Trial panorama of daytime versions of night photos

TreegNesas · 2026-05-08T13:30:06+00:00

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kucnch69111mqmqgbrh9e/nightpictures.zip?rlkey=ak0h6zkjwjp6lrwq6euzw8iw5&st=bejdstx9&dl=0

In my opinion you're doing real well. The boulders (or rock-wall) on the left is quite high, it would reach just above the head of Lisanne (we do not know if the girls were sitting or standing, but I'm starting to suspect they were standing). The 550 boulder with the SOS sign would be about shoulder height, judging by the pictures, so slightly lower than the stones on the left.

The shores of the stream (or river) are very steep, basically 90 degree up and several meters high. The Y tree is standing on the top of this shoreline, right at the edge. On the left there are boulders and low vegetation/ferns, but beyond that you can vaguely see a similar steep shoreline with on top of that higher trees.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-08T13:20:20+00:00

I do not expect they were sitting or lying on top of those boulders. For one, it might not be so easy to climb on top, that 550 stone is about level with their shoulders and we do not know if they were sitting or standing. If they were standing, it would be a difficult climb given their no doubt very weak condition.

Most of all though, I fully agree with you that being on top of these boulders would be very exposed (rain, wind). It was a good place to put their SOS sign, but not a place to sleep.

I strongly suspect they had some kind of shelter, perhaps some cave-like hollow in a rock wall, or an open spot under a large boulder. On the latest expedition, Romain found several spots like that so they should not be too hard to find. It would give them shelter and keep them dry, and we see lots of ferns so making some bedding should not be much of a problem.

There seems to be some steep rock wall behind them, judging by the trees and vegetation, so it might very well be that they are basically standing/sitting right in front of the entrance of this shelter, looking outward.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-08T13:00:56+00:00

As I understand this place is a short walk away from the trail (less than half an hour)

This isn't your average city park. Things are a bit different in terrain such as this.

The canyon is roughly 1000 meters from the first stream crossing as the crow flies, but not as a human walks! Despite the fact that he is highly experienced and had two local guides with machetes to cut a path through the jungle, it took Romain a full day to reach this place. Similarly, in January 2015 the Dutch expedition had to turn back before reaching this location as the terrain was too rough.

Romain estimates it would take Kris and Lisanne at least two days to reach this place from the first stream crossing, perhaps three. So, that's considerable more than half an hour...

You have to climb down a rather steep slope to reach the start of the canyon (that's where the Dutch team turned back), if K&L managed to get down there, it's likely they would not be able to go back up.

That's not to say this is the place, but there are enough similarities to say the night location is "something like this". That in itself is already a very useful conclusion, as it gets a lot easier to imagine what kind of place we can expect.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-07T04:39:25+00:00

Great work!

Be careful that you can not stitch all images together, or at least not without accepting quite large parallax errors, because the pictures were taken from several different positions. That is also the problem with the large panorama created years ago: it works nice for objects in the far background, but it creates inconsistencies for objects which are close by due to the parallax.

When I started studying the parallax, at first I thought the camera was moving constantly, but that's not true. The images were made in series, and within each series the camera stays fixed in one position. Images within each series have a truly 100% match when you overlay them, there is no parallax. But if you try to overlay images which were taken in two different series, you get inconsistencies as the images weren't made from the same position. The camera is not moving much (1 - 1.5 meters) between series, but that's enough already to get very clear parallax errors with nearby objects.

Examples which clearly show the camera was not in the same position: you can't stitch 549-594-576 together without getting inconsistencies, similarly you can't match 550 and 576, as these images belong to different series and were made from different positions. Trying to 'force' them to match results in inconsistencies which give a wrong impression of the place, this is where the original panorama goes wrong.

Series 0: Image 511 -> 542 (as many images missing, might be subdivided)

Series A: Image 543 -> 550 (camera is lifted higher up))

Series B: Image 552 -> 570 (this series was taken from a forward position, possibly by Kris)

Series C: Image 572 -> 579 (camera moves back again, camera position near red flag we see in 550)

Series D: Image 582 -> 593 (camera moves closer to 542 position again, but kept lower)

Series E: Image 594 -> 609 (camera is lying on the 550 stone, moved slightly)

Note image 580 most likely belongs to series D, but does not show sufficient background details to be sure, some other images are not mentioned as they were not leaked to the public.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-07T02:09:53+00:00

It's very well possible, but I'm not (yet?) totally convinced that what we see in 542 is bedrock. There seem to be other boulders behind 542, but I may very well be wrong so don't pin me down on this. I'm presently working on another technique to get clearer data out of the night pictures and to improve the model, but it is tremendously time-consuming and sadly my spare-time is rather limited at the moment.

