The Daily Mail seems to have proven that the Ghislaine Maxwell photos were photoshopped:
They write, “Ghislaine Maxwell was snapped for the first time in three years last week, it was claimed a fellow diner had ‘chanced’ upon her at a Los Angeles burger bar.
However -“… an advertising agency claimed a poster on a bus shelter behind Ms Maxwell had been photoshopped in.
“The socialite is seen in front of a poster for Good Boys, a film that opened in the US on Friday.
“But when The Mail on Sunday visited the area on Friday, the bus stop was displaying an advert for a local hospital.
“Advertising agency Outfront Media said the hospital ad had been there since July 28 – with Ms. Maxwell said to have been photographed on August 12.
“Spokeswoman Carly Zipp said: ‘We think the poster in the Maxwell picture was photoshopped in.
“We checked… and we have no evidence or record of Good Boys ever being there…
“Others question why Ms. Maxwell, who appears to have restyled her hair between snaps, spent long enough at the burger bar for the customers behind her to change twice, yet her food remains untouched and she never puts a straw in either drink.
“One suggestion is the pictures were staged to throw people off her scent. A legal source said: ‘The FBI wants to talk to her and a lot of lawyers are trying to find her. Perhaps this whole photo at the burger joint is set up.'”
OK…So far so good – by why didn’t the New York Post disclose the source of their pictures to readers in their original story?
They wrote the story as if they had been on the scene – they even quoted Maxwell on the scene as if they had actually caught up with Maxwell. The Post endorsed the pictures as authentic.
The Post wrote – “The Post found the socialite hiding in plain sight in the least likely place imaginable — a fast-food joint in Los Angeles…
Sitting alone with a pet pooch, she was surprised to have been found and told an onlooker, ‘Well, I guess this is the last time I’ll be eating here!’”
So the Post said they “found her.”
And the Post quoted Maxwell on the scene, yet used an evidently photoshopped picture – photoshopped seemingly to mislead viewers as to the date the picture was taken.
What is the reason for this?
Who was on the scene [at In-N-Out in Los Angeles] that actually heard Maxwell say, “Well, I guess this is the last time I’ll be eating here!”?
Who took the photos for the Post?
Usually, photographers get photo credit for their work. There was none given by the Post.
While the Daily Mail rightly reports that the photos have been likely altered to mislead on the date, they seem to have jumped to the hasty conclusion that Maxwell pulled this stunt of fooling the Post all by herself.
That seems deeply improbable. The Post is not so easily fooled where they would run pictures like this if submitted by Maxwell [or one of her friends] without further verification.
They would not quote her without some evidence that she was there.
No, she could not have fooled them so easily.
They either had to cooperate with the deception or got their information from a more trusted source than the nation’s most hated woman – who may be in deep legal trouble and could be a fugitive from justice now or very shortly.
No, the NY Post would not have staked their reputation on a pic submitted by or on behalf of a dangerous and wanted person.
The Daily Mail seems to think the FBI is looking for Maxwell and that the FBI does not know where she is and that maybe Maxwell fooled the Post to put the FBI off her scent.
I think that is also deeply improbable.
It seems likely that the FBI knows just where Maxwell is.
And the Post – that somehow got the suspicious “dead Epstein” pictures – are working with someone or some agency a little more powerful than Ghislaine Maxwell.
The New York Post publicly and it seems misleadingly authenticated the Ghislaine Maxwell pictures – even dating them for us. [Aug 12, 2019].
Now, we learn that the photos were photoshopped since the Good Boys poster was not there [the poster that dates the pictures.]
Someone or some people at the NY Post seem to be on this misdirection. I find it hard to believe they were merely fooled.
Who else is in on this?
I find it hard to believe that this is just Ghislaine Maxwell fooling the Post – unless, of course, she has something on someone at the Post.
What seems more probable is that the Post is cooperating with some agency or some group – other than just Maxwell – to misdirect the public as to the true whereabouts of Ghislaine Maxwell.
The question is why?
And is Ghislaine Maxwell still alive?
The appearance of the third photo, available in a relatively high resolution (1298×1012) at first and even higher (2000×1333) now, provides an opportunity to start to see more clearly what was done in the photos – as I noted in some individual comments yesterday, it points to someone doing a bunch of amateur cleanup that they somehow thought was necessary, probably to make the images more saleable.
