On 22/11/2019 09:08, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 23:36, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 22:36, Rod Speed wrote:

Epstein was only convicted in Florida where is is 18, had he
done the same thing in NY he could not have been charged,

But Roberts claims that randy andy ****ed her in florida.

No she doesn't.* Read the thread, ignoramus.

Yes she does in the claims she made in the Dateline interview
and which referred to in the interview with randy andy.

Give the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKQi3wzNFGQ

Shiftiness noted.

There is nothing in that to support your contention.

That’s a lie. Maitlis* TWICE asks randy to respond to Roberts'
allegations about where Robets claimed he ****ed her in the USA.

At what point in?

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 22/11/2019 09:08, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 23:36, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 22:36, Rod Speed wrote:

Epstein was only convicted in Florida where is is 18, had he done
the same thing in NY he could not have been charged,

But Roberts claims that randy andy ****ed her in florida.

No she doesn't. Read the thread, ignoramus.

Yes she does in the claims she made in the Dateline interview
and which referred to in the interview with randy andy.

Give the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKQi3wzNFGQ

Shiftiness noted.

There is nothing in that to support your contention.

That’s a lie. Maitlis TWICE asks randy to respond to Roberts'
allegations about where Robets claimed he ****ed her in the USA.

At what point in?

Go and find it for yourself. Its unmistakable.

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:08:58 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Shiftiness noted.

There is nothing in that to support your contention.

That¢s a lie.

Nope, that is another troll of yours, senile Rodent!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:24:29 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


At what point in?

Go and find it for yourself. Its unmistakable.

You are unmistakably a trolling piece of Australian ****, senile Rodent!

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:00:59 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Are you saying that Roberts has been added to it

More likely that two photos, one with randy in
it and the other with Roberts in it were combined.

More likely that you are a self-opinionated, self-important, trolling piece
of Australian ****, senile Rodent! G

--
Bod addressing senile Rot:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
Message-ID:

On 2019-11-21, pamela wrote:
On 14:21 21 Nov 2019, Incubus wrote:

On 2019-11-20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend
several more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some
fame/fortune. Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he
did wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I
believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly
photoshopped.

Really? What makes you think that?

I don't believe it was photoshopped. You can see some distortion on the
left and right of each frame where the walls look bowed. If you look at
the edges where there is a lot of contrast, you can see some significant
chromatic aberration. If you look at Bonnie Prince Andrew's trousers,
you can still see some chromatic aberration, albeit not as severe. Only
the centre of the frame looks relatively distortion and aberration free.
That is consistent with a cheap, nasty lens. The photo was most likely
captured with an inexpensive 35mm film camera with built in flash,
possibly a disposable model. Nothing suggests it has been
postprocessed.

Do you have a good copy of the photo to run through this tool?

https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#forensic-magnifier

I used the Andrew photo from this page in the Sun but the results seem
inconclusive.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/103677...-girls-photos-
saint-tropez/

I don't. The provenance is unknown and it might have been subject to further
lossy compression when hosted on-line. The only thing that anyone can go on
with such a photo is what stands out as known quantities.

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 19:21:31 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


I think the case is solved.

Fraid not.

IOW, you will CONTINUE with your insipid trolling, you lonely senile pest
from Oz! G

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 2019-11-22, Rod Speed wrote:


"Incubus" wrote in message
...
On 2019-11-21, Jeff wrote:

I don't believe it was photoshopped. You can see some distortion on the
left
and right of each frame where the walls look bowed. If you look at the
edges
where there is a lot of contrast, you can see some significant chromatic
aberration. If you look at Bonnie Prince Andrew's trousers, you can
still see
some chromatic aberration, albeit not as severe. Only the centre of the
frame
looks relatively distortion and aberration free. That is consistent
with a
cheap, nasty lens. The photo was most likely captured with an
inexpensive 35mm
film camera with built in flash, possibly a disposable model. Nothing
suggests
it has been postprocessed.


But it is only the centre of the pic that might have been photoshopped!!

Are you saying that Roberts has been added to it

More likely that two photos, one with randy in
it and the other with Roberts in it were combined.

So who was standing in Roberts' place originally? Someone with just the right
dimensions that they could be easily replaced? It's an odd photo if he is on
the left standing alone or with someone about a foot away from him, don't you
think?

and, presumably, his fingers around her waist?

Yep and rather ineptly because his left arm would
have to be much longer than his right arm.

I really don't agree there.

What would have been there in her absence?

A different person.

A different person who had just the right dimensions and pose to be replaced
with Roberts? Or was part of the background faked? I have seen backgrounds
faked when removing people from images and it is easy to tell if you know how
to look.