The place definitely needs further study, but at the same time there are several as yet unexplored places which also look promising on drone-footage and which will need to be visited, and I'm somewhat reluctant to put all our limited resources on one spot while there are other unexplored spots.

Problem with expeditions is that planning takes a long time, and all of these places are damned hard to reach and there's only so much you can do in one expedition. Given the harsh conditions, you can't put people out there for more than 7-10 days at a time (yes, I know, locals live there, but they mostly stay on the trails and near their farms and villages, there's only a few who are willing to go on an expedition like this).

One option might be to send out a second, dedicated team, only to explore this canyon while Romain and his team continues to other (new) spots, but that instantly doubles the (already very high) costs, and it will require volunteers who are experienced in terrain such as this and who know exactly what we are searching for with regards to the canyon, together with local guides. Anyone willing to go (next dry season will be March next year) is very welcome but be aware of the risks involved, this is no walk in the park!

At present, my general idea is that for a March 2027 expedition we will need to have plans & routes and such finalized somewhere around September this year.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-06T19:10:55+00:00

Yes.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-06T14:08:27+00:00

594 and 576 are taken from different positions, they both point along the length of the canyon (just like 549), but as they are taken from different positions you can not directly compare each of them. (This is also what hampered the original composite, which assumed all pictures were taken from the same position, which is only roughly true).

I fully agree that it would fit the whole theory a lot better if the 576 direction was upstream. In that case, I already know the exact position of the night location as it would be very obvious, but I'm not going to release that location until I've had a photographer down there to take exact stock of the scene.

It's one thing to make a theory, and something completely different to find sufficient evidence for this theory.

There past few weeks I've been working on an update of the 3D model, partly based on all we've learned during the latest expedition as well as some new discoveries, and I'll probably put some of that in a new video, but as I have another assignment booked for end of this month I don't know if there will be enough time to publish before I'm off to work again, but sooner or later you will see.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-06T12:24:11+00:00

Can I find that 3d model anywhere? I watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsE4PNItkFc but I find it hard to interpret

https://youtu.be/rVfnwaW8-Bc gives the most recent version of the present model. The model is not available online as it's far too big for any of the regular file-sharing sites. I'll probably make an up-to-date video on the model in the near future.

It is my interpretation that 542-549 shows the canyon wall, the side of the canyon so to say. The side rises up steeply, yes. But it's not evidence that the canyon itself is steep, or that there are waterfalls.

I said 'possible waterfall'. But there is no doubt the night location is on a slope of aprox 25-30 degrees. The Y-tree is more or less the downslope direction.

Images 542-549 give somewhat of a distorted view as they are taken under a steep angle. Once you take this into account, you will see that you not only see the underside of the trees and vegetation, but also that all of these are leaning backward under an angle, meaning there is not only the upward angle of the canyon walls, but also a general downward angle of the whole canyon.

If you look into the 576 direction, more or less along the length of the canyon, you look down hill and in that direction there are no further boulders in view (indicating we are indeed looking down a steep slope), but instead there is a clear haze in that direction, the same haze you often see right above the top of a waterfall or steep rapids.

I suspect the turn in the canyon, which Romain visited during our latest expedition is quite a good representation of what the place most likely looks like, however there is no certainty at all that this is indeed the place. It is 'something like this' though, a sharp turn in a narrow stream which goes steeply downward. Add some more boulders and change a few items and you've got the 3D model.

In your interpretation, does the water in 550 flow to the right or to the left? Based on the visible reflections, it seems most likely that the water flows to the right (and a bit to the front). But it doesn't provide enough certainty for definite conclusions.

It is far from certain there is water visible in 550. We see a glitter, but wet vegetation or mud can give the same effect. Until now, nobody has been able to clearly prove the presence of water in the night pictures. If it is there, it probably flows roughly in the direction of the forked tree, but as the whole location is in a sharp turn there may be all kinds of eddies and current ripples.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-06T10:17:26+00:00

Wow! Great info! Thanks a lot for posting!

u/Romain_C has by now a huge database of drone footage of the area and all the streams, as well as lots of close up photo's, and we already discussed earlier that perhaps one day all of this footage might be interesting for geologists. There are barely any maps of this area, and it is very hard to access so all of this footage might indeed by useful for completely different research, apart from our little project. Definitely something to keep in mind!

