DEBUNK – “Crazy Buckingham Palace naked man video!!!”

Click to Share This Article: facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedin

I often spend a lot of time on line in various forums encouraging the use of critical thinking and rationality, but I have to admit, even I was taken in momentarily by a video purporting to show a naked man climbing and then falling out of a window from one of the upper floors at Buckingham Palace. This is the video:

Pretty strange stuff admittedly! According to floor plans of the Palace – that are freely available on line – the man appears to be fleeing from Prince Edward’s Suite.

The video has been quickly grabbed by conspiracy theorists who are holding it up as evidence of corrupt goings on at the Palace, some even linking it to the more outlandish theories of sexual depravity and even Satanism within the British Establishment. But closer inspection proves that the somewhat insane ramblings against “the system” online suffer from an inherent degree of confirmation bias. That is, they reach a conclusion that is skewed by their existing perceptions instead of thinking logically and rationally.

Let’s look at a screen grab from the video. I downloaded the video from YouTube directly using Internet Download Manager. Setting the playback to 1080p in Youtube allowed me to get a good copy.

I then played the video back through Windows Media Player Home Cinema, which allowed me to pause it an take a screenshot. Here it is: Crazy Buckingham Palace naked man video!!! - YouTube.MKV_snapshot_00.19_[2015.02.28_17.36.28]
The screen grab has been taken from 19 seconds into the video and you can see the man beginning to emerge from the fifth window along.

Next I went to StreetView on Google and took a screen grab from (more or less) the same spot. The link to that image is here:,-0.142549,3a,44.8y,193.08h,89.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sFxBsLmIDsduMSIt3pEInYA!2e0

This is the image I took:Pic1wide   Already it’s obvious that there are some differences between the video and the actual Palace. The colour of the stone is markedly different. Aha! you may think – maybe that’s down to colour correction, lighting, weather conditions, etc. Fair point. Let’s look for other differences. Zoom in – same image, just cropped and enlarged:

Pretty obvious differences now between the video and the actual Palace building.

EDIT 01/03/2015 (21.24): Someone posting on Chris Spivey’s malicious attack on me on his website has posted a link to this his res picture on flickr, which confirm this IS the side of the Palace. You can zoom in the flickr picture too, so you can see the video is definitely faked.

Note in the video there are Corinthian decorations between the windows every two windows yet these do not appear on the Palace. EDIT 01/03/2015: There *ARE* Corinthian decorations on the Mall-facing east front of the Palace, which was built in the 1840s. These are *NOT* present on the wings of the Palace, which were built around 1703.

Note also that there is a much smaller gap between the floors in the video and the photo of the Palace from Constitution Hill; and that the top floor windows themselves are much smaller.

Finally, the windows of the building in the video only have two columns of glass in them. The Palace windows have three.

I have some issue with the lion and Crown decoration that sits on top of the arcading too. You can see it in the video screen grab on the very right of the image.To me it “looks” fake – the colour balance looks off, but I’m discounting that as it’s subjective.

The video was posted by Anders Dahlberg and is the only video (currently) on his YouTube Channel. I’ve not done any digging but it wouldn’t surprise me if he worked in the film industry or was studying to. What he appears to have done is matte some footage from another clip of another building over the top of the Palace. It’s not impossible but it has been done quite intricately as you can see the guy falling between the balustrades along the top of the colonnade. EDIT (02/03/2015, 19.47) See my post from today for confirmation of the actual building that the man appears to be fleeing.

Either way, he deserves some credit – I thought this was quite convincingly done and there are plenty of people out there still who believe it’s real!!

Nice work Anders!

P.S: Just noticed that the fence post around the edge of the Palace ground is different too. EDIT (01/03/2015, 18.28): Thanks to poster Brian (see comments below) – the fence post cap *IS* the one at the Palace, it’s further along the road, towards the front of the Palace. Good spot and I’m happy to correct it – doesn’t change anything else though.

Here’s a summary graphic of the differences. EDIT(01/03/2015, 18.28): I’ll update this to reflect the change mentioned in the edit above shortly. Picture now updated. You can click it to get it full sized:



Please check out my short films and feature film trailer on YouTube –

Click to Share This Article: facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedin
Click to Follow me on social media: facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedin

57 thoughts on “DEBUNK – “Crazy Buckingham Palace naked man video!!!””

