OSLO and UTØYA, 7/22 2011

[brianv]

Perhaps my analysis of photographs is flawed or my understanding of error level analysis is not what it should be but I do hope Simon does actually get to go to Norway and check this out.

I'm reading composite from all the "island" photographs. The transparency layer blockiness around the islands is visible with the naked eye and very pronounced under ELA, as are the characters.





PS No wildlife, no birds.

[jewson]

Perhaps my analysis of photographs is flawed or my understanding of error level analysis is not what it should be but I do hope Simon does actually get to go to Norway and check this out.

I'm reading composite from all the "island" photographs. The transparency layer blockiness around the islands is visible with the naked eye and very pronounced under ELA, as are the characters.





PS No wildlife, no birds.

And your conclusion? The island doesn't exist?

[jewson]

Good job on the "photographers", trauma & Makkonen!

Yeah, "Nackstrand" is very weird, but Matt Dunham cracked me up, so I guess we can say Matt done 'em, did he?

Here's another 'Jonathan NACKSTRAND' pic of 'tombstone rock', with a nice red umbrella.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/ ... 35605.html

First of 4 various pics 'by' JEFF J MITCHELL / GETTY IMAGES, FERDINAND OSTROP / AP, & JON-ARE BERG-JACOBSEN / AFP/GETTY IMAGES for mannequin ABB in car window.

Thanks, Maat. Also thanks for the new memorial pic. I especially love the rightmost one in it.

In fact, when we adjust color levels, we get...


No comment!

What does this "mean"? Please enlighten me.

[brianv]

Schools aren't back till next week unfortunately!

WiggumJewson is still here!

[brianv]

Perhaps my analysis of photographs is flawed or my understanding of error level analysis is not what it should be but I do hope Simon does actually get to go to Norway and check this out.

I'm reading composite from all the "island" photographs. The transparency layer blockiness around the islands is visible with the naked eye and very pronounced under ELA, as are the characters.





PS No wildlife, no birds.

And your conclusion? The island doesn't exist?

Geography is down the hall wiggum, not that you could find your way there, this is photographic analysis class

Fake photograph is my conclusion fool!

[Makkonen]

In fact, when we adjust color levels, we get...


No comment!

What does this "mean"? Please enlighten me.

Real persons in an authentic photograph don't have a completely black rectangle covering their legs/feet. Real persons in an authentic photograph don't show the kinds of graphical artifacts the pink umbrella gal is showing. Capiche?

[Unleashed]

Perhaps my analysis of photographs is flawed or my understanding of error level analysis is not what it should be but I do hope Simon does actually get to go to Norway and check this out.

I'm reading composite from all the "island" photographs. The transparency layer blockiness around the islands is visible with the naked eye and very pronounced under ELA, as are the characters.





PS No wildlife, no birds.

And your conclusion? The island doesn't exist?

A thousand pardons, squire. I have gone to Google Maps and looked at the jetty. This little headstone looking monument IS supposed to be at the end of the jetty, looking towards the mainland? No? Looking towards Geitoya?
It doesn't appear to have ready access for the shear number of people supposedly leaving flowers and candles on that side of the island. Which seem surprisingly to never wilt or turn brown and the candles are all just alike. Two basic styles. What I think people are wondering, I know I am, is WHERE is this rocky outcrop supposed to be? It could be anywhere. A convenient photograph to which any number of features and people and poses could be added. You can't have a high profile media event without a commemorative centerpiece like a "coincidental" CROSSbeam, or a rock that looks like a headstone, dontcha know.

[Maat]

Maat/Brian

There is nothing amiss with the different perspectives of the ferry boat. The "bulkhead" thing doesn't disappear, nor does the muddy floor, they are obscured.

I have much respect for both of you, but I do believe that a lot of the photographic analysis on this board (it was the same with 7/7) is flawed. ...

