Daily Mail
Prince Andrew Virginia Roberts/Guiffre – infamous photo -> it's not a fake
or is it fake????????
What is ABSOLUTELY certain is that the 'expert proofs' by Daily Mail are inexpert
(for UPDATES: –> please scroll down:-
Update 1 - 2023-01-31 – added weight to claim photo is fake
Update 2 – 2023-02-01 – ABSOLUTE Proof of fake!!!!!!!!!?!)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687313/Proof-Prince-Andrew-photo-not-fake-Evidence-image-royal-Virginia-Giuffre-real.html
The link above gives an account of 'expert' evidence by DM reporter Mark Hookham (MH) & Daily Mail photographer Michael Thomas (MT)
Note: The video itself cannot be normally paused to allow careful inspection because on pausing the video is blocked out by adverts of other reports (inexpert???) -> use leftclick on mouse to hold video slider to pause.
Some points to correct:
Arguments raised by MH&MT – ALL arguments by MH&MT are ENTIRELY BASELESS, not solely because they do not understand Light Transmission Dynamics (see below for link & quick observation to understanding LTD dynamics) - the reason why people do not understand LTD is because media are dishonest – media, including Daily Mail, refuse to acknowledge that Opticks (wrongly attributed to Newton, Newton stole the IP) are wrong.
So, Daily Mail, by lying about Opticks can now lie regarding the PA/VG photo → ??????????????????
Date stamp & lab info on reverse side is NOT proof of the originality of the photo (i.e. as proof of its genuineness) – this is PROVED by the video itself where MT is videoed photographing the photo, the image in both the video & the video of the photographed photo are clear – which also PROVES that the taking of a photo of a FAKED photo can hold up as 'proof' of a 'genuine' photo.
Photoshopping/Faking– MT's arguments (seconds 5:20) of the unlikelihood of photoshopping/faking of photo are not valid – faking of imagery has been around ever since photography was invented, its a corner-stone of film making, what was NOT correctly understood was LTD dynamics …..........
Halo effects – light, coming from behind an object, produces a halo effect – this is because of LTD side-band transmission dynamics (you need a prism & to make simple observations to see & understand this phenomena – again, see link below & quick observation)
One can often detect the absence of halo effect in movies where people are superimposed on back-projected backgrounds – it produces a 'cut-out' effect (i.e. the halo effect is absent), and is extremely annoying when one is conscious of it.
Within the PA/VG photo there are areas that suggest that there could be 'cut-out' dynamics – i.e. that the photo has been faked.
Compare areas of photo to sections of the video –
(a) in particular at seconds 3:35, the video is taken with multiple light sources (as can be seen in glasses reflections) + (it appears) daylight as well - MT's left shoulder against the white wall has marginal halo effect produced by light reflected off the white wall, whereas the right arm has virtually none, hence a cut-out effect.
(b) look at the photo (at seconds 5:34) – this photo has a reflected flash from the back window, this is of far greater intensity than that of the white wall behind MT in the video, yet there is no halo effect around Ghislaine Maxwell's (GM) lower right arm (between VG's left arm & waist), yet GM's lower right arm is in direct line for reflected light from the flash, thus one would expect a degree of halo effect, but there is none. This is similar to the cut-out effect of GM's upper arm behind which there is a curtain blocking the reflected flash light, again no halo effect.
(c) look at the far darker edge on left side of PA's face than is the case for the left sides of both VG & GM whose are much lighter, yet GM is standing further back & more off-centre of the flash than PA. Also PA's left side face is far darker than the left shoulder of MT in the video, yet both are against a brilliant white wall, admittedly different walls & different photos, but similar dynamics → ???????
Other points:
PA's settlement – one only has to recognise that UK's Chief Justice, President of Supreme Court & other Justices have covered-up on: numerous fraud scam issues, Twin Towers IMPLOSIONS, bogus 'science', etc., etc., to recognise that Justice is NOT present in UK's (in)Justice system.