  1. Lots of Anders Dahlberg’s in Sweden. The girls are wearing genuine Swedish Fjällräven gear (good stuff before he sold-out and production shifted to Asia, girl on right has the old logo, there is a new one since the takeover). The accent is west coast, about 50-80 k’s radius from Gothenburg, after this regional accents become more apparent. But people don’t need to live where they were born.

    But I’ve pinpointed one guy so far, he’s a local Gothenburg lad (Kungälv, actually, I lived there 40 years ago) a marketing exec for Intersport (big sports chain) good degree, worked in Singapore, Hong Kong etc, now married, kids, house in nice:ish area, n.w. Gothenburg, near Volvo. Keen freelance photographer, often uses iPhone etc, on his travels. Has own blog. Google Anders Dahlberg Photography.

    But as said, there are many Dahlberg’s, could well be many others who fill the bill.

    The thing is: his wife might be the girl on right. Not compared directly yet.

    But why risk the agro, he must realise he’ll be investigated, his name’s all over his pics, and RyanAir etc (most obvious way to travel from Sweden) will have their names. He can’t be that stupid not to think the R’s will be pissed at him! Might even send in SAS to recover any copies etc.

    I can’t comment the differences in the pics re the real Buck House contra a faked photoshop as I haven’t yet googled detailed pics of Buck House.


    But… If this guy is good why fake it, why not use real Buck House?

    This seems a nice average guy next door type, not into causing trouble.

  2. You expect us to believe your Google street view pic….the gig is up. You people are all liars and try to cover shit up. Everyone knows they rape boys and little girls in the palace. Where are your morals? Oh you dont have any. Wake the fuck up or get the fuck out of journalism. Nobody wants you there. Nothing but a piece of shit

    1. You can check the Google Street View pic yourself using the link provided.

      Or you can go there yourself in Google.

      Or alternatively you can look at the many hundreds of pics of the Palace from Constitution Hill that are available on-line.

      Or you can actually go to London and check for yourself.

      Simple really.

    2. It’s irrational posts like that which misinform the unknowing and their ultimate end lead to political and religious extremism.

      If you are incapable of rational thought and believe idiotic conspiracy theorists at every turn…. gat a life!

  3. Your first problem is that you are so biased that the production has to be done by a male. With such infantile logic the rest must of your work must contain the same flaws.

    1. I’m working on the basis that its credited to Anders Dahlberg, a male name, and there’s a picture of a bloke on the relevant YouTube page. There’s no inconsistency between that and the debunk. The only person with a problem with gender here appears to be you.

  4. So if it’s so easy to find this alleged ‘second’ clip of the man that your claiming has been superimposed then I have to ask why would you bother posting a ‘debunk’ without even completing your own advised research????

    1. One, I didn’t have time (I was actually on my way out for the evening when I did this); two, it didn’t really need the clip finding to complete the debunk. Worth having a look for it though – it’ll be out there somewhere.

  5. I agree, seeing is not necessarily believing these days. The stuff that some people accept at face value and pass on just astounds me. If it looks too bizarre to be true just Google it with the word hoax and ten to one it has already been debunked. There are some hoaxes from 2003 still circulating…….

    1. O.K. when the system makes fake vid’s of us it’s true , but when we do it to them it is NEVER true? Who is the common denominator here folks. Loos like the Kid got hurt either way. What is up with that?

      1. If we make fake vids of them how can those fake vids be true? True that whoever it was got hurt – but it’s clear this video isn’t what it claims to be.

        Also, the picture you keep trying to post is of the front of Buckingham Palace, not from the wing that faces out onto Constitution Hill, which is where the man climbs out from. You can actually see the front facing facade in the video, at the beginning. It does have the Corinthian column decoration, which I believe you think is the issue. However the side wings, which were built many years earlier, do not.

    1. Cheers Stuart – not being an aficionado of Swedish music I had no idea about that. Certainly adds to the “debunkability”! Thanks!