Now this afternoon’s news apparently identifies who sold the images to the NY Post, and explains how the photo shoot was set up.
There are actually several significant things that have been photoshopped out of the third picture, that have been missed so far. Having some experience with the use of Photoshop and similar graphics tools, on close examination a number of alterations jump out – and now that there’s a closer-to-original higher-resolution image to work with, error level analysis software used in photo forensics is flagging several of them, as well.
So, looking between the two people to the far left with pixellated faces, and up a bit, there’s a brick red colored sign on a building across the street that’s been crudely hit with an erase tool to obscure the large white lettering in the middle of it, made obvious by the fact that there’s a vestigial red smudge off of the right side towards the bottom.
Then, to the right of the guy in the blue shirt on the right, over the white van and across the street, there’s what appears to be a blank white store sign, that’s actually been digitally whited out with a crude tool, as well.
There are also several other store and and street signs that have been similarly erased – though not well enough to be completely unreadable on close analysis. It doesn’t appear that the intent was to hide the location of the photo, because enough traces were left behind that it would be easy to figure out just which In-N-Out Burger that is, if someone who recognized the joint hadn’t already provided its street address.
So it appears to me that a somewhat compulsive amateur thought that the pictures needed some cleaning up – kind of like the lady in Spain who infamously couldn’t resist trying her hand at retouching a fresco of Jesus, and leaving him looking like a monkey. And we have the sort of oddities that almost predictably turn up, when anything is subject to too much scrutiny, particularly when our minds are looking for seeming connections.
And finally, the lady in the black dress on the left appears to have a mouth on her exposed chest. Alien shape shifter? (my favorite conspiracy theory) No, it’s either just a complete anomaly, or else it was mistakenly created when the faces on the people in the background were hit with some kind of blur tool (similar to the retouch tool in old Picasa, which can create such displacement effects) that resulted in the elongation of faces that someone commented on earlier, and then most likely the pros at the paper pixellated the faces on top of that for a cleaner and more standard anonymization.
The only conspiracy here, is probably the mundane one of Maxwell and her attorney friend trying to make a bit of money – and perhaps promote Gup’s book, which saw its sales soar. Her attorney, who is apparently dabbling in media, isn’t very competent at digital image work, and the sort of papers the images were sold to aren’t very good at flagging even fairly obvious image manipulation – and are more interested in making money themselves. That’s the human conditional, banal schemings, thoughtlessness and mundane mistakes.
From a different perspective, using language instead of only photo alterations, I noticed quite a change of sequence being published by the Daily Mail in one particular article. It involved Epstein being removed from jail to be transported to the hospital. A photo was shown of Epstein closed up in the body bag rather than the photo(s) with his head and engorged face showing on the gurney.
Although the Mail has used the two headshots of Epstein in other articles, no bodybag was used at the jail at all. The body bag was used for Epstein only after he was declared dead, and the bodybag shot came from the transport of his body from the hospital to the morgue. This could have been accidentally miscaptioned, or it could be an indication of a subtle shift in the presentation of events. Time will tell. Generally, changes to narrative are managed gradually and through, at first, subtle repetitions of misinformation.
Similarly, all good little boys and girls refer to Epstein’s death as a suicide now. So that is getting hardened into concrete like an epitaph, true or not.
Another thing is that if someone wanted Maxwell arrested, it would have happened. If someone decided to detain her for questioning it would be put into motion. If someone wanted to deny or to question her visa situation anywhere, it would happen. In a way, if she is gadding about unimpeded and still flying around the world, probably Ghislaine knows that she can do it without interference. Maybe that is an indicator that she is already “working” with law enforcement and/or with prosecuting attorneys and has found her way out of being arrested, using an immunity deal.
One thing that didn’t escape notice is that one of Ghislaine’s older sisters dropped into Manchester-by-the-Sea, Ma. and packed up Ghislaine’s things from her boyfriend/non-boyfriend’s house sometime during the past couple of days, using a motel room to pack everything up for transport. She had a large female companion accompanying her to do any heavy lifting. This particular sister of Ghislaine’s lives in Dallas part time, so that is where some of Ghislaine’s debris probably is now.