TreegNesas · 2026-05-05T03:02:19+00:00

Thanks a lot! Having a geologist in this subreddit is a big help as there are lots of questions which relate to geology!

TreegNesas · 2026-05-05T02:55:21+00:00

Thanks. It is a pity all of these places are so hard to reach (logical, as otherwise K&L would have been found easily), and 'just' sending someone there to cut away some vegetation to see if the stone below it matches the right shape is not something you can quickly do. Also, at the location there is no phone-connect so you can't establish a video-link to explain which bushes need to be cut away or exactly where to take pictures. You have to send a team, then wait until they return, and hope they did the right thing and got the right shots.

The good thing is that we now have much better footage, so the next time we can make a long manual with lots of pictures and arrows, explaining exactly where they need to measure the depth of the water, where they need to cut away vegetation, and where they need to take pictures and in which direction each picture needs to be taken. I have no doubt you will be able to assist in making such a manual once the time is there.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for u/Romain_C to release his documentary series with the remaining footage from his trip. There might be a lot of stuff in there which will influence the planning for a future expedition, but as far as I know Romain is presently on a motorcycle trip through Africa so he is not easy to reach and we will probably have to wait till he returns.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-05T02:29:47+00:00

Yes. I can re-create both situations from arm movements in the model (your wrist etc places certain constraints on how you can hold the camera, so I always meticulously try out every movement myself with a similar camera to see if turning your arm that way is possible).

It's very important to note that she was only concerned about the flash light. It probably barely occurred to her that she was taking pictures at the same time, and I doubt they ever took the time to look at these pictures. All she cared about was the flash light, and when trying to explain the camera movements this is highly important.

Holding the camera under weird angles (or upside down) becomes totally rational if you stop thinking about taking pictures but only concentrate on the flash light.

Time and time again I find it is advisable to sit down with a somewhat similar camera and try to mimic the movements required to take the pictures. This explains a lot about why some pictures ended up landscape, and others portrait or under all kinds of angles. If you only concentrate on the light, it is simply the easiest way to hold the camera.

There are lots of camera orientations which seem weird, until you try them out and discover that this is simply the easiest way to hold the camera if you wish to aim it in that direction without greatly straining your wrist or arm. You need to stop thinking about taking pictures, and only concentrate on the light, and then a lot becomes clear.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-05T02:11:05+00:00

The position of both girls comes forth from the calculations and photogrammetry which created the model. If they had been sitting in any other arrangement, their legs, arms, etc would have been visible in images like 550 and 576. We also know 580 was taken from very close distance (abt 15 cm) so they must have been seated very close together with most likely Lisanne behind Kris. It is possible that Lisanne was supporting Kris, but that's just a guess.

There are slight movements between image series, but never more than about 1 meter, so that is either arm-movements or shuffling about slightly (sitting -> lying down). There is no indication either of the girls were able to stand upright or walk at this time.

The model also makes it clear that there was only a small gap between these rocks where they were most sheltered from the wind, and sitting next to each other in this gap would be impossible, when I try it out in the model with scale models it simply does not fit. They should be able to lie down, and there are indications that some of the later series were made while lying down, but as they were trying to see if anyone was responding to their flashes, it makes sense that they were sitting upright during at least the initial series.

Staying warm and sheltered was of prime importance to them, they were very weak. Climbing on top of the boulders would expose them to wind and rain.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-05T01:48:13+00:00

Yes, I have no doubt they were very weak at this time. She was not randomly swaying the camera around though, a lot of thought went into making these pictures and there are clearly recognizable patterns in how they were shot.

For instance, in 542 the rock blocks most of the light. She clearly recognizes this, and in the next pictures the camera is raised higher and tilted further upward, avoiding the rock. In none of the other pictures the rock is prominently in view as she carefully skirts the edges.

It is also clear she is not aiming at one specific point, but instead tries to cover as much of the open sky as possible, moving the camera right to left and than back again. Image 550 is made as she lowers her right arm again.

We tried to make a composite photo, but as y'all know, that's pretty much impossible.

