The prince and the paedophile

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

Double yawn.

[Spud]

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

The left end of the curtain rail is a bit ambiguous, but it looks to me as if there isn't enough shadow to make it that faint.
But try analyzing the photo using Forensically: save the photo to your computer, then on Forensically, click 'open file', then load the photo. If you scroll down the menu at the right of the page, click on Luminescence Gradient then hover the mouse over that area of the photo. You'll notice that the white window frame stops at the edge of where the door frame shadow is. It should be faintly visible behind the shadow.

[SteveH]

FFS,  taters, enough wth the bonkers conspiracy-theories already!

[Spud]

FFS,  taters, enough wth the bonkers conspiracy-theories already!

Hope you don't mind if I refer you to this video for a detailed analysis of the photo. At 48 minutes in, he shows an example of how a natural shadow looks, in a different photo, and then contrasts it with the shadow of Giuffre in the photo with Andrew.

https://youtu.be/FIGMemUM9xI

[Aruntraveller]

Hope you don't mind if I refer you to this video for a detailed analysis of the photo. At 48 minutes in, he shows an example of how a natural shadow looks, in a different photo, and then contrasts it with the shadow of Giuffre in the photo with Andrew.

https://youtu.be/FIGMemUM9xI

Yea, yea. All very interesting.

Question: why didn't Prince Andrew have this kind of analysis done years ago?

I'm sure he could've afforded a load of speculative bollocks to keep his reputation intact.

He could have saved himself 12 million.

[Spud]

Yea, yea. All very interesting.

Question: why didn't Prince Andrew have this kind of analysis done years ago?

I'm sure he could've afforded a load of speculative bollocks to keep his reputation intact.

He could have saved himself 12 million.

I don't know. I guess it's equally strange that so many 'experts' think the photo is genuine, given the glaring evidence of forgery that took time to surface just because the people that could spot it were too late coming forward.

Maybe also he thought his panorama interview would put the record straight, or maybe wasn't expecting Guiffre to sue him?

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't know. I guess it's equally strange that so many 'experts' think the photo is genuine, given the glaring evidence of forgery that took time to surface just because the people that could spot it were too late coming forward.

You mean the glaring evidence of forgery that only seems to be spotted by arch chair experts and conspiracy theorists, while real experts on analysis of photographs to identify evidence of manipulation have failed to find any.

There are, of course, plenty of real experts out there and Andrew would have been able to afford their services. That none have, as far as I'm aware, offered genuine expert opinion that the photo is a fake speaks volumes - and of course far more than any number of armchairs experts spouting nonsense on YouTube or forums.

[Spud]

You mean the glaring evidence of forgery that only seems to be spotted by arch chair experts and conspiracy theorists, while real experts on analysis of photographs to identify evidence of manipulation have failed to find any.

There are, of course, plenty of real experts out there and Andrew would have been able to afford their services. That none have, as far as I'm aware, offered genuine expert opinion that the photo is a fake speaks volumes - and of course far more than any number of armchairs experts spouting nonsense on YouTube or forums.

Yes, but anyone can download free photo forensics tools and see with their own eyes that the real experts missed the photoshopped shadows obscuring the window frame. They need to look at the Luminance Gradient of the photo.
If you compare the shadows from this photo you will see that the objects covered by the shadow made by Maxwell can still be detected under the shadow. This includes Giuffre's vest. Try it using this
Photo forensics tools website.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, but anyone can download free photo forensics tools and see with their own eyes that the real experts missed the photoshopped shadows obscuring the window frame.

So armchair experts are somehow more expert than real experts, you know real experts who will likely be using professional systems (rather than amateur freeware) to detect manipulation of photographs and applying their own real expertise.

Laughable.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you compare the shadows from this photo you will see that the objects covered by the shadow made by Maxwell can still be detected under the shadow. This includes Giuffre's vest. Try it using this
Photo forensics tools website.

Just tried it using the Andrew photo - can't see anything unusual from the results. Certainly nothing jumping out as obviously wrong.

[Spud]

So armchair experts are somehow more expert than real experts, you know real experts who will likely be using professional systems (rather than amateur freeware) to detect manipulation of photographs and applying their own real expertise.

Laughable.

Well I was thinking more of people who have used photoshop and so would notice signs that photoshop has been used on a photo.

Just tried it using the Andrew photo - can't see anything unusual from the results. Certainly nothing jumping out as obviously wrong.

Thanks for trying it.

[Maeght]

I don't know. I guess it's equally strange that so many 'experts' think the photo is genuine, given the glaring evidence of forgery that took time to surface just because the people that could spot it were too late coming forward.

Maybe also he thought his panorama interview would put the record straight, or maybe wasn't expecting Guiffre to sue him?

There isn't any glaring evidence.

I used the forensic package you linked to on one of my Photoshopped photographs and it didn't tell me much. Only thing it showed was a bit of cloning where I had done some, but also showed some where I hadn't. Opened the photo in question with it and couldn't see anything of note.

Zoom in on the Maxwell on her own photograph and look at the material of her top. You'll see a repeat pattern indicative of cloning in Photoshop. Her arm is blurry. Looks like cloning used to cover up the removal of the other two from the image with all three in. There are more things in the image of Maxwell on her own which look faked to me than in the one with all three in it. Talking as someone who uses Photoshop - not as a qualified forensic analyst of photographs.

[Spud]

There isn't any glaring evidence.

I used the forensic package you linked to on one of my Photoshopped photographs and it didn't tell me much. Only thing it showed was a bit of cloning where I had done some, but also showed some where I hadn't. Opened the photo in question with it and couldn't see anything of note.

Zoom in on the Maxwell on her own photograph and look at the material of her top. You'll see a repeat pattern indicative of cloning in Photoshop. Her arm is blurry. Looks like cloning used to cover up the removal of the other two from the image with all three in. There are more things in the image of Maxwell on her own which look faked to me than in the one with all three in it. Talking as someone who uses Photoshop - not as a qualified forensic analyst of photographs.

Thanks for that, yes I agree the ones of Maxwell and Guiffre on their own are heavily shopped, for whatever reason. Have you watched the video I linked to? Here are some of the more convincing things he pointed out:
The shadows to the right of the door frame and Virginia and the shadow from Andrew's belly look fake.
The natural shadow made by the sphere on the banister, which looks unaltered.
Andrew's left elbow would have been lower in reality tan the slither of left forearm shown would place it.
The angles of the barristrade on either side of the doorway are different, suggesting the photo was taken from the side. This suggests the flash ought to be oval rather than circular, hence the window is a separate photo.
Linked to the latter is the lack of detail in the central lower part of the photo- it's just very dark, whereas the outer lower parts are very brigt.
And other features such as blurring which could have been done to obscure editing.

But there is other evidence that Virginia would need to explain, such as why she is tler relative to Andrew than in real life. Why she was dressed for summer and the window open when the temperature was in single figures.
My impression of Andrew that he is telling the truth. I get the opposite impression of her.

Sorry for the long-winded post but I felt a summary would help.
The analysis website was used only to see if the window frame could be detected beneath the shadows, IIRC. Otherwise it doesn't help that much

[Spud]

There isn't any glaring evidence.

I used the forensic package you linked to on one of my Photoshopped photographs and it didn't tell me much. Only thing it showed was a bit of cloning where I had done some, but also showed some where I hadn't. Opened the photo in question with it and couldn't see anything of note.

Zoom in on the Maxwell on her own photograph and look at the material of her top. You'll see a repeat pattern indicative of cloning in Photoshop. Her arm is blurry. Looks like cloning used to cover up the removal of the other two from the image with all three in. There are more things in the image of Maxwell on her own which look faked to me than in the one with all three in it. Talking as someone who uses Photoshop - not as a qualified forensic analyst of photographs.

Thanks for that, yes I agree the ones of Maxwell and Guiffre on their own are heavily shopped, for whatever reason. Have you watched the video I linked to? Here are some of the more convincing things he pointed out:
The shadows to the right of the door frame and Virginia and the shadow from Andrew's belly look fake.
The natural shadow made by the sphere on the banister looks unaltered.
Andrew's left elbow would have been lower in reality than the slither of left forearm shown would place it.
The angles of the barristrade on either side of the doorway are different, suggesting the photo was taken from the side. This suggests the flash ought to be oval rather than circular, hence the window is a separate photo.
The lack of detail in the central lower part of the photo- apart from Virginia's leggings its very dark, whereas the outer lower parts are very bright.
And other features such as blurring which could have been done to obscure editing.

But there is other evidence that Virginia would need to explain, such as why she is taller relative to Andrew than in real life. Why she was dressed for summer and the window open when the temperature was in single figures.
Why she wasn't wearing a dress that apparently she had gone out to buy the same day in order to wear for the prince.
Why the bathroom was, in reality, not as she described it.
My impression of Andrew that he is telling the truth. I get the opposite impression of her.

Sorry for the long-winded post but I felt a summary would help.
The analysis website was used only to see if the window frame could be detected beneath the shadows, IIRC. Otherwise it doesn't help that much, I agree.

[Maeght]

Thanks for that, yes I agree the ones of Maxwell and Guiffre on their own are heavily shopped, for whatever reason. Have you watched the video I linked to? Here are some of the more convincing things he pointed out:
The shadows to the right of the door frame and Virginia and the shadow from Andrew's belly look fake.
The natural shadow made by the sphere on the banister looks unaltered.
Andrew's left elbow would have been lower in reality than the slither of left forearm shown would place it.
The angles of the barristrade on either side of the doorway are different, suggesting the photo was taken from the side. This suggests the flash ought to be oval rather than circular, hence the window is a separate photo.
The lack of detail in the central lower part of the photo- apart from Virginia's leggings its very dark, whereas the outer lower parts are very bright.
And other features such as blurring which could have been done to obscure editing.

But there is other evidence that Virginia would need to explain, such as why she is taller relative to Andrew than in real life. Why she was dressed for summer and the window open when the temperature was in single figures.
Why she wasn't wearing a dress that apparently she had gone out to buy the same day in order to wear for the prince.
Why the bathroom was, in reality, not as she described it.
My impression of Andrew that he is telling the truth. I get the opposite impression of her.

Sorry for the long-winded post but I felt a summary would help.
The analysis website was used only to see if the window frame could be detected beneath the shadows, IIRC. Otherwise it doesn't help that much, I agree.

I've read some stuff suggesting the photo was faked but not particularly convinced. The evidence isn't glaring or strong but is typical of the sort of thing you see a lot online relating to conspiracy theories - often claims based on a lack of understanding and over analysing things - and I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of falling for their claims. Remember this photo isn't the original and has been copied (more than once I understand) and was taken with a fairly basic camera in not ideal conditions (strong contrast as others have sad, on camera flash, strong reflections from white walls etc). As an amateur photographer I wouldn't be at all surprised that these conditions and the copying (and processing of the images) could have introduced anomalies. The evidence you list above contains a huge amount of speculation and suggestions.

We can all have our opinions on whether things look fake or not and equally we can have our opinions on who we think is telling the truth or not but none of those opinions are evidence of course. I personally think the photo of Maxwell on her own is more likely to be the fake and that the one of the three of them together is genuine. But that's just my opinion.

[Spud]

I've read some stuff suggesting the photo was faked but not particularly convinced. The evidence isn't glaring or strong but is typical of the sort of thing you see a lot online relating to conspiracy theories - often claims based on a lack of understanding and over analysing things - and I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of falling for their claims.

I have also seen quite a few unconvincing comments from people who were arguing that it's fake, eg "that hand just looks odd".

[Spud]

Remember this photo isn't the original and has been copied (more than once I understand) and was taken with a fairly basic camera in not ideal conditions (strong contrast as others have sad, on camera flash, strong reflections from white walls etc). As an amateur photographer I wouldn't be at all surprised that these conditions and the copying (and processing of the images) could have introduced anomalies. The evidence you list above contains a huge amount of speculation and suggestions.

One thing that isn't speculation which I keep going back to is the shadow down the left door frame and the right of Virginia, as we look at it. I've checked this in many images and always there is nothing happening beneath the shadow - that is to say, there are several lengths of wooden window frame that are brightly lit up by the flash, so should be visible under the shadow using "Luminance gradient" on the Forensically website. But they are not, they stop abruptly at the shadow; indeed, there is diddly squat visible under the shadow. Logically this can only mean it is a fake shadow. Could it really be the effect of copying an analogue photo?

[Maeght]

One thing that isn't speculation which I keep going back to is the shadow down the left door frame and the right of Virginia, as we look at it. I've checked this in many images and always there is nothing happening beneath the shadow - that is to say, there are several lengths of wooden window frame that are brightly lit up by the flash, so should be visible under the shadow using "Luminance gradient" on the Forensically website. But they are not, they stop abruptly at the shadow; indeed, there is diddly squat visible under the shadow. Logically this can only mean it is a fake shadow. Could it really be the effect of copying an analogue photo?

If there was insufficient light on the window frame for the camera to register it would be recorded as black and no matter what you do to the image you aren't going to 'see through' that.

[Maeght]

If you zoom into the brown bar in the Maxwell only photo, under where Guiffrie's left arm is on the other one, you again see repeat patterns typical of cloning. The shadow example you showed earlier - the one on the yacht - had totally different lighting to the one in question. Just because you can see through the shadow in one doesn't mean you should be able to see through the shadow in another.

[Spud]

If you zoom into the brown bar in the Maxwell only photo, under where Guiffrie's left arm is on the other one, you again see repeat patterns typical of cloning. The shadow example you showed earlier - the one on the yacht - had totally different lighting to the one in question. Just because you can see through the shadow in one doesn't mean you should be able to see through the shadow in another.

If there was insufficient light on the window frame for the camera to register it would be recorded as black and no matter what you do to the image you aren't going to 'see through' that.

You could be right. I tried taking a photo with my phone, of an object next to a wall in the dark. Before doing so, I used the torch to illuminate the object. The shadow was larger and more translucent than when I took a picture with the flash. In the latter, the shadow was narrow and you couldn't see any detail underneath it, even using "Luminance gradient". By contrast, you could see detail under the shadow created by the torch.

[Spud]

If there was insufficient light on the window frame for the camera to register it would be recorded as black and no matter what you do to the image you aren't going to 'see through' that.

On the other hand, Virginia is so far from the window that one might expect a less dense shadow?

[Maeght]

On the other hand, Virginia is so far from the window that one might expect a less dense shadow?

My point is that the situation was a challenging one regarding the lighting and I doubt any of us could predict what results the camera would achieve in that situation and the effects of the copying. We can speculate all day and identify things which we think are not what we would 'expect' but unless we reproduce the exact same lighting situation any anomalies in what we would expect could simply be due to the lighting conditions, the camera and the copying process. Good that you did an experiment to investigate the shadow effect - much better to base any conclusions on actual experiments rather than our inexpert expectations.

[Spud]

My point is that the situation was a challenging one regarding the lighting and I doubt any of us could predict what results the camera would achieve in that situation and the effects of the copying. We can speculate all day and identify things which we think are not what we would 'expect' but unless we reproduce the exact same lighting situation any anomalies in what we would expect could simply be due to the lighting conditions, the camera and the copying process. Good that you did an experiment to investigate the shadow effect - much better to base any conclusions on actual experiments rather than our inexpert expectations.

Thanks. One other thing I noticed was, when I took a photo of a window at night with no lighting other than the flash, the image didn't show the flash's reflection. But if I kept the phone's torch on, the reflection did appear in the image. So apparently the camera would need a very fast shutter speed to register the flash? (Edit: having taken another photo of the window in the dark, the reflection of the flash did show on the image)

Yes, its interesting how the flash produced a thinner and non-translucent shadow. So can we conclude that the shadow behind Virginia and the upper door frame could be either a real shadow from a flash- or a photoshopped one?

Not wanting to turn this into a Gish gallop, but what about Prince Andrew's trousers - they don't show any detail, no creases, change of shade etc are visible using the luminance tool. Someone pointed out on youtube that his trousers are just a 'black hole'. Given the detail in the rest of the foreground, this is not something I would consider to have been caused by copying or lighting.

[Maeght]

Thanks. One other thing I noticed was, when I took a photo of a window at night with no lighting other than the flash, the image didn't show the flash's reflection. But if I kept the phone's torch on, the reflection did appear in the image. So apparently the camera would need a very fast shutter speed to register the flash?

Yes, its interesting how the flash produced a thinner and non-translucent shadow. So can we conclude that the shadow behind Virginia and the upper door frame could be either a real shadow from a flash- or a photoshopped one?

Not wanting to turn this into a Gish gallop, but what about Prince Andrew's trousers - they don't show any detail, no creases, change of shade etc are visible using the luminance tool. Someone pointed out on youtube that his trousers are just a 'black hole'. Given the detail in the rest of the foreground, this is not something I would consider to have been caused by copying or lighting.

As I say, I doubt any of us could predict what results we would get with this lighting situation, this specific camera and with the copying process. You could spend for ever looking for this anomaly or that anomaly but none of it means the picture is a fake unless you can reproduce exactly the same situation, camera and copying and show it wouldn't be like that. You might not expect this result but you don't know so that's just pure speculation based on what? Understanding the relationship between flash, aperture and shutter speed is complex - there are various things on the internet discussing it, but again it depends on the exact conditions and camera.

To be honest, if someone wanted to put in a fake shadow on photoshop, and they knew what they were doing, it wouldn't be difficult to produce the result you seem to be looking for. Select an area, apply a gradient fil, reduce opacity of the layer. I'm sure there are other easy ways too.

Looking at Maxwell's trousers, there are no details I can see in them either.

[Spud]

As I say, I doubt any of us could predict what results we would get with this lighting situation, this specific camera and with the copying process. You could spend for ever looking for this anomaly or that anomaly but none of it means the picture is a fake unless you can reproduce exactly the same situation, camera and copying and show it wouldn't be like that. You might not expect this result but you don't know so that's just pure speculation based on what? Understanding the relationship between flash, aperture and shutter speed is complex - there are various things on the internet discussing it, but again it depends on the exact conditions and camera.

To be honest, if someone wanted to put in a fake shadow on photoshop, and they knew what they were doing, it wouldn't be difficult to produce the result you seem to be looking for. Select an area, apply a gradient fil, reduce opacity of the layer. I'm sure there are other easy ways too.

Looking at Maxwell's trousers, there are no details I can see in them either.

So this means that until the original photo with the negative is produced, we cannot say conclusively whether it is genuine or not.
Although perhaps (in my view) there is cause to believe it is not, if we agree that there are certain anomalies such as Andrew's finger and his and Ghislaine's trousers (where are the pockets?)
I edited my previous post, as I took another photo of a window at night in which the flash appeared in the image.