Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Kate's New Picture
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I don't think the car photo is doctored, because it was commissioned by the Daily Mail. I know, I know, it's a tabloid and they suck. But also they have lawyers on staff and know where the line is, and I do not think they could get away with photoshopping a photo like this. The risks would be too great, especially with heightened scrutiny after the Mothers Day photo debacle.
I think the reason people are able to overlay other photos of Kate that are "a match" is because it's the same person -- she has the same profile in both photos. Even easier to do with a profile shot like that where facial expression is less likely to disrupt the photo. If anything, those experiments prove that the woman in the vehicle IS Catherine, because the profile matches up perfectly with other photos of her. Now, I still take the photo with a grain of salt because I firmly believe that the reason the Daily Mail commissioned that photographer to be in that location at that time is because KP told them to have someone there and they obliged. I also think William and Catherine knew a paparazzo would be there and thus Catherine would have known to turn her face to the wall (and to sit on the side of the car next to the wall) to avoid having her face photographed. So I think it's a real photo and not photoshopped, but that it was "planted" and that it's no accident that you can barely see Catherine. But I do think it's her. |
Anonymous
Agree. There was some bad photoshopping - so what? There's a lot of bad photoshopping out there. Is the AP really going to pull half their pictures? Or was their statement inaccurate? |
Anonymous
Yes, and the edits don't make sense. I've cleaned chocolate off a kids face but never randomly changed a skirt or a shirt to be a different color or pattern. The edits don't track with normal vanity about family photos. |
Anonymous
They’re trying to make Kate look difficult |
Anonymous
Yup. The insta story tells it all. She is being thrown to the wolves by William / KP. When *ever* in the history of ever has something like that gone out? |
Anonymous
Publishing heavily edited photos that misrepresent reality is not good journalism, so of course the AP and all reputable outlets (Reuters, etc) pulled them from publication. Also, I agree with other commenters that Kate had nothing to do with the photoshop or releasing it. It's BS. |
Anonymous
Aside from the once a decade royal wedding/coronation/jubilee, is this really true, though? Without the royal family, tourists would come to still visit Windsor just like they visit Versailles. |
Anonymous
I read the article. Very great read! What stuck out to me was Harry and Meghan were likely right and telling the truth when complaining about how Kensington Palace leaks fake stories about Harry and Megan to distract from the real marital drama of Will&Kate. The British tabloids get a drip feed and access from royal family /royal press and they are all respecting Kates privacy and not publishing salacious stories like they did about Meghan, Diana, Fergie. The royals are protecting Kate so long as she stays in their dominion. If she ever taps out, they will send the dogs (tabloids) after her viciously. The royal press/KP almost never respond to royal gossip or make public statements but had to do so three times just this year alone to deny Kate is missing social media fervor. They have a tradition of never responding to social media or tabloid articles or gossip whatsoever. However, they made an exception for this Spanish journalist who claimed Kate was in a coma. Why is so much coverage about Kate coming from this Spanish journalist, Concha Calleja? Who is she? HALL: Concha Calleja is a self-described “writer [and] specialist in profiles, criminology and hunting down those who lie,” the host of the Spanish television show “Fiesta” (which has a reported audience of 900,000) and she’s been one of the most interesting bits of this entire saga. She’s the only prominent reporter (so far) to challenge Kensington Palace’s narrative about the Princess of Wales, and her reporting prompted the Wales’s press team to take the rare step of going on the record to refute a story. Calleja came onto the scene soon after Kensington Palace announced that Kate had been hospitalized. She first reported that Kate had actually been admitted to the hospital in December and wasn’t doing well, and then claimed that the princess had to be placed in a medically induced coma. Her credibility, at least in Spain, is such that mainstream outlets quickly picked up both reports. Her stories might have stayed under the radar if Kensington Palace hadn’t gone on the record with the Times of London to refute the report that Kate was in a coma. Royal press teams don’t usually comment at all, let alone on specific stories, and, ironically, by releasing a statement the Palace drew even more attention to Calleja’s reporting. In a bold move, following the publication of the Times of London story, Calleja doubled down on her reporting, stating that she trusted her source 100% and claiming that Kensington Palace was upset that she had discovered the truth. Calleja claims to have covered the royal family for 27 years. According to her website, she has written two books about Princess Diana, one of which is an investigation into the conspiracy theory that the beloved royal was murdered. [Ed. note: Another one of Calleja’s books suggests Michael Jackson was murdered |
Anonymous
I take it you have not followed any of the developments in this story, nor read the thread? |
Anonymous
That may be your interpretation. But there have been many authorized pics over the years of people in their cars, sometimes clearer than other times. . It's totally normal. They're trying not to respond to the social media gossip, which would validate it and set expectations that they don't want. But they still need to do something, since the situation has gotten so wildly out of control. |
Anonymous
But it's so bizarre to "plant" something like this and then have it be such a bad photo. Just adds to all the speculation. Plus, the bricks don't match. Maybe part of the architecture? But it looks weird, and the BRF isn't exactly trustworthy with regards to photos at this particular moment in time. |
Anonymous
| Could it be that Rose Hanbury, his mistress, that was in the car with William? |
Anonymous
I've read the entire thread. I think y'all are really really nuts and I also think the news agencies are playing strange games right now. They are either lying in their reason for taking down the picture, or are setting themselves up for huge problems with other edited pictures. |
Anonymous
Anonymous
PP was referencing the issues with the mother's day photo, not either of the car photos. |