      1. One of the first things I do when I try to see if accounts are real is to reverse image search profile pics. I had no idea who he was prior to this either ;)

  6. That YouTube account was an.obvious fake as soon as I saw it, and the vid. I havent commented on any of the crazy conspiracy postings, only on here. People are so thick and deluded

  7. Sorry Jon, but despite your clever detective work I can confirm that the video footage is, in fact, real……. I know, because it was me climbing out the window……. I landed smack on top of Lizzie and flattened her…. but she did break my fall + all I have now is a very sore bum….

  8. I thought it was likely filming being done at the palace. Your explanation looks reasonable (though I am no expert), however the Google Maps image isn’t that clear. I was hoping that perhaps a video explaining in detail how it could be faked would be put up (wishful thinking?). Thank you for writing this.

    I do think your dismissal of sexual abuses by the ‘British Establishment’ as ‘outlandish’, though they may seem so, is less than balanced.

    Perhaps the Jimmy Saville revelations (including the massive cover up of his connections to the royal family) and the continual investigation of politicians for past abuse of children in Britain escaped your notice? Perhaps you also have confirmation bias…?

    I think some people did jump to conclusions. I admit I hardly believed it was a ‘sex slave escaping the paedophile palace’, however, I am open minded enough not to dismiss what I do not know for certain; which is hardly logical or rational.

    1. Just to confirm – I don’t dismiss the sexual abuses by the British Establishment, just some of the more outlandish accusations. Fevered minds tend to over egg what are genuine and very real issues. As some one who lives in Rotherham I am more than aware of the investigations into child sexual exploitation by politicians and the actions of those who seek to cover it up.

      1. First: Nicely done on the debunking. It seemed too crazy to be true, but the quality of the video was so exceptional I wanted to know more. You did a great service by dismantling the hoax.

        Second: I appreciate your perceptive comments on the UK VIP child rape horror. It’s obviously a fact it’s happening, and has been happening for generations, but The Permanent Establishment is very good at muddying the waters by planting false stories that go far beyond the horrible enough truth to make people doubt or dismiss. Sounds to me like you’re right-on about what’s happening.

        Thanks again for your good work.

  9. It’s a nice but obvious fake. You’re right, he’s replaced an entire section of wall but the section he replaced it with wasn’t big enough. You can see a lot of repetition in the windows and dirt patterns on the stonewall, especially on the columns.

  10. This is the worst debunk I have ever seen. How crazy to make these type of claims when the facts are so easily verifiable. Your purported street view photo looks nothing like the actual palace, Id wager the image on the right is the fake, a simple google image search reveals the columns are there, nice try but no banana.

    1. I really do wish you nay-sayers would actually do a little reading and thinking before posting. I’ll wager you Google image searched “Buckingham Palace” which most likely brought up a picture of the eastern wing, which faces onto the Mall. This is the public face of the Palace that is often seen on the news and it DOES have the Corinthian columns from the video. I actually state this in the article above. Did you actual read that bit?

      As you clearly didn’t read it, or didn’t bother to engage logical thought while doing so, here it is again. The north wing, which is the place the man is supposedly fleeing from, does NOT have the Corinthian column decoration. It was built nearly 150 years before the front end and is totally different in style and aesthetic, even different coloured stone. You can verify this by checking any number of image search engines and looking for “Buckingham Palace north wing”.

      You can also check the image yourself on Google Street View. The link is provided in the article. You might want to consider other factors such as the different fence posting and the disappearance of the crowds from the beginning of the video (4-5 seconds) and the end (35-36 seconds).

      Alternatively you could check today’s blog update and have a look at what may well be actual building the man fell from.


        1. Excellent spot Brian! I wondered why the fence seemed to look unusual and it appears that it curls in towards the Palace. of course, this doesn’t change anything about the rest of the debunk, particularly given that the location appears to have been found.

          I’ll put and update on the article and try and get round to altering the graphic in the interests of fairness. Cheers for that!

  11. Well, some of us conspiracy theorists did suggest that Beatrice and “eugenics” had pulled, but by the time they got everything sorted, the drugs wore off and he got to a window, any window, with or without extra Corinthian columns.

  12. Thank you for this debunk article.

    When I saw the video I knew it wasn’t Buckingham Palace as the architecture was all wrong for that side of the Palace and a quick Google Map visit proved conclusive. If people can’t do such simple research before hopping on the bandwagon that says more about their gullibility and lack of rational intelligence than anything else…

    Might I suggest you do a complete re-write or indeed post a polished version as this one is is a bit messy with all the updates and working out and a simpler run-through or summary would make easier reading.