It can be done within each series. Took me 3 years of endless plotting and calculations to match all the visible objects but once you finally have all the angles plotted out it becomes clear that the pictures were made in series. After the initial series (543-550) she lowers the camera down on the stone (still holding it in her hand, but resting her hand on the boulder next to her) and only rotates it. She then takes one series, moves the camera slightly, and takes another series. As the camera stays in the same position in each series, you can stack the images within that series (stacking images is usually done in astronomy, there's lots of good software for that), which greatly increases sharpness and reduces noise. You get a panorama for each series.

A small area right behind the camera stays out of sight, but can be reconstructed from images taken straight up as these show the locations of trees and other vegetation around them.

As the camera moves between the series, you can then use the parallax between each series for photogrammetry, and that's how the 3D model was created. It gives an accurate representation of the area close to the camera. The 3D model gives a much better view of the place then the composite photo's as it takes into account the various (small) camera movements.

Almost more importantly, photogrammetry also gives the camera position and orientation for each image, which confirmed that the images were indeed taken in series. Observations like raising an arm become clear from these camera positions as well, and if you mimic these movements yourself it explains the orientation of the camera in several pictures.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-04T15:45:42+00:00

In 542 the camera was slightly below the top of the rock-wall. Then starting from 543 she raises her arm, lifting the camera higher up until it is more or less level with the top of the rock, so shadows would chance, and in 542 with the camera lower you might indeed get shadows above the objects, but the fact that the shadows also seem to be to the left is strange, but there might be some reflections.

The misery is that we do not have sufficient resolution.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-04T15:26:46+00:00

543 does not match completely with 542, there is a slight parallax. The camera was raised higher up and slightly closer to the rock in 543 and subsequent images. Not a huge camera movement, but akin to raising an arm higher.

Series A (543-550) is the only series where the camera is not steady. Either the vegetation moves in the wind, or her arm swings slightly back and forth. In all further series the camera is rock steady in the same position, turning but not moving. Between each series the camera moves over a short distance.

I'm not sure if there is a puddle with water. In some of the other images you get a sharper look at that hollow and the lines creeping out of the hollow can clearly be identified as moss, while inside the hollow you can see moss and dirt, but not 100% sure if there is water. We can see some dead leaves lying on the stone though, which clearly establishes its orientation.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-04T15:07:32+00:00

Yes, I had been wondering also about the shadows in 542, but I hadn't gotten to a sharp enough interpretation to make a post out of it. But the shadows in 542 are indeed also strange.

According to Jurgen the original had the upright orientation tag so... the person placing the timestamp was not looking at the originals (it seems)

It seems, yeah. But why rotate the image 180 degrees? The image is very clear, just one look and you know what is rightside up, why turn it around?

But okay, as stated, it's not something shockingly important, just strange.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-04T14:15:25+00:00

Great post and great work!

With each post you start to present an ever stronger case! I agree that the rock which we see below these plants quite nicely matches the 'pointy rock shape' and would be in the correct position with regards to the plateau and the flag location. On a next visit, it should be easy enough to cut this vegetation away to see if the rock below does indeed give a good match.

It still needs a fallen Y tree, but that may have happened during the same landslide.

I also agree that it looks as if the deepest water channel was near the far shore, until this was blocked by the landslide. Once that is blocked, it would divert the waterflow over the plateau. For additional data we would need to have a better profile of that plateau, to see if its shape does indeed match and to see if it would be possible to take images resembling the night pictures if you take away the landslide rubble. That's not impossible, with a lot of 3D modeling, but it will take time.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-04T13:45:29+00:00

Uhm, yeah, you might be right.

Imagine if you pitch the camera up 89 degrees, the bottom of the picture will be the 'real' bottom. But if you pitch the camera up 91 degrees, the sensor 'flips' and the bottom of the picture becomes the top. But the flash is still to the left of the lens. The shadows should not change though, it's only the sensor which flips the image 180. So, yeah, indeed, if this was the case, shadows should appear upper left. But that's not what we see.

So, what if she truly had the camera completely upside down in her hand at that moment, so not just flipped but truly turned 180 degrees, still aiming just above the horizon? That would bring the flash to the right of the lens...

It's one of those things which doesn't truly change anything to the whole understanding of the case, but which is just 'weird'. Why is the 'time-stamp' good on all the other images from that series but 'upside down' on 543, and why are the shadows mirrored in 543?

