Yeah, I think it's most likely that it was actually there when the photos were taken. Not a high degree of certainty though.
Edited Photo of Ghislaine Maxwell at In-N-Out
- Thread starter igoddard
- Start date
igoddard
Active Member
Bang! Kudos to Daily Mail for some real gumshoe jounalism!
So online sleuths ferreted out a staged PR stunt. The "Gotcha!" narrative tested against the photos didn't pass the smell test. I suspect part of Maxwell and her lawyer's scheme was to present her as a down-to-earth 'soccer mom' who eats common-folks food, contrary to the impression of an uber-elite snob who exploited disadvantaged girls she reportedly called "trash." Another plan was probably to throw people off the scent of her actual whereabouts.
This fake-news incident leaves the New York Post with some splainin to do. Were they duped or parties to it?
A meta-point is how flimsy this PR stunt was, which implies we're not dealing with high-level CIA operations. Instead the conspirators were probably just Maxwell and her lawyer. But the Good Boys poster is still an outstanding puzzle, I can't see how they would have either placed it out there, or edited it into the photo. That level of planning seems to exceed the ham-fisted level of planning that went into taking the photos with Maxwell at a table strewn with evidence contradicting the story.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
i cant find what "meadowgate media investments" actually does, but since she live right near Hollywood it's not a stretch to think one of her buddies or investments is in Good boys and obviously a photo of the sledge there, would go viral. Would be kinda silly to waste an opportunity for product placement.
and "in n out" burger would be proof she definitely isn't in Massachusetts (that particular day). I can't believe McDonalds hasn't sued the pants off them, it's an obvious rip off of the McDonalds brand. but I digress...
Tedsson
Member
Based on what I have read in the thread I tend to agree.
My inner Occam screams fly posting. Possibly corrected later by legitimate posters.
Or maybe it is a deep state attempt to do a bit of NLP on the public with all the other signs blanked out so the focus is on Good Boys. In visceral red. Or possibly not.
igoddard
Active Member
If I lived nearby, I'd go to that bus stop to see how easy it might be to insert a poster. The suspicious aspect to the Good Boys poster is, imo, how perfectly it time stamps the photo. If you wanted to take a photo that proves the whereabouts of someone at a given time, some form of time verification would be desired. Including that poster would serve that purpose with precision, better than almost anything you'd encounter in a random urban scene.
deirdre
Senior Member.
actually, inserting the actual poster (the ER poster) would serve that purpose a lot better. All that poster is doing is making everyone think she wasn't in LA on August
Last edited:
igoddard
Active Member
I don't follow? The local hospital exists over decades, so a poster for it could appear in any of many years. But promotion for a 2019 summer movie would only have a narrow window of expected existence.
The only reason the Good Boys poster caused trouble for their narrative was the unlikely event that the Daily Mail contacted the post-installing company. An outcome that Maxwell and attorney would not have anticipated.
Those hospital posters only started in January 2019
https://musebycl.io/health/burbank-hospital-putting-your-consideration-billboards-around-la
External Quote:
deirdre
Senior Member.
No its because the Daily Mail went to the location. and they noticed the poster was different. Then they called the ad company.
A socialite would know that the media would descend on that location. Leah lives near enough that even if they took the photos 3 months ago, she could go and take photos from the same spot and photoshop in the new poster, to "date" it.
igoddard
Active Member
That's not common knowledge. We're talking about the planning phase before they released the photos. You think they'd reason that people will know that random hospital poster was created this year? A movie released the same week would be a far more likely time marker.
igoddard
Active Member
As I said, the Mail had to call the poster-installing company to find out. If Maxwell thought media would be swarming all over the scene, we'd have to assume they would do no manipulation to the images because that would be noticed via on-site inspection. But I'm assuming they did add the Good Boys poster and then wondering why. If not to mark time, then why?
Btw, "the media" did not descend on the area. One newspaper from the UK did, which makes showing up a highly unlikely occurrence. This story doesn't even seem to have penetrated major media much. In fact, I think the story that Maxwell staged photos is not being covered at all by the major networks.
deirdre
Senior Member.
yup. or it was a simple product placement marketing ploy.
I guess I should have clarified, "tabloid type" media. Not sure why mainstream media would care. Her going to LA for a one day botox treatment, tells us nothing about 'her whereabouts', so seriously... who cares if she was in LA one day?
Although, Business Insider showed up
https://www.businessinsider.com/ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-madam-in-n-out-photo-op-2019-8External Quote:
Anyway one of theories I read was, that they did it because the Daily Mail the day before posted an article about her living in Massachusetts. I know you said the photo was taken on the 12th, but the nypost archive article you linked doesn't say that. and Reddit and @Agent K say the metadata says the photo taken on the 15th https://www.metabunk.org/posts/233226/
So if youre gonna try and prove the Daily Mail wrong, (like the NY post did, even quoting a Massachusetts neighbor) Daily Mail is highly likely to try to prove their Aug 14th story wasn't bull and try to debunk your pic.
