OSLO and UTØYA, 7/22 2011

[Makkonen]

Interesting - but let us for now concentrate our efforts on bringing the modern-day hoaxer-criminals to justice. Stoltenberg and co.

Yes, sorry, just a thought thrown into the air (as the symbolism might be Masonically consistent), but yes, let's move forward.

[Tufa]

I have this thought ... that some pictures/video from Oslo, as well as from Utøya, could be computer-rendering from photo material. This is possibly not the most important issue; the entire story was absurd from day 1. I find it peculiar the silence around the picture (above), we can compare with "the wan", that has been extensively debated. The Wan looks like a photo-shop in the video.

In any case, we have a few days until the 9/11 "ten-years", and the TV is soon to be flooded with "Terrorists".

[simonshack]

The main culprit - and landsforraeder - is Jens Stoltenberg himself.

He has raped the virgin and innocent Norway - and will have to pay the price for it. Sooner or later.

[Tufa]

Eh, he could also be a victim of a blackmail/threat operation. In that case he will be much less severely responsible for the events. But, and especially in a small country like Norway, where most higher officials know each other personally, there must be an OK, from the prime minister, to enable manufacturing of events.
Note that, after what took place in Sweden, resistance would not be a viable option.

[simonshack]

Eh, he could also be a victim of a blackmail/threat operation. In that case he will be much less severely responsible for the events. But, and especially in a small country like Norway, where most higher officials know each other personally, there must be an OK, from the prime minister, to enable manufacturing of events.
Note that, after what took place in Sweden, resistance would not be a viable option.

Dear Tufa,

I appreciate your effort - as a Swedish citizen - to attempt to save Norwegian Prime Minister Stoltenberg from utter disgrace and derision. However, there can be no doubt that he is a "landsforraeder" - and as such could face high treason charges in the near (or distant) future. It doesn't matter if he is a poodle of higher powers: the bottom line is that the wimp has betrayed my fatherland - NORWAY - and will have to account for his treacherous antics.

Sooner or later.

(yes - if this makes me sound like I'm really pissed off - that's exactly what I mean to sound like.)

[Tufa]

Dear Tufa,

I appreciate your effort - as a Swedish citizen - to attempt to save Norwegian Prime Minister Stoltenberg from utter disgrace and derision.

Absolutely not! And it is now the third time you write about this!

However, there can be no doubt that he is a "landsforraeder" - and as such could face high treason charges in the near (or distant) future. It doesn't matter if he is a poodle of higher powers: the bottom line is that the wimp has betrayed my fatherland - NORWAY - and will have to account for his treacherous antics.

Sooner or later.

Note to the general public: You see, Norwegian citizen have a typical aggressive and unforgiving approach when it comes to selling out the country and its people to an enemy. It go back to the WW-II I think!

We don't know what is inside his head. Still, I don't prefer to obvious and easy ("crime-criminals") scenarios. But sending him to court, or to a public open investigation, that is indeed rather evident. I have a list of officials, from Sweden, that also needs to be questioned.

It is a crime to publicly accuse an individual for a crime, to stating that he is a criminal.

[Maat]

This thing still puzzles me. The problem is that, in the TV broadcast, the thing is "illuminated". My guess is, for a real object, you would need 1000W+ to get the illumination effect. You need to take a general compare over a longer part of the island pictures, to see that the yellow round thing is back-lit.
[EDIT] Compare the illumination with the white fence, in the bottom of the picture!

If the "flying saucer" is an inserted object, then is the TV broadcast a complete fabrication! The picture, above, is from my recording. Also note that when I wrote "flying saucer" in post 222, no one went into crazy-conspiracy-UFO-mode !

Yes Tufa, it is evident that all these TV & "amateur" videos of Utoya are fabrications.
Remember that lighter colored painted/pasted objects always appear brighter, or "backlit", when the entire image is darkened — which is what they do in all their cartoon animations to hide the obvious 'oil painting' look of the background scenery, thus directing viewer focus onto what they want to be seen.

Therefore, most of the images and videos can't be evaluated properly without lightening to reveal their truly original state. (Someone more experienced in photography might like to confirm that a real photo taken in real twilight cannot be lightened to appear as if clear-colored day).
Compare the following shots.

Lightened:




Lightened:


Original dark:

Lightened:


Original dark:

Lightened:


From

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT1kZWLwEWY

So, whatever the objects in the front yard of the 'building' are supposed to represent, it's unlikely to be anything esoteric; and maybe just some shooper drone's impression of a collapsed marquee &/or platform cover — just "stuff" to pad the illusion of a 'youth camp' that just had a 'rock concert'.
Like something made by Happy Island Toys Co. Ltd perhaps? (Seriously, that's a real tent manufacturer in China!)

