New Loughner Mug Shot Released

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I think it is the same person. As for the first mug shot it was probably taken by the arresting Deputy at the local Sheriff's Office or substation. Like the Police department I work for I bet the camera is a piece of crap. When I take a mug shot of someone it is a very quick process for our records. The results usually come out mediocre at best, but good enough. I know that once the defendant is taken to the county jail a better, clearer, more professional mug shot will be taken. This is the one that usually is released to the public. However due to the seriousness of the incident the media wanted a photo of the defendant ASAP so they opted for the mediocre one. This is my theory of course.

As for the "joker" smile in the first photo I think it is Loughner thinking to himself "oh shiz, what the freak did I just do." It is likely the original photo was taken only hours after he just committed a mass murder. Of course his facial expressions are going to appear different then the second photo.

On to photo two. I am pretty sure this is the mugshot taken by the US Marshall's. This was probably taken a couple days after the first one. Perhaps the camera and lighting was better where the second photo was taken. I am almost 100% sure the two photos were not taken in the same building. Since the photo was taken sometime after the first photo I would assume it gave the defendant sometime to calm down. If you can calm down after committing a mass murder. Perhaps that is why the second photo does not appear to be as "menacing" as the first.

I highly doubt there is any conspiracy here. Of course this is my opinion and I could be wrong.




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
PS. We do make people take off their glasses when taking a mugshot.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by filosophia

Also, the Recent Photo shows darker hair, meaning the scar would have healed, not made worse. Government agents have just been debunked. (Victory Dance)
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


Whatever man, go live in fantasy land. you will be like the people telling us missiles hit the pentagon and not planes, and making actual 9/11 truthers look moronic by association.


Ah, ad hominem attacks rather than an analysis of the information, thank you for conceding.

Edit: and a topic derailment by bringing in 9/11.
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


ad hominem attack....you mean like calling someone a "government agent"? would you like to prove that statement??

Ive provided more proof than you in this thread...ive overlayed the photos, and its pretty obvious they match up. all you do is say "Nuh uh, because I i said so!"

you are the worst kind of "truther", you ignore evidence that does not support your conclusion.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 


the glasses is just one of the issues, the other issue is why was he drawn with long hair. And something else only few people are talking about is why they released the photo in the first place. If it was because the original made him look like a skinhead, not only are they tampering with public view of the case they also didn't really replace it with a better one. Bottom line is the mugshot does not link him to the crime so it is worthless (except for the fact that it proves they are tampering with the suspect since the two individuals are not the same).



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I was calling people in general government agents, I also made a victory dance and a lol icon, it's a joke, why so offended? You believe whatever you want about me, I don't care. You ignore evidence when it doesn't support your conclusion, so na! See how meaningless ad hominem attacks are?
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


Bottom line is, why is the scar more pronounced on the photo with poorer lighting? Answer me that.
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


You know what, any fool could see that the freckles are different on the photos. I'm done debating with people who just simply deny what their eyes see.
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Thanks for that superimposed pic. I just have a question...not trying to be difficult I promise. Did you have to stretch or skew the size of the head at all. To make it fit. The reason I am asking is that this may be simply what happened with the original photo.

I know of instances where I printed a photo that came out a little shorter and fatter due to the fact that I made an error in calculation print ratio.

That error in the original I could forgive, I have even seen this in uploading pics sometimes...they seem to compress in a little different way than the original if the ratio is different.

This coupled with the lighting would explain most discrepancies to me.

Or maybe my eyes are just playing tricks on me.
edit on 23-2-2011 by Wetpaint72 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-2-2011 by Wetpaint72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Varemia
 


the hair is clearly darker on the recent photo but his scar is more pronounced. Go on and believe that it's all the lighting but if the lighting is more pronounced on the original mugshot, then the features would be more pronounced, yet his scar on the upper left of the photo of his forehead is less pronounced then the recent photo with bad lighting so your lighting theory is debunked.


You've obviously never seen a bright light on an area with fuzz for hair. It practically makes the hair invisible since it turns it white/gray. I've been dealing with photography for a while now. Lighting changes EVERYTHING. The first photo was a light that brings out blemishes, like when you go into a bathroom with bright fluorescents. It makes every scar and pimple you ever had show up. Then, you go into normal light and you are suddenly looking nice. You'll notice that his skin is redder in the picture where the hair is "lighter". That's a surefire sign that the light was too bright.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 


Thankyou for the info .

"On to photo two. I am pretty sure this is the mugshot taken by the US Marshall's. This was probably taken a couple days after the first one. "

Ok which is what i thought but until they confirm this suspicion remains .

Would you agree that the newer one has make up on it ie hiding acne ,moles ? If not how do you explain the prominence of these on the older " lower quality " picture ?

I"m not buying the joker smile explanation , its my belief that someone has edited a mugshot to make this smile .
The 2nd photo - his mouth n lips are not that much lower than the 1st photo yet nowhere near a joker smile .