No?
edit add: sorry just relooked at the archive and it does say "Monday" which would debunk the 'debunking the Daily Mail' theory. http://archive.fo/ixyXP Now im gonna have to figure out how to find the metadata to look for myself : (
igoddard
Active Member
The New York Post would add false contents into photographs to market products? And they'd get paid to do so? It would be interesting to know if that happens. The scrubbing out of signs is a suggestion of the inverse, of not wanting to give free advertising. But I'd be really surprised if media like NYP manipulate photographs in such ways. Maxwell having the Good Boys poster added as a time stamp seems more likely and simpler than that.
Ya, I showed that yesterday, and they didn't even notice the sign discrepancy. However, in both cases I'm not sure if employees of DM or BI showed up or they're relying on citizen foot work. Notice that article says "people are flocking to," rather than the press. Whatever, if Maxwell thought people would flock to the spot, they should have decided to not manipulate the photos.
For the record, the New York Post says the photo was shot on Aug 12, which was the Monday of that week:
External Quote:
Am afraid I don't follow what you're asking me.
The time-stamp hypothesis for adding the Good Boys poster seems pretty simple and reasonable to me. Although I'm not persuaded it wasn't actually out there at the time.
The metadata varies
Sources: https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/maxwell_final.jpg
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/maxwell_final2.jpg
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/maxwell_final3.jpg
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/ghislaine-maxwell.jpg
The Ghislaine file, with Artist:Meadowgate media says Aug 15. final3 says Aug 12 in the "Image Description", but Aug 18 in the digitized and edited fields.
deirdre
Senior Member.
hmm. I don't know. I personally think the sign was there. but if not then Meadowgate Media Investments likely photoshopped it. but I guess the NY Post could technically get paid for a product placement deal, but that would mean altering a copyrighted photo so the photographer could sue big time!
Fair enough. As a female, I'm just going by what me and my friend would do... which is i'd tell my friend to get a pic of the new sign and splice that in, if i was trying to 'date' myself and i knew there were Epstein conspiracies flying all over the place. But that's us.
I still think it's more likely the Good Boys people changed the placard for a few days or paid someone off to do it. I mean the ER isnt even opening until 2021.. so do they really need to be taking up valuable ad space?
But that's just me too.Mostly im just waiting for DM or NYPost to find an employee who says "yea i remember that sign being there". (or not)
igoddard
Active Member
Ya, I tend to agree, something like that. Several factors combine to give me the impression that either the sign was out there or someone with exceptional editing skills pasted it in both photos it appears, yet the botch work everywhere else in the photos suggest no such craftsman participated.I still think it's more likely the Good Boys people changed the placard for a few days or paid someone off to do it. I mean the ER isnt even opening until 2021.. so do they really need to be taking up valuable ad space?
igoddard
Active Member
So we can see two versions of Photoshop were used, CS3 and CC 2017. That suggests two editors were involved. Of the two, the more skilled would probably use CC 2017. Who even still has CS3?!
The metadata I get via Finder, Get Info, on my mac lacks an entry for Artist. It also erroneously gives a date for Created as the time I downloaded a copy, Aug 18. Oh, maybe that's because I changed the file name. Nope, just saved another copy and it gives now as the Created date. How did you get that metadata?
It's fun to reread the NY Post article, as now the fabricated nature of it screams louder than ever. I'm really surprised this case of busted fake news isn't getting called out big time. With all the talk of fake news, here's a pristine specimen. Is the NY Post just going to say nothing, acting like it didn't happen? This is over a potential fugitive of the law and their article served to confuse people and possibly law enforcement about her whereabouts.
deirdre
Senior Member.
It's only technically fake news if the NY Post knew they were being lied to. and I doubt they did.
Even if they knew they were talking to Leah Saffrian, it's not unreasonable she would be acting as an agent for the photographer who wanted money but not have 'his' name out there. Metadata can be changed. Its really only the dog that kinda gives the whole thing away. I'm speculating obviously, but...
what makes you think she is a fugitive?
and i'm fairly confident law enforcement doesn't think she lives at In n Out Burger in Universal City.
igoddard
Active Member
So a faked story becomes not fake news if a dupe transmits it?
Do you think they still believe the story they're still selling is true?
If you re-read the story, it's dreadfully convoluted. There were two sources, "a daily regular" who took the photos and someone whom they quote who witnessed the (fake) interaction between the photographer and Maxwell.
That last sentence implies the Post did not communicate with the photographer, because they are asking the witness to explain how the photographer knew it was Maxwell. I don't believe a big-name paper would run photographs from a photographer without securing direct copyright permission from them.External Quote:
And the Post's story leaves unexplained how they came into possession of the photos, if they had to ask the witness about the photographer. And how did the witness come into possession of the photos? The meta-narrative of the Post acquiring the information is as wonky as the busted fake narrative they reported.
I said "potential fugitive." Quite a few headlines would give me that impression, as for example: "Feds might be targeting Epstein's gal pal, Ghislaine Maxwell."
igoddard
Active Member
I can't seem to replicate your example in physical space. Here I place a roll of white trash bags approx where I believe the SUV is relative to an android phone replicating the approx relative position of the bus-stop poster.