Anyone notice she looks younger in one picture and much older in the other. Even though they are the same pictures. Also her face looks thinner in one and fatter in the other. Also, her hairstyles are different the piece of hair that’s hanging in front on her forhead. The style is different. There are so many more things I spotted in these pictures, but it would take me all day to point out.
“I find it hard to believe that this is just Ghislaine Maxwell fooling the Post – unless, of course, she has something on someone at the Post.”
“What seems more probable is that the Post is cooperating with some agency or some group – other than just Maxwell – to misdirect the public as to the true whereabouts of Ghislaine Maxwell.”
“The question is why?”
All good questions!
Ask yourselves this question:
Who owns the New York Post?
Does this person know Ghislane Maxwell?
How long has this person known Ghislane Maxwell?
Does this person have ties to the Deep State?
Does this person have ties to the elite around the world?
You will be shocked at the answer.
I guess we now know the shocking answer – it’s Maxwell’s attorney friend, and her media agency that does amateur photoshopping and sells images to the tabloids.
The Post was indeed fooled into printing the piece they were fed, which among other things lead to a spike in sales for Gup’s book – is he a friend of Maxwell and was he in on it, too?
What you have is amateurs sitting at In-n-Out Burger scheming.
“The Post was indeed fooled into printing the piece they were fed,”
The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, an old friend of the Maxwell family and a friend of Ghislaine Maxwell to boot.
Rupert is selling Maxwell’s fraudulent narrative that she and Epstein were pimping out teenage girls as some kind of intelligence operation.
2010 photo of Ghislaine Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch.
I highly doubt the FBI and other federal agencies are so naive that they would fall for that.
[…] Daily Mail Discovers Ghislaine Maxwell Burger Joint Pics Photoshopped – That’s Not What … […]
Frank Parlato’s updated enemies list:
1. Keith Raniere and NXIVM
2. Carlos Salinas and Fatboy Slim
3. Unknown individuals or covert organizations[ leaking Frank bad intel stolen from a webserver to Frank].
Congratulations Frank, you are now in the same boat as NYTimes Pulitzer level journalists.
You now have rick powerful international enemies.
Please leave Putin, Kim, and China’s president alone. You don’t need radioactive material or nerve gas agents added to your breakfast cereal.
Does anyone else think that Epstein’s left ear & region looks bloody and mangled while he is on the gurney?
In the death pic, his left ear is slanted. In normal photos, his ear is perpendicular to the ground (not slanted)
Like Frank’s said, we will never know the truth.
Quite apart from who “took the photos” for the NYPost… who wrote the article? If the Post is misleading the public, they have two co-conspirators identified right upfront — the names on the byline: Sara Nathan and Mara Siegler. How did they come to write any of it?
The in out burger is how the good boys refer to her snatch.
An eye catching title, Epstein buys female panties. Then they remind us he’s dead. So strange.
This comment is in regards to the latest New York Post story
Which one? Provide a link.
One picture I can see what appears to be the paw of a dog under the table and in another pic, no dog 🤔
Also look at the two ppl behind Maxwell’s shoulders in the unpixelated top photo.
Why do both the man and the woman have droopy faces? This is before pixelation.
After pixelation, the droopy faces are pixilated also. What gives?
It looks to me as if the faces of people in the background of the one photo have been partially blurred, with a tool that seems to drag them down a bit as well. It may be that we’re seeing two passes of work, such as that whoever provided the photos blurred faces, and then the paper pixellated some as well before publishing the photos.
Also, all sorts of strange stuff goes on in digital photos. For instance, both the camera and any subsequent editing and resizing software use compression algorithms that can create their own effects and distort things.
The textbook, literally, on the subject, is Photo Forensics by Hany Farid, until recently at Dartmouth and now a professor at Cal Berkeley as of this fall. He takes as a starting point, that it can be hard to tell for certain what is going on unless you have access to the first-generation digital image; after that it can, literally, become all a blur.
2nd pic. Sorry!
If the “Good Boys” poster was photoshopped in, that’s near pro-quality work, getting it angled and placed exactly right in the frame on the bus stop, and set visually behind the restaurant sign. I wouldn’t count out the possibility that the ad agency is mistaken about what was there on what dates – they may, for instance, farm out work to contractors who may not actually have done precisely what the agency’s records might indicate.