_________________
The aforegoing arguments are NOT scientific proofs, but are valid arguments using Science FACTS regarding Light Transmission Dynamics (which counter the bogus 'science' from Newton)
Conversely stated: the video PROVES that the Daily Mail's 'inexpert' claim of 'not fake' is not proven
but, more importantly, is likely unprovable of 'not fake', or indeed of 'fake'.
It is a corner-stone of Justice that Prosecution prove the charges
NOT for Defence to prove innocence
BUT, Daily Mail, like all media, only deal in LIES
WHY???
Sincerely
Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
UPDATE: 2023-01-31
Additional points.
In video (5:16) one can see a clear, although marginal, shadow beyond MT's left arm/shoulder & head – and this with multiple light sources. Compare to the PA/VG photo - there is NO shadow on the wall behind PA's back, yet there is a very dark shadow behind GM's head indicating significant flash lighting.
And, from the reflection in the window, above the flash reflection, is what appears to be the reflection of the main interior light source, i.e. immediately above (& behind?) the flash source – therefore, there should (surely) be a doubled shadow effect resulting from flash light and also from main light upon the wall behind PA's back, one can clearly see marginal shadow on PA's shirt back so surely shadow should appear on the wall → surely? - but there is NONE!!! → ?????
There is a light dedicated to the painting on the wall to right of photo, but this is directed to the painting and not for general lighting, although since it is also from same side as the flash it would add marginally to increasing a shadow effect behind PA's back.
This can indicate the possibility (probability?) of a faked photo.
Note PA's right hand, the intensity of the light off his right hand is quite marked and showing a lightish tone, yet the fingers of the left hand (around VG's waist, allegedly PA's fingers) are a far darker tone (squint yours eyes progressively closed and you will see that this is so) yet VG's right arm shows, again, that there is high intensity light on her arm, but NOT so on the fingers (allegedly PA's) around her waist – also compare to GM's hands & arms, much darker – yet, again, the shadow behind GM's head shows high intensity light but this is not reflected off the dark hands & arms of GM, nor off the fingers around VG's waist → ???????
GM's overall tonal values in the photo are far darker than the tones of PA & VG, yet GM is a white Caucasian(?), certainly other photos indicate GM having a light skin tone, much lighter than in the DM 'not fake' photo → ??? - which can indicate a separate photo taken in a different circumstance with a different camera & different lighting & juxtapositioned into a fake photo.
Note also the cut-out effect of VG's left arm against GM's white top – which contrast markedly with the area of PA's left side of neck against his white shirt – again, this comparison can indicate different images from different times/places – and all juxtapositioned to create a fake photo.
These additional points now give weighting to the claim by GM & PA that the photo is a fake.
Update 2 – 2023-02-01 – ABSOLUTE Proof of fake!!!!!!!!!?!
Note: the original photo is from a (disposable?) Kodak Film Camera (type as shown on link page above) and photographed by Daily Mail's TM with a high-res digital camera.
The photograph is on the Daily Mail online page (link above, the photo immediately below the video)
Zoom into the photo (on Firefox web-browser, top right hand corner, triple line icon, click on this icon and select zoom option, Firefox allows 500x zoom, go for 500x)
Look carefully (ideally with magnifying glass) at the ENTIRE outline around PA – there is a clear cut-out line around PA, and distinctly different to the outline around VG, and around GM.
But comparison of form of outline around VG to that of form around GM also appear to differ, admittedly not as markedly as with PA.
The cut-out outline area around PA is inconsistent with a normal outline affected by normal lighting distribution from the specific light sources that were present, and as can be seen with comparison to the outline around MT in the video. The cut-out outline around PA is (ENTIRELY!!!!!!!!!?!) consistent with a distinctly separate image of PA juxtapositioned/pasted onto another photo, and probably with some touch-up, but clearly totally inadequate for close-in inspection.