But we're seeing the rear of the mock-SUV in reflection, not its frontal area. This was my sense at first, that the position of the poster ought to be reflecting an area further down the street, not as if the SUV was almost in front of it.
To the extent my ad hoc replication is imperfect I believe it's biased to favoring a similar outcome, and so it underestimates the problem with the photo. I think not even the rear of the SUV should be visible in the photo. I believe the SUV's forward region is at least well passed the sign and much further from it than my example above.
deirdre
Senior Member.
oh see, I read that as the licensing agent relating the story.
DasKleineTeilchen
Active Member
I really dont think that the reflected car is the same as the one on the street (right side of pic decreased red-channel for clarity)
the hood is just too long to be the same car and I dont think its a trick of perspective. Im pretty certain its shopped.
edit/ I am now certain that the reflected car isnt the same one on the street; to clarify:
right pic is flopped to simulate reflection, but the shots are showing the same car.
the hood is just too long to be the same car and I dont think its a trick of perspective. Im pretty certain its shopped.
edit/ I am now certain that the reflected car isnt the same one on the street; to clarify:
right pic is flopped to simulate reflection, but the shots are showing the same car.
Last edited:
DasKleineTeilchen
Active Member
furthermore to my post above; I dont think the real distance between the busstop and a car on the right lane could lead to a reflection like your example shows, the scaling in your pic doesnt match, but I could be wrong
edit/ ha! I believe the white car isnt even in the right lane, but in the middle one:
the black car is clearly not directly behind, but beside the white car.
Last edited:
jonnyH
Senior Member.
Judging by the shape of the tail light cluster and the rear quarter light, the white car on the street is a Dodge Grand Caravan.
https://www.dodge.com/grand-caravan.html
You could be right about the car in the reflection being a different model as the A-pillar/wing mirror doesn't seem to match.
DasKleineTeilchen
Active Member
as we are now know that the white car is most likely in the middle lane, we can now roughly estimate with the "portrait"-shot of maxwell and the satellite-view the position of the white car in comparison to the (reflective) poster at the busstop.
it clearly doesnt add up.
edit/ @Mick West: you were a bit faster than me; very nice. I am a bit proud of myself that I positioned the white car at the exact same spot as you just by eyesight
it clearly doesnt add up.
edit/ @Mick West: you were a bit faster than me; very nice. I am a bit proud of myself that I positioned the white car at the exact same spot as you just by eyesight
deirdre
Senior Member.
if the car is in the middle lane, then these photos might help with perspective..
although I cant tell if its the white car or the silver car in the poster.
Source: https://imgur.com/a/0lnzhDq
although I cant tell if its the white car or the silver car in the poster.
Source: https://imgur.com/a/0lnzhDq
DasKleineTeilchen
Active Member
but I can; its the silver one in the middlelane. further evidence that the "good boys"-shot is shopped.
thnx for the link
DasKleineTeilchen
Active Member
and suddenly there is something bugging me after seeing that pic above: it is shot from a slightly different position and when the car is that far away to see the reflection....well...
orange box: is there a white car behind (in line of sight) the black one?!? in the middle lane? the black seems in the right lane, and you can see a whiteholm a-pillar (?) trough the open windows of the black one. now I am not so certain anymore. shit.
@Mick West: since you already got a model with the right perspective, why not place a car at that spot and see if its reflected in the mirror?
orange box: is there a white car behind (in line of sight) the black one?!? in the middle lane? the black seems in the right lane, and you can see a white
@Mick West: since you already got a model with the right perspective, why not place a car at that spot and see if its reflected in the mirror?
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
I was gonna say that, but figured you guys would think I was being silly.
DasKleineTeilchen
Active Member
whys that? youre not known for that kind of thinking, amirite?
deirdre
Senior Member.
I have well documented spatial confusion issues. the angle works for me, but I don't trust myself because of my spatial glitches.
I do trust that only .09% of 60 year old women would give a hoot about a reflection on a sign. (Noone notices when you don't have a zit). And only 1.1% of 60 year old women would know there is a movie coming out called 'Good Boys'.
Which is why I still think the sign was there. Or at the very least a man was involved in the scam.
Green is FOV of the wider shot.
Initially seems not, but I think it's plausible that there could be a line of sight is we move the care in the right turn lane out a bit.
DasKleineTeilchen
Active Member
not quite; the white car (assuming I interprete right) is too far behind:
edit/ sorry, bit lost in translation;; by "holm" I mean "beam" "cross-piece" "bar"...man, I dont know the correct term, but you get the idea.
jonnyH
Senior Member.
Agent K
Senior Member
Was my question answered?
We don't know what the original photo had, in terms of reflection.
Similar threads
Trending content
-
-
-
Thread '"Active Social Engineering Defense" and "Large Scale Social Deception"'- Mick West
Replies: 22 -
Thread 'Claim: Election Truth Alliance "proves" voter fraud in Clark County, NV'
- Peter Delaney
Replies: 15 -
