Edited Photo of Ghislaine Maxwell at In-N-Out
- Thread starter igoddard
- Start date
deirdre
Senior Member.
the camera person is standing to the right of your first table pole too.
you need to scooch back and to the right a tad.
DasKleineTeilchen
Active Member
wow, totaly overlooked that one! thank you. no, I dont think its the same reflection, looks different and genuine. right off the bat I dont know if its the same car, but depending on the slightly different angle of the window regarding to the busstop, it could be the same car (if the poster isnt shopped after all and there is a white car behind the black one)
apart from that; as long as I havent modeled the whole scene in blender or 3dmax (and I have right now no idea if I even bother anymore, but its late and I need my sleep), Im now and again absolutly unsure about everything in these shots, feels like being played by maxwell, the NYP and the daily mail.
additional; largest hi-res pic I found of the wideshot:
Mod Edit: HD image: https://www.metabunk.org/f/Fry-GhislaineMaxwellInNOut.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
Agent K
Senior Member
When the photo was first taken, I doubt the intent was to deceive people months or years later. After Epstein's death, the old photo may have been photoshopped to appear more current. Is there anything in the photo that dates it? If the metadata is correct about the camera, then we at least know that the photo was taken after January 2015 when that camera came out.
Perhaps the bus stop poster in the original photo was advertising a movie that was coming out at that time, which would've dated it.
deirdre
Senior Member.
the car dealership signs match.
in jan 2019 (according to the Google street car) they didn't have the "pre-owned" banner there. would be pretty lucky to have an old photo that just matches the signage. Or if you did that much research to photoshop the current dealership sign, then wouldn't you photoshop the current bus ad?
Agent K
Senior Member
The Cannabis billboard was there in May and is still there. The bus stop ad in May was for the hospital, but different from the current ad. The little fence at In-N-Out was black and now it's white, which suggests that the "staged" photo was taken after May of this year, in which case they didn't really need to photoshop the poster to make it look current.
Here's the current photo with white fences and the ER poster again.
View attachment 38092
igoddard
Active Member
igoddard
Active Member
Yes! That further-location is exactly what I sensed when I said: "I believe the SUV's forward region is at least well passed the sign and much further from it than my example above." The SUV should not even be reflected by the sign at all.
So if I'm reading right, sounds like folks conclude the reflection does not make physical-space sense. The observation by Julia S. of a second SUV reflection is epic. That cannot be right! It's almost like the editor was toying with us. But even if imperfectly placed, these reflection edits and the photo grain so perfect makes the insert of the Good Boys sign apparerntly performed by someone with professional skill, in stark contrast to the slop-job work elsewhere in the photos.
That second SUV reflection was also noticed by someone I see via Google image search. However, I can't find the post when I click through, it's on a site called stalkram.
igoddard
Active Member
Because it would make the insertion seem believable. Even after we read the Daily Mail report saying there was never a Good Boys poster there, we got stymied by the reflection, which shows how effective it was at disguising the editing.
Imo, the deeper question is why go to all the trouble to add the Good Boys poster? As I've said, I think it served to act as counterfactual to anyone who might say the photo is like a year old. Still, it seems like a daft idea.
There's another level to this... a lot of people are assuming that because the photos where photoshopped, Maxwell was photoshopped in. I believe she is in the photo for several reasons, one being the person has a similar body shape (eg, to be blunt, long-hanging breasts). However, given the level of skill the Good Boys editing demonstrates, I think the possibility that she's not even in there ought to be considered as a fact-checking default. After all, we believed the sign was there. A photo faker worked on this photo who is skilled enough to get a 3D rotated SUV image, create perfect reflections, is able to exactly simulate the grain in the original photo and who even has shaded waves along the left side of the fake poster exactly the same in two photos. Wow! That is someone who could fake almost anything, like a person.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
You do realize she can hop on a private jet and be in LA in 6 hours. take some pics, hit Rodeo Drive for a few hours or the hair salon.. jump back on the private jet and be home in Massachusetts the same day. So it's kinda unrealistic to go through all the hassle of faking a photo shop that doesn't prove she isn't living in Massachusetts anyway.
igoddard
Active Member
Sure, she can. And I see no evidence that she's not there at that location. We also saw no obvious evidence that the sign was edited in, for a while. When you have highly and deceptively manipulated photos with evidence of a skilled editor involved, the veracity of the photos in total should be questioned.
Do you think these heavily manipulated photos would be admissible evidence in a court for determining her whereabouts? I'd be shocked if they would even w/o any obvious sign that she was edited in. The evidence is inherently corrupted simply because we know a skilled deceiver had a hand in it, imo.
deirdre
Senior Member.
there is no evidence they were heavily manipulated, imo. the second white car in the middle lane matches the angle well. I didn't look into the shop window much but it is at an angle, so it could be the same car or a car pulling into the restaurant.
@Agent K found that the time frame would be at least later than May of 2019.
There are little yellow flowers on the sidewalk in all the photos (although I don't know anything about growing seasons in California).
A skilled deceiver wouldn't put or leave "meadowgate" in the metadata.
Law enforcement knows where she is from passport and flight logs. Why would a court need to see some day trip photo? The whole premise makes no sense. But that is my opinion. It's cool if others disagree.
Agent K
Senior Member
The ER poster in the current photo doesn't reflect any cars. If you were photoshopping it, would you even think of adding a reflection that's not there? I'd try to make it look as much like the ER poster as possible. But it's an interesting theory, adding something fake to make the image look more real than the real photo.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
The white car looks like it's directly in front of the poster form the angle I would guess if you were adding the poster in and you were decent at image manipulation you'd see what might be reflected and add it in, it's a case of being good but not quite good enough.
Pepijn van Erp
Member
Maybe a bit off-topic, but I saw some people on Twitter pointing out that a user 'G. Maxwell' placed a 5-star review on Amazon for this book https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/R2I84ALLN2/?tag=cowboyprogra-20
[edit: hope this shortened link works better https://amzn.to/2NiGf77]
http://archive.fo/uxL73
What to think of this? probably just a joke by someone who changed his profile name to 'G. Maxwell' for this occasion. The fact that this user read the Kindle Edition seems to indicate that it is not actually Ghislaine Maxwell.External Quote:
Last edited by a moderator:
Agent K
Senior Member
That's like hoaxing photos from the moon by photoshopping some real photos and then adding stars to them to make them look more realistic.
DasKleineTeilchen
Active Member
think I was wrong, I believe now at least the reflection on the poster to be genuine if theres a white car behind the black one in the left lane (which I believe to be the case and as also deirdre pointed out):
I did a quick and crude, but hopefuly accurate enough mockup of the scene in max, and it shows this:
assembling of cars, no cars in the right lane, but the yellow car is not quite right yet, as mick mentioned, most likely changing lanes (on this position already in the right lane, it would block the view of the mirrored white car)
matching with photo, lens 35 mm. again, not perfect, but point of view seems to fit enough.
I did a quick and crude, but hopefuly accurate enough mockup of the scene in max, and it shows this:
assembling of cars, no cars in the right lane, but the yellow car is not quite right yet, as mick mentioned, most likely changing lanes (on this position already in the right lane, it would block the view of the mirrored white car)
matching with photo, lens 35 mm. again, not perfect, but point of view seems to fit enough.
igoddard
Active Member
And there is a plausible clue of a white SUV behind a black one. What fantastic work! Really shows you have to model these situations in 3D before you have a clue. Can you post a blender-readable file of the scene?
It's at least an amazing coincidence that these two different white SUVs are cropped apparently on the glass in about the exact same regions, like almost down to the inch. For example, just the lower left tip of the front windshield is clipped.
I presume if the bus-stop-sign reflection is real, odds are this one is too. It would seem to make no sense at all to add it.
igoddard
Active Member
That's not at all what I proposed. If the sign is photoshopped in (what the Daily Mail story tells us), then we have this reflection on top of photoshop editing. So I'm not suggesting someone added something fake to make the image look more real than the real photo, which would be silly. I suggested if something was already added that is fake (the sign), also adding a reflection on top of it could have the faked content appear more real.
But now DasKleineTeilchen's modeling suggests the reflection could be real, so it could've been there already if the sign was added. But if the reflection is real, it makes me lean again to suspecting the sign is there too, despite the Mail's report.
igoddard
Active Member
So here are a few curious photoshop edits
If the Good Boys sign was edited in, imo, a skilled deceiver was involved. Right, a professional faker ought to have removed the metadata. Although you might know someone whose expertise is only graphical editing, not document forgery, and they asked that person to do some work. But with DasKleineTeilchen's modeling, adding the sign again seems questionable.
deirdre
Senior Member.
someone on reddit had mentioned something about how if you upload to the NYPost, then maybe the NYPosts server computer made new metadata? which would explain why the creation date is the 15th, even though the text in the metadata says the 12th. (just throwing that out there, I have no idea).
if the original ER sign had a reflection of a car on it, and they decided to help their friends by product placing a good boys photo in.. then maybe they did decide to read the reflection to make it look more authentic. ??
But I still doubt it was an attempt at dating the photo. I looked through a few social media sites of images, and even though I did have big time gaps of no pics.. it kinda seems like since March 2019 a black and white hospital ad was there. (just prior was the "best cast" ad then before that was the Best Role one) at least every photo I found had a black and white hospital ad.
The fence was painted after May of 2019. so let's say she was there in June, and the "Best Cast" ad was up.. it would be SO much easier to photoshop the ER bit in.. since the hedges cover up the tricky bottom part based on the Business Insider photo. and clear examples are right on the promo site https://www.thedrum.com/creative-wo...int-joseph-medical-center-consider-providence
its also easy to google "providence hospital best cast"
anyway..
i'm now unsure because I also found that Outfront busstops own the shelters, and maintain their own trash bins and all. so its not like they don't check a stop for a month or two (unless that particular stop the city maintains or innout does)http://www.outfrontjcdecaux.com/
i guess unless a tourist got a photo of the ad (taking pics at in n out seems like a very popular tourist thing to do) and one day uploads it to social media, we may never know for sure.
igoddard
Active Member
Exploring the possibility of a total hoax... if Maxwell was edited into the scene, we might expect to find editing artifacts along her edge. Someone on reddit pointed this out...
It actually looks like there was a different background behind her, residual portions of which are still visible along the left edge of her head. That other background appears to be uniform and reddish in color. It runs right up to her edge and extends to the left for a good bit.
Here's a crisper cropping of the area...
@ http://archive.is/ooQcs
Notice also the duplication of the plant caused by Photoshop Stamp edits. Looking at the recent photo with the RN sign, I don't see any object that might account for the seemingly incongruent reddish background. We know in the side shot a trashcan was edited out, so maybe in this photo there was something temporarily there that was edited out. Or perhaps this is evidence that she was cropped out of a photo taken in Massachusetts and pasted into this photo. I'm not persuaded of that, just exploring the possibility. If that sign was edited in, seems to me one has to consider the fakery could be much deeper than that.
Here's another thing that bugs me, there seems to be a flat area of cloth behind her that seems inexplicable and that I've cropped out and overlaid to her right...
@ http://archive.fo/e8Xcm
The side shot betrays no explanation for the apparent cloth in terms of what she was wearing...
Recent shots prove that a trashcan was to her right there. So whoever did some edits to the photo, seems to have made an effort to remove unsightly aspects, which perhaps as well accounts for the buggy things I point out above.
It actually looks like there was a different background behind her, residual portions of which are still visible along the left edge of her head. That other background appears to be uniform and reddish in color. It runs right up to her edge and extends to the left for a good bit.
Here's a crisper cropping of the area...
@ http://archive.is/ooQcs
Notice also the duplication of the plant caused by Photoshop Stamp edits. Looking at the recent photo with the RN sign, I don't see any object that might account for the seemingly incongruent reddish background. We know in the side shot a trashcan was edited out, so maybe in this photo there was something temporarily there that was edited out. Or perhaps this is evidence that she was cropped out of a photo taken in Massachusetts and pasted into this photo. I'm not persuaded of that, just exploring the possibility. If that sign was edited in, seems to me one has to consider the fakery could be much deeper than that.
Here's another thing that bugs me, there seems to be a flat area of cloth behind her that seems inexplicable and that I've cropped out and overlaid to her right...
@ http://archive.fo/e8Xcm
The side shot betrays no explanation for the apparent cloth in terms of what she was wearing...
Recent shots prove that a trashcan was to her right there. So whoever did some edits to the photo, seems to have made an effort to remove unsightly aspects, which perhaps as well accounts for the buggy things I point out above.
deirdre
Senior Member.
theres a man behind her..see his balding head on her otherside?
edit add: and here looks like evidence they clone tooled his face out. (like they did to edit out with garbage can with the cloned brick wall.)
