ETA: She was just showing that her lipstick and nailpolish matched.
-------------------- "The little local company I buy from has CHEAP shipping and I have met their goats." (snapdragonfly)
"And that's one lost erection I'll never get back! You hear me Dan! I'm owed an erection!" (I'mNotDedalus) Posts: 2658 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It look like her undergarments are a few sizes to small. The thing that really gets me is the ribbing under the dress and look like it is part of the undergarments. Is she waring some sort of gridle or something.
Posts: 597 | From: Bellingham, WA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if she was wearing a gridle, we'd for sure see the plug.
-------------------- "The little local company I buy from has CHEAP shipping and I have met their goats." (snapdragonfly)
"And that's one lost erection I'll never get back! You hear me Dan! I'm owed an erection!" (I'mNotDedalus) Posts: 2658 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I can't type before going to bed. Now what is a gridle...Oh I get it, griddle. Posts: 597 | From: Bellingham, WA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The body of that person does not look as thin as Paris usually does. Perhaps Paris's face was photoshopped onto that head and body. But why would someone do that? Just to make Paris look stupid instead of someone else?
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I vote real. Here's another shot of her from that event. Paris at Cipriani
-------------------- "Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you." - C. G. Jung Posts: 243 | From: Marina del Rey, CA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I would vote FAKE precisely because of the second shot posted by SchmooPie. If you compare the two photos you notice a number of time sensitive similarities that lead to the conclusion that both photos were taken at exactly the same time, albeit from a couple feet apart:
1) her feet are in the same position in both. Even if she wasn't walking around, over the course of time she would atleast figit or move a little, and thus if the two photos were taken at different times, her feet would likely be in a different pose.
2) there is a dude in a black suit in the background who is quite clearly in mid-stride. Had either picture been taken at a different time than the other, that dude would have been someplace else, cause he is clearly on the move.
Thus, since we know that both photos were likely taken exactly the same time, we have to question which presents an accurate depiction of the real event. A number of reasons support the conclusion that the second, non-cameltoe picture is in fact the accurate one, while the one in the OP is a photoshopped fake:
1) both photos were taken at the same time, so they can't both be right. Whichever one is accurate, the other must have been doctored. Now what is more likely on the internet, that someone took a cameltoe picture and photoshopped a dress onto it, or that reverse? That's a rhetorical question, you pervert!
2) the media. we just had a media frenzy because kiera knightly showed the slightest tinge of nipple. Had paris shown the goods like this, the media circus would have made janet jackson jealous.
3) the picture itself. use the cellphone as a visual clue: in both shots the bottom dress line proceeds vertically straight across from the cellphone in her right hand. In the second pic that line is safely across the upper thigh, while in the OP the line is above her goods. Clearly something is being moved around.
-------------------- a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by callee: See, I would vote FAKE precisely because of the second shot posted by SchmooPie. If you compare the two photos you notice a number of time sensitive similarities that lead to the conclusion that both photos were taken at exactly the same time, albeit from a couple feet apart:
She's showing her teeth in one pic and not in the other. I say Photo's taken possibly seconds apart. So I vote real.
Also the guy in the black suit is in more of a stride in the first pic then the second.
Posts: 27 | From: Nova Scotia, Canada | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points, Callee. But consider this: In the first (non-exposed) picture, the guy in the background (TGITBG) looks like he would be at least partly behind her when viewed from her front, but in the second (camel toe) picture he's father away. He has the same foot foward, so I'd say he took exactly two steps between the shots. Couldn't Paris have lifted her dress another couple inches in that same time?
Asuming it's real, I don't buy the showing her shoes explanation. I think she was just trying to strike a pose, and under estimated how far her dress was slit. Or she could have done it on purpose of course.
Posts: 2352 | From: California | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by callee: See, I would vote FAKE precisely because of the second shot posted by SchmooPie. If you compare the two photos you notice a number of time sensitive similarities that lead to the conclusion that both photos were taken at exactly the same time, albeit from a couple feet apart:
She's showing her teeth in one pic and not in the other. I say Photo's taken possibly seconds apart. So I vote real.