Actually, I appreciate what you're saying about the differing (intended) perspectives of the boat, which is precisely why I re-examined my first impressions of them, trying to correct any misperceptions of mine that could be misleading. My apologies for not being clearer in my revision (I shouldn't try to explain weird crap when over-tired ); but generalizations like "a lot of photographic analysis on this board is flawed" are really not as helpful as specifics

As I said, 'they show the intended perspective but end up proving more impossible — the white 'partition' thing is supposed to be a view from above the roof of the wheelhouse (which is right at the back of the boat!)'. Ref: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p2357438

I still can't understand how those 'perspectives', supposedly from above and behind the wheelhouse roof, explain away the practical impossibilities of that perspective in the first place! i.e. Where was the "photographer" ?

Because they are contrived, their 'perspectives' are obviously "flawed" to begin with, so it's hardly surprising if we have trouble figuring out WTF it's supposed to represent in the process — and analysis is a tedious 'trial & error' learning process anyway, is it not?

**EDIT: Maybe this will help demonstrate why my brain can't reconcile these images with real 3D objects — i.e. how the visible area & angles of the upright 'roof' edge (outlined in red) appear to remain static, impervious to depicted changes in 'perspective'

1.) High from behind & to the right:

2.) Higher from above:

3.) High as 2 & slightly to the left:


*** Edit NOTE: Forward bow end of the steel railing, the two mooring bitts (not visible in pic 1.) definitely change position in pics 2. & 3. with the perspective view changes, but not the roof edge angles?

Maat/Brian

I will do my best to explain without the use of diagrams as I haven't time to do this.

Firstly, the picture sequence should be shown in it's chronological order, which is 2,3,1. The photographer is using a telefoto lens which foreshortens distances. Where is he? I have no idea, but his position doesn't move, the boat does.

That's a lot of assumptions to make, isn't it mate? How can you know what "chronological order" these pics "should" be in, who or what "moves", or if these images were really 'photographed' on/at the alleged scene at all, or what camera "lens" was used — even if there was a "photographer" at all? That's what we're trying to determine, so nothing can be assumed before establishing what parts of these highly suspicious images don't comply with reality & why. And they are already suspicious by the depiction of a simulated character, all we're doing is discovering what other parts are real &/or composite layers.

Maat - you have indicated a panel shape and suggested that this doesn't change. It does, it becomes more elongated as it would the further away the boat was (in fact, your red marks bleed of the image and don't show the whole of the panel.

Barely perceptible "elongation" is not the same as an angle change, and my red lines do not "bleed" ("of" or off) as I used the same line width & followed the edges inside (If they disturb you, just compare them without my lines: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p2357438 )

Yes, the angle of the joint doesn't change much and this is correct. Look at the panel it is joined to to the front. We can see this panel in pic 2 because it is almost below us. Once the boat moves away and turns to the left (reference rails on right), it is not visible.

How do you know which way the boat is "moving", if it's 'moving' anywhere at all? Why do you assume it is the boat that's moved & not the picture maker/taker, only by these images?

The same accounts for the mooring posts "disappearing behind the guard rail. The boat has moved away from the viewer, thus there position in relation to the guard rail is lower & foreshortened.

I did not dispute that the mooring bitts positions changed as would be expected in a real perspective change, only that parts of the boat that should also change, don't! And again, how do you know the boat has "moved away from the viewer"?

The muddy floor is visible in pic 2 for the same reason as above. Once the boat moves away and turns to the left, the floor is out of sight below the "white roof". In fact, in pic1, which as I said is the 3rd in the sequence, it can be seen again as the boat has moved further away.

Assumptions again regarding sequence & what/who moves where. If there was a "photographer" he could just as easily have moved to the left of a stationary boat.

Brian - you questioned where the shelf where Brievik is resting his hand and the cop is leaning against went in pic 3? It is clearly still there. Cop 1 (flatcap) is still leaning on it. Note the 4 holes to his right. You can just see AB's fingers which corresponds with pic 2. Brievik has also been tethered to the guard rail. The strap can be clearly seen in all 3 photos.

I hope this is clear?

As mud?

PS. Since I posted last night re flawed photo analysis, Trauma has posted another image claiming the foot is missing. I rest my case.

What image posted by trauma are you referring to?

[jewson]

Perhaps my analysis of photographs is flawed or my understanding of error level analysis is not what it should be but I do hope Simon does actually get to go to Norway and check this out.

I'm reading composite from all the "island" photographs. The transparency layer blockiness around the islands is visible with the naked eye and very pronounced under ELA, as are the characters.





