You can see the bumps of his knuckles in the black line.

And look in the window: The photographer is standing under a lamp.

The photographer is facing a window -- a glass, reflective surface. When the flash goes off, it bounces back at the camera. That's not a lamp, that's the photographer's flash.

That could be a light-bulb partially obscured by a lamp-shade.

Which would then reflect off of the window pane. Not difficult to explain.

that looks like a lightbulb eclipsed by a lampshade.

But that's irrelevant to whether it's photoshopped or not. One or both of them could be superimposed into an existing photo.

The "tiny elliptical sheen" and the reflections off of the window panes and window shades, they're all perfectly normal. Exactly what you'd expect to see when photographing subjects against a reflective surface like a window. Every surface will reflect some light back onto the glass, which will be caught by the camera. It's really not that hard to understand.

As for it being "irrelevant," no, it is not. You can Photoshop a Martian landing on your granny's taint, but there are certain things that will always stand out. Martians #1, why you have a picture of your granny's taint #2. But then, there are shadow details, .jpg artifacts, shadows, cut lines. I've looked at this very closely, I see nothing unusual. And I'm usually one quick to bounce on the bullshit Photoshop threads. Nothing about this picture screams "Photoshop."

this is my front-runner for DU post of the year.

So does Granny. She's been sort of lonely without gramps.

I'm reading this at 7 am and just ended up with coffee up my nose.

Thanks a lot. LOL


YOU WIN THE INTERNETS !!!

I tend to look for the catch.

I had a hunch there would be some technicality involved just like with Dan Rather's Memogate, that's why this caught my attention.

But let's see how this plays out.

BTW the Daily Mail seems to be the go to news source for this as they received the original photo and interviewed the alleged victim 7 years ago. They've been sitting on the interview until now and only published it due to the documents filed in in court in Florida on 30th December.

I suspect they are incredibly lawyered up on this story.

Do you think the MSM would go all in to cause a constitutional crisis in the UK?

Or find the one friend of Epstein who can find an alibi?

That's a very common effect with flash photography. In fact, I'd me MORE suspicious if the black shadow wasn't there.

I can spot a Photoshop fake a mile away, as I've been doing this since Version 1. No knuckles, no shadows...I can't find anything in this pic that is a "tell" that it was Photoshopped.

My inclination is to believe the alleged victim's story but I also don't trust the media's motives. I wonder if this is a limited hangout to distract from something much worse.

We'll see if todays' "investigative journalists" dig any deeper.

That sheen is easily explained by a reflection off of the plastic window shade. You can see the hot spot of the flash on the shade...it would then reflect onto the window. If someone had the forethought to fake that I commend them. Brilliant!

Let's look at it further...the tangents.

The reflections are all perfectly aligned, from the window shade, through the flash reflection, across the window frames, down to the perfect lens flare. Perfect. Even the exposure. If this was Photoshopped, someone deserves a huge raise.

is the fact that "royals" are trained from before they can walk regarding when they should or shouldn't be photographed. Avoid the press in compromising situations. Avoid cameras. Etc.

Yet he seems to be posing willingly for this photo, as if he had no thought of guilt or repercussions. Was he that stupid? There's something not right here.

Maybe he's very drunk?

his nephew, Harry.

I think someone took those with a cell phone while he was unaware, although I could be mistaken.

sigh

Too much inbreeding, I guess.

Still, one can be quite "randy" and still be a little smart about it.

Was he, though?

Almost every compromising photo you see of the royal family is from paparazzi. You don't see them pose with their arms around people. In fact, there's not a lot of public contact between members of the royal family and commoners.

QED

And the background is brighter than the foreground.

1. her left hand looks weird like it's floating

2. his overall red skin tones vs her light tones (look at their 2 left hands)

3. also there is something funky about where his left hand is placed--it should be lower on her hip if they are that close and so little of his hand is showing. (meaning his left arm proportion is wrong).

4. also look at the left side of his face--looks cut out and does not follow the chin line

5. Also I think her hidden right arm proportion is wrong...more of her hand would show

------------

(there is some convincing p-shopping out there and I think this is one of them)............

