Kristen Stewart Finally Opens Up about Cheating Scandal

by Twilighter

If you believed the headline above, you have been fooled like millions of other people when they have recently gone to similar articles on the internet produced by the celebrity gossip machine. Stories claiming that Kristen has suddenly decided to “open up” to them about details of the “cheating scandal.” Which is absolutely false I might add. But why should we let something so unimportant as the truth get in the way of a perfectly profitable lie?

I’ll tell you why. Because the truth still matters. The truth is important. Even though untold numbers of web outlets, from tabloids to the so-called traditional media, have tried to drive up their web hit numbers up by reporting yet another lie about the so-called Kristen Stewart “cheating scandal.” So let’s take a look at the truth.
This is the how the latest chapter of this nonsense began with an article yesterday by Marlow Stern of Newsweek’s The Daily Beast. The article began as follows:

The Mad One
Dec 17, 2012 12:00 AM EST
Kristen Stewart goes on the road with Kerouac. By Marlow Stern.

“It’s not a terrible thing if you’re either loved or hated,” says Kristen Stewart, seated in a cozy little bistro on the outskirts of the Los Angeles neighborhood of Los Feliz, far removed from even the most penetrating telephoto lenses. “But honestly,” she continues, “I don’t care ’cause it doesn’t keep me from doing my shit. And I apologize to everyone for making them so angry. It was not my intention.”

So says the most vilified—and highest-paid—actress in all the land. Her role earlier this year as a sword-wielding firebrand in Snow White and the Huntsman, a sinister re-imagining of the Brothers Grimm fairy tale, was quite apropos, given that the 22-year-old starlet is, in many ways, the tabloid media’s Joan of Arc. Her refusal to kowtow to the celebrity-industrial complex, whether through her steely-eyed gaze on the red carpet or nervous fidgeting during televised interviews, is seen by many as an entitled A-lister putting on airs.”

Despite this truth, we immediately got headlines and stories like the one below by Rebecca Merriman on Entertainmentwise.com today:

Kristen Stewart On Robert Pattinson Cheating: ‘It Wasn’t My Intention To Get Everyone Angry’

Actress claims she doesn’t care if she’s hated following fling with Rupert Sanders

Kristen Stewart hasn’t exactly been open about her recent cheating scandal, where she was caught kissing 41 year-old married director Rupert Sanders, but now the actress has finally spoken about the biggest scandal of the summer claiming she had “no intention of making everyone so angry”.

The 22 year-old was the most hated woman in Hollywood when photos of her kissing the director of Snow White and The Huntsman were published in July when she was still meant to be dating boyfriend and on screen ‘Twilight’ lover Robert Pattinson. Referring to the incident, Kristen admitted she didn’t know why people still went on about it.
“I apologize to everyone for making them so angry. It was not my intention,” she told the Daily Beast. (emphasis mine)

No she did not, she told the DailyBeast nothing of the sort. She never referred to “the incident” and she never said anything about not knowing why people went on and on about it. Misquoting someone is poor journalism, but making up something they didn’t say is fraudulent. And yet the celebrity gossip machine does both with impunity.

Here’s is how Hollywood Life’s Dory Larrabee misreported it:

Kristen Stewart Apologizes Again After Affair
Mon, December 17, 2012 11:45am EST by Dory Larrabee

Kristen Stewart is finally apologizing for her summer 2012 affair with married director Rupert Sanders in a new interview. Keep reading to see what she’s saying about the biggest mistake of her life!

Fans were shocked when photos of Kristen Stewart and married director Rupert Sanders cuddling and kissing were published in July 2012. Although her boyfriend Robert Pattinson was devastated, he has since forgiven her and Kristen is now admitting she didn’t mean to cause such an uprising in a new interview with The Daily Beast.

Kristen has been careful to avoid speaking about the affair to the press, but in the new interview she dives in head first. “It’s not a terrible thing if you’re either loved or hated.”

“But honestly, I don’t care ’cause it doesn’t keep me from doing my sh*t. And I apologize to everyone for making them so angry. It was not my intention.”

No, she is not “finally apologizing” and is certainly not “diving in” head first. And as for commenting about the “biggest mistake” in her life, that line is pulled right out of thin air or right out of an orifice I won’t elaborate on.

Here is how Gather “reported” the story:

Did Kristen Stewart Apologize For Cheating on Robert Pattinson?
December 17, 2012 01:20 PM EST

Kristen Stewart has offered another apology after her reconciliation with beau, Robert Pattinson. The “Breaking Dawn” actress cheated on Rob with married “Snow White and the Huntsman” director, Rupert Sanders earlier this year. She already released a very public apology in which she professed her love for Rob for the first time ever. Now she is apologizing to her fans and to anyone whom she may have angered by her “momentary indiscretion.”

“It’s not a terrible thing if you’re either loved or hated but honestly, I don’t care ’cause it doesn’t keep me from doing my sh*t. And I apologize to everyone for making them so angry. It was not my intention,” she said (via Hollywood Life).

Once again, Kristen said nothing about a “momentary indiscretion” here. That was from last summer from her so-called confession to People Magazine that has long since been proven to be from an unnamed source, not from her. And Gather sites Hollywood Life when it wasn’t even their story to begin with. Another example of the celebrity gossip machine replicating their garbage like a virus and spewing across the internet.

And if you really want to see creative bs at its best go to Chris Hicks article for the Contra Costa Times. He pulls a multitude of Kristen quotes together from multiple sources, throws in his own spin, and rolls it into a nice round ball of bs. I am sorry to say that there are hundreds of other examples I can give you from tabloids to mainstream news outlets.

Misquotes, quoting out of context, and making things up are the stock and trade of the celebrity gossip machine. Just like reporting on each other’s articles and spreading each other’s lies is. And now we are seeing a disturbing pattern of what were once considered to be more mainline media sources doing exactly the same thing.

The end result is an ugly world where faceless entities roam the internet inventing, bending, and redistributing the “truth” and manipulate public opinion for their own ends and profit. With far more efficient and technologically superior power than the Nazi propaganda machine or Stalinist double think. We should be afraid, we should be very afraid.

For a further dose of truth about this “cheating scandal”, see The Grand Punk series on this blog.

The Grand Punk Part 10

“Sometimes when things seem too unbelievable to

be true, they are just that: not worthy of belief.”

The Grand Punk Part 10: Joining a Weird Trip,

New Evidence, and Life in the Rabbit Hole

by Twilighter

In Part 6 of the Grand Punk, we reviewed the provable evidence in the Kristen Stewart “cheating “scandal”.  In Part 7, 8, and 9, we stacked that available evidence against eleven different scenarios that purport to explain what happened in it.  That review led to the conclusion that Scenario 6 The Grand Punk best fits the evidence,  that Scenario 11 The Former Romance explained some of but not all of the evidence, and that the rest could be comfortably rejected as not being supported by the evidence.  See those details in previous editions of The Grand Punk.