Or are you saying that her face has
been added instead of someone else's?

No.

There is nothing to suggest that either has been done.

There is quite a bit to suggest that its two different
photos, particularly the skin tones and that hand.

The skin tone of his hands both match.

On 2019-11-22, Jeff wrote:
On 21/11/2019 17:38, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-11-21, Jeff wrote:

I don't believe it was photoshopped. You can see some distortion on the left
and right of each frame where the walls look bowed. If you look at the edges
where there is a lot of contrast, you can see some significant chromatic
aberration. If you look at Bonnie Prince Andrew's trousers, you can still see
some chromatic aberration, albeit not as severe. Only the centre of the frame
looks relatively distortion and aberration free. That is consistent with a
cheap, nasty lens. The photo was most likely captured with an inexpensive 35mm
film camera with built in flash, possibly a disposable model. Nothing suggests
it has been postprocessed.


But it is only the centre of the pic that might have been photoshopped!!

Are you saying that Roberts has been added to it and, presumably, his fingers
around her waist? What would have been there in her absence? Or are you
saying that her face has been added instead of someone else's? There is
nothing to suggest that either has been done.



I am saying that you dismiss the pic as being Photoshopped by saying
that it is only the centre of the frame that is "relatively distortion
and aberration free" but that is the area where any Photoshopping is
likely to have been carried out, eg the heads and faces.

There is no evidence that the centre of the frame has been edited.

On 22/11/2019 09:24, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 22/11/2019 09:08, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 23:36, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 22:36, Rod Speed wrote:

Epstein was only convicted in Florida where is is 18, had he
done the same thing in NY he could not have been charged,

But Roberts claims that randy andy ****ed her in florida.

No she doesn't.* Read the thread, ignoramus.

Yes she does in the claims she made in the Dateline interview
and which referred to in the interview with randy andy.

Give the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKQi3wzNFGQ

Shiftiness noted.

There is nothing in that to support your contention.

That’s a lie. Maitlis* TWICE asks randy to respond to Roberts'
allegations about where Robets claimed he ****ed her in the USA.

At what point in?

Go and find it for yourself. Its unmistakable.

I'm not going searching for soemthing that doesn't exist. It's for you
to establish your point. If you can't, you don't have one.

On 21/11/2019 00:19, Roger Hayter wrote:

Even if the girls weren't trafficked, most people probably think using
the services of prostitutes is sufficiently morally despicable to
exclude such users from decent society.

I don't see why using the services of prostitutes is morally despicable?

In an age where clumsy sexual overtures are considered to be foul
crimes, the formal business like process of prostitution seems to be the
ideal solution. With internet soliciting even the problems of street
prostitutes are reduced.

So what do you think isn't moral about it?

From a personal view point, I always felt dirtier and more disgusted
after appointments with accountants or lawyers than I ever did with
prostitutes.

On Thursday, 21 November 2019 16:36:17 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 14:22:12 UTC, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-11-20, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 08:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend
several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some
fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he
did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I
believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly
photoshopped.

Really? What makes you think that?


The photograph does not show sexual activity. In fact, it proves
nothing
at all. There's no need to photoshop such a picture, unless you want to
display it on your wall as a proud memento of meeting a Prince. If such
things please you.

So why are his supporters claiming that it could be fake? That just
sounds
desperate.

Because they are desperate.
I doubt it has been edited in any major way, it doesn't look
particually fake to me. Red eye from a cheap camera, I'm not
sure who would bother as it's can't prove anything either way.

If it isnt fake, it does prove that he did meet
that slut, something randy andy denys.

Does that make her a slut then. Famous people meet loads of hangers on.
If this was today it'd be a selfie and I doubt anyone royalty, film star, athlete, celebe 'knowns' everyone that has requested a selfie with them.


He also denys that it cant have been in the
UK because he claims that he never dresses
like that in the UK, only in the USA,

I've no idea how he dresses or why he'd chose to dress one way in one country but not in another.

On 2019-11-22, Jeff wrote:

So why are his supporters claiming that it could be fake?

Because he claims he has never met her.

That just sounds desperate.

Nope, not if he has in fact never met her. Clearly one
or other of them must be lying and its very likely that
Roberts is doing that given that she has already
received millions as a result of her civil case.

The list of people that she claims to have slept with is something that
Carl Beech would have been proud of!!

Prince Andrew; Jean-Luc Brunel; Glenn Dubin; Marvin Minsky; Governor
Bill Richardson; another unnamed prince; an unnamed foreign president;
"a well known Prime Minister"; and an unnamed hotel chain owner from
France, among others that she could not name!!!!!