Also the guy in the black suit is in more of a stride in the first pic then the second.
I'll give you the teeth, but not the black suit dude. Reference him against that giant white candlestick thing on the floor. his back leg is just infront of it in both shots. Since she had time to smile, I'll give you some time lapse between the shots, but since the dude hasn't even had a chance for his one leg to clear the candle stick, I'll not give you as long as "seconds apart" but perhaps as long as half a second. Long enough to smile, I would think, but doubtful long enough to hike one's skirt up.
Besides, you're still not accounting for the magically shrinking/growing right arm, since it is fully extended down her side in both shots, with the cellphone at its terminus in both shots, and the cell phone aligning with the dress line in both shots, and yet the dress line across different parts of her body! So did her arm get longer or shorter? Come to think of it, you didn't address any of my other points either.
-------------------- a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by callee: Come to think of it, you didn't address any of my other points either.
Sorry. Your main point seemed to be that the photos were taken at the exact same time so that's the one I addressed. No need to get snarky!
-Her arm is back further in the first pic... probobly part of the movement in lifting up the dress. Looks like the same arm to me, just moved.
-First and second toe on her left foot are seperated in one pic and together in the other.
-It's a different candlestick in both pics. Look to left of it. Leaves in one and not in the other. Thus, some movement between shots.
-Look at the Candlestick on the far right. Some vines come down to meet with it. and compare with the location of the same vines in the other pic and the guy in the back. He was obviously walking away. Shmoopies pic being the before as he is now a few steps away.
-as for the media comment.. Why would the media jump all over something which is basically expectected from her to begin with? Her flashing a little skin would hardly be newsworthy.
This is typical Paris Hilton behaviour... I don't see why it would be seen as a fake.
Posts: 27 | From: Nova Scotia, Canada | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
callee her cell phone arm isn't fully extended in either shot. Her albow is bent. And it doesn't matter regardless. That arm could remain stationary, it's the other one that hiked the dress up. See it's farther out from the body and took the dress up and out.
Her feet aren't in the same position either, notice her foot has slipped off the shoe.
You over reached on the analysis.
Gibbie
-------------------- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. Posts: 3993 | From: Indiana | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "My Very Educated Mother Just Said Uh-oh! No...Pluto..."~ Steven Colbert Posts: 3256 | From: Somewhere in Ohio | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you Google "Paris Hilton" and "Diddy" on Google Images, you'll pull up a bunch of photos taken of Hilton at Sean Combs's 35th birthday party held at Cipriani in November, 2004.
Here's how The New York Post reported the apparent highlights of the evening,
quote:TARA HURT BY BOOB BLUNDER
6 November 2004 All Editions; Pg. 10
TARA Reid's mammary meltdown was the breast thing about P. Diddy's celeb-studded 35th birthday bash -- but Paris Hilton tried to reclaim the red-carpet buzz by hiking up her gown and showing photographers she wasn't wearing any underwear.
[...]
Just moments after the paparazzi gorged on the glimpse of Reid's breast, Hilton pulled up her gown to show off her legs to the titillated snappers, revealing a hint of her panty-less nether regions in the process.
Now, it may be that the Post is referring to this photo, which seems to show the silhouette of her nether regions.
In any event, the image in question is not held in online photo archives of the Associated Press and Getty Images, though there are quite a few of Hilton taken that night. (Which may only mean that both news agencies had the shot, but decided against keeping it. Tara Reid certainly did flash a breast at the same event and while both the AP and Getty Images have lots of photos of Reid, none show an exposed breast.)
For what it's worth, though, the image is included in the following blurb,
quote:the go-to celebrity column on the Web. With top photographers, a sharp eye for news and a wink, OAN covers the red carpets of Hollywood and chronicles the celebrity events of New York. Currently, Open All Night generates over 4 million hits and 170,000 site impressions per month. Photographer Dennis Van Tine and journalist Bennett Marcus started Open All Night in August 2002 to cover New York City celebrity events. In April 2004, Los Angeles-based photographer Jen Lowery began representing OAN at the happenings of Hollywood.
