Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
justdrew wrote:Nordic wrote:i would say the masonic apron pic is quite a bit more recent. he looks way older in it than he does in the "headshot" pics.
he looks like a blonde david duchovny in those glamor shots
stickdog99 wrote:
misogynist Bork disciple?
...snip...
It was revealed that the 32-year-old former member of the country's conservative Progress Party – who had become ever more extreme in his hatred of Muslims, left wingers and the country's political establishment – had ordered six tonnes of fertiliser in May to be used in the bombing. While police continued to interrogate Breivik, who was charged with the mass killings, evidence of his increasingly far right world view emerged from an article he had posted on several Scandinavian websites, including Nordisk – a site frequented by neo-Nazis, far right radicals and Islamophobes since 2009.
The Norwegian daily VG quoted one of Breivik's friends saying that he had become a rightwing extremist in his late 20s and was now a strong opponent of multi-culturalism, expressing strong nationalistic views in online debates.
Breivik had talked admiringly about conversations he had had with unnamed English Defence League members and the organisation Stop the Islamification of Europe over the success of provocative street actions leading to violence.
"I have on some occasions had discussions with SIOE and EDL and recommended them to use certain strategies," he wrote two years ago.
"The tactics of the EDL are now to 'lure' an overreaction from the Jihad Youth/Extreme-Marxists, something they have succeeded in doing several times already." Contacted about the allegation by email by last night the EDL had not answered.
...snip...
Neo-Nazi groups carried out a series of murders and robberies in Scandinavia in the 1990s but have since kept a low profile.
"They have a lack of leadership. We have pretty much control of those groups," the police official said.
Harvey wrote:Went out for cigarettes. Did I miss anything? LOL.
I'm intrigued by why the images are all cutaways. First I thought it was because there were other people in the images but if you look where he's posing with the gun you can see that the photoshopper missed quite a few chunks of background below the gun strap, and between the muzzle and light on the gun and in the sight lense. It's just a flat brownish background, probably a wall but it could be a screen.
Compare the original 'masonic' image with the 'soldier,' you'd be mistaken for thinling they are the same face, or for thinking they are from different photo's. It's a professional job, but both are heavily re-worked from two seperate headshots. Whoever did it is a professional but he's really not that good. I'll show how in a little while.
Oh, and there's no meta-data left in the image files, that's all been stripped out as I thought it would be.
Oh yeah, the medal on the shoulder is on the wrong perspective plane for the apparent angle of the shoulder, with a cheap and nasty drop shadow... Idiots. And while I'm at it, compare the visual information between the arm and the body on the 'soldier' picture, then look at the edge quality on the belt and buckle, take my word for it, the stray reflection below the belt is out of place, they have been added, the whole thing is bull. I do this for a living. These images are actually quite disappointing.
The rifle photo, notice the light is still quite warm on the face by the scope, it would be slightly shadowed, by his eye and by his cheek. The fill light from the flash might brighten it somewhat but it would also change the temperature.
Friends, it's all purest horseshit.
stickdog99 wrote:Harvey wrote:Went out for cigarettes. Did I miss anything? LOL.
I'm intrigued by why the images are all cutaways. First I thought it was because there were other people in the images but if you look where he's posing with the gun you can see that the photoshopper missed quite a few chunks of background below the gun strap, and between the muzzle and light on the gun and in the sight lense. It's just a flat brownish background, probably a wall but it could be a screen.
Compare the original 'masonic' image with the 'soldier,' you'd be mistaken for thinling they are the same face, or for thinking they are from different photo's. It's a professional job, but both are heavily re-worked from two seperate headshots. Whoever did it is a professional but he's really not that good. I'll show how in a little while.
Oh, and there's no meta-data left in the image files, that's all been stripped out as I thought it would be.
Oh yeah, the medal on the shoulder is on the wrong perspective plane for the apparent angle of the shoulder, with a cheap and nasty drop shadow... Idiots. And while I'm at it, compare the visual information between the arm and the body on the 'soldier' picture, then look at the edge quality on the belt and buckle, take my word for it, the stray reflection below the belt is out of place, they have been added, the whole thing is bull. I do this for a living. These images are actually quite disappointing.
The rifle photo, notice the light is still quite warm on the face by the scope, it would be slightly shadowed, by his eye and by his cheek. The fill light from the flash might brighten it somewhat but it would also change the temperature.
Friends, it's all purest horseshit.
If you bother to make your way through the 700+ pages of slop this guy wrote as I just did, I think you will arrive at a different conclusion.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 189 guests