Pulling out old personal colour film photographs and giving close examination of various figures in various locations & lighting conditions, there was no visible all-round cut-out effect around any of the photos examined as is the case with the cut-out around PA in the Daily Mail 'not fake' photo.
Photographing 2 photos with a Samsung Galaxy A12 phone camera, zooming in & examining areas, again with magnifying glass - there were no instances where there was even a remote correlation to the cut-out outline around PA.
The conclusion is that the photo is in certainty a fake,
far beyond any reasonable doubt.
Nevertheless Daily Mail, MH, MT, indeed anyone, as always, is welcome to engage constructively on these points, or any R&D points on CDADD website.
Sincerely
Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
Understand how&why we see light. Understand how&why we see perspective. Understand how&why we see clouds. → Understand Light Transmission Dynamics
Follow 'Fast-track' at www.cdadd.com - A quick observation that proves Opticks (with a 'k')(wrongly attributed to Newton) are wrong → e≠mc2 →
Quantum Theory/Quantum Physics contradicts Classical Physics because QT/QP is wrong → Kwantum Fiziks!!!
Understand how&why we see light.
Understand how&why we see perspective
Understand how&why we see clouds
Understand Light Transmission Dynamics→
Orient a prism (preferably a 3 x 60 degree) to obtain 'rainbow' pattern, move prism to surface & observe 'rainbow' splits out to roy & vib patterns at apex points – take a sheet of paper and move around the prism, note the full-shadow of the prism obstructing forward light (barring a thin strip of full intensity forward light emanating from the adjacent apex point, the light having passed directly through the prism to the apex point, all other light reflected internally&externally), and the 3 attenuated light patches. It is because of the attenuated light patch that allows full intensity side-band colours of roy & vib, emanating from immediately outside the apex points, to appear within these attenuated light regions, i.e. the roy&vib patterns are WITHIN the bounds of the prism dimensions (NOT without), thus the light colour side-bands emanate from outside the bounds of the prism and, due to arc-angle distribution of the roy & vib colours at distinct angles, appear WITHIN the bounds of the prism dimensions – with the prism removed the side-band colours, which were at the apex-points at which the prism was, are still there (& everywhere) but are swamped by the forward ('white') light – this phenomena occurs everywhere with natural light.
The 2 sets of side-band colours are about a forward band of light (‘white’),, thus the orientation of colours are: biv-fwd-roy.
Thus a prism does NOT split out 'white' light, colours are NOT frequency related but arc-angle related – thus Einstein, Hubble, Higgs, Hawking, CERN etc. are wrong → e≠mc2 , etc., etc., …..
It is the mixing of the sideband colours within clouds/water that causes perception of greyness to black – but this is ACTIVE COLOURFUL light, that appears as dark/grey light, the colours remain distinctly separate but optically merge to create grey/dark – the deeper/longer/thicker the cloud the more the progressive mixing of light colours, the darker the grey, through to black – so in deep-sea water there is ACTIVE black light.
Q: The Forward Light from the prism (toward the prism shadow) – does this produce side-band colours???? A second prism is required for this test.
The test (as per 'Newton's' Opticks) for the side-band colours NOT producing other colours through a second prism is an incorrect test (again, Newton was wrong – because he didn't understand Opticks – because he stole the Intellectual Property) – WHY is the test wrong?
Also note: Light does NOT polarise! Nor does light Refract or Diffract!
Young's slit experiment is misinterpreted! Quantum Physics? → Kwantum Fiziks!!!
TO UNDERSTAND HOW LIGHT ACTUALLY FUNCTIONS ONE MUST LOOK THROUGH A SINGULAR PRISM & OBSERVE CAREFULLY – analysing light through a drop of water is engaging with near-infinite number of prisms, but light through just one prism has been misunderstood for over three&half centuries.
Hence: e≠mc2
Follow the Fast-Track to understand Light Transmissioin Dynamics