The prince and the paedophile

[Spud]

I have no idea - the 'silver lining' as you call it isn't in the original photo - it is only in this weird manipulated version of the photo.

See if you can see it in this photo. It's white rather than silver.

[ProfessorDavey]

See if you can see it in this photo. It's white rather than silver.

But what you are looking at is just a standard 'halo' effect which you often get when there is a high level of contrast at an edge of an object, just as a darker object on a white background.

https://www.duncanfawkes.com/blog/avoiding-halos

'Halos are bands of light (or dark) that follow edges in an image. They are most prominent along high contrast edges such as when the land meets the sky. '

So you see this more on Andrew as his head is entirely against a bright white background and it is most pronounced around his hair as there is the greatest contrast. As Virginia is largely against a darker background there is not so much contrast so you don't see the effect. However if you zoom in you can see exactly the same effect where her hair is contrasted  against the white background.

Keep clutching those straws Spud.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is also around his backside ...

Which is just what you'd expect as that is another high contrast boundary.

But you can see the same effect at the boundary between the black mantlepiece and the white wall on the right hand side of the photo. And where Virginia's arm is in front of Gislaine's white top.

[Spud]

Which is just what you'd expect as that is another high contrast boundary.

But you can see the same effect at the boundary between the black mantlepiece and the white wall on the right hand side of the photo. And where Virginia's arm is in front of Gislaine's white top.

Yes I see what you mean. But that effect could still happen if the photo had been edited, I presume? Anyway if you say so I will clutch another straw: her hand is quite white, presumably from the flash. Why aren't Andrew's?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes I see what you mean. But that effect could still happen if the photo had been edited, I presume? Anyway if you say so I will clutch another straw: her hand is quite white, presumably from the flash. Why aren't Andrew's?

I see you've withdrawn the non-sense about a handbag being removed, for which you have zero evidence. Clearly you failed to grab that particular straw.

Why are her hands paler - presumably because her whole skin tone is lighter - Andrew looks pretty ruddy cheeked as you might of expect someone of 40 who has access to plenty of skiing, beach sun and good living, compared to a fresh skinned blond teenager.

Keep clutching at those straws Spud.

[Spud]

I see you've withdrawn the non-sense about a handbag being removed, for which you have zero evidence. Clearly you failed to grab that particular straw.

Why are her hands paler - presumably because her whole skin tone is lighter - Andrew looks pretty ruddy cheeked as you might of expect someone of 40 who has access to plenty of skiing, beach sun and good living, compared to a fresh skinned blond teenager.

Keep clutching at those straws Spud.

Yes, I deleted my comment about the possible handbag strap because I looked again and decided it was more like hair. But now I'm questioning that.
But regarding VG's hand, why is it so white? "Young skin" doesn't make sense: it should be darker than the arm, which would be less tanned in March when the picture was supposedly taken. Maybe the light somehow reflected off it more strongly? Compare it with Maxwell's hands too. I suspect that in the original photo of VG, she was leaning on something, and the hand and wrist have been realigned.
Something else: maybe there is an explanation, but why is Andrew's left hand forefinger longer than his middle finger?

[Spud]

Andrew is apparently 6' tall and she is 5'5". So he is 18cm or 7" taller than she is. I make the difference about 4 or 5 inches in the photo.

[SteveH]

Andrew is apparently 6' tall and she is 5'5". So he is 18cm or 7" taller than she is. I make the difference about 4 or 5 inches in the photo.

Maybe she was wearing heels or thick soles. Your determination to find non-existant evidence of photo-manipulation in the one with them in is getting increasingly desperate and conspiracy-theoryish. Give it a rest. You just make yourself look foolish.https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/26/cal-forensics-expert-casts-doubt-on-prince-andrews-claim-sex-slave-photo-was-faked/

[Spud]

Maybe she was wearing heels or thick soles. Your determination to find non-existant evidence of photo-manipulation in the one with them in is getting increasingly desperate and conspiracy-theoryish. Give it a rest. You just make yourself look foolish.https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/26/cal-forensics-expert-casts-doubt-on-prince-andrews-claim-sex-slave-photo-was-faked/

We've both decided who we think is telling the truth. Let's just focus on the facts, shall we? In this case, we don't know if she was wearing heels or standing on Ghislaine's tortoise, but the inconsistency weighs in favour of it being a fake, imo.
Are you afraid Andrew might be innocent? If you want to bring down the monarchy, at least do them the honour of getting the facts straight. I agree they can be annoying, but I also did the Dof E award so have respect for them.

[Spud]

Try zooming in, Steve, and check out the forefinger on his left hand. It seems about 95% likely that a pink extension has been added to it. Someone might do this to make it look more like the hand is tightly around her waist. Or, I would say about 5% likely, it might be a natural mark of some kind. Again, this strongly suggests fakery.

[SteveH]

I don't give a damn whether he's innocent or guilty, but I don't see why anyone would manufacture fake photographic evidence against him.

[Gordon]

Spud

It doesn't matter now anyway - it was being reported yesterday that Andrew has paid up and the case had been settled.