That's not such an outlandish claim given the circumstances. Epstein had a
number of VIPs among his associates (or clientele, as it were). It would be
different if a woman who worked in the local chip shop were making such claims.

On 2019-11-22, Jeff wrote:
On 22/11/2019 09:58, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-11-22, Jeff wrote:
On 21/11/2019 17:38, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-11-21, Jeff wrote:

I don't believe it was photoshopped. You can see some distortion on the left
and right of each frame where the walls look bowed. If you look at the edges
where there is a lot of contrast, you can see some significant chromatic
aberration. If you look at Bonnie Prince Andrew's trousers, you can still see
some chromatic aberration, albeit not as severe. Only the centre of the frame
looks relatively distortion and aberration free. That is consistent with a
cheap, nasty lens. The photo was most likely captured with an inexpensive 35mm
film camera with built in flash, possibly a disposable model. Nothing suggests
it has been postprocessed.


But it is only the centre of the pic that might have been photoshopped!!

Are you saying that Roberts has been added to it and, presumably, his fingers
around her waist? What would have been there in her absence? Or are you
saying that her face has been added instead of someone else's? There is
nothing to suggest that either has been done.



I am saying that you dismiss the pic as being Photoshopped by saying
that it is only the centre of the frame that is "relatively distortion
and aberration free" but that is the area where any Photoshopping is
likely to have been carried out, eg the heads and faces.

There is no evidence that the centre of the frame has been edited.



So you can tell when 'experts' are undecided!!!

I can give my opinion, which is that it has not been doctored.

On Thursday, 21 November 2019 22:51:52 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"Incubus" wrote in message
...
On 2019-11-20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What he
did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I
believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly photoshopped.

Really? What makes you think that?

I don't believe it was photoshopped. You can see some distortion on the
left
and right of each frame where the walls look bowed. If you look at the
edges
where there is a lot of contrast, you can see some significant chromatic
aberration. If you look at Bonnie Prince Andrew's trousers, you can still
see
some chromatic aberration, albeit not as severe. Only the centre of the
frame
looks relatively distortion and aberration free. That is consistent with
a
cheap, nasty lens. The photo was most likely captured with an inexpensive
35mm
film camera with built in flash, possibly a disposable model. Nothing
suggests
it has been postprocessed.

But it would well be two separate photos with the same cheap camera
which have been combined to make it look like they were both in the
same shot when they werent. With that hand added later.

It could be that they are all aliens from the 6th dimension, but I'd need just as much proof of that as I'd need to prove some sort of editing had taken place and if it was edited who did the editing and for who.

On 20/11/2019 15:07, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 13:19, Pancho wrote:
On 19/11/2019 23:02, Norman Wells wrote:


What do you mean by 'trafficking'?


I was curious about what trafficking meant, so did a quick wiki.

In USA law and in the case of a minor it seems to require nothing more
than inducing an under eighteen year old to commit a sex act.

So maybe the equivalent of the word "procuring" in English law. Just my
suggestion.
s22 Causing prostitution of women

(1)It is an offence for a person€”

(a)to procure a woman to become, in any part of the world, a common
prostitute ; or

(b)to procure a woman to leave the United Kingdom, intending her to
become an inmate of or frequent a brothel elsewhere; or

(c)to procure a woman to leave her usual place of abode in the United
Kingdom, intending her to become an inmate of or frequent a brothel in
any part of the world for the purposes of prostitution.

unquote

Is it central to the American offence of trafficking that the woman ends
up selling sex for money or being part of a brothel?

Yeah, procure sound much better than traffick. So Cursitor's use of the
phrase "procured and trafficked" is a bit confusing.

Dunno about prostitution or brothels, I think the selling for money bit
is often problematic. The law would be silly to overly restrict the type
of quid pro quo.

It is easy to see why people have drawn parallels with the Profumo
scandal. Maxwell seems to be a role similar to Stephen Ward.

On Thursday, 21 November 2019 23:08:42 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/11/2019 15:16, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 15:02:50 UTC, Max Demian wrote:

Surely the maxim should be, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

If those in certain US states (I forget which) think that it's OK to
shag (compliant) animals, why should 'tourists' not do the same while
they are there?

It's an interesting point the age of consent in Thialand is 15, I asked the tecnician I dshare my office with as she is from thialand, and in Nigeria is 11.

This is perhaps where morals come in rather than the law.
Didnlt gary Glitter got to camboais for child sex that was sort of legal provided no one complained or similar ?.