I've e-mailed OAN Media about whether it's responsible for the photo and, if not, which service may have shot and distributed the image. (I see that OAN Media sends those interested in purchasing photos to London Features International, so it's possible that someone affiliated with OAN Media may have snapped the shot.)
-- Bonnie
-------------------- Se non è vero, è ben trovato. Posts: -99014 | From: Chapel Hill, North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bennett Marcus, editor at OAN Media, reports that the Hilton photo featured here was taken by Dennis Van Tine at London Features International. He further reports that Open All Night only uses its own (copyrighted) photos in its pieces.
-- Bonnie
-------------------- Se non è vero, è ben trovato. Posts: -99014 | From: Chapel Hill, North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
TARA Reid's mammary meltdown was the breast thing about P. Diddy's celeb-studded 35th birthday bash -- but Paris Hilton tried to reclaim the red-carpet buzz by hiking up her gown and showing photographers she wasn't wearing any underwear.
[...]
Just moments after the paparazzi gorged on the glimpse of Reid's breast, Hilton pulled up her gown to show off her legs to the titillated snappers, revealing a hint of her panty-less nether regions in the process.
But she wasn't panty-less. She's wearing something down there - either panties or a griddle, we're just not sure which...
-------------------- "The little local company I buy from has CHEAP shipping and I have met their goats." (snapdragonfly)
"And that's one lost erection I'll never get back! You hear me Dan! I'm owed an erection!" (I'mNotDedalus) Posts: 2658 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Singing in the Drizzle: It look like her undergarments are a few sizes to small. The thing that really gets me is the ribbing under the dress and look like it is part of the undergarments. Is she waring some sort of gridle or something.
It seems to be a type of corset ( sample here possibly NSFW). It might be a corset/bodysuit combination type of setup, with a piece of the fabric that connects from the front to the back between the legs...perhaps?
Either way, I've never understood Paris Hilton's fame. She has never demonstrated talent, taste, or beauty. She is average looking at best (although, personally I think she's rather funny looking - and not in a good way). And seeing these photos, she really does have some foot problems. Blech!
-------------------- "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton Posts: 1514 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can we say that at least some of her nether regions appears exposed –- not covered by panties or, er, a griddle -- in the photo provided in the OP?
Bonnie "some like it hot" Taylor
-------------------- Se non è vero, è ben trovato. Posts: -99014 | From: Chapel Hill, North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But she wasn't panty-less. She's wearing something down there - either panties or a griddle, we're just not sure which...
They didn't say that she was panty-less, they said that her nether regions were panty-less, which they are (at least the part that they're taking about). Perhaps nitpicky, but IMO they had a pretty accurate description.
And Paris should definately look into producing (and wearing) a new line of socks. Perhaps this was her idea of a diversion. "Oh damn, my feet are looking particularly nasty tonighr...I wonder how I can get people to not look at them??? Oh, I know!!!"
Posts: 687 | From: Grand Rapids, Michigan | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Come on, come on - spin a little tighter Come on, come on - and the world's a little brighter Posts: 5595 | From: Columbus, OH : The Soccer Capital of America | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have got to ask about the "griddle" thing. Is this a typo for "girdle"? Or is it some new even briefer version of the G-string, so named for giving your NFBSK that attractive striped appearance?!
Genuine question folks!
Edited, because I forgot to add:- Nice muff.
Posts: 1157 | From: Westcountry UK "It's Bootiful" | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by callee: 2) the media. we just had a media frenzy because kiera knightly showed the slightest tinge of nipple. Had paris shown the goods like this, the media circus would have made janet jackson jealous.
Beg to differ. Paris has "accidentally" shown "goods" so often the media's getting bored of it.
