|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 11, 2024 15:16:10 GMT
i saw some rumours a week or two back in relation to the state of the royal union between Kate and William and both have been having affairs, Kate was involved with Thomas Kingston who was found recently dead in an outbuilding.... read into all what you want Oh really? That is juicy that š®. How would someone like her even find the time for an affair though. Imagine she doesn't get a great deal of independance. When there's a will (excuse the pun) there's a way I guess. Where did you read it flea or is just spreading on social media more. Charles and Diana found plenty of time for affairs.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 11, 2024 15:28:06 GMT
Has anyone blamed Meghan yet?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 11, 2024 15:53:42 GMT
I am completely and utterly mystified as to what the news is supposed to be here.. how is it a story that a photo has been digitally edited after being taken? Surely most of us do that to some extent every single day? I'd have been infinitely more surprised if it had come out that photos of the royals are *not* altered after being taken.
That said the apology (apology?? wtf?) now makes it seem like there *is* more to it than I realised. Maybe my expectations are out of whack or something
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on Mar 11, 2024 16:08:43 GMT
I am completely and utterly mystified as to what the news is supposed to be here.. how is it a story that a photo has been digitally edited after being taken? Surely most of us do that to some extent every single day? I'd have been infinitely more surprised if it had come out that photos of the royals are *not* altered after being taken. That said the apology (apology?? wtf?) now makes it seem like there *is* more to it than I realised. Maybe my expectations are out of whack or something It absolutely is not news. On the other hand, "Ultra-entitled (literally in their case), uber-privileged, benefit-scrounging family holds media in thrall" should indeed be a story.
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Mar 11, 2024 16:15:25 GMT
Nobody seems to have mentioned that the pic could be AI generated. They're defo hiding something though. Could be a deepfake and editing used was a bit shit, itās wild but definitely possible
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 11, 2024 16:15:49 GMT
I am completely and utterly mystified as to what the news is supposed to be here.. how is it a story that a photo has been digitally edited after being taken? Surely most of us do that to some extent every single day? I'd have been infinitely more surprised if it had come out that photos of the royals are *not* altered after being taken. That said the apology (apology?? wtf?) now makes it seem like there *is* more to it than I realised. Maybe my expectations are out of whack or something Probably like me PL, you weren't aware that the Internet has been awash with conspiracy stories over the last few weeks about the whereabouts of Kate because she (despite her operation) hasn't been seen in public since Christmas. The official release of this photograph yesterday was supposed to quell those conspiracy theories. Obviously, now that the world's biggest photo agencies have called out the authenticity of an officially released Royal picture FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, it has had the complete opposite effect of that intended. Looking around, some quite credible commentators are suggesting that it has been phtoshopped from a pic in November, whilst others are suggesting that it is completely AI generated from scratch. AP have asked the Palace to provide them with either the original picture or the meta data but they have refused on both counts, which of course adds to the intrigue. Nothing to see here ...
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 11, 2024 16:17:11 GMT
I am completely and utterly mystified as to what the news is supposed to be here.. how is it a story that a photo has been digitally edited after being taken? Surely most of us do that to some extent every single day? I'd have been infinitely more surprised if it had come out that photos of the royals are *not* altered after being taken. That said the apology (apology?? wtf?) now makes it seem like there *is* more to it than I realised. Maybe my expectations are out of whack or something The edits to the image aren't your usual edits to maybe make yourself look a bit prettier. It's edited more in the sense which makes the image look manipulated in some way such as changing outfits or other. Some of the parts discussed here - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68534289
|
|
JudgeMental
Youth Player
Your Iso-Cube is waiting.
Posts: 339
Location: MegastokeCity 1
|
Post by JudgeMental on Mar 11, 2024 16:23:01 GMT
Has anyone blamed Meghan yet? Piers Morgan is working on it as we speak....
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Mar 11, 2024 16:24:23 GMT
I am completely and utterly mystified as to what the news is supposed to be here.. how is it a story that a photo has been digitally edited after being taken? Surely most of us do that to some extent every single day? I'd have been infinitely more surprised if it had come out that photos of the royals are *not* altered after being taken. That said the apology (apology?? wtf?) now makes it seem like there *is* more to it than I realised. Maybe my expectations are out of whack or something It's an absolutely massive story, isn't it, and I don't really give a wank about the royals? It's all just insane, whether the bigger story is about the royals or not.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Mar 11, 2024 16:27:42 GMT
I am completely and utterly mystified as to what the news is supposed to be here.. how is it a story that a photo has been digitally edited after being taken? Surely most of us do that to some extent every single day? I'd have been infinitely more surprised if it had come out that photos of the royals are *not* altered after being taken. That said the apology (apology?? wtf?) now makes it seem like there *is* more to it than I realised. Maybe my expectations are out of whack or something The edits to the image aren't your usual edits to maybe make yourself look a bit prettier. It's edited more in the sense which makes the image look manipulated in some way such as changing outfits or other. Some of the parts discussed here - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68534289Maybe sheās sick and wants to deal with that privately, especially with such young kids at school?
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Mar 11, 2024 16:29:08 GMT
Thing is, what this has done is bring into question the validity of things we see from the media. This particular photo is totally innocuous on the surface, but itās clearly been heavily manipulated and/or isnāt real at all.
Now, if something as mundane as a Motherās Day photo can be like this, what of the authenticity of other more major events? Either today or in the past. Letās face it, manipulation of photos is as old as photography itself.
We live in a world where anyone can get information on almost anything and things like doctored photos wonāt wash as easily as they did in newspapers for example - what is frankly a nonsense has turned into something interesting for the public as a whole on how we consume and trust information from so called official sources
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Mar 11, 2024 16:44:18 GMT
Why donāt they just release another picture which is unedited ???? Seems a pretty simple solution to me! ā¦ Iām definitely leaning towards the botched plastic surgery/Botox theory! Thereās no reason why abdominal surgery would stop someone from firing out a photo or just briefly appearing on camera somewhere!