The bit of obvious photoshopping behind Maxwell in the one photo, is very amateur work. It looks to me like from what can be made out of the other photos and artifacts along the edge of her back, there must actually have been a cast concrete trash can behind her (the top is still visible below the green car), and someone may have thought that didn’t make a good photo and decided to try to retouch it out; there’s no sign from the other photos, that there would have been anything there to try to hide (and not room to have cropped out a person standing behind her, or the green car would have been compromised).
Were these photos originally sold to a paper or an intermediate? If so, that would explain some delay, and provide a motive for attempts to gussy up the photos. It still smacks of an amateur effort to me.
I used to volunteer for an entertainment non-profit where I had to learn to crop people in and out of groups of artists and performers, when there was a difference between the stock shots we had and the ensemble actually doing the gig, and I have a pretty good working knowledge of photo manipulation at this point.
Well Frank Parlato, you have now had your first official brush with the deepstate or unknown dark forces……
How does it feel?
To paraphrase the character Norm from the television show Cheers……
….It’s a dog eat dog world and you, Frank Parlato, are wearing milkbone underwear.
I hope you can run fast……. At least as fast as a black man holding a color television set from 1965 (No racism implied).
Frank & Everyone,
The Post leans conservative…..
…..I am surprised an individual from the Post would send Frank Parlato a link that could potentially get Frank into trouble for illegally accessing the server.
Frank, have you bothered to contact the Post yet or contacted state or federal law enforcement concerning the unsolicited email server link and photoshopped image?
Maybe you should “paper” yourself for your own protection and inform your attorney regarding recent developments.
Somone definitely tried to set you up by sending you the link to a private corporate web server.
Illegal server access is the new age “mail fraud crime”.
…..Just posting and publishing on Frankreport is not what I consider “papering” yourself, i.e. covering your ass!
These types of photos are taken from a distance using a high power lens. The photographer takes pictures from as many angles as possible, and then they usually edit more than one photo together into one image. That’s pretty common, and most of these celebrity surveillance photos are photoshopped in this way.
I have no clue about the movie poster, but it doesnt look like it was edited IMO, but its impossible to tell for sure from this poor quality image.
In the other photos of Epstein I did notice that his ear and cheek appear to be injured. Also, he may have been lying dead on that side long enough for this discolouration to occur.
‘I hope you can run fast……. At least as fast as a black man holding a color television set from 1965 (No racism implied).’
Can Frank run as fast as a white man’s fearful imagination? Or a white cop chasing a 15 year old boy through his friend’s neighbourhood,
Or as fast as the bullet that killed that kid? What larks Nice Guy!!!
Most obvious answer is that by posing for this picture and having the Murdoch owned NY Post publish it, another group is willing to join in and help GS to disappear. An example fr the past was when a businessman wanted to hire Jack Ambramson to lobby a Congressman, the head of an important congressional committee, before the businessman would deliver millions to Jack who boasted how close he was to the congressman, he (businessman) said to prove how close he was, that Jack had to have the congressman go to the floor of the congress and read some poem, which is what Jack got the congressman to do. So, Jack proved his bona fides by demonstrating that he could deliver on the lobbying effort. So GS is demonstrating to some one that she is able to deliver on some deal by appearing in the NY Post, and the other party will help her out w something. My first guess is that she has a need to disappear, but of course many deals could be possible other than my first guess.
Ghislaine Maxwell is just too much of a political risk for all those she has worked directly or indirectly for, considering all that could be revealed. And which must be finally got rid of. The damage would be too great a political burden.
Yeah definitely a bogus photo.
The lack of ‘credit’ for the photo is a good observation.
However, the pink elephant in the room is the fact that anybody with a smartphone (i.e., everybody in the U.S.) would have taken a live video of her, especially while asking questions and getting her replies on video to sell to tabloids.
Snapping photos without video (of such a sought after person) is something that may have played out in the 1990s, but not today.
Although it’s possible to alter live video too, it’s a much harder process and not as easily disguised. If you’re gonna bullshit the world, much easier to use a photoshopped photo.
Excellent observation you little pecker checker! 🙂