So any opportunity to have the photograph seriously examined on the basis that it is an item of evidence has now gone - therefore, maybe save your energy and forget about it since, as I said, it doesn't matter anymore.

[ProfessorDavey]

We've both decided who we think is telling the truth. Let's just focus on the facts, shall we? In this case, we don't know if she was wearing heels or standing on Ghislaine's tortoise, but the inconsistency weighs in favour of it being a fake, imo.

You are entitled to your opinion Spud, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.

There is nothing in that photo that provides strong evidence to suggest anything other than it is genuine. You can make up stuff all you like but that isn't going to change the reality.

And the photo has been knocking about for years - so any doctoring would have been performed using the fairly basic photo-shop available over a decade ago. That would be easy to spot. And the provenance of the photo strongly suggests it is genuine. So from the journalist who first revealed it:

'Journalist Michael Thomas, who was the first to copy the photograph in 2011, is convinced the picture is genuine because he found it in the middle of a bundle of photographs.

"It wasn't like she pulled the photo of Prince Andrew out, it was just in among the rest of them," he said.

"They were just typical teenage snaps. There's no way that photo is fake".'

[Spud]

You are entitled to your opinion Spud, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.

There is nothing in that photo that provides strong evidence to suggest anything other than it is genuine.

Except the anomalous finger I have not had a response about yet. That is visible to the naked eye, and because there is no other logical reason for it, is strong evidence for editing. Until it is proved to be genuine there is no need for me to give more evidence. The picture has been edited.

And the photo has been knocking about for years - so any doctoring would have been performed using the fairly basic photo-shop available over a decade ago. That would be easy to spot. And the provenance of the photo strongly suggests it is genuine. So from the journalist who first revealed it:

'Journalist Michael Thomas, who was the first to copy the photograph in 2011, is convinced the picture is genuine because he found it in the middle of a bundle of photographs.

"It wasn't like she pulled the photo of Prince Andrew out, it was just in among the rest of them," he said.

"They were just typical teenage snaps. There's no way that photo is fake".'

Photoshopping is very clever, but always leaves evidence for the trained eye, according to several experts.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except the anomalous finger I have not had a response about yet.

What anomalous finger? The one clutching the straws no doubt.

That is visible to the naked eye,

Indeed it is and I can't see anything odd about it

and because there is no other logical reason for it

Except that it is a perfectly normal finger held in a normal position that means it appears to protrude further forward than the other fingers. Easy to replicate - I just did it myself by holding a glass.

, is strong evidence for editing.

No it isn't unless you have a very febrile imagination.

Until it is proved to be genuine there is no need for me to give more evidence. The picture has been edited.

Misunderstanding the burden of proof - as you are claiming the photo to be a fake the onus is on you to provide that evidence. So far you (and others) have provided no credible evidence that it is a fake.

Photoshopping is very clever, but always leaves evidence for the trained eye, according to several experts.

Indeed - but credible experts have found none of the supposed tell-tell signed of manipulation. Photographic experts seem to think it is genuine.

[Spud]

What anomalous finger? The one clutching the straws no doubt.
Indeed it is and I can't see anything odd about it Except that it is a perfectly normal finger held in a normal position that means it appears to protrude further forward than the other fingers. Easy to replicate - I just did it myself by holding a glass.
No it isn't unless you have a very febrile imagination.
Misunderstanding the burden of proof - as you are claiming the photo to be a fake the onus is on you to provide that evidence. So far you (and others) have provided no credible evidence that it is a fake.
Indeed - but credible experts have found none of the supposed tell-tell signed of manipulation. Photographic experts seem to think it is genuine.

The finger has been extended - look again.
In the photo, the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint (that's the joint in the middle of the finger) of Andrew's left forefinger is in line with the other three; if you try to replicate its position with your own hand, your PIP joint will move forward, out of line with the others. It's photo shopped.
The shadows also give the faker away because they completely obscure what they are covering. Real shadows don't usually do this.

[Outrider]

The finger has been extended - look again.
In the photo, the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint (that's the joint in the middle of the finger) of Andrew's left forefinger is in line with the other three; if you try to replicate its position with your own hand, your PIP joint will move forward, out of line with the others. It's photo shopped.
The shadows also give the faker away because they completely obscure what they are covering. Real shadows don't usually do this.

Multiple experts have collectively suggested that:
a) it's an inexpert photograph of an amateur photograph, and therefore difficult to be definitive; but,
b) there's nothing immediately apparent to suggest that it's been manipulated.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it begins to look less humble when you maintain that position despite the best estimations of experts in the field.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The finger has been extended - look again.

I have - and my specialism is related to orthopaedics so I'm completely aware of the movement of joints and skeletal elements.

In the photo, the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint (that's the joint in the middle of the finger)

No need to explain to me anatomy of the skeleton - see above.

of Andrew's left forefinger is in line with the other three; if you try to replicate its position with your own hand, your PIP joint will move forward, out of line with the others.

Not necessarily - it entirely depends on the overall position of the hand and the angle of the photo.

It's photo shopped.

If that is the case and your febrile imagination above is correct then why on earth would the photoshopper add it in this manner rather than simply add the image of a 'normal' hand. If it is so difficult to position your hand in that manner surely it would be difficult for the photoshopper to find a hand with that position to add to the photo. Note that the finger lengths are irrelevant to the key feature of that photo - that he has his arm around her and his hand against her waist.

The shadows also give the faker away because they completely obscure what they are covering. Real shadows don't usually do this.

Again - massive straw clutching - I (and other experts) can see nothing out of place in terms of the shadows for a photo taken on a small camera in a lit room and with a flash - there are, of course, multiple sources of light and therefore multiple sources to generate shadow.

[Spud]

I have - and my specialism is related to orthopaedics so I'm completely aware of the movement of joints and skeletal elements.
No need to explain to me anatomy of the skeleton - see above.
Not necessarily - it entirely depends on the overall position of the hand and the angle of the photo.
If that is the case and your febrile imagination above is correct then why on earth would the photoshopper add it in this manner rather than simply add the image of a 'normal' hand. If it is so difficult to position your hand in that manner surely it would be difficult for the photoshopper to find a hand with that position to add to the photo. Note that the finger lengths are irrelevant to the key feature of that photo - that he has his arm around her and his hand against her waist.
Again - massive straw clutching - I (and other experts) can see nothing out of place in terms of the shadows for a photo taken on a small camera in a lit room and with a flash - there are, of course, multiple sources of light and therefore multiple sources to generate shadow.

I think you'll see if you look closely again that the outline of the forefinger is visible but more has been added to the end of it. The colour of the added bit is slightly different. You're right that it could still be Andrew's hand, with the extra added to it. But it still shows that the picture has been edited. And one still has to explain why his hands are not lit up by the flash whereas hers are. This makes most sense if the images of him and her are from two different photographs.
Regarding the shadows, if you can see any sign of the white window frame behind the shadow made by her hair and torso then fine; since we can't, the best explanation is that the shadow has been edited in.

[SteveH]

Cui bono, Spud? Who has an interest in framing Andrew, strong enough to do what an expert says would be a very difficult photo-manipulation  to do convincingly?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you'll see if you look closely again that the outline of the forefinger is visible but more has been added to the end of it. The colour of the added bit is slightly different. You're right that it could still be Andrew's hand, with the extra added to it. But it still shows that the picture has been edited. And one still has to explain why his hands are not lit up by the flash whereas hers are. This makes most sense if the images of him and her are from two different photographs.
Regarding the shadows, if you can see any sign of the white window frame behind the shadow made by her hair and torso then fine; since we can't, the best explanation is that the shadow has been edited in.

I think you need to spend a little less time in the company of conspiracy theory nuts Spud.

Just listen to yourself - you've jumped to a conclusion and you are desperately trying to make up stuff that isn't there.

There is no credible evidence to suggest that the photo is anything other than genuine.

[Spud]

I think you need to spend a little less time in the company of conspiracy theory nuts Spud.

Just listen to yourself - you've jumped to a conclusion and you are desperately trying to make up stuff that isn't there.

The brightness of his hands and hers may not be strong evidence, but the finger 'stuff' as you call it certainly is there. Why would someone try to make a finger look longer? The only reason I can think of is to make it look like he is groping her. If so, then we have a motive: the faker is trying to frame him.

There is no credible evidence to suggest that the photo is anything other than genuine.

The shadows from Virginia should, according to one Youtuber, be semitranslucent. and wider, since she is pictured as standing quite far from the surface they are falling on (the window).
There is also the problem that the far left wall is brightly lit, with all the detail of the banister visible. But when you look between Virginia's legs and between her legs and Ghislaine's, There is very dark background with no detail. Why are those areas not illuninated, indeed why can we barely make out Ghislaine's legs if the flash illuminated the left wall so brightly?
Edit: In fact, The detail in the two white walls on the bottom left and bottom right of the picture are clearly visible. But the region in between the walls (the legs of the three people) has been obscured by some kind of smudge.

[Spud]

There's also unnatural fading of the curtain rail at its left hand end (contrast this with the sharpness of the white wooden window frame below it).

[Aruntraveller]

There's also unnatural fading of the curtain rail at its left hand end (contrast this with the sharpness of the white wooden window frame below it).

No. That's just to do with the way the light is distributed and blocked by the top of the inner door. Stop clutching.

[ProfessorDavey]

The brightness of his hands and hers may not be strong evidence, but the finger 'stuff' as you call it certainly is there. Why would someone try to make a finger look longer? The only reason I can think of is to make it look like he is groping her. If so, then we have a motive: the faker is trying to frame him.
The shadows from Virginia should, according to one Youtuber, be semitranslucent. and wider, since she is pictured as standing quite far from the surface they are falling on (the window).
There is also the problem that the far left wall is brightly lit, with all the detail of the banister visible. But when you look between Virginia's legs and between her legs and Ghislaine's, There is very dark background with no detail. Why are those areas not illuninated, indeed why can we barely make out Ghislaine's legs if the flash illuminated the left wall so brightly?
Edit: In fact, The detail in the two white walls on the bottom left and bottom right of the picture are clearly visible. But the region in between the walls (the legs of the three people) has been obscured by some kind of smudge.

Yawn.