Prince Andrew Part 2

[SunsetBoulevard3]

Here is another thread to discuss the PA interview and its repercussions.

If I was a Count I don't think I don't want a disgraced paedophile apologist as a father-in-law

Bearing in mind that the Count in question dumped his former partner with a tiny baby.......

The COs are already being charged with contributing to eosteins death, autopsy shows now more likely murder than suicide (or rather homicide in the states), and yet all the men that have been raping ....still no trials/arrests...

Actually, yes, the photo is doctored. I've just had another look at it.

If you look at her left hand, you can see it doesn't lay on her hip, and that something has been cut away from the length of the thumb area (because they haven't got it all).

Also the white area between his shirt and her right breast is a pixilated fill-in. You can tell because it is the wrong shade of white for either his shirt sleeve or the painted architrave behind.

It's been messed with. I also think it's been made up of three different images. The GM photo is the base image, with a superimposed VR (probably from a photo of her with other girls, which required the fake arm and hand work in photoshop) next to a superimposed man, with a superimposed PA head.

Also it was supposed to have been taken in March 2001 in Belgravia, but the sash window is open, which seems odd. London isn't that warm in March.

What I find weird is the "experts" are saying the image manipulation was "in its infancy" at the time, which is frankly a load of bollocks. I was doing a similar type of image manipulation work (removing people from photos etc) back in 1999, and I wasn't a specialist.

Beatrice's fiancé isn't a count is he? If he dumps her then he may well be something that sounds very much like the word but I guess this is a good test of whether he's in it for love of her or in it to be part of the RF.

Love all the armchair photo experts on here.....

Do you think you can tell for certain by looking at a picture of a picture on a screen something that presumably the best experts Andrew could pay for couldn’t?

A lot of flannelling that Her Madge is just doing "what any mother would do" completely swerves the point that if there is one thing we can all agree on, it's that the Queen is not "any mother". And if she wants to be, I am sure there are plenty of people that will swap a rented 3 bed semi for Buck House.

Agree @SamanthaBrique - I'd still feel sorry for her though as she had a bad experience previously

Prince Andrew himself doesn't say it was 'doctored' because he bloody well remembers it being taken.

No, he doesn't say that. He says that no one can prove either way because it's a photo of a photo of a photo. His position is that he doesn't believe that photo was taken in the way it was presented: ie. it's a photo of his face, maybe even his body, but the image wasn't taken on that night, in that place, with those people.

And I don't think it was either. And if it wasn't, the question is why the photo was created in the first place and to what purpose.

I think something far more murky is going on than has been released publicly. Epstein seems to have had some sort of industrial surveillance operation going on. There are rumours of a second foreign site, other than LSJ, where the abuse of minors was horrendous. There are suggestions some of the footage was passed to intelligence services in other countries.

I don't think its unreasonable to assume that only the surface of this has been scratched.

Such operations don't work in isolation and JE had decades of undercover activity, trafficking, abusing, videoing, and there's huge money in it.

As JEs suicide now looks to be more likely murder that brings this reality closer, and there are fall guys.

I am intrigued to know how a photo in the public realm that cannot be conclusively stated as doctored or not, and be stated categorically as such here on this thread.

Can you explain this?

Do you think you can tell for certain by looking at a picture of a picture on a screen something that presumably the best experts Andrew could pay for couldn’t?

Because it's obvious. They are pretty basic photoshop fails, particularly the cut out by her left thumb. Anyone who works with digital image manipulation would notice them.

But then we have "experts" telling the Sun newspaper that this kind of image work was in its infancy in 2001, which is so laughable, I don't know what to say. The Sun itself was doing digital cut out and erase image work on its arts desk in the late 90s, as were every single national newspaper and magazine at that time. I know because digital image manipulation was part of my first job on a national.

PA must know it's a crock photo. Anyone with a background in photoshop would see it. The real question is why he feels he can't directly challenge the photo.... probably because there's something he wants to keep hidden.

“ Because it's obvious. They are pretty basic photoshop fails, particularly the cut out by her left thumb. Anyone who works with digital image manipulation would notice them. ”
Any particular reason Andrew didn’t produce a statement to that effect?

I also don't buy into the misinformation on digital development being around at that time. It certainly was.

The reason why though?

Since (some) people are obsessing over a photo that is almost the singularly agreed on fact in this whole saga ...the main question is whether the photo that has been released is exactly the same as the original that it is proxy for ? Quite aside from copyright tricks where released material has subtle thief-traps in it, there may be very good reasons why a slightly off copy has been circulated.

