I don't understand this thought experiment.
Are you asking us "if the images were revealed to be false would you continue to believe they were true"?
Perhaps it was an issue with not clarifying/qualifying the term' proof' - the key point is that there'll never be sufficient evidence (as in, formally, abstractly 'never enough', rather than some particular threshold) to change the minds of people who've decided that he's guilty. Hence the extreme example.
So, it would be equivalent to someone being found with drugs in a side pocket of their rucksack at the airport, claiming that they had no knowledge of drugs being placed in their bag, and then a cctv file emerging that showed the drugs being planted... then some second person, confronted with the video, still claiming that the first person was guilty of smuggling, with this claim being justified by (a) the exonerating CCTV was someone faked or (b) it was a 'set-up with an accomplice to create an alibi' without having other evidence to support either claim. Both of those statements might refer to something actually true but are pure conjecture in terms of the basis for arriving at that claim regardless, and that person wouldn't be justified in claiming
'I know they created an alibi'. The denial moves from reasonable interpretation of evidence to exposing something biased or pathological about the second person insisting upon it in the face of new evidence.
We don't have evidence of 'evidence' being manufactured in quite the same explicit way, but we do have doubt, not only over whether MG was guilty of the accused offences but also whether he was guilty of verbal abuse; I think he probably did engage in verbally abusive , misogynistic behaviour, taking all the public evidence into account, but I don't have enough evidence to determine if this is true and the severity of this, beyond a recording whose creation has been exposed to a kind of radical doubt. Everyone should be agnostic on this issue, to the extent that they're thinking about it at all.
Other posters have also pointed out throughout this discussion following the withdrawal of charges and release of new information regarding the evidence, that those continuing to make judgements were justifying these on the basis of 'facts' which were themselves based upon an evidence that had been deemed to be unreliable. There are still questions about whether this non- reliability is just 'additional context' (regarding the audio file; the claim from the former accuser was that the photos were mocked, 'Amber Heard style'. as other people have described it), related to a 'game', or were tampered with digitally. This is also in the face of verbal statements that physical abuse didn't take place, of support from the family regarding these claims, of the accuser being willingly involved once again with MG in a long-term relationship (including raising a family) and the framing of the public statements regarding the withdrawal by CPS of the case - not only did the witness withdraw but the evidence itself was brought into question to an extent that a prosecution would not succeed. This is the same evidence that large numbers of people here assert is incontestable.
People making statements that they 'know' what happened isn't just dumb, but actively offensive. It's basically bare-faced public lying, it cheapens public conversation/discourse, and its disheartening.