there's been an awful lot of fuss today surrounding a French magazine and certain pictures featuring a lady they claim is called Kate.
i, like i will wager a few million others, went to have a look at these pictures on the internet. it does not take much more than a glance at them to clock they are rather clever, clearly staged fakes. sorry for anyone who thinks they are real, and sort of well done to the presumably third rate publication that for a brief while became the best known magazine in the world.
how do i know they are fake? other than, and this is even allowing for the "ultra telescopic lens" apparently used, the tell-tale signs are right there. if you apply the "Bigfoot Rule" to the pictures it's fairly obvious.
what is the Bigfoot Rule? well, there's some famous, or if you will infamous, footage of a Bigfoot wandering around in America. it's a fairly convincing film at a glance, right up until this happens.
yep, that's Bigfoot, mooching around most human-like, turning around to have a look at the camera to make sure they get a good shot before he wanders off again. had those who made that film not thrown that in i dare say they would have convinced a good deal more people.
on that note, how very fortunate that this "Kate" should be kind enough to sit and face the hidden camera so often.
yes, all of the "interesting bits" have been edited out of these pictures. i do not need the nudity aspect to illustrate my point - sorry, back off to google you go if that's what you are looking for!
if the above picture does not convince you that this is a (so-so) lookalike hired to pose, i then invite you to consider looking at the next one.
how thoroughly decent of "Kate" to turn and look at the camera (a long way away, but more on that later). how convenient, too, that you see just enough to assume it is her, but just enough of her face is obscured by some sort of railing. it's also impressive that she gave the camera a "special holiday smile". note how her mouth in the picture above curls to the left. in every other picture of her smiling you will note it usually curls to the right.
it's also fairly impressive that, whilst on holiday, her neck seems to shorten and her chin changes shape.
aah, they can't be fake, you say, as William is in the pictures. yes, of course, there are plenty of "Kate" impersonators but none of William?
it seems that this "William" has the same changes as "Kate" does on holiday, for he changes not only the parting of his hair but the area affected by balding too. he also strikes me as being somewhat shorter when on a break.
and, like Kate, how fortunate that he should turn to look at the camera and smile.
i must applaud the use of the railings / balcony fence. it's very clever how the two of them for the most part crouch or lean down to be partially covered by it.
this use is shown off in the next picture. it is of course very common for recently married couples to sit as far apart as possible, just as it is exceptionally common to sit on either side of the only covered part of the railing or balcony wall.
they might have got away with being much more convincing with these pictures if they simply had not included this last, hilarious and clearly giving the game away final picture.
this has to be the single most "convenient" picture of the lot. "Kate" bending over and pulling her pants down so "William" can apply some cream, just at the perfect angle for the long lens camera?
there's also the small matter of the hugely poor quality of these pictures. i don't care how "ultra long distance" the photographer was away from them, technology being what it is allows digital, pristine pictures to be taken from considerable distances. the reason these are grainy is because they've deliberately been made to look that way. helps cover up any tell-take signs of fakery, you see.
the reports are that the Royal couple will sue if these pictures turn out to be genuine. i think it is safe to say that the lawyers will not be troubled, then.
good luck to the French magazine who no doubt paid a fortune for these - no doubt the circulation of it is well up today, a pity people would appear to have been fooled into thinking what it was they are looking at.
unless it's a scumbag photographer,
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT / UPDATE : the scumbag that took these pictures - a woman, no less and certainly no less scummy as a consequence, has come forward and said that whilst she took pictures of the two, they were in their full costumes at all times. hmn, perhaps my suspicions of these being "fake" are as a result of them being doctored?
No comments:
Post a Comment