Posts: 418 | From: New Port Richey, FL | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by callee: 2) the media. we just had a media frenzy because kiera knightly showed the slightest tinge of nipple. Had paris shown the goods like this, the media circus would have made janet jackson jealous.
Beg to differ. Paris has "accidentally" shown "goods" so often the media's getting bored of it.
Also, according to Roadie4JCM's post, they also had Tara Reid's slipple to focus on. On one side, we have a barely revealing crotch shot of a woman who has been in porn movies, on the other side, we have a very revealing breast shot of a woman who has not been in porn movies. I would say the "not seen before" factor as well as the degree and time of exposure, the Reid shot would get most of the attention.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking at the two, IMO she simply turned, flipping the dress as she did, and muffy was exposed. It was probably for a very quick second and the photo is a result of good timing (or bad as the case may be).
The dress in the OP pic is in mid air to her side, and her feet have turned from left to right- a sign she was heading off to the right (thus the movement of the black suit dude, who may have been with her). As far as how much time passed, it obviously was a quick enough movement (beit her hand or her body)to cause the dress to flip up, therefore the flashing probably was quite quick as well.
Another point- if the pic in the OP is 'Shopped, where is the original? It had to have been 'Shopped from something right? Not 'Shopped, but it would be less disturbing if it was. Posts: 687 | From: Grand Rapids, Michigan | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Neffti: I have got to ask about the "griddle" thing. Is this a typo for "girdle"? Or is it some new even briefer version of the G-string, so named for giving your NFBSK that attractive striped appearance?!
Genuine question folks!
Edited, because I forgot to add:- Nice muff.
Neffti, it was a typo from Singing in the Drizzle's post, which I took off with and ran ran ran so far away! But your interpretation is quite interesting, I must say!
-------------------- "The little local company I buy from has CHEAP shipping and I have met their goats." (snapdragonfly)
"And that's one lost erection I'll never get back! You hear me Dan! I'm owed an erection!" (I'mNotDedalus) Posts: 2658 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The pic in the op, the bottom of the dress is partly in midair (as TuFurg pointed out), and partly puddled at her feet. The photo SchmooPie linked, the bottom of the dress is stretched out on the ground like a train usually drags when walking. So they are taken at slightly different times.
-------------------- "Long ago, when we all lived in the forest..." Who are you? Who? Who? Posts: 1587 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
WHY DOES ANYONE GIVE A FLYING NFBSK ABOUT PARIS HILTON????
-------------------- "I'm looking over your shoulder, but only because I've got your back" -Stephen Colbert Posts: 468 | From: Raleigh, NC | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me it looks like she's in the same position in both photos, so my two cents is that they were taken at roughly the same time--fractions of a second to a second or two apart--but that she was photographed by two different people standing a few feet apart.
I don't see the problem with Paris's feet, other than that she has long toes (which run in my family, so I don't mind them). And to answer Milhouse's question, Paris is famous for being famous. If she had a common last name, no one would care what she did.
Posts: 384 | From: Iowa | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MapMaker: I think the biggest question is:
WHY DOES ANYONE GIVE A FLYING NFBSK ABOUT PARIS HILTON????
Because you touch yourself at night.
I'm sorry, seemed appropriate at the time
To whoever said about finding the "unshopped" version. How would we know it was if we found it? If we found a version without the exposure, it could just be that a publication edited out the exposure so it could use the picture.
-------------------- We have just gotten a wake-up call from the Nintendo Generation! Posts: 225 | From: New York, no grass... | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bonnie: If you Google "Paris Hilton" and "Diddy" on Google Images, you'll pull up a bunch of photos taken of Hilton at Sean Combs's 35th birthday party held at Cipriani in November, 2004.
Sadly you wont get any photos with me with paris....
-------------------- W.W.F.S.M.D? But this image of Bush as some sort of Snidely Whiplash tying the fair maiden to the railroad tracks is beyond the pale. - Joe Bentley Posts: 2311 | From: Minnnesota | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[fish]](graemlins/fish.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
