File talk:Douma bodies 252pm.jpg

A few things about this photo and this scene:

First, prior thoughts, from Monitor blog:

Site 1: Men and boys, dirt floor (mosque?) courtyard, unwrapped then wrapped - canopy cover, west or southwest wall is blue. No gate at the corner.Body count: considering 6 photos at different times, there are at least 24 (probably 25+) in the nearer row, at least 17 in the back row. So at least 41 total. Five are clearly boys (considered here), others might be.

...

Some notes then:

1) The bodies don't seem to display rigor mortis, which means they either died less than 2 hour ago, or about a day ago.

2) The blood on them all seem fairly dry. No one's pouring blood, and only the worst injuries seem to be smearing at all.

3) There are at least 41 bodies, just of men and boys, who already died from their injuries, stopped bleeding, and got fairly dry ... no more than 90 minutes after the alleged attack. In all my research, I'm still not sure if that's possible, but it definitely seems unlikely. There was no rubble really to pull them from, and no sign they were under it either. Just standing around, hit by shrapnel, died and collected quickly, on this scale?

4) The injuries they supposedly died from are generally unclear. At least one has a missing leg, one a nasty chest wound, another a head wound, and some are covered up. But dozens of men and boys are seen, totally intact, just some combination of peppered and ripped-up a bit, bleeding from random spots, smoky by not dusty,

5) Pants torn a lot with both the men and the boys, and with the men but not the boys, belts get undone and pants get pulled halfway down more often than not. This an happen by accident, or be a sign of disrespect for the dead. (that is, it might suggest these were people the rebels disliked, government loyalist or non-Sunni families)

6) Again, this is a segregated scene, but in all other scenes and records, there's still no sign of more than 3 women and about that many girls killed, to what seems about a dozen boys and about a hundred men./ Were they spared the way bombs sometimes do, randomly? Or were they "spared" the way Islamist war booty sometimes is?

Next, refinement of the 90 minutes part. Attack time appears a bit earlier than I thought (" somewhere between 1:25 and 1:45")... maybe closer to 1 PM or even a bit earlier. Activists told HRW it was at "about noon," but I think more like 1 (earlier photo analysis pending).

Exact time for this photo: no later than 2:52 is pretty vague, when there's sunlight showing an exact time. I'm rusty, or feel rusty, but the elevation angle might be 67 degrees? That would be about 1:10 PM! I've asked Petri Krohn elsewhere, opening the question here too, for him or whoever. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And here's a crop with the best sun info: --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the line from the left hand corner of the metal box to corner of its shadow is perpendicular to the view from the camera. Using Gimp I rotated the photo -5.44 degrees to make it horizontal. I then rotated it to -26.67 degrees to get the line drawn by the shadow vertical. This would mean that the sun is at 21.23 degrees from the vertical, i.e. an elevation of 68.77 degrees. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Using the ESRL solar calculator with the arrow set to the central mosque in Douma I get the time 13:12:30 for the elevation 68.77 on August 16th. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Awesome, Petri, thanks! I need to learn some new tricks, one of these days. But we get about the same thing. Somewhat by coincidence - checking back my 67 degrees is reached only at 1:30, not 1:10. You get a bit higher though, which means earlier (with a slow change for moderate differences). You're probably closer. But small differences in elevation are big enough in time it's safer to say in the 1:00-1:30 range, with a reliable reading around 112 (not likely the equivalent span before noon).


 * The significance, again, is this is only x minutes after the explosions at the markets. That still needs set. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Notes after re-examining: I still see 5 degrees rotation, but 5.5 is close enough. The main thing I wonder about is how the angle the wall is seen from effects the angle we measure. I made a flat triangle 80px by 250px, about the area covered, drew two lines, 69 and 70 degrees. Did what you did with the cooler, thinking the very corner of the shadow is probably invisible, but best. So I got a bit shallower, 68. I'd say between all this 67 is an outlier and 68-69 is the right range to call. Time range for that is 1:09:33 to 1:20 on the dot. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

3D
I decided I could tackle the 3-D aspect, or get a start, and refine the elevation reading. A flat reading, even rotated, isn't quite right. The apparent shadow angle will be offset in 3-D space, with the distance 'back' coming through partly as 'up,' etc. Here, the blue bar is the imaginary pole at the corner of this object, and the yellow triangle is the patch of light it would block, in a plane that here is seen at an angle, green line as its base. Note a flat measure will either use an angle less than 90, or you're not using the right line. dark green = true triangle base, light green = simple horizontal/possibly apparent triangle base. Because of foreshortening, the sliver of difference between them appears very slight. But in real space, which is what matters ... the difference is slight, but significant in context.

How long is this true base? next graphic - Looking at the vertical shadow at the corner of the two walls, the line of light travel between those orange lines (wall corner and shadow edge) is dark green because it'll be the same angle as our base. Foreshortening makes it hard to be sure, but I estimate about 3 units back for every 8 to the left (8:3 - the white bars between the orange). It might be closer to and even 45 degrees, but I don't think fully 8:8.