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on Mar 11, 2024 16:54:36 GMT
I've had a go myself, think I did a better job tbh.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Mar 11, 2024 17:03:41 GMT
Thing is, what this has done is bring into question the validity of things we see from the media. This particular photo is totally innocuous on the surface, but itās clearly been heavily manipulated and/or isnāt real at all. Now, if something as mundane as a Motherās Day photo can be like this, what of the authenticity of other more major events? Either today or in the past. Letās face it, manipulation of photos is as old as photography itself. We live in a world where anyone can get information on almost anything and things like doctored photos wonāt wash as easily as they did in newspapers for example - what is frankly a nonsense has turned into something interesting for the public as a whole on how we consume and trust information from so called official sources Always had a doubt on those moon landing photos
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 11, 2024 17:06:29 GMT
The edits to the image aren't your usual edits to maybe make yourself look a bit prettier. It's edited more in the sense which makes the image look manipulated in some way such as changing outfits or other. Some of the parts discussed here - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68534289Maybe sheās sick and wants to deal with that privately, especially with such young kids at school? Could very well be. Who knows!
|
|
|
Post by alsagerstokie on Mar 11, 2024 17:08:18 GMT
Who honestly gives a flying fuck.
Clearly not much else going on in the news today.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 11, 2024 17:40:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pretzel on Mar 11, 2024 19:26:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Mar 11, 2024 19:33:33 GMT
If there's one thing I think we can all agree on here, it's that the Royal Family are fucking idiots.....Ā classy.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 11, 2024 19:46:02 GMT
So this is the new picture the Palace has elected to release to quell all the conspiracy theories. š¤¦āāļø
Jesus, they don't help themselves, do they! š
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 11, 2024 19:53:27 GMT
So this is the new picture the Palace has elected to release to quell all the conspiracy theories. š¤¦āāļø Jesus, they don't help themselves, do they! š Whoās that woman sat next to Peter Crouch?
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 11, 2024 19:54:10 GMT
If there's one thing I think we can all agree on here, it's that the Royal Family are fucking idiots.....Ā classy. Yep standard bile
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 11, 2024 20:03:59 GMT
Watch the vid on this one.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Mar 11, 2024 20:08:17 GMT
Funny how thereās a thread just been posted on where quite rightly Gawa is criticising people for abusing Diane Abbot, yet on this thread itās OK to call the royal family āfucking idiotsā does that mean itās OK to dish out abuse as long as they donāt fit your political likes. Surely itās a case of being either an abusive type or not. Itās almost like thereās a hateomiter and to prove how republican or left you are you have to get up to a 10. Isnāt it easier to just say youāre not a fan.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 11, 2024 20:10:20 GMT
Funny how thereās a thread where quite rightly Gawa is criticising people for abusing Diane Abbot yet on this thread itās OK to call the royal family āfucking idiotsā does that mean itās OK to dish out abuse as long as they donāt fit your political likes. Surely itās a case of being either an abusive type or not. Itās almost like thereās a hateomiter and to prove how republican or left you are you have to get a 10. Isnāt it easier to just say youāre not a fan. Or take a leaf out of Roman Keatings book
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 11, 2024 20:49:51 GMT
Funny how thereās a thread just been posted on where quite rightly Gawa is criticising people for abusing Diane Abbot, yet on this thread itās OK to call the royal family āfucking idiotsā does that mean itās OK to dish out abuse as long as they donāt fit your political likes. Surely itās a case of being either an abusive type or not. Itās almost like thereās a hateomiter and to prove how republican or left you are you have to get up to a 10. Isnāt it easier to just say youāre not a fan. The Royal Family bootlicker has spoken........
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 11, 2024 20:54:24 GMT
Funny how thereās a thread just been posted on where quite rightly Gawa is criticising people for abusing Diane Abbot, yet on this thread itās OK to call the royal family āfucking idiotsā does that mean itās OK to dish out abuse as long as they donāt fit your political likes. Surely itās a case of being either an abusive type or not. Itās almost like thereās a hateomiter and to prove how republican or left you are you have to get up to a 10. Isnāt it easier to just say youāre not a fan. The Royal Family bootlicker has spoken........ Heās just calling out a hypocrite thatās all. Seems fair
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Mar 11, 2024 20:57:35 GMT
Funny how thereās a thread just been posted on where quite rightly Gawa is criticising people for abusing Diane Abbot, yet on this thread itās OK to call the royal family āfucking idiotsā does that mean itās OK to dish out abuse as long as they donāt fit your political likes. Surely itās a case of being either an abusive type or not. Itās almost like thereās a hateomiter and to prove how republican or left you are you have to get up to a 10. Isnāt it easier to just say youāre not a fan. The Royal Family bootlicker has spoken........ To be fair Iām not as big a fan as you think (bit of a wind up). I just donāt get the hate of people who have zero impact on your life and that youāve never met and actually do little wrong. Their only fault is they were born into money.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 11, 2024 21:01:21 GMT
The Royal Family bootlicker has spoken........ To be fair Iām not as big a fan as you think (but of a wind up). I just donāt get the hate of people who have zero impact on your life and that youāve never met and actually do little wrong. Their only fault is they were born into money. Spot on
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 11, 2024 21:01:57 GMT
The Royal Family bootlicker has spoken........ To be fair Iām not as big a fan as you think (but of a wind up). I just donāt get the hate of people who have zero impact on your life and that youāve never met and actually do little wrong. Their only fault is they were born into money. Spot on. Save the bile for the current government
|
|