    1. Thanks for your comment Charles. Some people just want to believe!

      And for that reason I haven’t tidied up the article, or not just yet anyway. I think that if I started making major changes to it, it would just feed conspiracy theorists even further! I’ve already been accused of being in the security services this evening as it is! Lol!

  13. Two things:
    1) I spotted the fake straight away just by Googling a side view of the Palace and comparing it to a still from the video. Clear architectural differences, clever but ultimately easily disproved.
    2) Don’t waste your time debating with Spivey and his acolytes. They are impervious to reason. Just read them for a laugh, don’t take them seriously.

  14. Nice work Jon, I was waiting for an in depth debunking. Toying with people’s confirmation bias is probably the only way to prove they have it, and free them of it. I’d like to think this was Anders’ intention… (he probably just did it for a laugh though). Spivey is a either a deluded, jealous headcase or a dodgy demagogue/conman spouting emotionally charged unproven nonsense, while begging for donations from those weak-minded enough to fall for his gibberish. He also advocates the ‘Freeman on the Land’ legal method which gets people into a lot of trouble. He’s fun to laugh at though.

    1. Thanks your comment! I agree – and I mention phrases like “cognitive dissonance” and “confirmation bias” knowing full well it’s like a trigger to particular kinds of individual.

      As for Chris Spivey – I really don’t care about him (other than the fact that he’s driven loads of traffic to my site!) The attention he paid to me in his long, rambling blog post yesterday showed him up for what he really is – a bully with a seemingly fragile ego who isn’t prepared to see anything other than his way of thinking. Apparently he’s made a further attack on me today but I can’t be bothered to reply or try to make him look an arse – he does a good enough job of that himself!

      P.S I’ve edited your post from “method with” to “method which” rather than approve your subsequent post correcting it. Hope you don’t mind.

      1. I had a skim through Spivy’s piece. It has all the telltale signs of a conspiracy theory mill. His whole proposition is based on one critical fact; that what is shown in the video is really of Buckingham Palace. As we’ve easily demonstrated, even by amateur sleuth standards, it is not, so whatever is shown in the video must be skeptically dismissed and questioned (the whole issue of the man falling down and whether it was staged/real from somewhere else is another matter and thus unrelated to Buckingham Palace). Even now that is made clear, the typical conspiracy theorist would completely ignore the damning fact and continue to cling on to his position regardless and resort to shouting matches to drown out dissenters. At that point, there’s little point in continuing rational debate as there can be none.

  15. I read yesterday that the inserted image is actually the Moor Park Golf Club. If you look at the side of the Moor Park building you can see the rectangular design over the lower windows which does not appear in the palace architecture.

  16. confirmation bias

    The irony is strong – agreed after reading the comments here and over at Jimmys’ place.

    You jealous like Jimmy or just taking the wage? Maybe both?

      1. Taking the wage then.

        Keep up your good work and post more – and keep fighting for Rotherham.

        Chris Spivey is always [wrong|right] and you have the right to air *your* views.

  17. I think that ‘Tranceman’ is one of the few that remains totally convinced by Chris Spivey’s great revelation, that myself (Jimmy) and my wife incidentally – are working for none other than the National Security Agency (NSA).

    He based that theory on his crackpot belief that I was, ‘sent’ by the American Intelligence Services, to not only stage a sophisticated ‘Cyber Attack’ on his website, but to ‘discredit the Alternative Media’ and him personally as the self-appointed leading ‘Journalist’ in the AM.

    He got that information from somebody on Facebook apparently, and if you are exceptionally bored, he has written a rambling 10,000 word diatribe on his site to ‘prove it’.

    He has a very fragile ago and his levels of paranoia are worryingly dangerous….

    1. Ah! You’re Jimmy! Previous posts make sense now! You’re taking a risk giving you’re name away when you work for the NSA… ;-)

  18. Indeed Jon, but no doubt the comment I made above – will now be taken as an admission on my part, which of course will be used in yet another tediously long ‘article’ as ‘proof positive’ that Spivey was correct all along….

    I live in eternal hope that this is a localised outbreak of terminal stupidity, and will not become a pandemic.

Comments are closed.