It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Portrait of a Norwegian Killer
page: 1share:
...and I say 'portrait' because this supposed 'photograph' is NOT real:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df42e6cf7b1d.jpg[/atsimg]
The first time I saw this, on ATS, I assumed it was a very quick spoof of the killer made by some satirist. The badge on his shoulder reads:
MARXIST HUNTER
I can't find any photos large enough to view the smaller text on the badge (perhaps someone can help?).
I am a professional graphic designer and digital artist. By no means am I an expert in digital forgeries, but I have an insight beyond most people and I can tell you this 'photo' is not real. Setting aside the fact that his eyes are lifeless in the way that only CGI eyes can be, the lack of correct shadowing and lack of depth to his hair are so glaringly obvious to me. They jump out on first glance. Not to mention questions surrounding how and why such a professional 'model' type shot was taken and by who.
As I said, I thought this was a spoof or composite, until I saw BBC news claiming it to be legitimate.
The UK's Daily Mail has a page showing an unusually large number of photos. This is out-of-sorts, as they usually limit photos to 2 or 3. All of the photos look unrealistic to me, but the above one most of all. The depiction of Anders Behring Breivik in so many similar, high-quality poses sits wrong, and feels like overkill - as though the mainstream media are pre-empting 'consipracy theories' by showing just how real the man is.
See the article and photos here
I'm not going to go into my theories about the motive behind what I suspect was a false-flag attack here - there are other threads for that. But this photo is so obviously a fakery that I want to scream it at the top of my lungs. Of course, many of you will ridicule me (seriously, what's with so many ATS members ridiculing theories that go against the grain lately?!), but I don't care. THIS PHOTO, and the others I suspect, IS NOT REAL, or has been doctored big time. I offer no claims beyond that right now.
Whilst writing this post I found a blog posing some interesting questions about the man's Facebook page - which lo-and-behold contains another suspicious looking photo.
Questions surrounding his Facebook profile
I hope that for the most part, this post isn't regurgitating what has been put in several other threads.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df42e6cf7b1d.jpg[/atsimg]
The first time I saw this, on ATS, I assumed it was a very quick spoof of the killer made by some satirist. The badge on his shoulder reads:
MARXIST HUNTER
I can't find any photos large enough to view the smaller text on the badge (perhaps someone can help?).
I am a professional graphic designer and digital artist. By no means am I an expert in digital forgeries, but I have an insight beyond most people and I can tell you this 'photo' is not real. Setting aside the fact that his eyes are lifeless in the way that only CGI eyes can be, the lack of correct shadowing and lack of depth to his hair are so glaringly obvious to me. They jump out on first glance. Not to mention questions surrounding how and why such a professional 'model' type shot was taken and by who.
As I said, I thought this was a spoof or composite, until I saw BBC news claiming it to be legitimate.
The UK's Daily Mail has a page showing an unusually large number of photos. This is out-of-sorts, as they usually limit photos to 2 or 3. All of the photos look unrealistic to me, but the above one most of all. The depiction of Anders Behring Breivik in so many similar, high-quality poses sits wrong, and feels like overkill - as though the mainstream media are pre-empting 'consipracy theories' by showing just how real the man is.
See the article and photos here
I'm not going to go into my theories about the motive behind what I suspect was a false-flag attack here - there are other threads for that. But this photo is so obviously a fakery that I want to scream it at the top of my lungs. Of course, many of you will ridicule me (seriously, what's with so many ATS members ridiculing theories that go against the grain lately?!), but I don't care. THIS PHOTO, and the others I suspect, IS NOT REAL, or has been doctored big time. I offer no claims beyond that right now.
Whilst writing this post I found a blog posing some interesting questions about the man's Facebook page - which lo-and-behold contains another suspicious looking photo.
Questions surrounding his Facebook profile
I hope that for the most part, this post isn't regurgitating what has been put in several other threads.
I have to agree, it looks completely faked. There's just something about his head, the way it fits with the rest of the pic and the overall lack of
detail compared to the photo of him in his freemason clothing.
What gave it away? Him with the pasted head on there?
Like duh, the head is brighter than the hands. Obviously it's photoshopped.
Like duh, the head is brighter than the hands. Obviously it's photoshopped.
edit on 24-7-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Manhater
What gave it away? Him with the pasted head on there?
Like duh, the head is brighter than the hands. Obviously it's photoshopped.edit on 24-7-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)
You laugh, but just wait and see how many reply to this thread laughing at you and I for KNOWING that this photo is fake at first glance.