As I stated in closing Part 9, the truth is in the details. And at times the only way to get to the details is to join a weird trip.  Which is exactly what I did.  A fortuity in some consulting work I was involved in took me to San Diego with a follow up meeting in Los Angeles two days later.  Thus leaving a 24 hour gap and a grand opportunity to travel first hand down the rabbit hole in La La Land, the home of the tabloids, the celluloid fantasyland.  And more importantly, a chance to observe some of the places I had been writing about and thinking about first hand, including touring the proverbial “scenes of the crime”.

Its taken some time to fully digest everything that I learned there.  In this short visit, I was able to establish the locations of some more of the PopSugar photographs and the likely location of many more, reach some important conclusions about many of those photographs, and discover irrefutable evidence that many of the infamous Car Make Out and Guardrail Make Out photographs have been digitally manipulated.  All of which has significant impacts on the eleven scenarios and has led me to more strongly believe that this “cheating scandal” was faked.

In Part 10, and 11 to follow, I will report on the findings of that trip, discuss some newly discovered evidence, confirm and expand upon some previous observations I have made in this case, and explore the implications of all of it on the previously described eleven scenarios. In the process I will also identify and discuss some additional PR scenarios that have gained popularity of late and why they are off track. My apologies again for the length, but sometimes it takes longer to correct a lie with the truth.

[Note: Click on any diagram or photograph to enlarge it.]

“The New Evidence”

2272 S. CENTILENA AVENUE, SANTA MONICA, CA

Let’s start our examination of some of the new evidence at one of the “scenes of the crime”, the location where Kristen is pictured behind the wheel in her Mini Cooper with Rupert Sanders in PopSugar #26/37.  We had previously established that the location is 2272 S. Centinela Ave. in LA (technically located in Santa Monica).  Which is right around the corner from MJZ Productions at 2201 S. Carmelina Avenue where Rupert Sanders is listed as a director. See the photo and an aerial Goggle Earth image of the area below.

PopSugar #26

Google Earth aerial view of area at 2272 S. Centinela Avenue

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.  But actually being at a place, walking through it, and looking at it, that’s worth volumes and puts a mere picture to shame. As a result of the above described fortuity, I found myself being able to see that parking lot with my own eyes, to walk through it, and to examine the areas around it. And this is what I found:

First,  there is absolutely no question that this is the site of where this particular photograph was taken. The physical location is in fact a complete match, something I have argued for weeks based on a Google Earth image comparison with PopSugar #26/37.  Now see that comparison with the image I took at the lot below. Once again, a complete match. This is the place.

2272 S. Centinela Avenue from across the street

Second, there is also no question that the photographer of PopSugar #26 was at ground level and obviously within the parking lot at the time he or she took it, and that the camera was about 55 inches from the ground when it was taken. Why is this true?

• The parking lot is remarkably small when you are actually there.  It is less than 100 feet long from the entry to the building and no more than 50 feet wide (roughly the length of four Mini Coopers end to end). It is a very small space.

• The white wall surrounding much of it is tall, well in excess of seven feet, making it impossible for an over the top of the wall shot to be taken because of the angle of view that would be involved.  Similarly, a shot from the street through the opening where the sliding gate is located (the above view) is also not possible, again because of the angle of view.  Also note in the blowups below the two distances marked A and B.
  

  Establishing an inside the lot shot: Comparing two distances

• The distance of (a) is significantly longer than (b) in the picture to the left that I took from through the opening from across the street. Note also the lamp near the red letter (a).  In PopSugar #26 on the right, the lamp and a much greater portion of A is obscured (B is now much longer than A) because this PopSugar photo was taken from a point significantly more to the right of the opening and thus within the lot, since the street- side wall to the right of the opening would have made it impossible to see into the lot.

• The photograph of PopSugar 26/37 lines up perfectly for a shot within the parking lot and to the right of the wall. The height of a Mini Cooper S is 55 inches.  Since we can see across the roof of the car in the PopSugar photograph, this is the approximate height of the camera.  If it were lower, we wouldn’t see the top of the roof.  If it were significantly higher we would see the entire roof including the far side as it curves downward and we would see a lot lower into the inside right of the car, which we don’t.  See PopSugar #37 below for a more detailed look at what I am describing.
  

  PopSugar #37

• Note also the reflection in Kristen’s door of the plain white wall (the left side wall of the parking lot), the lack of any vehicles in it, and the reflection of the double lined parking space markings within it, which corresponds to the parking spaces that appear on both sides of the parking lot.

• Also note the reflection of two telephone poles and a white sign in the side view mirror in this blowup of the above image.  Note that because this is a reflection, the image is flipped left to right.  What you are seeing are the two white walls towards the opening and the two telephone poles and the large white sign for LA Fine Art & Wine Storage, the business next door.  Because of the curvature of the side view mirror, the chrome on the side view mirror acts as a wide angle lens giving us a wide sweeping view of the area.  Below I have blown up this area circling the poles and sign.  Next to it is the image flipped right to left to account for the mirror effect.  What’s on the mirror in that photo shows what the area looked like from the point of view of the mirror.

Right side mirror reflection

Shown below is the photo that I took October 3rd, from across S. Centinela Avenue and this image below further confirms that this lot is the place of that photo.

Sign and telephone poles as seen from across S. Centinela Avenue

Fourth, and finally given the location of the car and Kristen within it, the angle of the shot, the constricted space within the lot, and the rough location of the camera, it irrefutable that Kristen had to have seen the photographer when he took it unless she was driving with her eyes closed at the time.

But What of the Other Car Make Out Photos?

But what about the other Car Make Out photos, were they taken here in the same parking lot as many have tried to argue on this blog, or were they taken elsewhere?  Let’s start with the elsewhere first.  To date, no has been able to identify any other location in Los Angeles as the place where the Car Make Out photos were taken.  While in Los Angeles, and particularly in Santa Monica, I was able to examine a number of other warehouse and parking lot areas and was also unable to locate an alternative site for these photographs.

I was also able to eliminate several other areas in the immediate vicinity of 2272 S. Centinela Avenue as potential sites for the rest of the Car Make Out photographs.   I was able to do that because I was able to drive through these areas that we couldn’t see in a Google Earth street view before.   See the Goggle Earth aerial image below for those areas which I have circled.

Eliminating other areas where pictures might have been taken

While at the site I drove through these areas.  See the Google Earth image below where I have identified by number where I took photos and the corresponding photographs that follow.  None of these areas match up for what I was looking for, and as a result, I was able to exclude these areas as potential locations for any of these other photographs.

Eliminating scenes for the Car Make Out photos

My corresponding photos of those places appear below.

The Nine Photos

Now back to the parking lot.  I have been stymied for weeks trying to identify this lot as the location of the rest of these photos because I was looking to match up the following features within those photographs to this site.  See the image below for what I was looking for.  The image happens to be PopSugar #49, but if you look at all of the Car Make Out photos, they all bear the same features, with the exception of the Vertical Wall Seam which only appears in the wider view PopSugar #49 image below.

Matching a Photo to a Scene: The Identifying Elements

Interestingly most of these features are present in some form at the parking lot of 2272 S. Centinela Avenue. The easy ones are the White Wall, the Vertical Seam in the wall, and the  double edged Parking Space Lines.  See them in the photos I took at the scene below.

My photo of the left inside wall of the parking lot

The harder ones are the three Faint Black Lines cutting across the PopSugar photographs and the Two Telephone Poles & the Large White Sign but even those are present.  See the photos I took below, the first being three parallel telephone lines connected to the above mentioned telephone poles, and the second showing both poles and the adjacent large white sign.

My photos of  the 2272 S. Centinela Avenue entry showing the wires and one telephone pole and to the right of that entry showing both poles and the LA Fine Art & Wine Storage sign

The most difficult image to match, however, was the right side mirror image, but even elements of that one are present.

Matching the right side view mirror image to the scene

See the photo below that I took.

My photo from October 3rd of the adjacent parking lot which is adjacent to 2272 S. Centinela Avenue.

This photo is from the lot immediately next to 2272 S. Centinela Avenue, a lot belonging to LA Fine Arts & Wine Storage.  The marked white space, brick, and red banding are visible from the adjacent parking lot. The brick, however, looks redder here than what we see in the side view mirror and is actually more akin to what we see from within the parking lot on the lower half of the building.

My photo from inside the 2272 S. Centinela Ave. parking lot

Here’s the view from the 2272 S. Centinela Avenue, but note, the elements still aren’t lined up properly in relationship to each other in any of these views.

And more broadly, the problem is that you cannot match up all of these Identifying Elements exactly with how they would appear at this scene.  They are scrambled in a way that is not actually representative of reality. For example:

• If her car was parallel to the left side wall of the parking lot near the Vertical Seam (hence the PopSugar #49), the Car Door Reflection should be the right side wall of the parking lot, an all white wall.  It’s not, note the reflection in the car door in PopSugar #49 above.
• If her car was parked across the lot parallel to the telephone lines, that could explain the reflection of the three Faint Black Lines running parallel lines across the images, but the background of the photo would then be the building at the end of the lot, not the white wall as it is. (Note any of the Car Make Out Photos).
• If the side view mirror is reflecting something from this scene, where is it?  Nothing matches these elements in their proper relationships to each other.
• And if you align the car so that it is parallel to the parking space lines, potentially matching the spaces appearing in the car door reflection, the background once again doesn’t match the scene shown in the photos.

Hence our conundrum:  this looks like the probable place of the pictures, but something is out of kilter with the photographs.  But the answer is really quite simple.  Either 1). these pictures were not taken here and all these elements being present is merely a coincidence or 2). the images cannot be matched up because they have been DIGITALLY MANIPULATED so they no longer match up to the real scene completely.

I am reasonably certain that it is the later that is the case here.  While everyone was so hung up and busy staring at the subjects of the pictures (Kristen & Rupert) and what they were or weren’t doing, we were missing what was obviously going on right before our very eyes in the foreground and the background elements, hiding in plain sight.  These images have been digitally manipulated and it is really quite obvious.

Viewed in this light, the conundrum is solved and we can safety say that the rest of the Car Make Out Photos were in all probability taken here, but all of them show some evidence of digital manipulation, the right side view mirror image being the most common one.  It’s hard to tell where the real images end and where the manipulation starts, but that conclusion is inescapable. The question then becomes, why were these images so obviously altered?  More on that later.

“More New Evidence”

2800 COLORADO AVENUE, SANTA MONICA, CA

Taking that important lesson from S. Centinela Avenue, I then sought to confirm  a working theory that I have had for months about where PopSugar #33 was taken. PopSugar #33 is an odd photo in that it does not appear to be related to any other photo in the PopSugar set in terms of where it was taken.  See PopSugar #33 below.

PopSugar #33

From the S. Centinela Avenue parking lot location, if you travel north and make a left on Olympic Blvd., you arrive at Stewart Street (ironic isn’t it?) in about a minute.  Turning right, in less than another minute you run into the intersection of Stewart & Colorado Avenue where Summit Entertainment maintains two buildings, 2800 Colorado Avenue and the other adjacent to it, 1630 Stewart Street.  The entire drive is remarkably short and is filled with businesses that you would recognize by name from the entertainment industry.  Just down the street from the Summit properties on Colorado Avenue are Lionsgate and MTV and a block further up, a big office of Universal Studios. This is not an abandoned warehouse district in Los Angeles. A Goggle Earth aerial image of the path I traveled appears below.

Google Earth image of drive from S. Centinela parking lot to the Summit properties

See also below a Google Earth aerial image of the intersection and the two Summit properties and a Google Earth streetview image of the intersection looking towards the properties. In the streetview image, the building pictured towards the right is 2800 Colorado Avenue, the building towards the left is 1630 Stewart Street.

Google Earth aerial image of the Summit Properties at Stewart & Colorado

Same intersection but in Google Earth streetview

See next below, two photographs of the properties from across Stewart Street that I took during my visit.  The building on the left is 1630 Stewart Street. The building on the right is 2800 Colorado Avenue.

1630 Stewart Street and 2800 Colorado Avenue

And below see a photograph I took on October 3rd looking from  across Stewart Street cutting across the corner towards Colorado Avenue and a Google Earth image below it showing the general direction of the camera shot.

My photo from across Stewart Street towards Colorado Avenue across the corner

Approximate camera shot of my photograph above

Below is a photo I took from the Colorado Avenue side looking back towards where I took the previous image from, with the general direction of the previous camera shot shown.

Now let’s compare PopSugar #33 and my photo once again.

PopSugar #33

My photo from across Stewart Street towards Colorado Avenue near the corner

As a result of my observations at the scene, I am reasonably confident that PopSugar # 33 was taken at roughly the location of my photo above.  Note the black metal fence that appears in the immediate foreground beyond Kristen’s right windows, and a further fence than runs at an angle to it in the background all the way across the picture.  Notice also the reflection of a large tree in her front windshield and of the trees reflected in her side door. Note also the “bunched” fencing at the extreme left of the picture near the top right of Kristen’s windshield.

Take a look below at another photo I took from the scene from the Colorado Avenue side looking towards Stewart Street.  I believe that several identifying features correspond to those in PopSugar #33.

Another picture I took from Colorado Avenue towards Stewart Street

Note how the fence upright posts in my photo above at a distance appear closer together, a perspective compression effect.  This explains  the “bunched” fence effect in PopSugar #33, because it is the farthest away from the camera in that view.  Also note how the fence running parallel to Kristen’s car would run straight across the picture.   Note also how the fence running at an angle to Kristen’s car would also appear to cross  the picture at an angle in the background from that perspective.  Note also that wider fence posts and the parking meters could be “eliminated” by strategically placing Kristen’s car to obscure them and carefully cropping the picture left to right.  Finally, also note the trees on both sides of Stewart Street.  The far side trees are consistent with those in the car door reflection of PopSugar #33 and the large ones on the near side trees could cast a reflection on Kristen’s front windshield, again consistent with PopSugar #33.

But as with the previous discussion concerning the Car Make Out photos, it is not all that it appears to be.  The door reflection in PopSugar #33 does not match up with the building that appears across the street.  See below my photo of the area that the reflection should match.

My photo across Stewart Street from Summit side of the street.

I believe that portions of that the door reflection have been photoshopped in. Note in PopSugar #33 the oddly compressed low lying building with what appears to be a Spanish tile type roof.  This is not an image that would be difficult to photoshop in.

PopSugar #33

Note also what appears to be the word “Summit” that appears on the curb just ahead of Kristen’s rear right tire in PopSugar #33.  Given the distinct dark line of the undercarriage of the car, this curb area is also very easily photoshopped into this image, which potentially is why the curb doesn’t match to the curb in my photo above.  And ask yourself, why does the word “Summit” appear in PopSugar #33 at all?   The photographer is toying with us.

Note also the relatively distorted background in the PopSugar #33 image that likely results from using a telephoto lens and a large aperture size such as f2 or f4.  Using such a lens with such an aperture setting shortens the depth of field of a shot, throwing the background out of focus.  That’s why photographers frequently use them in portrait shots because they eliminate distractions from the background from interfering with the subject. Note also that this photo has the flattest depth of field (shortest zone of sharpness front to back) of all of the photographs in the 55 pictures in the PopSugar set.  Photoshopping things into this background is easier, as it is already blurry from being out of focus.

Note also how tightly cropped the image is from left to right, again eliminating identifying characteristics such as the wider fence posts and the parking meters that run along the street. I believe that this image was carefully cropped and the background and foregrounds have been digitally manipulated to make it more difficult to establish that it was taken near the Summit offices at this location.  But enough has been intentionally left in to make this connection.  And the curb marking shows us the way to Summit.  Again, the photographer is playing with us.

And then finally look at photo itself. It’s not even clear if this photo was taken on the same day as those in the rest of the PopSugar set.  Note the left strap of Kristen’s top, its either dark brown or black just under her hair on her left shoulder.  Go to the PopSugar site and look at it carefully if you don’t believe me. Gone is the obviously neon yellow bra strap that is so apparent in all of the rest of the PopSugar photos, even when she is in the shadows.

And while we are at it, what of the sun glasses?  Are they the same, or do the ones on the right appear rounder across the bottom whereas the ones on the left appear flatter.  See a close up of these two images below.

Blowup of sunglasses in two different PopSugar photos, #33 and #37

As I said, I am reasonably certain that this is the site of this PopSugar #33, despite a rather feeble attempt to disguise it.  Feeble because it was never intended to completely cover up its location.  Perhaps not certain beyond a reasonable doubt, but certain enough to satisfy the provable evidence standard we have applied to everything else in this review (that standard is described more fully in The Grand Punk Part 6).

“Even More New Evidence”

ADJACENT TO 2600 LARMAR ROAD, LOS ANGELES

One nagging concern about the photographic “evidence’ is the location of the Rupert walking photographs, PopSugar photos #34, # 38, #42, and# 29.  Although we had previously established that a fifth photo, # 53 was probably taken immediately across the street from Rupert’s house on Carman Crest Drive and that #42 is an identical blowup of #38 (they are the same), we had not yet established the location where these other photos were taken.  See the set of Rupert Walking Photos below.

The Rupert Walking Photos PopSugar #34, #38, #42, #29, and #53

That mystery is now also solved for photo #34 and photo #38/#42.  I am reasonably certain that they were taken adjacent to 2600 Larmar Road, near the intersection of Carman Crest Drive and Larmar Road, in Los Angeles because I also went to that scene. It is located near the area of Rupert’s house and not far from the area of the Guardrail Make Out Photos on Pacific View Drive.  See the diagram below for the relative locations of these areas.

Google Earth aerial image of path from the Guard Rail Make Out photos scene to Rupert Sanders house

Starting from the Pacific View Drive location (the Guardrail Make Out photos) you turn onto Pacific View Trail a short distance and then make a left at Mulholland Drive, taking it to Outpost Drive where you turn right and after another short distance, turn right on Outlook Cove followed by a left on Carmen Crest Drive which takes you down to the scene of these photographs.  The total distance traveled is about 7/10ths of a mile and it takes about two minutes.   If you continue from there and through the intersection with Larmar Road, Rupert’s house is less than 300 yards away.  Taking this path is necessary because it’s the only road in,  a steep dropoff  next to Mulholland Drive, and the need to go avoid going through multiple private properties.  Once you enter off of Outlook Drive, all of the streets eventually end in dead ends.

Next see  a Google Earth aerial view of the area of these photographs. The large house to the left of the yellow pushpin is 2600 Larmar Road.

Google Earth aerial view of intersection

See next a Google Earth  street view of the area looking towards the intersection of Larmar Road and Carmen Crest Drive towards the Rupert walking photos site. Note that Carmen Crest Drive in this area is relatively straight and flat and provides for very little cover for a photographer.

Google Earth street view image up Carmen Crest Drive towards Larmar Road

 

 

FIX PICTURE

See next a Google Earth  street view of the same area taken from roughly the intersection of Larmar Road and Carmen Crest Drive

Google Street view towards Larmar/Carmen Crest intersection

See next a Google Earth street view image below for a close-up of this area adjacent to the address and an identical view below it showing potential identifying characteristics marked.

Google Earth street view image: The identifying characteristics

Now compare this picture with a picture I took of this general area myself on October 3rd.  Only major changes from the Google Earth image are the plantings at the end of the fence, they apparently didn’t make it, and some differences in the sizing and thickness of vegetation.  Also note there are five wider posts from the end of the fence to where you hit the planting gap and the rough location of the tree.

My photo of the same area.

Now compare it to Pop Sugar #38 and #34 below.

PopSugar #38

PopSugar #34

The evidence in Photo #38 shows the same 17 narrow posts between the wider ones (go to PopSugar to confirm if you don’t believe me, the resolution is better there); the same general kind of planting in front of fence (it blooms purple flowers earlier in the year, gone by the time I was there, I grow the same plants); the same branching pattern in the tree (Rupert is obstructing wide post 5 of fence on the right and nearly the wide post 6 on the left and the trunk, but note the upward curving branch below his left elbow); the same gap in planting ( it’s difficult to see most of it because of Rupert’s leg and the camera angle and the overhang of adjacent plants); the same left turning fence rising up the hill; the same general shade of the pavement; and all within 300 yards of Rupert’s house.

