hc, roll angle β, focal length FD and pitch angle α). The most probable height value is 28°, quite smaller than the expected 42.0° to 42.72° near solar noon in Fatima.

These arguments show that the main light source was neither the real sun, nor its atmospheric refractions or reflections, nor some hallucination or eye condition.

For more information, see my article in Scientia et Fides (March 2021): "Fatima Pictures and Testimonials: in-depth Analysis" (with free access to a PDF version on https://apcz.umk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/SetF/article/view/SetF.2021.001/28737 ).

The calculated position of the Sun takes into account atmospheric refraction (see here). For elevation angles between 5° and 85° the correction is estimated to be
58.1/tan(φ) - 0.07/tan3(φ) + 0.000086/tan5(φ) [in arcsec or '']
For an elevation of 42.72° this gives a correction of 62.8'' or about 1 minute of arc. For 28° the correction is about 108.8'' or less than 2 minutes of arc.

Visit the website https://www.suncalc.org for more information.

_____

Left: double shadow, a (from LSa) and b (from LSb) of a flat stone on a sloped surface, (☼: shadowless area; arrows: direction of LSa and LSb rays). The deep black of a+b bares a low ambient light. Right: LSa and LSb specular reflections on umbrella’s handle. Note also the lapel's shadow on the upright jacket front, and the reflections on the cornea of the eyes.

______

The strange characteristic of the projected shadows is explained by the presence of the sources LSa and LSb of similar intensities and the absence of other equally intense sources. This is unusual for two reasons:

1° the sun gives sharp but soft (not bright) shadows blurred by what seems to be a bright cloud in the vertical;

2° there is practically no ambient light since the double shadows (a + b in the picture) are very dark not only in the photo but also according to various testimonies.

As we have seen in our mathematical analysis, the main source of inaccuracy in estimating the elevation φ often comes down to the azimuth estimate. The azimuth AZ (relative to the photo's direction of view) is obviously greater than a few degrees, as seen in the shadows of the stick, the ear finger, and the index on the brim of the hat. As those shadows are near the center of the photo, they have small perspective distortions, and we estimate AZ ~ 30°...45°. AZ = 0° would give a shadow just behind the finger, as LSa would be straight behind the camera (but this is unrealistic, as the spectators look to the right), AZ = 90° would give a widespread shadow to the left with φ = γ (but then, the girl on the right would be completely shadowed as she looks the camera). Equation (15) gives:

φ = atan(b cos(α) |sin(AZ)|) ≤ γ = atan(b cos(α)) ≤ γ0= atan(b)

In our case, b = |(h-e)/a| ~ 0.9513; α ~ 4.79°; γ0= 43.57° and γ = 43.47°. For AZ = 30°...45° (or sin(AZ) ~ 0.5...0.707), we have φ = 25.36°...33.83°. Here are some results for FD = 30...45 mm.

Solar noon: the best time of day for our estimate!

As the photo was taken around solar noon at Fatima on October 13, 1917 (13h 21m 04s at the Cova da Iria - latitude 39.6317°, longitude -8.6729°, azimuth of the Sun 180°), the sun elevation is expected to be around 42°. For accurate astronomical data, see https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/ or

https://www.suncalc.org/#/39.6317,-8.6729,16/1917.10.13/13:21/1/3. The Sun height at solar noon was 42.72° between the horizon and the center of the solar disc, including the atmospheric refraction. The height remained above 42° during 71 minutes, between 12h45'15'' (azimuth 168.02°) and 13h56'30'' (azimuth 191.84°). Solar noon was the best time to choose to estimate the sun's altitude: it's the period of the day when the sun's altitude is the most stable and its duration is the longest for accurately measuring the sun's height in the sky. This may be a sign of a deliberate choice of solar noon planned event. If the event had occurred at a different time, in the morning or evening, an estimate of the variation in elevation like the one made here (from 42° to 28°) would have been much more problematic, difficult to calculate and less conclusive.

A detailed analysis of the photo shows the presence of two light sources of similar intensity (see paper), named LSa and LSb. LSa is slightly brightest and sharpest, believed to be the Sun, in the direction of sight of most of the people. LSb is possibly a well-lit cloud above.

Strange ghost and soft shadows. The staff’s shadow is blurred and fades with distance to the ground, but it appears sharply on the pants where the hat hides LSb. The soft shadow projections on the hat’s crease and brim, and of its crown and the ear finger, show LSa’s direction. The two light sources LSa and LSb must have similar intensities. LSa must be abnormally pale. Even well-lit clouds do not normally blur sharp shadows caused by a bright sun. (Detail of D115 photo after 2D denoising).

Mirror-Ball Light-Probe Blender® simulation, with reflections of LSa (30° height), a cloud disc LSb (90° height), and amethyst-colored atmosphere (see testimonials in my paper). Notice the shadows’ visibility and sharpness differences on lying or sloping surfaces or under the sphere.

"Sun" 's Height Estimation

1. Estimation of the Horizon and the Center of View

The photo shows that Judah Ruah tilted his camera slightly forward to get more detail and center his view on the people, sacrificing some part of the sky. Analyzing scratches and shading effects at the frame borders allows us to estimate that the D115 photo was not cropped on the bottom, left, and right borders. However, the scan process seems to have trimmed the sky even more. We estimate that the photo has been cropped by about 260 pixels (as 12 cm/ 9cm = 1.3333 = 6144/(4348+260)). Press Photographers did not commonly use special lenses, filters, and adjustments, particularly in short-duration events as in live reports. This gives us an estimate for the Center of View C as shown in the figure.

The Horizon Line H and the Horizon Center Hc are estimated around the hips of standing people at the same altitude and from the expected height of the tripod+camera (about 1.5 m) placed 50 cm down the slope, about 1 m above the people’s ground (just over the umbrella in the center).

As the tripod was leveled, we can neglect the roll angle β of the camera, but we have to estimate its pitch angle α. The black and white sensitive plates overexpressed the blue colored shades. This whitened the sky in the photos when no correction filters were used, and this was common in Press Photography, which was generally not interested in sky details.

2. Estimation of the vanishing point VPa of the light rays from LSa

All the shadow paths converge to the Vanishing Point VPa of LSa's light rays. VPa corresponds to the camera’s shadow position on the photographic plane.

The hat's shadows give a particularly interesting direction, as it is one of the most precise estimations and it is quite near C (the Center of View) and Hc (the Horizon Center). In the insert above, corresponding to the hat, we observe a general direction around 32°-33° (1: tangent shadow of the crown on the brim of the hat. 2: dark grazing shadow on a back white object, of the brim in contact with the stick. 3: thin brim’s shadow on the buttock, almost in contact with it. 4: shadow on crown’s crease).

Besides the hat’s shadows (on the top), we present three other cases where ambient lighting is weak (more shadows help refine the results): the shadow on the right thumb of a fold in the boy's jacket on the left; the shadow of a flat stone on the vertical surface of a stone on the embankment; the shadows cast by pebbles at the bottom right.

See the images and the video above to get a detailed analysis of this estimation step, with more shadows, shades, and reflections to confirm the position of VPa.

Finally, Artificial Intelligent (AI) models may be used to enhance the visualization. I present here an exposure and balanced colorization (made by AI) to give an idea of what a modern photo would have looked like, and the estimated 3D scene (with red-cyan anaglyph).

© Ph. Dalleur

Page updated

Report abuse