Just wait...
edit on 24/7/2011 by Cythraul because: (no reason given)
The photos come from the last pages of "his" book that is being systematically removed from websites!
www.scribd.com... Independence
www.scribd.com... Independence
www.2shared.com...
www.scribd.com... Independence
www.scribd.com... Independence
www.2shared.com...
The way his face marries with that optic seems all messed up to me. Seems like his eye is not in line with the scope, and part of it that should be in
front of his face, seems to be behind it?
its not fake, it looks fake because there is no background
and plus, since when did the colour of ones hand matched their face? never.
this is a real photo, he cuts all his pictures out to hide the background for whatever reason. probably he doesnt want us to know where he took the picture, or in which room, or any clues in the background or he just likes to do it becuase he did it for all his pics.
whoever did the cutting out is an expert, they didnt even miss the hair. obviously if he did it then he had put alot of effort into making it perfect. he had planned this for years and knew exactly what hes doing...
hes not just a random psycho and people need to acknowledge this. this guy knew exactly what he wanted to achieve
and plus, since when did the colour of ones hand matched their face? never.
this is a real photo, he cuts all his pictures out to hide the background for whatever reason. probably he doesnt want us to know where he took the picture, or in which room, or any clues in the background or he just likes to do it becuase he did it for all his pics.
whoever did the cutting out is an expert, they didnt even miss the hair. obviously if he did it then he had put alot of effort into making it perfect. he had planned this for years and knew exactly what hes doing...
hes not just a random psycho and people need to acknowledge this. this guy knew exactly what he wanted to achieve
They look like stock photos blup blup, with various head poses photoshopped onto stock 'uniform' bodies.
But the one where he has the firearm looks fully CG - head imparticular. They did a slightly better job on the other ones.
But the one where he has the firearm looks fully CG - head imparticular. They did a slightly better job on the other ones.
Originally posted by Cythraul
They look like stock photos blup blup, with various head poses photoshopped onto stock 'uniform' bodies.
But the one where he has the firearm looks fully CG - head imparticular. They did a slightly better job on the other ones.
no, they are as real as you and me. look at the neck area, it fits perfectly with the uniform... the reason they look photoshopped is becuase they were, they had tthe background removed!!
i'm an expert in this photo editing business and I can vouch... if you want i'll make an analysis of the photos
Found a higher res version. I mean, look at the hair FFS!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/462e45c0a25e.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/462e45c0a25e.jpg[/atsimg]
Originally posted by RizeorDie
no, they are as real as you and me. look at the neck area, it fits perfectly with the uniform... the reason they look photoshopped is becuase they were, they had tthe background removed!!
i'm an expert in this photo editing business and I can vouch... if you want i'll make an analysis of the photos
I could photoshop a head to look as natural on a body as that - I do it for my work. It's not the lack of background that proves suspicious for me at all - it's everything I mentioned in my OP, plus the 'X Factor' of sheer lifelessness.
Originally posted by Cythraul
Originally posted by RizeorDie
no, they are as real as you and me. look at the neck area, it fits perfectly with the uniform... the reason they look photoshopped is becuase they were, they had tthe background removed!!
i'm an expert in this photo editing business and I can vouch... if you want i'll make an analysis of the photos
I could photoshop a head to look as natural on a body as that - I do it for my work. It's not the lack of background that proves suspicious for me at all - it's everything I mentioned in my OP, plus the 'X Factor' of sheer lifelessness.
i'm sure you could, but i'm sure as hell you cant get the shading or lightening as real as the above photo becuase thats as real as it gets. he is definatly in a well lit room and you can tell by the light reflection on the gun, his hand and face. however the suit is meant to absorb the light and not reflect it thus staying dark...
you mentioned something about the hair, whats wrong with it?
edit on 24/7/2011 by RizeorDie because: (no reason given)
The badge on his arm, from what I can make out reads:
(word in italics is a guess)
I have some problems with the wording alone. The term 'multiculti' is a relatively new, generally used as a tongue-in-cheek word by Nationalists to describe people who are pro multiculturalism and open-borders. I can pretty much guarantee that NO serious 'nationalist revolutionary group' would EVER use that word as part of its official insignia. It's childish sounding and informal. Furthermore, why would a Norwegian Nationalist organisation word their badge lettering in English?
MARXIST HUNTER
Special forces
NORWAY
Permit No..........
MULTICULTI TRAITOR
HUNTING PERMIT
..........
(word in italics is a guess)
I have some problems with the wording alone. The term 'multiculti' is a relatively new, generally used as a tongue-in-cheek word by Nationalists to describe people who are pro multiculturalism and open-borders. I can pretty much guarantee that NO serious 'nationalist revolutionary group' would EVER use that word as part of its official insignia. It's childish sounding and informal. Furthermore, why would a Norwegian Nationalist organisation word their badge lettering in English?
reply to post by Cythraul
So, he or his far-right-wing buddies could have done the digital warrior-wannabe shots. It doesn't make it automatically false flag. It could just be the dreamed-up promo for some right-wing nationalist, fascist party. Or, it could be both.