Last edited:
Agent K
Senior Member
If the original real photo didn't have a reflection, then adding a reflection to the photoshopped sign would've been a strange attempt to make it look more real than the real photo.
But if the original photo did have a reflection of a white SUV, then reproducing that reflection in the photoshopped sign would've made it look more real.
If the photoshopped reflection is physically wrong, then the real photo wouldn't have had that reflection, which would mean that the reflection was added to make the fake photo look more real than the real photo.
Last edited:
You would think there must be some other photos taken at this location around the same time on social media showing that poster. I've looked on Instagram and Twitter but no luck so far.
igoddard
Active Member
Bingo! I think that's the answer. The seemingly incongruent background is the residual portion of someone's head. We can see the hand of that semi-erased person...
Imo, this also bolsters the case for her not being photoshopped in, that edge-touching background edited out (poorly) is background that was actually there.
All that aside, it's flabbergasting that Maxwell and attorney, planning to stage a fake "Gotcha!" story and photos, would not only have decided to do lots of photoshopping to the video, but do it so poorly. Some have commented how the photoshopping is almost intended to be noticed. If so, and if it was Maxwell & Co that did it, not the NY Post, one has to wonder if they wanted to stoke conspiracy theories. Supporting that hypothesis is the bit of the contrived narrative that she was reading a book on murdered CIA agents. That absolutely has to be red meat thrown to conspiracy theorists given Epstein's death only days prior.
igoddard
Active Member
Ya, but with these edits: ...which would mean that the reflection was added to make the reflection-enhanced fake photo look more real than the
It would seem very unlikely to edit the real photo to make it look more real. That's not what I was saying or ever thought. If you've just pasted in a fake Good Boys poster, overlaying a reflection would make that faked photo appear more real. Indeed, it could be that the reflection is real (as DasKleineTeilchen's work suggests) and was cropped out of the original and then pasted back in over a pasted-in Good Boys poster to make the faked photo appear more real. That could be done by a skilled editor.
deirdre
Senior Member.
I think they did it for the same reason I do it. A bunch of stuff in the background distracts from the subject of the photo.
and garbage cans are ugly. I would (and have) absolutely sloppily got rid of garbage cans in my pics. Esp if my friend was sitting next to one, that is just unseemly.
and the one of the guys head clone-tooled out... maybe she looked like Edward Mordrake. which would definitely be a distraction. and too disturbing for the average NYPost reader.
If there was an actual customer who took the photos and Ghislaine just gave him her friends number to handle the licensing, it's possible he did some of the photoshopping to remove some distractions. But the garbage can makes me think her friend did it.. i'm not sure a male photographer or the NYPost would care about a garbage can next to Ghislaine. On the contrary, It's actually poetic.
igoddard
Active Member
This photo taken since the NYP's article shows that seeing a reflection on the poster enclosure is possible...
So the reflection in question probably was in the original. I'm also once again inclined to believe the poster was actually there, and if I get time, I'll do a simple analysis that might support that. That analysis is there is a tiny motion blur in the photos (especially noticeable in blight lights), handheld shots almost always have at least a tiny motion blur due to hand motion during the shutter's open phase. Well, I believe we can see that motion blur also in the big-white letters of the Good Boys poster in at least one photo.
igoddard
Active Member
Yes, but it's still highly ill-advised to do photoshop manipulations of photos presented as evidence, and the reason being that it undermines the trustworthiness of the photos. And some edits don't seem as easily explained, like taking out the sign for Miceli's across the street in only one photo.
Another layer of possible editorial input is the company that holds the copyright, MEGA. They might be the most likely source of edits.
I'm still really puzzled by this dark area between her left arm and the table umbrella pole. The perspective seems totally off, as it goes from being behind her body (which is obviously behind the tabletop) to obscuring part of the book on which she is resting her elbow.
Edit... unless it is an optical illusion caused by the corner of the page falling in just the right place to make it look like it is being hidden? Yes, the more I look at it, the more I think that's the answer:
Edit... unless it is an optical illusion caused by the corner of the page falling in just the right place to make it look like it is being hidden? Yes, the more I look at it, the more I think that's the answer:
igoddard
Active Member
Yes, but the cloth is still curious. Is there such as thing as a "grey screen"? Seems unlikely, grey being so common versus green. But it's so flat, like a curtain more than body-hanging or worn clothing. And odd that it's edge, assuming she's really there, must be perfectly behind the pole, which of course it might be.
