**Harry and Meghan’s Alleged Manipulated Photos Spark Controversy**

The internet is buzzing with speculation over recent photos of Harry and Meghan that suggest possible manipulation.

In a recent analysis by body language expert Jesús Enrique Rosas, it was revealed that the images may not be as they seem.

The controversy began when a headline from a popular tabloid claimed to show the couple holding hands, a detail that was scrutinized by Rosas.

Rosas pointed out that upon closer inspection, there is no evidence in the photos to support the claim of hand-holding.

He highlighted the positioning of the couple in separate shots, suggesting that either multiple photographers were involved or one had ample time to capture various angles.

This discrepancy raises questions about the authenticity of the images and the intentions behind their publication.

Examining the series of pictures released by different media outlets, a pattern emerges – there is a distinct lack of physical contact between Harry and Meghan in each image.

Despite headlines emphasizing their closeness, the reality portrayed in the photos tells a different story.

Rosas urged viewers to shift their focus from the individuals to the shapes and interactions depicted in the pictures.

By analyzing the photos through a different lens, it becomes apparent that the supposed intimacy between the couple is not reflected in the images.

Rosas emphasized the importance of observing subtle details to gain a deeper understanding of the context.

The absence of physical touch or overlapping bodies in the photos further fuels speculation about the authenticity of the portrayed relationship.

One particular image, allegedly captured by photographer Carl Larsson, drew attention for its questionable composition.

Rosas pointed out anomalies in the photo, such as Megan’s hat having a dark outline, which could indicate potential editing or manipulation.

The consistent lack of genuine interaction between Harry and Meghan in the images raised doubts about the credibility of the entire photo set.

As the debate surrounding the photos continues, concerns about the reliability of paparazzi imagery and the ease of digital alteration have come to the forefront.

Rosas highlighted the risks of trusting visual content without considering the possibility of manipulation.

The implications of such practices extend beyond mere celebrity gossip, raising broader questions about media ethics and accountability.

In a world where images can be easily doctored or misinterpreted, Rosas’s analysis serves as a reminder to approach visual media with a critical eye.

The discrepancies in the photos of Harry and Meghan underscore the complexities of modern storytelling and the challenges of discerning truth from fiction in a digital age.

As discussions around the authenticity of these images persist, the public is left to navigate a landscape where perception and reality often blur.