So, he or his far-right-wing buddies could have done the digital warrior-wannabe shots. It doesn't make it automatically false flag. It could just be the dreamed-up promo for some right-wing nationalist, fascist party. Or, it could be both.
Originally posted by RizeorDie
but i'm sure as hell you cant get the shading or lightening as real as the above photo becuase thats as real as it gets
The shading and lighting is one of the biggest giveaways! I could make that photo look infinitely more realistic. In fact, when I've got time I may even do so as an experiment. When you're holding a gun sight to your eye, even in an extremely well lit room, you would get some shadowing - in fact, even more so under many lights due to the nature of contrast. How can the area around his eye possibly be free of shadow unless there's a strong light actually within the gun sight itself?!
Originally posted by cfnyaami
So, he or his far-right-wing buddies could have done the digital warrior-wannabe shots. It doesn't make it automatically false flag. It could just be the dreamed-up promo for some right-wing nationalist, fascist party. Or, it could be both.
I agree! I draw no conclusions about what this photo fakery means, why it would have been done or by who. My only goal is to make sure EVERYONE looks closely at these photos and draws their own conclusions about their legitimacy rather than assuming they're real just because the media says they are. Once we agree on that we can head on down the rabbit hole and flesh out the truth of the matter.
Well the shadows and highlights are actually spot on. You claim to be a pro but then you make this little jewel of a statement:
"Not to mention questions surrounding how and why such a professional 'model' type shot was taken and by who."
That is not by any measure of the word a professional shot. Just because it might give that vibe from a glance cause the background is cut out. That is a single flash straight on shot and when you start to go on about shadows from the scope you neglet to mention where the light source is in relation.
"Not to mention questions surrounding how and why such a professional 'model' type shot was taken and by who."
That is not by any measure of the word a professional shot. Just because it might give that vibe from a glance cause the background is cut out. That is a single flash straight on shot and when you start to go on about shadows from the scope you neglet to mention where the light source is in relation.
I'm a pro artist and work with Photoshop a lot and also I thought they were fake. While it's still possible, the example photo could be real,
because flash plays around with skin tone. If the flash was to be sourced from the camera and his hand in the foreground then his hand would be more
exposed to light.
This guy is not your run of your mill terrorist. He wrote a 1,500 word essay and from the looks of it, it is very professional. Why not go to the length of putting on some make up and creating pro looking photos? After all it would take a day or two to make the photos where as he spent nine years writing the manifesto.
I also questioned why his insignia are in English. However, you'll notice that he wrote manifesto in English, using the English spelling of his name. Plus you can get those kinds of badges made for a couple of dollars its not a big deal really. If this was a fake photo by the some other higher source I'd question them a lot more than I am now, because its the 'try hardness' of the photos make me think they are legit.
Note: If you not yet aware the photos are found on the last pages of his manifesto.
This guy is not your run of your mill terrorist. He wrote a 1,500 word essay and from the looks of it, it is very professional. Why not go to the length of putting on some make up and creating pro looking photos? After all it would take a day or two to make the photos where as he spent nine years writing the manifesto.
I also questioned why his insignia are in English. However, you'll notice that he wrote manifesto in English, using the English spelling of his name. Plus you can get those kinds of badges made for a couple of dollars its not a big deal really. If this was a fake photo by the some other higher source I'd question them a lot more than I am now, because its the 'try hardness' of the photos make me think they are legit.
Note: If you not yet aware the photos are found on the last pages of his manifesto.
edit on 24/7/11 by goatman because: (no reason
given)
I am still unsure of what the op is trying to say about the shading and lightning being the biggest giveaways.
Are the photos photoshopped?
YES
what part was photoshopped?
Background removed
What else?
Maybe brightness or contrast levels were edited but i highly doubt it
other than that the picture are real, just look at details. Look at all his pictures, he used the same camera and the same lightning and was probably done in the same room. He probably used some form of cheap chromakey background to help him in the cutting. other than that theres nothing unrealistic about the photos
Are the photos photoshopped?
YES
what part was photoshopped?
Background removed
What else?
Maybe brightness or contrast levels were edited but i highly doubt it
other than that the picture are real, just look at details. Look at all his pictures, he used the same camera and the same lightning and was probably done in the same room. He probably used some form of cheap chromakey background to help him in the cutting. other than that theres nothing unrealistic about the photos