Same features in PopSugar #34 only Rupert appears to be more lined up where the fence post makes its turn.  But still the same wide post/narrow post pairings and the same ground plants. There does appear to be a tree of some sort that has been removed to the right of Rupert in the photo.  My more recent photo doesn’t show it well but when I was at the scene taking my photo-graphs I noticed a fair amount of reasonably fresh woodchips at the end of the fence and into the adjacent yard.  That tree that appears to the right of Rupert in Photo #34 in all likelihood was more recently removed which explains why is that is gone in my recent photo.

As I said, I am reasonable certain that this is the site of these photographs.  Not certain beyond a reasonable doubt, but certain enough to satisfy the provable evidence standard we have applied to everything else in this review.

But now for the more important point.  There is no question that Rupert knew he was being photographed and it is nearly impossible that he was taken by surprise.  These were staged photographs.  Why do I say that?  First, these photos are not consistent with being taken by a super telephoto (i.e. 400mm+) from far down Carman Crest Drive. (See the earlier Google Earth image). They are much more likely to have been taken by a short range telephoto (i.e. a 75-200mm) lens cropped all the way in and shot with a relatively large aperture (f4 or f5.6).  That is what accounts for the mild blurring of the background due to the reduced depth of field from such a lens/aperture combination.

Second, the angle of view from well down Carman Crest drive is wrong.  These shots were taken from much closer and angling across Carman Crest Drive, not parallel to it at a significant distance.  Having examined the scene, the photographer was likely well closer than the intersection with Larmar Road.  They were also taken at a relatively flat angle to ground, that is, the camera was held parallel to the ground and at about shoulder height. My shots above were taken from a similar position at about 60 inches off the ground.

Third, because these distances were relatively short and across the road, not well down it, the angles were flat, and there were no hiding places readily available in the area from where they were taken, Rupert would have been able to clearly see the photographer.  Some have argued that these shots were taken with a telephoto lens at significant distances so that although it appears that Rupert is looking at the camera, he actually isn’t.  But note PopSugar #34 in particular.  This was not a random situation where Rupert just happens to look in the direction of the photographer who was at a great distance away.  This was a situation where Rupert looked directly at the photographer from a relatively close range.  He knew that he was there.

Some might argue that this location confirms an aspect of the paparazzi’ original claim (The Lucky Paparazzi- Scenario 1).  Namely that following their tryst, Kristen drove him to within three blocks of his house and dropped him off, as these show him walking home.

Problem is they would have had to pass him (presumably in their own car/cars) and turn around to set up the shot since once you leave the intersection at Outpost Drive, everything beyond it ends in dead ends.  And in effect it was only one block not three.  How would they have known where he was going, as they claimed they didn’t realize who he was until they got back to their office?  More on the significance of these new findings later.

As a final note, the location of PopSugar #29 remain a mystery.

 

Busting Bad “Evidence”

2241 N. Beechwood Drive, Los Angeles

Not only was I able to discover new evidence in Los Angeles, I was also able to bust some fake evidence.  One of the more ridiculous claims in this whole case was the notion that Rob had thrown Kristen out of the Los Feliz estate after the scandal blew up and that he himself had moved out.  Remember this photograph?

Moving Van purportedly leaving from Rob’s Los Feliz estate on July 28th

It was credited to Bauer-Griffin, the same paparazzi firm that credited the urban myth that Kristen & Rupert were in a long standing affair.  (See The Grand Punk Part 6, Scenario 3).  It was regularly used by Radaronline, TMZ, and other gossip rags to “prove” that Rob was moving out of his house and had asked Kristen to move out as well. Surprisingly, it is used to this day to establish this “fact”.  Only problem is, like before, it is a complete fraud and an urban myth.

See the Temple Hill Drive street sign (partially off the screen) to the extreme right of the picture?

Now lets go to where this Bauer Griffin photo was actually taken, roughly at 2241 N. Beachwood Drive in LA.  You can Google Earth it if you want but this is the location and image.

Google Earth street view from roughly 2244 N. Beechwood Drive towards the Hollywood sign

Note the Temple Hill Drive on the right side of the street just to the right of the van. Note also the Hollywood sign up in the distance, the white house just beyond the black car traveling towards you in the left lane, the palm trees in front of it, and the  trees beyond it.  This is the place of the photo.  It’s a little different since the Baeur-Griffin photo is somewhat distorted because its cropped differently and taken with a telephoto lens.  But again note the Temple Hill Drive sign again to your right, the house, the trees and the palm trees, a complete match. The moving truck was parked horizontally across this view.

Moving Van photo location near 2241 N. Beechwood

Yet this location is not even close to where Rob’s house is located, as it is nearly two miles to the west. And you can’t even see the Hollywood sign near the street leading to Rob’s house on Aberdeen.  Here’s the view from the divided avenue (N. Vermont) leading to the street of Rob’s house. (Aberdeen).  Aberdeen is to narrow and twisted to even fit such a vehicle.

 

My photo up N. Vermont Ave. past the entry to Rob’s street

You can’t see the Hollywood sign from here.  To do so you would have to continue on up Vermont a couple miles, take a twisted winding road up the mountain toward the Griffin Observatory and then from a lookout, look almost due west. Ergo, the Bauer Griffin photo purporting to be taken near Rob’s house showing the moving truck is a fraud.  Its not even in the same neighborhood.  But why let the facts get in the way of a good lie? Which is what this “cheating scandal” is all about. But it doesn’t end there.

…To be Continued

I have probably worn you out by now.  So I’ll save more for the next edition including what I found at the infamous guardrail.  Definitive proof that the most of the guardrail photos have been digitally manipulated.  But rest assured, there is little doubt that this whole cheating scandal is fabricated. In Part 11, we will explore by who and to what ends and what it means for the scenarios.

Meet Another Face of the Celebrity Gossip Machine: The Today Show’s Savannah Guthrie

by twilighter

 

The Today’s Show Savannah Guthrie

As much as it may surprise some, even the so-called mainline media is just another part of the Celebrity Gossip Machine and the line between traditional news reporting and tabloid nonsense has been permanently obliterated.  Case in point, the recent mugging of Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson by The Today’s Show co-host Savannah  Guthrie in NYC.  NBC claims that The Today Show’s “live broadcast provides the latest in domestic and international news, weather reports, and interviews with newsmakers from the worlds of politics, business, media, entertainment and sports” and from its beginnings has claimed that it is a “morning news show”.  But it is little more than a big corporate tabloid dressed up as a legitimate news agency.

But of course it was Sweeps Week and network television shows, even one owned by a corporation that handsomely profited through Kristen’s work  (NBC Universal owns Snow White & the Huntsman), couldn’t resist  taking  a free shot at invading her and Rob’s privacy in the name of corporate profits. On November 7, Guthrie ambushed Kristen Stewart on the Today Show with the relationship question literally at the end of the her interview as the music for the commercial break was already playing, blaming her inquiry on the demands of their fans.  Not satisfied with this cowardly outrage, she did pretty much the same thing today with Robert Pattinson.  See a transcript below of her interview with him:

SG:  “I know you’re used to the spotlight and there is good and bad that that comes with that and one of the probably annoying things is that people are interested in your business.  So yesterday I asked Kristen Stewart if you two had gotten back together. Did, did you see what she said?”

RP:  “No, what did she say?”

SG:  “She said keep em guessing.”

RP:  “Keep them guessing?”

SG:  “That what my question is.  Alright so I’m going to ask you.”

RP:  “I want to ask, because we get asked it all the time and its funny cause everyone always  asked for like four years. It’s like who is actually asking? Is it in your contract?”

SG:  “Yes it is. It’s the fine print.  If I had known.  Does it get annoying, is it a high price to pay? You’ve gotten these films, it’s made you incredibly famous, there’s been so much good with it. But it is, you know, personal now.”

RP:  “It doesn’t have to be.  It only becomes personal if you answer it. I could sit here and talk nonsense about paper hats and stuff, getting old, needing a nap.”

 

As Pattinson so rightfully pointed out, no it doesn’t have to be.  Despite the levity Pattinson displayed, it was obviously a personal question that neither he nor Kristen wanted to answer and likely said as much when their interviews were set up. It was also a question Guthrie had no right to ask in spite of the fact that they are public figures.  But rather than respect their privacy, Savannah Guthrie felt compelled to ask it anyway because it’s about ratings and corporate profits and titillating the public about private information.  Is this what freedom of the press has come to?

Guthrie has said that her approach to any interview is “to try to think of the one question they would rather not be asked, just to see what they would say.”  But Savannah Guthrie needs to remember that she too is a public figure.  Does that mean we get to ask her whether frigidity led to the breakup of her marriage to BBC journalist Mark Orchard in 2009 or whether it was due to her having an extramarital affair with political consultant Mi­chael Feldman, whom she was romantically linked to after her divorce?  Or how about asking her whether her meteoric rise on the Today Show at NBC was accomplished by her sleeping her way to the top with NBC executives?

It shouldn’t, but that is the standard of journalism that Savannah Guthrie and people like her are setting by asking these questions.  Just because she wants to know, or people claim they have a right know, doesn’t mean she gets to ask whatever she wants.  If she insists on doing so, maybe we should reconsider the propriety of asking her the questions above.  And until the “media” re-imposes some standards on itself, and clearly separates itself from celebrity gossip and reality television, the fourth estate will to continue to sink further into the gutter and lack credibility as an important societal institution.  Which it has long since ceased to be.

But then again, that what happens when reporting news becomes little more than tabloid entertainment and reporting it is measured by ratings points and audience share and how it affects the corporate bottom line.  We all end up diminished in the process.

Meet Another Face of the Celebrity Gossip Machine: Meet USA Today’s Andrea Mandell

By twilighter

Previously we highlighted several unsavory perveyors of the Celebrity Gossip Machine and how they distorted the truth to generate web hits and sell their sleazy magazines.   But every once and a while you actually run across someone in the entertainment reporting business who actually resists the urge of her colleagues to use  deception and demagoguery to make money.

Meet Andrea Mandell, the USA Today entertainment reporter.

Andrea penned an article today on Kristen Stewart’s appearance at the premier of On the Road yesterday in LA and managed to write a whole web article about the premier and Stewart’s comments in relation to it without once mentioning the so called “cheating” scandal.  Good for her.  Nearly all of the rest of her colleagues that purport to be reporters can’t seem to write anything about Kristen, let alone Robert Pattinson, without mentioning it, even when it has nothing to do with what they are writing about.

You can read Mandell’s article, which is actually enlightening at:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2012/11/04/stewart-steps-out-with-pattinson-for-on-the-road/1680141/

If you follow her tweets on twitter you will also note that she never tweeted anything regarding the so called scandal at all.

And in the web article’s side panel, there is actually a link to send her an email. I think we should encourage these rare acts of media responsibility, so if you have a moment, drop Andrea an email and tell her that you appreciate her unwillingness to sink to the gutter and pile on like so many of her colleagues have and that she should be commended for it.  Its not often that we get a chance to commend someone for doing a good job in this business.

Thought for the Day October 15, 2012: Meet Two More Faces of the Celebrity Gossip Machine: News Fabricators Chris Rogers and William Earl.

by twilighter

Let’s meet two more faces of the Celebrity Gossip Machine, Chris Rogers and William Earl.

Chris Rogers, the “weekend editor” of Hollywood Lies (Life) Magazine, is another news fabricator of the celebrity gossip machine and another stellar example of why Hollywood Lies takes the cake in terms of tabloid BS “news” reporting. He is yet another editor there who cannot edit his way out of a paper bag if his life depends on it and seems to have serious problems with simple temporal concepts like “after”, “since”, “before”, and “latest”.  Let’s take a look at his latest offering of October, a web article titled Kristen Stewart: ‘I Have Nothing To Be Ashamed Of’ After Affair.

From the sounds of that headline Kristen seems pretty brash about proclaiming that she is shameless even in the face of the so-called cheating scandal. But let’s read on:

“Kristen makes an ironic statement as she reveals that ‘I have nothing to be ashamed of’ in a candid interview. Do YOU think Kristen should be ashamed after cheating on Robert Pattinson?

Kristen Stewart has made a number of awkward statements since her affair with Rupert Sanders became public in July. However, Kristen’s latest statement seems to take the cake. “I have to be careful how to behave when I’m in the spotlight” Kristen told Tu Style magazine before her affair was made public. “Apart from that, I’m more free than what people think. Also because I have nothing to be ashamed of.”

We can certainly think of one reason that Kristen should be ashamed, but then again, everyone makes mistakes. Do you agree?

Another example: “When am I happiest? In my car with the right friend,” Kristen awkwardly told Elle UK back in March. Was she referring to Rupert? What do YOU think, HollywoodLifers? Should Kristen be ashamed?”

[bold highlights are mine]

You have got to be kidding me. How can her latest statement be made nearly more than four months ago.  Rogers’ headline implies that Kristen made the statement after the affair and just recently and that she has made several other awkward statements since the affair became public [July 25^th].

But both statements he refers to here clearly pre-date July. He refers to her “latest statement” which was actually one that was made in a May interview at Cannes, long “before” her so-called affair. And if that isn’t bad enough, then he mentions a statement she made in March, and asks whether she was referring in it to being in her car with Rupert in July.  All of which unleashes another rash of nasty online comments protesting how brash and nasty Kristen is.

The only one taking the cake in this bit of nonsense and who should feel ashamed is Chris Rogers and his fellow idiotic editors at Hollywood Lies.  They are continually taking quotes of Kristen out of context, twisting them, and trying to deceive the public about things that she supposedly said, when she said it, and what she meant.  Misquotation, fabrication, deception, more stock and trade of the celebrity gossip machine. And of the rest of the celebrity gossip machine picks it up, reports it, and unleashes a further flood of nasty comments about Kristen on the internet.

And now for another flash of journalistic brilliance.  Fresh off of Hollywood Life’s debacle about Dree Hemingway being Rob’s mystery blond in New York, which they recently had to retract, here is a recent offering (October 11^th) of William Earl, their managing editor, titled: Robert Pattinson’s Mystery Blonde: Sexy New Girlfriend Revealed?  Yes we are all officially holding our breaths in anticipation of being enlightened by that one. Earl continues:

“Many fans are speculating that the sister of a super-sexy A-lister was canoodling with Rob during his club night out — do YOU think they will start dating?

Robert Pattinson was caught caressing a sexy blonde on October 6 at New York City’s Electric Room — and now the woman may have been identified!

Rob, 26, may have been cuddling with Savannah Miller, the sexy sister of Rob’s good friend Sienna Miller. That’s what fans have been wildly speculating about.

We have to admit — it looks a lot like her! We wonder if there is a love connection now — Kristen Stewart better watch her back!”

The article continues with a seemingly unrelated quote from Rob about his lovelife in his latest film, Cosmopolis. But apparently William Earl and the idiot reporters at Hollywood Lies are the only ones that are wildly speculating in this story.  After the meaningless quote Earl continues with the following two separate sentences:

“DO YOU think Rob will date this mystery girl, HollywoodLifers?

UPDATE: Savannah Miller is married, so if it WAS her, they’re obviously just friends.”

WTF.  This is journalism?  He blames the speculation on the un-named fans and then agree with them?  Any high school journalism student knows the rubric of a news story- who, what, when, where, how, and why.  But the Hollywood Lies “managing editor” can’t seem to even get past the “what” before his story starts to go awry. And when he takes on an earth shattering news story like “Who’s the blond?” he can’t even seem to get the “who” right. Not to mention the fact that the blond object of the story (Sienna Miller’s sister) not only is married, but is also married with three kids.

This article followed hot on the heals of another one by Earl the day before (October 10) that claimed that a “body language expert” had declared an opinion that Rob was not in love with the mystery blond!

But we should not be surprised by anything that comes out of this managing editor’s mouth.  Earl’s the same guy who brought us the September  story entitled Kristen Stewart: Cheating On Robert Pattinson Was Not ‘Shameful’.  In that one Earl continues:

“K-Stew reveals how being ‘less inhibited’ helped her through recent drama — check out her new interview!

Kristen Stewart shocked fans when she was caught being unfaithful to Robert Pattinson, but in a recent interview she defends her actions! Kristen, 22, says she views this type of situation differently after playing Marylou in her new movie On The Road, she tells our sister site Movieline.

“It’s opened me in a way that’s probably more appropriate to my age,” she said. “I think I’m a bit less inhibited, and not thinking too much before speaking. It’s not about being shameful, I’m just a bit more unabashedly myself because of this thing, and it probably started at age 15. I can be around people and say what I think without fear.”

Kristen also opened up about what it took to play an adventurous character like Marylou.

“To play a part like Marylou, she’s very vivid and colorful but also on the periphery. You don’t know her heart and head and the how and why she does what she does. By the time that it came to film, I didn’t want to play her simply as this character that is just a wild and sexy girl. With the research we were able to do, applying the whys and getting to know the people behind the characters makes you think about the book differently.”

Do YOU think Kristen’s affair was “shameful,” HollywoodLifers?”

Once again, the only thing shameful is Earl’s ridiculous mis-reporting.  The quotes are again from Cannes in May and concern a movie character, not Kristen.  And the interview is nothing about the recent drama and how she got through it.  With management like that at Hollywood Lies, it easy to see why they have so much trouble with the truth.

If Hollywood Lies were a real news outlet, it would have printed an obvious retraction to its earlier Dree Hemingway claim, not simply pulled it from its webpage and act like it never existed. And If Hollywood Lies were a real newspaper, that real story would have looked much more like this:

On Saturday, October 6, Robert Pattinson appeared at the Electric Room, a bar in NYC, and he enjoyed a simple night out with some friends including Tom Sturridge and Sienna Miller.  Contrary to the false reports of several Hollywood gossip tabloids that make up and sensationalize stories to sell magazines, Pattinson did not “conoodle” Miller’s sister Savannah, Actress Dree Hemingway, or any other mystery blond for that matter.  He simply tried to have a pleasant night out.”

But I wouldn’t hold my breath.  It’s probably time for some more of that collective disgust.  Here’s to you guys.

Once again if you don’t believe me on these stories, put on hip boots and wade into the excrement.  On second thought, you may need a full wetsuit.  They are at:

http://hollywoodlife.com/2012/09/11/kristen-stewart-cheating-robert-pattinson-interview/#utm_source=copypaste&utm_campaign=referral

http://hollywoodlife.com/2012/10/05/kristen-stewart-affair-ashamed-italian-magazine/

http://hollywoodlife.com/2012/10/10/robert-pattinson-mystery-blonde-woman-dating-new-girl/

http://hollywoodlife.com/2012/10/11/savannah-miller-robert-pattinson-dating/

Thought for the Day (October 11, 2012) : Meet the Faces of Some Celebrity Gossip News Fabricators: Chloe Melas and Amber Goodhand

by twilighter

Let’s focus today on two celebrity gossip news fabricators, Chloe Melas, Senior Entertainment Reporter for Hollywood Life, and Amber Goodhand, the News Editor for RadarOnline.com, who work for two of the more notorious websites of the celebrity gossip machine.  Melas was the one responsible for the July 25, 2012 web article at Hollywood Life claiming that Kristen and Rupert’s affair was more than a momentary indiscretion, relying on photos of them taken at a May 16 dinner together in Berlin.  Quoting from the Melas account:

“The sexy star admitted to an affair with Rupert — and a body language expert tells HollywoodLife.com EXCLUSIVELY that this picture speaks volumes about their romantic relationship!

Kristen Stewart‘s shocking affair with married director Rupert Sanders has angered her fans and devastated Robert Pattinson. But a newly-revealed picture from May makes it seem as though sparks had been flying between the pair far before their recently-photographed dalliances!”

She went on to quote a “body language expert” that the photograph showed that Kristen was the aggressor in their relationship.

Goodhand, continued the farce on June 26^th  in a web article at RadarOnline that indicated the following:

“Hot off the heels of Kristen Stewart’s admitted affair with director Rupert Sanders, new pictures have surfaced of the two having dinner together earlier this year and RadarOnline.com has the photos.

Rupert, who directed Kristen in Snow White and the Huntsman, dined with her on May 15 at Monsieur Vuong restaurant in Berlin, Germany, and the two seemed to be having a blast together, and couldn’t take their eyes off of each other.

After posing with his wife, Liberty Ross, on the red carpet for the May 14 London premiere of the movie, she was noticeably absent for the Germany premiere and Rupert appeared to be enjoying the attention at dinner from Kristen the next night.”

Remember this photo?  This is the one they are talking about.

It appeared in both articles and was picked by up hundreds of other celebrity gossip sites which tried to spin the same story that Kristen and Rupert had a long time affair and that it was not a momentary indiscretion.

What’s the problem with this photo and a couple others these sites used?  Take a look at the attached video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puVUg9iQKMA and compare them to the photographs.  [As an aside, note the rapid fire camera shutter sound and the simultaneous video taping occurring.  Bet you they got more than 50 pictures, and in less than 25 seconds!  Restaurant scene starts at about 0:26.]

These authors either intentionally misrepresented the encounter or couldn’t care less about whether their accounts of it were the truth of not.  They intentionally misrepresented what happened there because what was actually involved was a cast dinner that included a group of people including Charlize Theron who was sitting between Kristen and Rupert at the time that the critical photos were taken.  If anything, the video shows that Kristen’s looks in the photos were more directed to Charlize than they were to Rupert.  But the photographs were carefully cropped to exclude the rest of people there and to try to make it appear as though Kristen was looking at Rupert when she clearly wasn’t.  They were also cropped to suggest that this was an cozy intimate encounter between just the two of them instead of a dinner between a larger group of people in a bus restaurant.

Innuendo, misrepresentation, and sensationalization, the stock and trade of the celebrity gossip machine.  This photo continues to be used to this day in talking of the Kristen/Rubert “affair,  even it spite of what the videotape says otherwise.  Melas has the nerve to describe herself as a Senior Entertainment Reporter.  She obviously couldn’t report her way out of a paper bag if her life depended on it, but she can spin a bs story with the best of them.  And Goodhand fancies herself a News Editor?  Real news editors assign stories to others and take final responsibility for editing the text that they produce and insure that the story is accurate and unbiased.  If this is what the state of news editing and reporting has come to, then we are truly in for a deep load of trouble.

Why would Goodhand and Melas  misrepresent this?  Because they are WHORES for the almighty buck, just like the companies they work for. May seem like strong words, but I think a fair definition of a whore is someone who is willing do just about anything for money.  And taking a story and misrepresenting it just to sell magazines and get web hits fits that definition well.  Doesn’t feel so good when you are the object of scorn, does it ladies?

But Goodhand and Melas are not the only purveyors of garbage on the internet.  Unfortunately there are many, many more and they have the audacity of claiming they report the news.  And until we start calling them out for their nonsense, they and people like them are going to continue to pollute the internet and it will become more and more difficult to separate fact and fiction, truth and lies, and news vs. nonsense.

Maybe we should start by secretly following them around in their daily lives and photographing them, videotaping them, and seeing what we can find.  And if we find nothing, simply make something up out of whatever we get. After all they have trained us well.  Or maybe we just need to express our collective disgust at the nature of their work.  Consider me, for one, disgusted.

 

If you don’t believe me on the content of their articles, have at it.  Make sure you are wearing your knee boots before wading in.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/07/kristen-stewart-dinner-director-rupert-sanders-may-germany

http://hollywoodlife.com/2012/07/25/kristen-stewart-affair-rupert-sanders-date-romantic-relationship/#utm_source=copypaste&utm_campaign=referral

Thought for the Day (October 6, 2012) : A Look at Bauer-Griffin

By twilighter

Thought you might find this interesting because it is a classic example of how paparazzi firms lie about things in order to profit off misrepresenting the truth.

Remember Scott Bauer of Bauer-Griffin.  He ‘s the president of that paparazzi agency that got scooped on the Kristen Stewart “cheating scandal” by FameFlyNet  and US Magazine and was one of the sources of the Kristen and Rupert were engaged in a long time affair rumor.  See the Fox News account below quoting Bauer:

Bauer said he heard that US Weekly assigned FameFlyNet to follow Stewart and Sanders on a tip that the two were getting busy behind closed doors, or as it looks now, even out of doors.

“From what I heard, it was an assignment, the magazine was actually working the story,” explained Bauer. “(The story) didn’t come from the photographers, it was the other way around: it went editorial to photo, as opposed to photo to editorial.”

Of course Bauer was using an unidentified, unnamed source.

You can read the whole account at: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/07/31/kristen-stewart-cheating-photos-could-fetch-300k-but-not-from-us-weekly-expert/#ixzz28kOcyoYx . And can read about how the Rubert/Kristen long term affair is an urban myth in The Grand Punk Part 7 (Scenario 4), which appears elsewhere on this site.

Here’s another example of how this firm engages in shoddy “news” reporting, although I hesitate to call it news or reporting.  Remember this photograph?

This this is one of their photos that purports to establish that Rob was moving out of his Los Feliz estate and had kicked Kristen out as well. It was regularly used by Radaronline, TMZ, and other gossip rags to “prove” that Rob was moving out of his house and had asked Kristen to move out as well.  For an example of how the gossip rags use this tripe see the attached account in http://www.zimbio.com/Kristen+Stewart/articles/y_l5eCxBhD7/Pictures+Moving+Trucks+Robert+Pattinson+Kristen and the associated photos all credited to Bauer-Griffin.

See the Temple Hill Drive street sign (partially off the screen) to the extreme right?

Now lets go to where this Bauer Griffin photo was actually taken, roughly at 2241 N. Beachwood Drive in LA.  You can google earth it if you want but this is the location and image. Note the Temple Hill Drive sign to your right, the Hollywood sign up in the distance and the surrounding view.  This is the place of the photo.  It’s a little different since the Baeur-Griffin photo is somewhat distorted because its cropped differently and taken with a telephoto lens.  But again note the Temple Hill Drive sign again to your right. The moving truck was parked horizontally across this view. Click on the following images to get the full view.

Problem is this place is no where near Rob’s house.

And you can’t see the Hollywood sign near the street leading to Rob’s house on Aberdeen.  Here’s the view from the divided avenue (N. Vermont) leading to the street of Rob’s house. (Aberdeen).

You can’t see the Hollywood sign from there.  Ergo, the Bauer Griffin photo purporting to be taken near Rob’s house showing the moving truck is a fraud.  Its not even in the same neighborhood.  But why let the facts get in the way of a good lie?

But it doesn’t end there.

Then there is the fraudulent UHaul story.  Photo again credited to Bauer-Griffin.

And it that isn’t enough, this is the same firm that pictured the gym, Rise Movement, as where  Kristen worked out at prior to meeting Rupert [wrong, that was last year’s gym, she was working out at Gold’s Gym in Santa Monica in 2012]; and her car parked on the street waiting a pickup [wrong: not Kristen’s car since her’s has chrome panels on the top of the side view mirrors].

All unadulterated tripe.  That’s the only word for it. But that’s what the celebrity gossip machine is. So much for Bauer Griffin credibility.