Whose morals? Those of which place, and which time?

Exactly morals should be personal to an individual niot to the state or a religious or socail belief.



--
Max Demian

On Thursday, 21 November 2019 23:13:53 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/11/2019 15:19, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/11/2019 14:16, pamela wrote:

The law is not a guide to morality.

It's the best we've got, and it's pretty reliable on the whole.

Laws are supposed to reflect morality, not the other way round.

No they aren't, laws are meant to reflect the groups social interactions and beliefs.



Things aren't bad because they're illegal: they're illegal because
they're bad.

That isn't true. Homosexuality isnlt bad but it was illegal and still is in most countries, but why is Homosexuality though of as bad and needs a law to stop people doing it ?



But a place where everything bad is also illegal allows individuals no
moral freedom, except by breaking the law.

I agree with that.


--
Max Demian

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 23:13:53 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/11/2019 15:19, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/11/2019 14:16, pamela wrote:

The law is not a guide to morality.

It's the best we've got, and it's pretty reliable on the whole.

Laws are supposed to reflect morality, not the other way round.

No they aren't, laws are meant to reflect the groups social interactions
and beliefs.



Things aren't bad because they're illegal: they're illegal because
they're bad.

That isn't true. Homosexuality isnlt bad but it was illegal and still is
in most countries, but why is Homosexuality though of as bad and needs a
law to stop people doing it ?

Once upon a time, it was important to keep up the birth rate.


--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:21:43 +0000, Pancho
wrote:

On 20/11/2019 15:07, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 13:19, Pancho wrote:
On 19/11/2019 23:02, Norman Wells wrote:


What do you mean by 'trafficking'?


I was curious about what trafficking meant, so did a quick wiki.

In USA law and in the case of a minor it seems to require nothing more
than inducing an under eighteen year old to commit a sex act.

So maybe the equivalent of the word "procuring" in English law. Just my
suggestion.
s22 Causing prostitution of women

(1)It is an offence for a person—

(a)to procure a woman to become, in any part of the world, a common
prostitute ; or

(b)to procure a woman to leave the United Kingdom, intending her to
become an inmate of or frequent a brothel elsewhere; or

(c)to procure a woman to leave her usual place of abode in the United
Kingdom, intending her to become an inmate of or frequent a brothel in
any part of the world for the purposes of prostitution.

unquote

Is it central to the American offence of trafficking that the woman ends
up selling sex for money or being part of a brothel?

Yeah, procure sound much better than traffick. So Cursitor's use of the
phrase "procured and trafficked" is a bit confusing.

Dunno about prostitution or brothels, I think the selling for money bit
is often problematic. The law would be silly to overly restrict the type
of quid pro quo.

It is easy to see why people have drawn parallels with the Profumo
scandal. Maxwell seems to be a role similar to Stephen Ward.

And, one hopes, will come to a similar end...just like her father did.

On Friday, 22 November 2019 12:13:28 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 23:13:53 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/11/2019 15:19, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/11/2019 14:16, pamela wrote:

The law is not a guide to morality.

It's the best we've got, and it's pretty reliable on the whole.

Laws are supposed to reflect morality, not the other way round.

No they aren't, laws are meant to reflect the groups social interactions
and beliefs.



Things aren't bad because they're illegal: they're illegal because
they're bad.

That isn't true. Homosexuality isnlt bad but it was illegal and still is
in most countries, but why is Homosexuality though of as bad and needs a
law to stop people doing it ?

Once upon a time, it was important to keep up the birth rate.

But that wasn't the reason homesexuality was illegal in the UK was it.

And how would putting a lot of gays in prison or executing them increase the birthrate anyway ?

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 22 November 2019 12:13:28 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 23:13:53 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/11/2019 15:19, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/11/2019 14:16, pamela wrote:

The law is not a guide to morality.

It's the best we've got, and it's pretty reliable on the whole.

Laws are supposed to reflect morality, not the other way round.

No they aren't, laws are meant to reflect the groups social
interactions and beliefs.



Things aren't bad because they're illegal: they're illegal because
they're bad.

That isn't true. Homosexuality isnlt bad but it was illegal and still
is in most countries, but why is Homosexuality though of as bad and
needs a law to stop people doing it ?

Once upon a time, it was important to keep up the birth rate.

But that wasn't the reason homesexuality was illegal in the UK was it.

no, I suspect it was because the Bible said it was bad.

And how would putting a lot of gays in prison or executing them increase
the birthrate anyway ?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article ,
charles wrote:
But that wasn't the reason homesexuality was illegal in the UK was it.

no, I suspect it was because the Bible said it was bad.


