|
Post by Lavendel on Jul 18, 2019 16:39:33 GMT
I was looking at the pictures of the christening and the room and chairs are the same as harrys baptism what i noticed she hides archies fingers and almost all have hidden fingers which can be used to tell actors from actual people over time. I noticed the queen mum wore pinkish like kate, doria, dianas sister. Pink is a waterree down red. camila wore white, the other sister of di gold, harry wore white shirt and grey suit which is watered down black and gold brown shoes. we have red , white, black, gold and and green. green is meg and harry colour which i think balances their green powers and keeps them at bay. cate is red balances her triggered red jealousy emotions around a baby. i noticed at the charity polo game they dressed her is red dress, bag, to control her jealousy emotions and meg was in green to stop her evil magic emotions from attacking kate. camila is aristocratic and next to charles she wears white.
|
|
|
Post by Lavendel on Jul 18, 2019 16:52:07 GMT
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jul 18, 2019 18:21:40 GMT
We can look at the picture and speculate until the cows come home! Lavendel the red, white and black aspect is definitely worth mentioning. The green drawing room at Windsor Castle is used for a great many formal occasions; we have seen the royals in it many times. As for Camilla’s clothes, I am still not sure what can and can’t be done to change a picture. I suspect that the christening portrait is one big artificial construction. A post by a comedian called Gary Janetti has shown me how easy it is to photo-shop someone in: http://instagram.com/p/BzlmukKn9cG
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 18, 2019 19:59:05 GMT
e dress camilla is wearing at louis is different on the neck to the archie. one is oval other is round. That could be altered with photoshopping, though. I used to do computer mapping and that has given me some insight into what you can add in and colour over. I did mess about once with altering and enhancing my photos, but never went into it in depth. You've given us so very interesting insights on colour; the colours around us can certainly affect our mood. I'm beginning to think that all the clues are deliberate, alterations to the narrative that those who look can see. There's a message there, but as Avacyn said, we need to know the code!
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jul 19, 2019 7:38:58 GMT
Soho House Istanbul opening
The man with one long arm is back! We have discussed this picture elsewhere, but it is another good example of a ‘Meghan special’ with something strange about it:
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jul 19, 2019 17:04:08 GMT
The 2015 opening of Soho House Istanbul again
Meghan with Eddie Redmayne and a photographer called Jason Bailey. I am not sure about this one. Could she have been added later? "Photographer Jason shared the snap on Twitter in 2015, captioning it 'fun times with this crew'. They are believed to have been in Istanbul for the launch of a new Soho House "
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 20, 2019 11:40:10 GMT
Hi everyone following the trail. i just wish to add something i just noticed. she has black hair, wearing a white dress, gold brown buttons, the carpet is red and shoes are gold. the baby in white too this brings to light the red white black communication a very hollywood connected colour. they are communication to the other world. harry is wearing grey which is a light black, white shirt and red carpet and shoes a golden brown. with a blue tie these are masonic colours I've just spotted something else - he's wearing the same 'beach vendor' bracelets in this pic as he is with the christening photo. The only outfit change is the tie.
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 20, 2019 11:49:09 GMT
The 2015 opening of Soho House Istanbul again
Meghan with Eddie Redmayne and a photographer called Jason Bailey. I am not sure about this one. Could she have been added later? "Photographer Jason shared the snap on Twitter in 2015, captioning it 'fun times with this crew'. They are believed to have been in Istanbul for the launch of a new Soho House " Jason's right arm looks odd - as if he's keeping the ciggy in his hand out of the way so that it can be cropped out. Surely, if he intended to put his arm around her, he would have tossed it away. The light on their faces looks right though, but that doesn't mean that she wasn't added in as she could have been photographed in that same place at some point. My next project - to learn about photoshopping detection. I have nothing else planned this weekend! It seems odd that people with a lot of spare cash can't afford the best experts at photoshopping, it's as if they're making mistakes on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 20, 2019 12:32:10 GMT
A two day old?Here's something that I hadn't spotted previously. I don't know much about babies, but I am aware that you should support a baby's head for a few weeks after birth as their neck muscles aren't strong enough to support their head. Archie was supposedly born on 6 May. This photo was taken on 8 May. Look where Meg's hand is.