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


On page 3, I believe I pointed out where you can see those marks. It's the lighting that makes them visible.

Also, with another poster's comments about the scar. It's almost directly under the bright light just like his hair, so it became washed out.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



You'll notice that his skin is redder in the picture where the hair is "lighter".


I'm guessing you mean the Old photo, and if the skin is redder, if that is a word, why would his scar appear "redder" in the new photo?

The scar is different in the new photo, so either he was beat up or these are different people. Maybe he banged his head while in the jail cell, but the photos look like they were taken closely together. Either way it shows that the lighting theory does not fit.
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


I do not think he is wearing any makeup in the second photo. I do believe it is a lighting issue as stated by a previous poster.

How long of hair did they draw him with? How long has it been since he was arrested? Is it possible that his hair grew back because he hasn't received a hair cut in jail?

I shave my head almost weekly. If i let it grow for 3 to 4 weeks it would be pretty long.
edit on 23-2-2011 by TorqueyThePig because: Added text



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia




This photo was faked, you changed the blue eyes from the recent photo to brown.

Zoom in and you can see the difference.



You also placed your "Light directly on hair makes it lighter" phrase exactly on his more pronounced scar. This seems like slanted all the way, I don't trust it.
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Ok guy , as you know about photography - can you post some zoomed in pics of the mugshots ?
I haven't been able to zoom in as much on the new one .

The old one zoomed in especially below nose looks fake as # .

Id be interested to see the new one zoomed in .



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by Varemia
 


Ok guy , as you know about photography - can you post some zoomed in pics of the mugshots ?
I haven't been able to zoom in as much on the new one .

The old one zoomed in especially below nose looks fake as # .

Id be interested to see the new one zoomed in .


Just press Ctrl +



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Ok, yeah, my bad. I was trying to get a better skin tone so I could compare the images while I was tampering with them to make the details come out. Color was not my prime concern.

The scar question. AGAIN, and try to listen this time. It was washed out by the light, just like his hair. Does that make sense, or do I have to type in bigger letters?



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 

Do you think the lighting in the second photo is poor? If so I believe the scar is more pronounced in the poor lighting because the bright flash from the first photo washed it out. Just read Vermia beat me to the explanation.
edit on 23-2-2011 by TorqueyThePig because: Added text
edit on 23-2-2011 by TorqueyThePig because: Grammar



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by filosophia
 


Ok, yeah, my bad. I was trying to get a better skin tone so I could compare the images while I was tampering with them to make the details come out. Color was not my prime concern.

The scar question. AGAIN, and try to listen this time. It was washed out by the light, just like his hair. Does that make sense, or do I have to type in bigger letters?


So, you admit to changing his eyes from blue to brown in order to make a more convincing case? That's called being dishonest. And no, you can't say that light makes a scar less red.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
reply to post by filosophia
 

Do you think the lighting in the second photo is poor? If so I believe the scar is more pronounced in the poor lighting because the bright flash from the first photo washed it out. Just read Vermia beat me to the explanation.
edit on 23-2-2011 by TorqueyThePig because: Added text
edit on 23-2-2011 by TorqueyThePig because: Grammar


Oh, so now light conceals rather than illuminates? Boy, the laws of physics are certainly getting a workout today.

It's not that either one is good or poor lighting, it's that the old photo has light reflecting off his forehead, and in the recent photo it does not, meaning if there was better lighting in one of the photos, it was the old photo, which is why some people are trying to say that the poor lighting of the recent photo does not show his freckles which appear on the old photo, but then that does not explain why his scar is more pronounced on the photo with poor lighting, unless you believe that more illumination conceals rather than reveals scars which is absurd. Unless he was beat up more so in the exact same spot from one photo to another, either that or the recent photo was tampered with to make it look more like the old photo, which begs the question why even release it to begin with? The judge of all people ALLOWED the photo to be released

www.usatoday.com...

Sounds like they got a corrupt judge to head this case. Why would the judge want this photo to be released to the media?


(Judge)Burns also said that the two mug shots are "tamer" than the Pima County Sheriff's Department photo of Loughner that has been widely disseminated and would not likely affect Loughner's right to a fair trial.


The judge admits that he released the photo because they are more tamer, this is tampering with evidence and can be easily appealed if not thrown out.
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 


ok guys , I dont know about you but im looking at these pics on 42 inch lcd . This is why the lightning/contrast excuses doesnt wash with me.
I cant zoom in on the new pic as much but i can still telll that there are major discrepancies here .

Ffs the new pic looks like a young eminem , the 1st one like elma fudd
The new pic and the older one make "him " look older than 22 .

The neck and chin on the old one are immense , on the new one ? normal .

Someone find out what date the new pic is from .



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
his face is a laugher that loughner is rather a bastard a bore and sure to assure his dreams are so forced his smile is as well he's growing his hair not shaving in cell he's saving himself for satan in hell...



edit on 23-2-2011 by thisisnotaname because: grammar





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join