Depending on who you trust for the translation. Many think the original
refers to pederasty. Not between consulting adults. And, of course, 'our'
bible only refers to male homosexuality. Which reflects the times of the
translation.

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 05:26:57 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbassterder®™", farted
again:


And, one hopes, will come to a similar end...just like her father did.

Keep hoping, psychopath! LOL

--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Isn't it time that paedophiles were admitted to the LGBTQ rainbow?
Now that every other sexual deviation seems to have been accommodated?"
MID:

On 2019-11-22, pamela wrote:
On 09:49 22 Nov 2019, Incubus wrote:

On 2019-11-21, pamela wrote:
On 14:21 21 Nov 2019, Incubus wrote:

On 2019-11-20, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend
several more parties after the first? Just a well paid whore. Old
& ugly now.looking for some fame/fortune. Be selling her story to
the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What
he did wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the
time I believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly
photoshopped.

Really? What makes you think that?

I don't believe it was photoshopped. You can see some distortion on
the left and right of each frame where the walls look bowed. If you
look at the edges where there is a lot of contrast, you can see some
significant chromatic aberration. If you look at Bonnie Prince
Andrew's trousers, you can still see some chromatic aberration, albeit
not as severe. Only the centre of the frame looks relatively
distortion and aberration free.
That is consistent with a cheap, nasty lens. The photo was most
likely
captured with an inexpensive 35mm film camera with built in flash,
possibly a disposable model. Nothing suggests it has been
postprocessed.

Do you have a good copy of the photo to run through this tool?

https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#forensic-magnifier

I used the Andrew photo from this page in the Sun but the results seem
inconclusive.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/103677...w-party-girls-
photos-saint-tropez/

I don't. The provenance is unknown and it might have been subject to
further lossy compression when hosted on-line. The only thing that
anyone can go on with such a photo is what stands out as known
quantities.

I think the photo of Andrew and Virginia should be accepted as real until
it is proven to be a fake or until there is technical doubt about its
veracity.

Indeed, and at this stage I don't agree that there is any ambiguity. As for
so-called experts' opinions, I am reminded of how criminal defence solitors
will pay an expert to compile a report and only submit the report in evidence
if it supports the client's defence. If the report harms the client's defence,
they will ignore it and pay another expert to compile a report in the hope that
it is more useful to them. I am sure the CPS does the same. I am equally
certain that some of the people asking for the opinion of experts in this
matter are likewise doing the same.

Press reports claim Epstein videoed his fellow perverts, so there may more
pictures presented in a court case if "presidents, world leaders and
celebrities" don't apply undue influence to have it suppressed After all,
Virginia Virginia Giuffres' original evidence against Epstein was
inexplicably struck from the court record.

Epstein was known for videoing his guests using hidden CCTV at his home
in Palm Beach, Florida and on his US Virgin Island

Prince Andrew may have been captured on secret cameras his paedophile
pal Jeffrey Epstein had in his homes as an “insurance policy” against
his rich friends.

The FBI is understood to be looking at hundreds of hours of footage
taken from properties the duke visited.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...ptured-secret-
20925204

If he has broken the law, I hope he does not prove to be above it. Morally, I
don't agree with his behaviour and it seems he is paying the price for that, at
least. It will be interesting to see the results of the investigation.

Incubus wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Incubus wrote
Jeff wrote

I don't believe it was photoshopped. You can see some
distortion on the left and right of each frame where the
walls look bowed. If you look at the edges where there
is a lot of contrast, you can see some significant chromatic
aberration. If you look at Bonnie Prince Andrew's trousers,
you can still see some chromatic aberration, albeit not as
severe. Only the centre of the frame looks relatively distortion
and aberration free. That is consistent with a cheap, nasty lens.
The photo was most likely captured with an inexpensive 35mm
film camera with built in flash, possibly a disposable model.
Nothing suggests it has been postprocessed.

But it is only the centre of the pic that might have been
photoshopped!!

Are you saying that Roberts has been added to it

More likely that two photos, one with randy in
it and the other with Roberts in it were combined.

So who was standing in Roberts' place originally?

Could be anyone.

Someone with just the right dimensions
that they could be easily replaced?

That’s not necessary if there were two photos taken
in that location and the two photos were cut between
randy and the other person and the two pieces merged.

It's an odd photo if he is on the left standing alone

That’s unlikely given where he is facing.

or with someone about a foot away from him,

Or in the same place as Roberts is in the composite.

don't you think?

Fraid not.

and, presumably, his fingers around her waist?