You can see that his arm goes down almost straight, then bends at the elbow, at almost a 45 degree angle, which would make the amount of hand showing appropriate.

but because of the angle he's turned I think you'd see more of his hand. Also I think his thumb would not be resting on top of the hand, but slightly above--try it with somebody. It's not quite believable.

Also --maybe more telling--where his belly touches her side--looks awkward dontcha think?

that arm angle is a hard one to say for sure, but I agree that it doesnt look quite right.

Totally agree about her hand "floating" beside her hip-- glad somebody else sees that -- it seems really wonky.

Your other points make sense to me.

Yet, their arms don't seem prepared to take a photo.

That is a bit unusual right there. I was trying to figure out earlier what was odd about the photo, and I think that is it. Definitely not a "royal" pose.

the arms do not look natural. There is a "paper doll" awkwardness...

either because he's been set up and is innocent of this particular accusation, lack of evidence, or a technicality such as the alleged victim was over the age of consent in the jurisdictions where they met, or a piece of evidence has been forged or tampered with (as per Dan Rather's Memogate).

The media will promptly move on and forget all about Epstein's other victims and co-conspirators and steer clear of this type of story in future.

In his private jet.

Conveniently bypassing customs and immigration...

Landing at special airbases and not having to go through customs.

what he was indicted for and other info that you might find interesting. I found the whole thing so bizarre that I did some digging after reading the "Daily Mail & Telegraph" articles on all of it that seemed OTT. I didn't even know who Epstein was...He's far worse than I could have imagined.

I found this for background:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016110550

forever disgraced. He was already removed, BY THE QUEEN, from his public role as UK trade envoy/shill.

From 2011:

Prince Andrew has accepted a downgrading of his role as a trade envoy four months after coming under severe criticism for his association with a convicted US billionaire sex offender.

His days jetsetting around the world as a representative for British businesses – which earned him the tag "Airmiles Andy" – also look to be over as Buckingham Palace confirmed only that he would "continue to support business in the UK" and would not have a specialised role.

After a day in which the palace declined to confirm media reports that the prince, fourth in line to the throne, would be standing down, it issued a statement saying that he would "undertake trade engagements if requested". It is thought that he may now focus on boosting business in Britain and acting as a figurehead in the government's plans to increase the number of industrial apprenticeships and training for young people.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jul/21/prince-andrew-trade-envoy-palace

People who follow the UK RF (such as myself) have known for a while that Andrew has been marginalized from, e.g., The Firm's official photo ops.

Doesn't even look like his mouth or nose.
If that was taken some time ago, the guy is too old to be Andrew. His coloration isn't reddish like Andrew's either.
All the photos I've seen of Andrew it always looks like he's blushing.

are pretty much a bore.

Re my post 18. That's the biggest flaw--the cutout face. Glad somebody else sees it.

But That Epstein dude did go to jail. And the victims were not little kids.

I am going to wait this one out with an open mind.

This is just from memory but there is a lot of information out there in various MSM articles.

That is Epsteins alleged victims. Not Prince Andrew, he wasn't involved in that and I think he'll be vindicated in this case.

for over a decade.

"Outlandish"? Sadly, not in the very, VERY wealthy circles.

Plus ignorent. I thought he plead guilty to sex with a 17 year old. 14 is just plain wrong.

Any links to what this perv did?

and the shadows also fall to the right, which goes against the laws of physics.

My current guess is that they have been inserted into the photo and were not in that room at that location.

In my experience when the MSM all covers the same story before the evidence is in, it turns out to be BS.

good point--shadows should be on the other side.

This is a patchwork job.

It's called a shadow thrown off by a flash attachment. Perfectly normal photograph, right down to the red eyes that reveal them to be Lizardians.

not by the MSM.

Like other DUers I was one of the first to point out that the 'B' was carved into her face backward as if self-inflicted when looking in a mirror. A simple thing that the pundits didn't notice.

We may all be wrong this time but I wouldn't be surprised if the mistakes were put in the photo deliberately so that they would be spotted.