|
|
|
Post by Lavendel on Jul 20, 2019 21:15:43 GMT
Hi everyone following the trail. i just wish to add something i just noticed. she has black hair, wearing a white dress, gold brown buttons, the carpet is red and shoes are gold. the baby in white too this brings to light the red white black communication a very hollywood connected colour. they are communication to the other world. harry is wearing grey which is a light black, white shirt and red carpet and shoes a golden brown. with a blue tie these are masonic colours I've just spotted something else - he's wearing the same 'beach vendor' bracelets in this pic as he is with the christening photo. The only outfit change is the tie. Yes its the same. the tie is the only changes he has. The mother of little alligator had a sun tan, was blotted and her fingers were swollen. the christening she hide the fingers of the baby and hers. however her skin is not tan. there is more too all these than meets we will know
|
|
|
Post by Lavendel on Jul 20, 2019 21:18:00 GMT
A two day old?Here's something that I hadn't spotted previously. I don't know much about babies, but I am aware that you should support a baby's head for a few weeks after birth as their neck muscles aren't strong enough to support their head. Archie was supposedly born on 6 May. This photo was taken on 8 May. Look where Meg's hand is. Yes thats strange. what i noticed about that picture its not only that the head is big but his smile is mature and he can recognise his parents. His lips are expressive and full for s young baby.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jul 21, 2019 6:07:45 GMT
I had Internet problems so need to catch up with all the recent posts.
“It seems odd that people with a lot of spare cash can't afford the best experts at photoshopping, it's as if they're making mistakes on purpose.”
We have thought about this in the past. They may be stupid; they may think that we are stupid; they may indeed be doing it deliberately.
Let’s not forget the very suspicious pictures issued by the Cambridges!
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 21, 2019 9:12:40 GMT
I had Internet problems so need to catch up with all the recent posts. “It seems odd that people with a lot of spare cash can't afford the best experts at photoshopping, it's as if they're making mistakes on purpose.” We have thought about this in the past. They may be stupid; they may think that we are stupid; they may indeed be doing it deliberately. Let’s not forget the very suspicious pictures issued by the Cambridges! I do think they're giving us deliberate clues, especially in the christening photo. Once you start looking there are so many anomalies. Absolutely, the Cambridges have secrets to hide - but the attention is off them as they're doing everything by the book when they're in the public eye. I can't believe how vitriolic the sentiment is becoming against the Sussexes, as it's evident that they seem to be in meltdown. It's rumoured that they're not even living together, people who live near Frogmore have reported that it appears to be empty, all lights are off in the evening and there's no evident security. I feel a bit sorry for Harry, I think he's been strung along with this situation. He does seem to be quite mercurial and sulky, but it can't have been easy growing up with so much public discussion of his paternity. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks that heading to Africa is the best option.
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 21, 2019 9:17:21 GMT
I've just spotted something else - he's wearing the same 'beach vendor' bracelets in this pic as he is with the christening photo. The only outfit change is the tie. Yes its the same. the tie is the only changes he has. The mother of little alligator had a sun tan, was blotted and her fingers were swollen. the christening she hide the fingers of the baby and hers. however her skin is not tan. there is more too all these than meets we will know Her skin tone could have been altered either by makeup or by the lighting, though. Yes, she did look quite bloated - could have been by overeating or chemically induced to make it look as if she had just given birth. I think you can get water retention tablets? One observer has also commented on the christening photo is the difference in light is not the same on their faces. For example, there is no light reflecting off Kate's face, but Meg's face looks shiny.
|
|
|
Post by Lavendel on Jul 21, 2019 11:23:33 GMT
On the day the baby was presented in windsor it was the opening of the windsor horse race. It was a rainy day. the queen wearing the same clothes from the picture was seen at the horse race very animated. www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7005343/The-Queen-smiles-attends-day-one-Royal-Windsor-Horse-Show.htmlthe sussex wanted to shot the pictures from the gardens of windsor and invited journalists but it rained . The decided to use the indoors. However when one looks at the Christening pictures its a sunny midday with light shining through the green room into their faces. Camillas arms looked tanned compared to others. I dont wish to dispute the photoshop angle. However am trying to put the things we see out there to construct a true reality.
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 21, 2019 12:19:15 GMT
On the day the baby was presented in windsor it was the opening of the windsor horse race. It was a rainy day. the queen wearing the same clothes from the picture was seen at the horse race very animated. www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7005343/The-Queen-smiles-attends-day-one-Royal-Windsor-Horse-Show.htmlthe sussex wanted to shot the pictures from the gardens of windsor and invited journalists but it rained . The decided to use the indoors. However when one looks at the Christening pictures its a sunny midday with light shining through the green room into their faces. Camillas arms looked tanned compared to others. I dont wish to dispute the photoshop angle. However am trying to put the things we see out there to construct a true reality. Absolutely - cross-checking is good research! I never thought of checking those things, so those are good points.
|
|
|
Post by Lavendel on Jul 21, 2019 16:42:25 GMT
On the day the baby was presented in windsor it was the opening of the windsor horse race. It was a rainy day. the queen wearing the same clothes from the picture was seen at the horse race very animated. www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7005343/The-Queen-smiles-attends-day-one-Royal-Windsor-Horse-Show.htmlthe sussex wanted to shot the pictures from the gardens of windsor and invited journalists but it rained . The decided to use the indoors. However when one looks at the Christening pictures its a sunny midday with light shining through the green room into their faces. Camillas arms looked tanned compared to others. I dont wish to dispute the photoshop angle. However am trying to put the things we see out there to construct a true reality. Absolutely - cross-checking is good research! I never thought of checking those things, so those are good points. magpiejack, during the Birth week , I saw camila and charles in Germany at public walkabout. That is the reason we need to look at all these leads carefully.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jul 21, 2019 17:30:48 GMT
You are both on a roll here. I think that both the original pictures of the baby and the one of the christening are artificial creations.
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 21, 2019 18:47:24 GMT
However when one looks at the Christening pictures its a sunny midday with light shining through the green room into their faces. Camillas arms looked tanned compared to others. Remember though that the christening photo was taken at 10.56pm (or 2256 in the 24 hour clock) on 8 May according to the metadata, so the room would have been artificially lit. The metadata showing this date and time is a record when the photo was taken by the camera, no doubt about it.
|
|
|
Post by Lavendel on Jul 21, 2019 20:46:44 GMT
Here are pictures showing the green drawing room under different lighting I was looking at reason they stood near the window during the christening and wedding. There is direct light from the window at midday otherwise the lighting in the room is rather victorian. there is artificial lighting on the documentary lady otherwise the rest of the room is dull. yet if you look at the william at the christening picture has light under his folded arm coming from the window I think the photographers prefer the natural light thats why they stand next to the window. During harrys christening they stood in same room but not next to the window and used artificial lighting. why would the want to stand next to the window if not for the light? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5756881/The-history-Windsor-Castles-iconic-Green-Drawing-Room.html
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 22, 2019 19:05:05 GMT
I was looking at reason they stood near the window during the christening and wedding. There is direct light from the window at midday otherwise the lighting in the room is rather victorian. there is artificial lighting on the documentary lady otherwise the rest of the room is dull. yet if you look at the william at the christening picture has light under his folded arm coming from the window I think the photographers prefer the natural light thats why they stand next to the window. During harrys christening they stood in same room but not next to the window and used artificial lighting. why would the want to stand next to the window if not for the light? If William was photographed in daylight, he therefore must have been photoshopped into the picture, as it was taken at 22.56pm on 8 May. The metadata proves this (see my earlier post on the metadata) and is incontrovertible evidence.