Who knows, it's a bloody cartoon anyway!
As far as I'm concerned, it's enough to expose it as the montage of faked imagery that it is; but to speculate further into unverifiable 'unknowables' starts to wander into those sticky honey pots of red herring pursuits (i.e. where Jones & Watts et al love to take ya)

[simonshack]

It is a crime to publicly accuse an individual for a crime, to stating that he is a criminal.

Defamation: Libel and Slander
http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/rights/240.aspx

Extract :

What is libel?
Libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record, like a newspaper, a letter, a website posting, an email, a picture, or a radio or TV broadcast. If you can prove that someone libeled you, and that person does not have a good defence (see the section on defences below), then a court will presume that you suffered damages and award you money to pay for your damaged reputation. But going to Supreme Court is expensive and even if you win, you may not get as much as it costs you to sue. In deciding on damages, the Court will consider your position in the community. For example, if you are a professional, damages may be higher.

What is slander?
Slander is the type of defamation with no permanent record. Normally it's a spoken statement. It can also be a hand gesture or something similar. The law treats slander differently than libel: with slander, you have to prove you suffered damages, in the form of financial loss, to get compensation. But with libel, the law presumes you suffered damages. For example, say that Bill told John you were a cheat, and then John refused to do business with you because of that. You sue Bill and prove that you lost business with John because of what Bill said. Bill would have to pay you for the loss of John's business, but not for the general damage to your reputation. It can be very hard to prove this sort of financial loss. That's why most slander cases never go to court.

But in the following four examples, a slander lawsuit may succeed without your proving financial loss. Even though there's no permanent record of the slander, the law will presume damages, as if it were libel, if someone:

-accuses you of a crime (unless they made the accusation to the police)
-accuses you of having a contagious disease
-makes negative remarks about you in your trade or business
-accuses you of adultery

What about the right to free speech?
The law protects a person's reputation but this protection can restrict other rights, such as the right to free speech. The law tries to balance these competing rights. Sometimes, even though someone made a defamatory statement that hurt a person's reputation, the law considers other rights more important. The law allows the following defences for a person who makes a defamatory statement.

What are the defences to a defamation lawsuit?
If someone sues for defamation, the most common defences are:

-truth (known in law as "justification")
-absolute privilege
-qualified privilege
-fair comment
-responsible communication on matters of public interest

1. Truth or justification
A statement may hurt your reputation, but if it is true, anyone who says it has a valid defence if you sue them for defamation.

2. Absolute privilege
There are two main examples of this defence: statements made in Parliament and statements made as evidence at a trial or in court documents. But this privilege does not apply if a person repeats their evidence outside a courtroom. This defence also allows the fair and accurate reporting of these statements in the media, such as newspaper reports of a trial. People must be able to speak freely in our justice and political systems without worrying about being sued.

3. Qualified privilege
Say a former employee of yours gave your name to an employer as a reference and that employer calls you for a reference. You say, "Well, frankly, I found that this employee caused morale problems." As long as you act in good faith and without malice, and your statement is not made to more people than necessary, then the defense of qualified privilege protects you if the former employee sues you for defamation. You gave your honest opinion and the caller had a legitimate interest in hearing it.

4. Fair comment
We all are free to comment – even harshly – about issues of public interest, as long as our comments are honest statements of opinion, based on fact, and not malicious. For example, a newspaper columnist may write that a Member of Parliament (an MP) says he supports equality and equal rights, but he opposes same-sex marriages. The columnist writes that the MP is hypocritical. If the MP sues the columnist for defamation, the columnist has the defence of fair comment. Media articles that accurately report what was said at public meetings are also privileged, unless the meeting was not of public concern and the report was not for public benefit.

5. Responsible communication on matters of public interest
In a December 2009 case, the Supreme Court of Canada established this new defence to a libel claim. The court said that journalists should be able to report statements and allegations – even if they are not true – if there’s a public interest in distributing the information to a wide audience. This defense, which looks at the whole context of a situation, can apply if:

-the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and
-the journalist used reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of the story.
-The court defined “journalist” widely to include bloggers and anyone else “publishing material of public interest in any medium.”