Epstein is a scumbag and I question anyone who has a close association... including Bill Clinton. From the facts coming out... the number of underage girls who were always there was not hidden to anyone. Not saying Clinton slept with any of them... but you have to question why he would associate himself with this guy. This net seems to be cast far and wide...

Dominatrix in their games. Her father was famous for raiding British Pension Fund which was only found out after he "fell off his boat and was never found again."

Robert Maxwell who disappeared and his daughter who only got $80,000 usd? a year from his will...but managed to get Epstein his connections with the Powerful and Famous here in the USA.

Sordid Stuff.

so apologies in advance because this is going to ruffle some feathers.

Does this girl look like she's suffering? Does she look 17? Does she appear in any way to be victimized, downtrodden, forced into any kind of servitude or acts against her will?

For the record, let's look at the definition of 'sex slave'...

sex slave
noun
a person who is forced into prostitution and held against their will

No where in the stories is there any indication at all that she was forced into anything and held anywhere against her will.

She's from a well-to-do family with connections. She wasn't picked up off the street and forced to work in any capacity. She was 'studying' to be a masseuse. Now, apologies in advance to every single legit masseuse out there but even the most unsophisticated person knows that there is a fine line between a legit masseuse and those who offer up happy endings. In the USA isn't not uncommon for exotic dancers to become self-professed masseuses. It just is what it is, no judgments. I have no problems with anyone in the sex trade, exotic dancing, etc. A girl (or guy) has to make a living! If people want to pay for sex, have at it, just be safe.

This young woman certainly doesn't 'look' 17. She looks happy, intelligent, engaged and rather thrilled at the opportunity to meet a Prince! A bit of stars in her eyes. At no point in her missive or in any writing at all does she claim to be forced, oppressed or pressed into working as a 'sex slave.' So maybe she got paid for sex or maybe just for massage services, big deal. She was employed as a masseuse, after all. If she was asked to or voluntarily engaged in further activities, she doesn't seem too upset about it. She wasn't thrown on the floor, assaulted and gang raped. I mean seriously, it's just sex.

I have no qualms at all in suggesting that this man had no idea she was 'just 17'. He's got a specific amount of character, especially considering his jet-set lifestyle, and had he known, I would suggest that he would have refused to get caught up in such a thing. Especially if he's posing for photographs? Hello?

This girl is also mature enough to have run off to Australia and Asia, and got herself married while she was just 18, and she looks happy and delighted in those photos too.

I think a lot of fuss is being made over nothing by the US press. I think some people are looking to cash in on the royal connection for a payday strung together by a lot of very thready assumptions and loose strings and innuendo. There certainly is much dragging of decent people through the mud for this payday. This girl is no victim... except by those people looking to make a buck right now.

So I call BS on the whole story.

And a lack of compassion as well.

overwhelming and horrifying when considered in their sum and total.

But in this particular case, with this specific woman and the specific people involved, the circumstances aren't nearly as horrifying as some of the really nasty victimization that goes on. In fact it's that juxtaposition that diminishes the alleged hubris. She wasn't a sex slave and wasn't forced into any kind of service. When she decided this wasn't the lifestyle she was interested in, she left of her own free will.

There was in fact an article about this situation in 2011 wherein she specifically states that she didn't engage in sexual activity with the prince.

I think the only reason why the whole 'sex-slave' moniker is being bandied about is to over-dramatize the whole situation for a big pay day for someone. It totally diminishes the real, genuine and serious global problems involved with female victimization.

As for Andrew, if he was involved with this girl, he would have assumed it was okay, because he met her in London when she was 17, where the age of consent is 16.

Epstein by all accounts seems to prefer girls younger than that.

banned from DU for life.

You think you can discern her motives, her feelings, her maturity, her attitude---from one second of a still photo?

Try reading the British press for the last ten years. This is a MAJOR SCANDAL, and even SO, just the tip of a very corrupt, debased, and evil strata of society.

THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER VICTIMS.

No. There is not a "fine line". Massage therapists typically attend classes 500-2000 hours long, including college level anatomy, physiology, kinesiology even in private, non-college schools.

Unfortunately too many people confuse the legitimate profession with sex work. As a highly trained, state licensed, insurance approved Preferred Provider, no. We do not masturbate our customers. Aside from being illegal, insurance does not pay for that and I've never seen a prescription from a doctor for that either. I'd expect sexual issues as something trated by a gynecologist or a perhaps a urologist, maybe an k
Internal medicine doctor.

But please, stop with that " thin line " stuff, realize it tells me more about how you view massage then what we actually do.

by any means. I've known and really benefited from highly skilled medicinal massage therapists, thank goodness, for many years. None that I have ever benefited from were in the sex trade.

But that being said, I really have known more than a few exotic dancers (let's call them strippers!) who happily cross that line, being every bit as as professionally trained as persons such as you are. It is Hollywood and the jet-set life after all, and not a crass assumption. Just a look at the ads on Craigslist or any other dodgy publication makes one blink the eyes at the adverts.

Massage therapy is just one of those professions where the lines can blur is all, and I'm not judging anyone.

or about a technicality? (Yes, the "font&quot .

Let's wait and see how this plays out.

I may be wrong but there's nothing wrong with interrogating the evidence.

stated that she had typed up SIMILAR documents with the SAME info, but not those of Rather.

BTW: There are YEARS of evidence. Epstein sat in prison for solicitation of a 14-yr-old, and after his parole, ANDREW flew to the US to host Epstein's "Welcome Home" party. He is furthermore beholden to Epstein for paying off Fergie's massive debts.

"Let's wait and see how this plays out." THIS IS A DISCUSSION BOARD.

That's what I'm getting at.

If there are any holes in this girl's story then that could shut down the discussion rather than leading to the MSM delving into all the other crimes that Epstein was involved in.

Don't forget that Epstein has served his time. He can't be prosecuted again for the same crimes (except in a civil suit).

That's what I mean by "let's see how this plays out". It's not an attempt to shut down discussion, I just mean I'm interested in seeing where it goes. It could ruin to a lot of reputations and change the political landscape in the US and UK...or it could lead to victims' stories being discredited.

there's no story, really. If the girl (now woman) in the photo doesn't complain and there is no photo or video of the two of them engaged in something more "delicate" than that photo, there's not any crime with evidence enough to convict anyone. Tabloid journalism. It's not illegal for a man and a 17-year-old having a photo taken with arms around waists, standing side-by-side.

I don't doubt that something might have happened between them, but without a lot more evidence than this, Andrew skates.

There's also the issue of age of consent where this was supposed to have happened. I don't know what that is.

ETA: The age of consent in New York in 2001 was 17. I have no idea which Caribbean island was also involved, so I can't look that up. If they had sex in New York when she was 17 and she consented to it, there isn't any criminal issue. It's still a potential scandal, of course, but not a criminal issue.

ETA: Looking at the Caribbean, the age of consent almost everywhere is 16 in that region.

They next met when she was 18 IIRC.

That's why I think this story has been overblown for some other purpose.

We'lll see soon enough if this is about exploring other avenues...or shutting down those avenues and moving on, nothing to see here...

16-yr-old's bare waist?? Andrew the old toad? I'm sure the kid was THRILLED.

And there is NO LEGAL AGE FOR PROSTITUTION.

They operate unobstructed because the police can't touch them. They know it too.

Two things:

1. They met
2. They had a photo taken

No more -- no less.

I have a photo of me with Lady Bird Johnson. I guess I could claim that I had an affair with her and everyone here would believe me.

and a strange gap between her left hand and hip.

The black "shadow" also appears to be in front of Ghislaine Maxwell even though she is further behind them.

I think it's a real photo that's been doctored to look like a fake photo by adding stuff like the shadow.

It's interesting that no one in the MSM has thought to analyze the photo. I only found one site that has and that's a site connected to Alan Dershowitz (FWIW they think it's photoshopped).

As to the rest, I can't comment.