Apparent triangle vs. real triangle will have a visual:real base proportion, depending, of 29:29 (if there was no offset), 29:32 (if a 3:8 angle), less than 29:37 (if 45 degrees). (visual measure of # of 16" units...) Triangles with these bases shown in that order, each with its overhead shadow offset illustration to explain. Left to right, the elevation angle = time for each: That last is not likely, an upper roof. I think the first one (about Petri's measure) is out, but barely. The middle one is close - range centered just later than it - 68 high, I'd say down to 63 is reasonable = almost exactly 1:20-1:59, with 1:35 - 1:45 is maybe the best range.
 * 68.5 = 1:15:40
 * 66.25 = 1:36:30.
 * 60.5 = 2:16:38

Point stands as I see it. Any other thoughts, Petri, anyone? --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we assume all the pilasters are equally thick and at equal distance from the face of the wall? We could compare the width of the the shadow (on the left) to the width of the part of the pilaster that is exposed (on the right). We can correct for the different distances by dividing by the height of the fence from the top of the rusticated part to the top of the fence.
 * "Can we assume all the pilasters are equally thick and at equal distance from the face of the wall?" I don't think so. I'm not sure what you're suggesting even. (BTW, I hope I wasn't too confusing above - I'm pretty sure I get it, but it's hard to explain). Degree of foreshortening vs. actual pixels would say how deep that little triangle is. I'm for ranges anyway, though. This one's bit broad, could stand narrowing... --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Things that could be done: if we knew the distance between pillars (from sat image of matched site) I could skew a whole wall to accurate props and measure shadow widths. Extrusion could be measured... less well. It will still be rough. But any flat rectangular surface, skewed to its true known proportions, should have be readable like that. But that may be unneeded. We'll see. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. - As the lens is rectilinear parallel surfaces are "compressed" the same way. The relationship of the height to width of a rectangle remains the same wherever in the photo it is, left, right or center. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Petri. As all vertical lines in the image are parallel (they don't converge to a vanishing point), the plane of the camera image is vertical, and so is the corner of the cooler.  If the ground is horizontal, the right angle between the shadow line and the cooler implies that the the plane of the triangle formed by the cooler and the shadow line is parallel to the camera image.  Think of an ideal pinhole camera. So the solar elevation can be read directly.  Pmr9 (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see two smart people saying something I'm not sure I get, and not sure is even relevant. Thinking about an ideal pinhole camera drew up a blank card saying insert info about ideal pinhole camera here. I can be lame that way. The difference isn't huge, as I read it, but that imaginary sundial direction (green line) wouldn't be and doesn't come out quite visual-horizontal from the corner, just foreshortened like it is. That was my point. Is it even challenged? I'm happy to take that if I can see why. It makes for earlier and better argument, obviously. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not know if either of you understood me. We can use the height of the wall as an unit length; call it "1 meter", "1 yard", or "1 wall". We then measure the width of the shadow on the left (~ 0.06 walls) and the pilaster on the right (~ 0.08 walls). The triangle 0.06 / 0.08 will give us the angle to the sun. What we measure on the photograph is not the actual width as we are not looking at the wall or shadow at a right angle. But because the surfaces are parallel and the lens is rectilinear and not some fisheye lens, both measurements are "compressed" by the same proportion. (This all relies on the assumption that back wall and the side wall have similar construction.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * First, it's not quite rectilinear anyway, from perspective or lens, I don't know. Rotated so ground is horizontal, the top of the wall isn't quite parallel. Next, I don't know why we need wall height first, nor what ~o,o6 means besides left wall, but just on that side, measuring the distance from pilaster face to the wall's face (depth of triangle) vs. shadow width gives the angle. That was my point to start. I just don't know still how to measure both at the true size (corrected for perspective). And actual units don't matter, so long as we can be accurate about the same units on both walls - it's a simple proportion thing. If you know how, let me know. I'll ponder on it at work tonight. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think what I said above about skewing walls might provide the answer. It looks to me like the pilasters are meant to be the same size all around, or same width anyway. And they seem to be square. So once each wall is skewed right to where the pillars are the same width, the "back stance" and "left" distance of the shadow will be at the same scale, proportion can be set. Back with Photoshop work when it's ready. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bummer. That would work, I think, IF done right. I have a confusing graphic I don't feel like showing that apparently wasn't done right - a wrong presumption or wrong method - seems to show 5 units back to 3 over, to a standard pilaster with of 16-17 units. That gives a triangle 29:45 from apparent, massively foreshortened, yielding elevation 54, time 2:52 or so. But the picture was published a good half hour earlier, so that's not a good center time. And it just looks way steeper than anything close to 45 degrees. Eh, I'm taking a break. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Sketchup Make (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-set-up-fr-photomatching-in-google-sketchup.html) looks like a useful (free) tool for building a 3D model from a single photo of a scene in which you can assume some angles to be right angles. I think the base angle of the right-angled triangle formed by the cooler and its shadow is by far the best way to estimate the solar elevation: indirect estimates based on shadows on walls will introduce additonal uncertainties.  But to estimate the solar azimuth relative to the courtyard, you need to estimate the angle between the camera image plane and one of the walls.  Pmr9 (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate new things, and it might say the same (right or wrong) but I should try that this weekend. Glad you agree on that corner - I used wall angles at first and it seemed about the same, but unsure what that angle really is, looking for sundial vertical, space, then clear shadow. Tried pilaster top to shadow, but none were very clear (odd floor) --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

'Azimuth?''' Another thing about this green line is shouldn't that be our solar azimuth (compass direction to the sun)? If we knew how far it reaches from the corner, and I estimate (anywhere from 3:8 to unsure) from - whatever. I get measures from known directions on a placed location where we know the angle of each wall, etc. I can say that right hand wall face south, probably a bit southeast. But some nexus of az+elev, that helping narrow down the spot, something in this will pull it all together. I'm not quite in top form here. Anyone else get the spark? --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)