What effect does an apology have?
A newspaper or a TV or radio station that publishes or broadcasts a libel can limit the amount of the damages they may have to pay by publishing or broadcasting an apology right away

[pov603]

A cop stops a suspected drunk-driver.
The driver is annoyed at being stopped and asked a lot of questions by the cop.
The driver vents his anger by asking the cop a question:
'If I called you an Arsehole, would you arrest me?'
The cop answers 'Yes'.
The driver then says: ' But if i only thought you were an Arsehole, would you arrest me?'
The cop answers 'No'.
The driver says: 'Then I think you are an Arsehole'

[brianv]

Isn't it a greater crime for the individual to sit and be quiet while his "lords and masters" commit crimes of Psychological Terror against their own people and humanity at large?

Wasn't that what Nuremberg was all about?

[antipodean]

Just come across this, which I find appropriate for some people that are posting on this thread.

Andre Dahl Jensen, a political activist from Norway is currently being held within a psychiatric ward (UNN Tromso) in Tromso (Norway), on the belief that he suffers delusions, which the doctors have said only to occur when he is in Norway (the idea of regional psychosis being absurd), and on the belief that his political views are caused by mental illness. Many can vouch for his mental stability.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/the ... ivist.html

[simonshack]

*

THE "CRIME SCENE"

I will now compare two pictures ( A and B ) of the 'crime scene' - both apparently depicting the same location. I will make a number of observations which all concur towards disqualifying these 2 pictures as being any sort of credible/legit/ authentic imagery.



1: Impossible backdrops:
The "X" and the "?" show just how dramatically inconsistent the 2 backdrops are. Could it be a matter of focal distortion caused by two different lenses being employed? Could picture A have been shot with a telephoto lens (thus making the backdrop look larger) and picture B with a 'shorter' lens? No: since picture A has both the foreground and the backdrop well-focused (whereas picture B features a blurry foreground & backdrop, ergo a shallower focus-range/depth of field), we should expect backdrop A to appear SMALLER than backdrop B - not the other way round.

35mm lens (backdrop smaller/sharper)__________________200mm lens (backdrop larger/blurrier)


Let's now look at other aspects of pictures A and B which add to the improbable nature of what they depict. I will just list them in random order (please use your ctrl+ and ctrl- functions to enlarge and shrink the pictures at will in your screen).

2: Picture A appears to have been shot earlier than picture B: we see a few more 'bodies' and most are uncovered. Picture B shows all the 'bodies' now covered with white sheets. Both scenes show a total absence of police/medics/rescue teams. Are we to believe that they went there ( after picture A was snapped ), covered some bodies with white sheets, removed a couple of bodies - and retired for a lunch break ( picture B )?

3: Not a trace of blood is to be seen anywhere. Is this what a savage shooting scene looks like?

4: To the left of 'corpse' d there is a rock with three white patches. Do they look the same in both pictures?

Finally, here's a frame extracted from a (ridiculously blurry) video as aired by ABC News :

[Maat]

Just come across this, which I find appropriate for some people that are posting on this thread.

Andre Dahl Jensen, a political activist from Norway is currently being held within a psychiatric ward (UNN Tromso) in Tromso (Norway), on the belief that he suffers delusions, which the doctors have said only to occur when he is in Norway (the idea of regional psychosis being absurd), and on the belief that his political views are caused by mental illness. Many can vouch for his mental stability.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/the ... ivist.html

Ooh, that one's pretty 'ripe' isn't it! And still no photo to be found of "Andre Dahl Jensen" anywhere, despite his story being posted on this site in 2010? http://www.indymediascotland.org/node/18062
"By Andre Dahl Jensen, submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 11/01/2010 - 14:19"
Don't think my cats would even go for it

BTW, could you please clarify to whom and what you're referring with: "I find it appropriate for some people that are posting on this thread" ?

[simonshack]

http://joelecorbeau.com/dieudonne/cirque-breivik/159

(Kudos to Heiwa for finding this cool circus poster)

[Tufa]

Isn't it a greater crime for the individual to sit and be quiet while his "lords and masters" commit crimes of Psychological Terror against their own people and humanity at large?

Of course it is! But, meanwhile, a court hypnotized by a set of fake videos can sentence you rather arbitrarily! That is (very) illegal, but what to do about it!?

Wasn't that what Nuremberg was all about?

Well, really, eh ... check this, but don't tell anyone about it!! The 9/11 Plane-and-Tower lies; the Lies themselves are not that new. There are many ways of fooling a population into a war; to generate Hate+Fear and project it upon an Enemy. As soon as moving pictures could be produced, it was faked, packed with lies, and used to influence the Population.