PS No wildlife, no birds.

And your conclusion? The island doesn't exist?

A thousand pardons, squire. I have gone to Google Maps and looked at the jetty. This little headstone looking monument IS supposed to be at the end of the jetty, looking towards the mainland? No? Looking towards Geitoya?

No. No. No. The "little headstone" is on the mainland (no-one is allowed on the island right now). Utøya is in the background.

It doesn't appear to have ready access for the shear number of people supposedly leaving flowers and candles on that side of the island.

Please try to get the facts straight before you share your "theories". This is NOT on the island.

[jewson]

Perhaps my analysis of photographs is flawed or my understanding of error level analysis is not what it should be but I do hope Simon does actually get to go to Norway and check this out.

I'm reading composite from all the "island" photographs. The transparency layer blockiness around the islands is visible with the naked eye and very pronounced under ELA, as are the characters.





PS No wildlife, no birds.

And your conclusion? The island doesn't exist?

Geography is down the hall wiggum, not that you could find your way there, this is photographic analysis class

Fake photograph is my conclusion fool!

Why on earth would they fake something like this photo? Why don't you visit Norway and see for yourself? Are you afraid you may end up looking like a fool?

By the way, where are all the Norwegins on this forum, MartinL, etc?

[Unleashed]

Would it be gauche of me to ask why they didn't just take a couple police boats or personal boats since they were supposed to be doing this covertly instead of this old rustbucket anyway? Was the photo depicting them getting on at the mainland side supposed to be it's normal dock? It didn't even have a parking lot. Just a bulwark with a whole lot of gas cans stacked up for some reason.

And if the reason they were dressed in street clothes and using an out of the way dock, was to be covert about it, who alerted the media to have cameras to record the whole thing from "the air" and the water? Like they keep a helicopter on standby 24/7 just in case, nearby?

[brianv]

jewson wrote:


"Why don't you visit Norway and see for yourself? Are you afraid you may end up looking like a fool?
By the way, where are all the Norwegins"

Which you aren't! I'm afraid it's you who is the fool! "Norwegins"

Cut 'n' Paste Breivik

Why? Because they are liars in the business of lying and there are lots of more fools like you unfortunately!

Ask them Jewson! We are simply pointing out their lies and propanganda!

"Them", in this case I would hazard a guess, is NATO [Not Another Terrorist Organisation]

[Unleashed]

And your conclusion? The island doesn't exist?[/quote]


A thousand pardons, squire. I have gone to Google Maps and looked at the jetty. This little headstone looking monument IS supposed to be at the end of the jetty, looking towards the mainland? No? Looking towards Geitoya?[/quote]
No. No. No. The "little headstone" is on the mainland (no-one is allowed on the island right now). Utøya is in the background.

It doesn't appear to have ready access for the shear number of people supposedly leaving flowers and candles on that side of the island.

Please try to get the facts straight before you share your "theories". This is NOT on the island.[/quote]

I was just asking. Now since you say that this is the mainland, could you do a, You are here, X marks the spot, of where along the mainland this is where Geitoya? is also in the background on a map please?
TIA

[Maat]

"Why don't you visit Norway and see for yourself? Are you afraid you may end up looking like a fool?
By the way, where are all the Norwegins"

Which you aren't! I'm afraid it's you who is the fool! "Norwegins"

Cut 'n' Paste Breivik

Why? Because they are liars in the business of lying and there are lots of more fools like you unfortunately!

Ask them Jewson! We are simply pointing out their lies and propaganda!

"Them", in this case I would hazard a guess, is NATO [Not Another Terrorist Organisation]

Right on, brian!
And if I were to hazard a guess about our latest troll (adding username choice & fixation on MartinL), I'd say it just might be the 'breeding iriot' again

Shillius
Habitualis
Idioticus
Troglodyta

And their

[Real socks made by Zero, btw ]

[traumabasedmindcontr]

... Since I posted last night re flawed photo analysis, Trauma has posted another image claiming the foot is missing. I rest my case.

What image posted by trauma are you referring to?

I was looking at this truly amazing photo:
http://static.diario.latercera.com/201108/1323879.jpg

... and among a myriad other things I was wondering about this guys foot: