Seriously though, if the original high resolution camera images haven't been analysed by experts to look at reflections, geometry, light sources, gaze, etc. then we'd all be extremely disappointed IMO. If it has been done, we have not been privy to the results. I don't think it's unreasonable for sleuths to look at the picture on face value and see that William is looking at a particular focal point. From my experience of working with young children for over 20 years, it is unusual for their eyes not to track the movement of the significant adult in their immediate environment. The time it takes to crouch down and take a photo through a viewfinder (even a flip screen viewfinder) is too long for William not to avert his gaze IMO. The FFC stated that he had been looking at her, then she changed position to achieve an eye-level, front-on shot.
“And that photo I took was um… he was actually looking up at me and I’d sort of crouched down in a really weird position and taken the photo... and it was mid roar.” (Timestamp approx. 8:00)
I don't buy it. If you look at other photos taken of William, he is well aware of a camera lens and the photographer. Given the FFC's passion for the hobby of 'scrapbooking' (or whatever it's called), I would suggest that he was quite aware of how to pose for the camera at that young age. When 'natural/action' shots have been achieved, it appears that William is interacting with another person while the shot is being framed and taken IMO. This is all difficult to accept because the MFC was apparently not there. If someone else's identity is being protected, then this hasn't been shared with us either, so we can only go off what we observe as "amateur sleuths".
All MOO.