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 22, 2019 19:28:52 GMT
The clock reflected in the mirror shows the time at 11.55, but there's been some analysis posted at this site of how the image of the clock has been altered in comparison with an official photo of the clock. gofakeyourselfmeghan.tumblr.com
|
|
|
Post by Lavendel on Jul 22, 2019 20:03:22 GMT
magpiejack , you are on to something. I was looking at her hands. They look very different from each other. I think they photoshopped someone else hands into the christening photos. In the may 8 pictures they look fat and short. In the christening pictures they look long and thin. The rings look different too. The clock reflected in the mirror shows the time at 11.55, but there's been some analysis posted at this site of how the image of the clock has been altered in comparison with an official photo of the clock. gofakeyourselfmeghan.tumblr.com
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 23, 2019 9:45:01 GMT
magpiejack , you are on to something. I was looking at her hands. They look very different from each other. I think they photoshopped someone else hands into the christening photos. In the may 8 pictures they look fat and short. In the christening pictures they look long and thin. The rings look different too. Yes, you're right Lavendel - those do look like different hands. The left hand is lighter than the rest of her skin tone. Now, here's a radical thought for you; is 'Archie' Harry? Have they used photos of Harry's christening? Is that Diana's hand? It would explain why the rings look different if they've photoshopped them in, and why she's hiding her other hand. I've not managed to find a photo with Diana's hand in that same position, but I'm sure there are a lot of other photos that weren't released to the press.
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 23, 2019 12:11:27 GMT
Another pic for comparisonI did think on looking again at the above black and white photo that the focus looked wrong, but a search found that the pictures seem to be genuine and were taken by Lord Snowdon. Here is another:
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 23, 2019 13:46:26 GMT
Make of this what you will
This is an interesting perspective that may be a bit woo-woo to some. I've learned tarot and I have a lot of respect for good tarot readers. One did a reading for me and described my immediate family members with a scary accuracy, she clarified a strange and confusing family situation for me in a way that made a lot of sense. She didn't know me at all, didn't even live anywhere near me and I didn't tell her anything about my family.
I've recently come across this reader on Youtube who has done quite a few readings on what is going on here. If you watch this one to the end it would make a lot of sense on what is going on, and she seems visibly shaken by what she sees in the cards.
Not conclusive evidence I know, but interesting.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jul 23, 2019 19:08:17 GMT
I have fallen way behind here. I would not have noticed most of the points you mention.
What a tangled web Meghan is weaving...
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 23, 2019 21:01:35 GMT
I have fallen way behind here. I would not have noticed most of the points you mention. What a tangled web Meghan is weaving... I hope that your internet problems are getting sorted, UnseenI . It's so frustrating when that happens. I have to say that someone unwittingly gave me the Archie/Harry clue, I saw a few days ago that someone had posted somewhere that "Ahh, doesn't Archie look like his daddy" with the christening photos of them side by side. Lavendel then gave me the other clue that connected the dots with the hands. A tangled web indeed! I bet she thought she'd pull it off effortlessly like Kate did. One last thing - I finally found easy-to-understand instructions for obtaining the christening photo metadata, so I followed that and yes, I got 8 May for the date that the photo was taken.
|
|
|
Post by magpiejack on Jul 23, 2019 21:25:37 GMT
magpiejack , you are on to something. I was looking at her hands. They look very different from each other. I think they photoshopped someone else hands into the christening photos. In the may 8 pictures they look fat and short. In the christening pictures they look long and thin. The rings look different too. I found this image of her hand from the engagement photos, the back of her hand looks square. The back of the hand in the christening photo is more rectangular.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jul 24, 2019 7:54:46 GMT
I am still struggling with an overheating laptop and a temporary Internet connection.
We did highlight Meghan's distinctive lower thumb joint a while back, so you are right to look out for it.
|
|