Yep and rather ineptly because his left arm would
have to be much longer than his right arm.

I really don't agree there.

What would have been there in her absence?

A different person.

A different person who had just the right dimensions
and pose to be replaced with Roberts?

Doesn’t have to be just the right dimensions and pose
if there two photos cut down the line between the individuals
and then merged to produce the one we see now. And that
looks likely given that randy's pot belly overlaps Roberts.

Or was part of the background faked?

No need for that if there were two original photos with
a different person instead of Roberts with randy.

I have seen backgrounds faked when removing
people from images and it is easy to tell if you
know how to look.

No need for that if there were two photos.

Or are you saying that her face has
been added instead of someone else's?

No.

There is nothing to suggest that either has been done.

There is quite a bit to suggest that its two different
photos, particularly the skin tones and that hand.

The skin tone of his hands both match.

Yes, but Roberts skin tone is nothing like randys.
You don’t get the unreal red tinge that his has.
Randy's hands are much too red. His face too.
Her skin tones are fine. You can't get that effect
with one untouched original.

"Jeff" wrote in message ...

So why are his supporters claiming that it could be fake?

Because he claims he has never met her.

That just sounds desperate.

Nope, not if he has in fact never met her. Clearly one
or other of them must be lying and its very likely that
Roberts is doing that given that she has already
received millions as a result of her civil case.

The list of people that she claims to have slept with is something that
Carl Beech would have been proud of!!

Yeah, the silly slut is clearly trying to gouge as much money as
she can from anyone who has had anything to do with Epstein.
And has already got millions from Epstein before he killed himself.

Prince Andrew; Jean-Luc Brunel; Glenn Dubin; Marvin Minsky; Governor Bill
Richardson; another unnamed prince; an unnamed foreign president; "a well
known Prime Minister"; and an unnamed hotel chain owner from France, among
others that she could not name!!!!!

Yep.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 22/11/2019 09:24, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 22/11/2019 09:08, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 23:36, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/2019 22:36, Rod Speed wrote:

Epstein was only convicted in Florida where is is 18, had he
done the same thing in NY he could not have been charged,

But Roberts claims that randy andy ****ed her in florida.

No she doesn't. Read the thread, ignoramus.

Yes she does in the claims she made in the Dateline interview
and which referred to in the interview with randy andy.

Give the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKQi3wzNFGQ

Shiftiness noted.

There is nothing in that to support your contention.

That’s a lie. Maitlis TWICE asks randy to respond to Roberts'
allegations about where Robets claimed he ****ed her in the USA.

At what point in?

Go and find it for yourself. Its unmistakable.

I'm not going searching for soemthing that doesn't exist.

What Maitlis says about Roberts claims does exist in that interview, twice.

It's for you to establish your point.

I did.

If you can't,

I did.

you don't have one.

Corse I do. I didn’t say that Roberts claim is valid, just that she made
that claim.

imo she is just a silly little slut/gold digger who has
already got quite literally millions from Epstein in
the civil case and is clearly trying to get more from
Randy and quite a few others. She clearly wasn’t
trafficked at all given that she claims to have first
met randy in the UK where she was of legal age
and then clearly voluntarily went with Maxwell
to various places in the USA, some of which she
may have been legally under age but that last
is harder to be sure given that she is rather vague
about when she was in particular US locations
that she claims she was ****ed by Randy.

And she has claimed to have been ****ed by lots of
others too. Clearly a slut who was happy to be ****ed.

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 04:42:21 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


FLUSH the senile cretin's troll**** unread again

04:42 in Australia??? AGAIN??? LOL So, how long have you been out of bed and
trolling this night already? I'll soon find out! BG

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On 22/11/2019 11:27, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 23:13:53 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/11/2019 15:19, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/11/2019 14:16, pamela wrote:

The law is not a guide to morality.

It's the best we've got, and it's pretty reliable on the whole.

Laws are supposed to reflect morality, not the other way round.

No they aren't, laws are meant to reflect the groups social interactions and beliefs.

That is kind of what we mean by morality, unless you believe it comes
from God.

Things aren't bad because they're illegal: they're illegal because
they're bad.

That isn't true. Homosexuality isnlt bad but it was illegal and still is in most countries, but why is Homosexuality though of as bad and needs a law to stop people doing it ?

It's illegal where it's regarded as bad in most cases.

The reasons it is/was regarded as bad are complex, but may boil down to:
1) It's a minority taste;
2) It cuts across the accepted ways of courtship and family life;
3) The acts disgust those who aren't that way inclined;
4) Male homosexuality is (rightly or wrongly) associated with effeminacy
which challenges the ideal of masculinity.