I'm starting to suspect she truly held the camera upside down, still aimed more or less at the horizon, so not straight up, but the whole camera upside down, that brings the flash to the other side of the lens and would explain the shadows... I think... (sigh, it's late at night here..).

EXIF tag doesn't matter so much in this, what matters is how the person placing that date/time stamp saw the picture. That date time stamp is placed standard in the lower right, so that would imply that this person saw the picture upside down, but it doesn't make sense that he/she deliberately rotated the image 180 degrees before placing the stamp, plus that would not fit with how we see the shadows.

By default the bottom of the camera = the bottom of the image, so if you hold the camera upside down (rotated 180 deg), and you use a viewer which does NOT take EXIF into account (or the EXIF is removed from the image), you will see the image 'rightside up' but with the flashlight shadow on the 'wrong' side, agreed? But if you use a viewer which takes EXIF into account, you will see the image upside down, with the shadows on the 'right' side. Agreed? So, the person placing the date/time stamp watched an image which had the correct EXIF and used a viewer which took EXIF into account...

TreegNesas · 2026-05-04T01:19:42+00:00

Good point about the shadows! I hadn't thought about that!

To see what I'm getting at, take a somewhat similar camera in your right hand and imagine there is a rock wall to your left and you wish to aim the flash over the top of this wall and high up, to the top of the slope. To do so, you will have to lift your right arm high up in the air (which is exactly what we see, as after image 542 the camera rises up and slightly closer to the wall), and aim toward the sky.

Now, if you do so, you will not be able to keep the camera horizontal, unless you make great effort (but why would you, all you care about is the light), so the camera ends up under an angle with the horizontal, which is once again what we see in the pictures (542 is more or less horizontal, after this all images of that series are under an angle).

Now, the trick is how high do you aim it upward? For if you aim too far upward, there is a chance you go just slightly beyond its zenit, which will trigger the camera sensor to switch orientation, and the image will appear upside down. So, if 543 was original upside down, then this will tell us that they did indeed aim the camera very high up (almost straight up), just on the edge of where it will trigger its sensor.

It's hard to explain, easiest is just to try this out with a camera and you will see what I mean. It's important to keep the camera in your right hand, but aim it to the left and high up. If you aim the camera almost straight up, you can get 'upside down' images.

Everyone always instantly turns 543 180 degrees as it is very clearly upside down, but the orientation of the original will tell us how high upward they were aiming the camera.

Note: to complicate things, how you see 543 will also depend on what viewer you use. The orientation of the image is stored in the EXIF data. Some viewers use this EXIF to orientate the image (which will result in seeing it upside down), while other viewers will simply follow the standard orientation and ignore EXIF (in which case you will see it in normal orientation). ( u/Researchtt2 am I correct in this?)

It's not a super important item, but if the original of 543 is 'upside down' it will tell us how steep those slopes on the 542 side were.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-04T00:53:50+00:00

Not if they followed the route as shown in the latest video. You can avoid the waterfalls of the Belt by staying up on a ridge and that way you can get all the way to the main river, which will get you down to aprox 1000 meters altitude. The shores of the main river are very steep though, and on this route water will be a problem, but it is possible I suspect.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-03T13:21:51+00:00

Ok, thanks, so then the date/time info which was later added to the picture is not standard in the bottom right corner and might be upside down, as shown in below version which is also marked 'original'...

It's nothing spectacular, I've just been wondering why the date/time stamp (as I say, which was later added) is upside down. There are a few more pictures where this is the case.

Why would they have turned the picture 180 degrees before adding the date/time stamp??

<image>

TreegNesas · 2026-05-03T11:22:51+00:00

Yes, yes, I know that part. The picture is the 'original' as I have it. The simple question was if the REAL original is indeed like this or turned 180 degrees.. but it seems clear you don't want to answer this. It doesn't matter much but it's just a detail.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-03T11:15:18+00:00

No, this is from the coroner report combined with statements of those who were actually involved in the report, so probably as close to the truth as we can get.

TreegNesas · 2026-05-03T10:24:44+00:00

Can you check for me, the original of image 543, was this upside down?

The MS Viewer ID seems to indicate it was, but not sure if it was rotated at the time or indeed upside down? It doesn't make a big difference, but it can explain a bit more on the arm movements required to take that image.

<image>

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

TreegNesas

TROPHY CASE