I'm also puzzling somewhat over if the lighting on her is biased from the left whereas, in fact, the light on everything and everyone else is biased to the right. Getting the lighting to match would be very hard and a likely way to ferret out a photoshop-inserted person. But the lighting appears to have the same degree of diffusion (cloudy day) across her and all else.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
look at this weird photo. based on his other posts the date is accurate. he's on a "U.S tour!!"
but that cant be the ad space right? its too wide? but the angle of the letters is correct.
Aug 2nd, or at least shortly before that the hospital ad was there as these young boys did a dance video.
but that cant be the ad space right? its too wide? but the angle of the letters is correct.
Aug 2nd, or at least shortly before that the hospital ad was there as these young boys did a dance video.
deirdre
Senior Member.
I don't know what I clicked but im seeing tons at that location on this site. gramha dot net. well, on one post I clicked "location" under their post. huh. (but you have to paste their handles into the actual Instagram site to see the exact dates.
anyway.. this guy I think is ok to link
July 14th seems accurate date.
Fence still black.
Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bz6c_ygFqkg/
anyway.. this guy I think is ok to link
July 14th seems accurate date.
Fence still black.
Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bz6c_ygFqkg/
Last edited:
but that cant be the ad space right? its too wide? but the angle of the letters is correct.
That's the back of this truck:
Agent K
Senior Member
This photo taken since the NYP's article shows that seeing a reflection on the poster enclosure is possible...
So the reflection in question probably was in the original.
I suspected from the beginning that the original real image had a reflection, because if it didn't, then I doubt that someone would go to the trouble of adding a reflection after editing the poster. But that's what was implied by the claims that the reflection was geometrically wrong, that it was added even though it didn't match the geometrically correct reflection or lack thereof in the real image.
deirdre
Senior Member.
there are a ton of different hashtags to search. or even just innout vs In n Out vs In-n-out, give you different results.
decided to look again quick before bed and ran into this photo on one of those "mining" sites.. took me 45 minutes to figure out to put #인앤아웃 into instagram search. but when you do there are also other variations to try...
anywho.. a chore for another rainy day.
igoddard
Active Member
It seems that Maxwell has been playing hard to find since 2015, given:
Even her lawyers only knew the city she was in. Having no permanent residence seems odd for a millionaire, but not odd if you're trying to hide. And based on the recent story of her being with a friend in New England, sounds like she's still avoiding a fixed addressed. But why? I doubt she's trying to hide from random vigilantes. It seems possible she's trying to evade law enforcement, in case they come for her. If so, I'd be surprised if she's even in the US. And with her connections, I'd be surprised if she couldn't get out of the country on someone's private jet.
Considering evidence of a long-term hiding strategy plus being a millionaire, paying a skilled photo editor to even fake her into photos from LA doesn't seem very outlandish, in fact it would seem rather predictable if your life mission was hiding.
Here's a second Epstein fixer who also appears to be on the lam...
So Epstein & top colleagues appear to be dead or whereabouts unknown.
@https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/us/ghislaine-maxwell-epstein.htmlExternal Quote:
Even her lawyers only knew the city she was in. Having no permanent residence seems odd for a millionaire, but not odd if you're trying to hide. And based on the recent story of her being with a friend in New England, sounds like she's still avoiding a fixed addressed. But why? I doubt she's trying to hide from random vigilantes. It seems possible she's trying to evade law enforcement, in case they come for her. If so, I'd be surprised if she's even in the US. And with her connections, I'd be surprised if she couldn't get out of the country on someone's private jet.
Considering evidence of a long-term hiding strategy plus being a millionaire, paying a skilled photo editor to even fake her into photos from LA doesn't seem very outlandish, in fact it would seem rather predictable if your life mission was hiding.
Here's a second Epstein fixer who also appears to be on the lam...
@ https://nypost.com/2019/09/02/jeffrey-epsteins-model-scouting-pal-has-disappeared-without-a-trace/External Quote:
So Epstein & top colleagues appear to be dead or whereabouts unknown.
Similar threads