There may be other "reasons" that are devised to bolster the argument,
in the same way that the incest prohibition is justified by (mostly
false) genetic arguments.

Some things are just regarded as wrong, at a given time and place.

--
Max Demian

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 16:36:17 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 14:22:12 UTC, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-11-20, The Todal wrote:
On 20/11/2019 08:40, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/11/2019 07:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/11/2019 22:52, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:44:28 -0800, harry wrote:

Well she looks happy enough in the picture. Why did she attend
several
more parties after the first?
Just a well paid whore. Old & ugly now.looking for some
fame/fortune.
Be selling her story to the Sun before you know it.

What I don't understand is why everyone is on Andrew's case. What
he
did
wasn't illegal under English law. The girl was 17 at the time I
believe.

I doubt he had sex with her. The picture I saw was clearly
photoshopped.

Really? What makes you think that?


The photograph does not show sexual activity. In fact, it proves
nothing
at all. There's no need to photoshop such a picture, unless you want
to
display it on your wall as a proud memento of meeting a Prince. If
such
things please you.

So why are his supporters claiming that it could be fake? That just
sounds
desperate.

Because they are desperate.
I doubt it has been edited in any major way, it doesn't look
particually fake to me. Red eye from a cheap camera, I'm not
sure who would bother as it's can't prove anything either way.

If it isnt fake, it does prove that he did meet
that slut, something randy andy denys.

Does that make her a slut then.

Her claims about who have ****ed her does if they are true.

Famous people meet loads of hangers on.

But he doesnt allow himself to be photographed with many.

If this was today it'd be a selfie and I doubt anyone
royalty, film star, athlete, celebe 'knowns' everyone
that has requested a selfie with them.

But he doesnt allow selfies.

He also denys that it cant have been in the
UK because he claims that he never dresses
like that in the UK, only in the USA,

I've no idea how he dresses

But he does say that in the interview.

or why he'd chose to dress one way
in one country but not in another.

He didnt spell that out in the interview.

Doesnt sound very plausible to me but
given that he doesnt allow photos very
often its hard to prove he lied about that.

"Incubus" wrote in message
...
On 2019-11-22, Jeff wrote:

So why are his supporters claiming that it could be fake?

Because he claims he has never met her.

That just sounds desperate.

Nope, not if he has in fact never met her. Clearly one
or other of them must be lying and its very likely that
Roberts is doing that given that she has already
received millions as a result of her civil case.

The list of people that she claims to have slept with is something that
Carl Beech would have been proud of!!

Prince Andrew; Jean-Luc Brunel; Glenn Dubin; Marvin Minsky; Governor
Bill Richardson; another unnamed prince; an unnamed foreign president;
"a well known Prime Minister"; and an unnamed hotel chain owner from
France, among others that she could not name!!!!!

That's not such an outlandish claim given the circumstances. Epstein had
a
number of VIPs among his associates (or clientele, as it were). It would
be
different if a woman who worked in the local chip shop were making such
claims.

Yes but if she did let them **** her, she is clearly a
slut and it isnt possible to substantiate the claim that
she was trafficked given that ****ing her was legal in
most of the places she claims to have been ****ed.

While technically she may have been under age in
one of the US locations, that’s hardly a dastardly
crime given that it isnt even illegal in the others.

"Incubus" wrote in message
...
On 2019-11-22, Jeff wrote:
On 22/11/2019 09:58, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-11-22, Jeff wrote:
On 21/11/2019 17:38, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-11-21, Jeff wrote:

I don't believe it was photoshopped. You can see some distortion on
the left
and right of each frame where the walls look bowed. If you look at
the edges
where there is a lot of contrast, you can see some significant
chromatic
aberration. If you look at Bonnie Prince Andrew's trousers, you can
still see
some chromatic aberration, albeit not as severe. Only the centre of
the frame
looks relatively distortion and aberration free. That is consistent
with a
cheap, nasty lens. The photo was most likely captured with an
inexpensive 35mm
film camera with built in flash, possibly a disposable model.
Nothing suggests
it has been postprocessed.


But it is only the centre of the pic that might have been
photoshopped!!

Are you saying that Roberts has been added to it and, presumably, his
fingers
around her waist? What would have been there in her absence? Or are
you
saying that her face has been added instead of someone else's? There
is
nothing to suggest that either has been done.



I am saying that you dismiss the pic as being Photoshopped by saying
that it is only the centre of the frame that is "relatively distortion
and aberration free" but that is the area where any Photoshopping is
likely to have been carried out, eg the heads and faces.