An awful lot of digital - and non digital - material of any great volume (such as the pixels in a picture) is deliberately fucked with to snare people who just copy it wholesale. Phone books and maps being two regular examples.

So just because a picture doesn't look undoctored, isn't necessarily evidence of sinister intent.

There are all sorts of reasons I can think of why law enforcement might want the original not to be reproduced 100%.

This is the danger of conspiraloons, they think a single oddity in what is frankly an ocean of data "proves" something. As with the JFK nutters ... it would be much more noteworthy if there were no inconsistencies in the whole case ...

I think a big part of the problem is that the Queen should have retired years ago. She is totally out of touch with the country and also can not or will not control her family.

She is CEO effectively and how many CEOs would be doing their job well at 93 - none!

I think something far more murky is going on than has been released publicly.

No shit sherlock.

When he was trade ambassador wasn't he accused of all sorts of dodgy deals? I'd love to see him working the checkout at Tescos to understand what a real job entails.

When he was trade ambassador wasn't he accused of all sorts of dodgy deals?

Airmiles Andy ?

I have a recollection that he was a cost centre for a lot of organisations he was "advising" or "promoting". If HIGNFY last night is to be believed that £57 million came from somewhere.

No idea if the photo is doctored or not. Personally I think it's kosher. It's all very easy to talk of it being put together, but why? Why would anyone do this when there's no 'doctored' pics of Dershowitz and all the other influential people who went to his NY mansion.

I was just saying to dh that something bigger must have happened that's not being reported. Why hasn't he released the security details as they can prove where he was.

I am intrigued to know how a photo in the public realm that cannot be conclusively stated as doctored or not, and be stated categorically as such here on this thread.

I am not sure what you mean here.

PA is the one that has said that no-one can conclusively prove the photo has been doctored because it is a repro of a repro of a repro. That is his opinion that he has, interestingly, stated as fact.

But it is not fact, it is his opinion. And it is bollocks, probably because he hasn't listened properly to someone.

When it comes to images in the digital age, you have to prove authenticity, not manipulation. By virtue of modern publication methods, every image we see on a screen or in print will have been altered in a variety of ways.

So if you want to claim an image is authentic, you have to supply an original print or file. In this case, VR says the photo was apparently taken by Epstein on her cheap kodak throwaway camera. So who has the original negative? The original print?

Apparently, it has been reported that the FBI have the original print. And they refuse to allow other parties to examine it. So we have no idea whether the FBI image is indeed the original print, or a print of a manipulated image, or whether there is an original negative.

But the onus is to prove authenticity. And the released image shows obvious signs of manipulation. Indeed, the Times reported earlier this year that a forensic analyst working for PA had suspicions about the publicly circulated image, but that was brushed off as PR and damage control.

I have to say that I am, in no way, making excuses for PA or what his relationship with JE may have involved (which I suspect may be worse than we think). I just really dislike being faced with something that is so blatantly dubious as that photo, and be told I have to accept it as truth.

It's the principle of the thing.

What makes me curious is that all you read about PA is that he's up his own backside and knows his status, wants people bowing and scraping to him etc. I wonder if he's aware of the absolute mickey taking going on on FB. For a man like him it's a total humiliation. He's a laughing stock. (Some of them are very funny).

I think if you go back 20, 30, 40 or more years you'll find an awful lot of men whose behaviour was, by today's standards, reprehensible. Thing is, though, by the standards of their time it was totally OK, even expected. Cop a feel of a nubile young girl, get off with a fan: all quite normal for a wealthy and powerful man - and this includes both the toffs and the ones who'd made their own money. Basically, if they wanted something they felt they could just stretch out their hand and take it. No-one important told them otherwise, and their peers were doing the same thing.

Does that make it OK? Hell no, and I'm not suggesting that Jimmy Savile or 56 year old Woody Allen shagging his 21 year old stepdaughter was anything other than appalling. I just believe that a lot of privileged men did, and were encouraged to do, things that these days we rightly see as completely unacceptable.

Now, exhibiting that sort of behaviour more recently, when it's viewed as socially unacceptable by the vast majority (I suppose there's still a minority who think it's OK) - that's totally, totally immoral. Not to mention stupid, because with CCTV and social media all over the chances of not being caught are vanishing.

packing

but be stated categorically as such here on this thread.

I should have clarified that typo, sorry.

What I was trying to say was its duplicitous, very misleading the statement about the photo, when you are able to state here very clearly the machinations at work in photography since, years, certainly the years in question.

Your inputs been really helpful, and it does go to show the complexity, even of one single piece of that interview, that we are in the main very unaware of.