There is no evidence that the centre of the frame has been edited.



So you can tell when 'experts' are undecided!!!

I can give my opinion, which is that it has not been doctored.

Clearly plenty of experts arent so sure.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 23:13:53 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/11/2019 15:19, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/11/2019 14:16, pamela wrote:

The law is not a guide to morality.

It's the best we've got, and it's pretty reliable on the whole.

Laws are supposed to reflect morality, not the other way round.

No they aren't, laws are meant to reflect the groups social interactions
and beliefs.



Things aren't bad because they're illegal: they're illegal because
they're bad.

That isn't true. Homosexuality isnlt bad but
it was illegal and still is in most countries,

That last isnt true.

but why is Homosexuality though of as bad
and needs a law to stop people doing it ?

But a place where everything bad is also illegal allows individuals no
moral freedom, except by breaking the law.

I agree with that.

In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
That isn't true. Homosexuality isnlt bad but it was illegal and still is in most countries, but why is Homosexuality though of as bad and needs a law to stop people doing it ?

It's illegal where it's regarded as bad in most cases.

The reasons it is/was regarded as bad are complex, but may boil down to:
1) It's a minority taste;

So not to be tolerated. Can't have anyone not conforming.

2) It cuts across the accepted ways of courtship and family life;

But a male having a mistress or simply screwing around has generally been
regarded as a manly thing to do? Certainly never punished in the same way.


3) The acts disgust those who aren't that way inclined;

How do they know about such acts, then?

4) Male homosexuality is (rightly or wrongly) associated with effeminacy
which challenges the ideal of masculinity.

Trying to remember the survey that found that sexual feelings for the same
sex at some point in your life ain't actually that rare.

--
*It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:56:19 +0100, Foreskin Peeler
wrote:

[FLUHS Grik skata]...and better air in here again! [sic][SIC!!! LOL]

Watch, it geezer!

APOPLECTIC Grik FITS already anus? B

MINI-ORGASMS already anus? G

All because Rod Speed has been posting anus? GB

WHAT the **** is WRONG with you anus? VGB

Stugatz! Fanook! Vaffanculo!
tsk

In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
On 22/11/2019 11:27, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 23:13:53 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/11/2019 15:19, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/11/2019 14:16, pamela wrote:

The law is not a guide to morality.

It's the best we've got, and it's pretty reliable on the whole.

Laws are supposed to reflect morality, not the other way round.

No they aren't, laws are meant to reflect the groups social interactions and beliefs.

That is kind of what we mean by morality, unless you believe it comes
from God.

Things aren't bad because they're illegal: they're illegal because
they're bad.

That isn't true. Homosexuality isnlt bad but it was illegal and still is in most countries, but why is Homosexuality though of as bad and needs a law to stop people doing it ?

It's illegal where it's regarded as bad in most cases.

The reasons it is/was regarded as bad are complex, but may boil down to:
1) It's a minority taste;
2) It cuts across the accepted ways of courtship and family life;
3) The acts disgust those who aren't that way inclined;
4) Male homosexuality is (rightly or wrongly) associated with effeminacy
which challenges the ideal of masculinity.

Yet it was the norm in Sparta

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 04:54:43 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's troll****

....nothing's left!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 22/11/2019 18:35, charles wrote:
In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
On 22/11/2019 11:27, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 23:13:53 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/11/2019 15:19, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/11/2019 14:16, pamela wrote:

The law is not a guide to morality.

It's the best we've got, and it's pretty reliable on the whole.

Laws are supposed to reflect morality, not the other way round.

No they aren't, laws are meant to reflect the groups social interactions and beliefs.

That is kind of what we mean by morality, unless you believe it comes
from God.

Things aren't bad because they're illegal: they're illegal because
they're bad.

That isn't true. Homosexuality isnlt bad but it was illegal and still is in most countries, but why is Homosexuality though of as bad and needs a law to stop people doing it ?

It's illegal where it's regarded as bad in most cases.

The reasons it is/was regarded as bad are complex, but may boil down to:
1) It's a minority taste;
2) It cuts across the accepted ways of courtship and family life;
3) The acts disgust those who aren't that way inclined;
4) Male homosexuality is (rightly or wrongly) associated with effeminacy
which challenges the ideal of masculinity.

Yet it was the norm in Sparta

So some people would have you believe.
Probably their enemies

It is, however, normal at the BBC, and at the Guardian


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 05:05:48 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll****

05:05 in Australia? Is it still dark outside, senile Rodent? And STILL
nobody in real life talking to you? But then, nobody talks to you even
during the day! BG

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: