New Loughner Mug Shot Released

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Direct flash indoors is horrible. It can wash out colors and leave shadows behind your subject. Especially when shooting close range.




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Good to know he is still able to smile.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

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.


No, I was using a large color brush. It accidentally passed over his eyes. Like I said, my bad. I wasn't being dishonest. Also, yes I can say that about the scar. I've seen it happen with my own eyes many times with scars. It's why I like taking personal photos with the sun on me. It whites out all my blemishes.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
The real question is why did they feel the need to release a new mug shot? Here is what he know.

1. we have a photo of a suspect they call Loughner
2. We have court drawings that look nothing like loughner, and a more recent court drawing that attempts to make it more like the original mug shot
3. We now have a "duplicate" mug shot that looks like Loughner but is not the same.

The conclusion must be that they removed Loughner, replaced him at court with a man with hair and glasses, and now they have a duplicate loughner that will stand trial.

Sorry folks, everyone who wants the trial to be fair and just, they most likely already eliminated Loughner, otherwise he would perhaps be telling the world his side of the story. And for everyone who wants to "fry the maggot" well you're in luck, the secret government took care of him, of course they also killed the innocent so no justice was served.

This is a theory in progress I do not attest to its absolute authenticity and it is subject to change with new information
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
reply to post by filosophia
 


Direct flash indoors is horrible. It can wash out colors and leave shadows behind your subject. Especially when shooting close range.


there are no shadows by his scar in the original mug shot.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You "accidentally passed over his eyes" with a large color brush. Maybe this should be a lesson not to tamper with the photo and just to give your honest first impression of what you see, rather than altering it to fit your world view.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I was not saying there was a shadow in the first mug shot. You stated that it was wrong to believe that illumination could hide the scar. However direct flash especially at close range can reflect off of a persons skin. Especially their shiny forehead. Therefore the reflection of the light is blocking the color of the scar.

Focus on paragraph 6.

picturephotosoncanvas.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 


the link says it will cause bright spots on the forehead or cheeks, which is what happened, but it doesn't mention how a flash will make a scar appear less red.

what we do not know is what time these photos were taken from each other, but if they were taken close together to each other, it does not explain the loss of weight from the photos. If one was taken after the other, that would explain it, but that does not explain why the court drawing of loughner shows so much hair.
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
FYI the first mugshot is the one with the poor lighting. In photography more light does not necessarily mean better lighting. It is possible to conceal facial features with a flash. There is a difference between a flash and and natural lightning.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


If it is causing a bright spot aka washing out on or near the scar it would make the scar appear to be less red. It is washing out the color.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Varemia
 


You "accidentally passed over his eyes" with a large color brush. Maybe this should be a lesson not to tamper with the photo and just to give your honest first impression of what you see, rather than altering it to fit your world view.


I didn't realize that some people were crazy about that. I noticed that the contrast, color content, and brightness were all different, and I was trying to draw comparisons for simplicity's sake. We're not in a court of law you know. It's a forum... where we post our opinions... and try to come to conclusions based off everyone's contributions. It's not a place to make blank accusations and guilt trips because of nitpicking and absurdities.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
FYI the first mugshot is the one with the poor lighting. In photography more light does not necessarily mean better lighting. It is possible to conceal facial features with a flash. There is a difference between a flash and and natural lightning.


I didn't say either of the photos had good lighting, but the original shows more of a light on his forehead, and since the recent photo shows his freckles missing, it would lead to the conclusion that the recent photo is worse lighting than the original, but to be honest they are both bad lighting. But they are clearly different people. Just take an honest look at them side by side with each other and you'll see they are close but not similar, and then zoom in on the different anomalies (like different color eyes!). You can't just dismiss it all with lighting. If this was some photograph from Disneyworld I wouldn't put much thought into it but this Tucson shooting has all the markings of a psy-op so attention to detail is a must. If you can not see how this case reeks of a MKULTRA/false flag then you do not belong in the conspiracy business. You should instead be working for the government telling everyone that unemployment is at a steady 9.8 percent.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Do I have to take two photos of myself with different lighting to prove that they make differences? One had soft lighting, one had hard. There is no technical "bad" light.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by BrokenCircles
 


Put all of his facial features aside....now explain his ears and ear lobes.....HELLO


Bingo! Why are they different? Because JLL only exists in the virtual world.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


I respect your opinion. I however can't see how someone would think these are photos of two different people. There are to many facial features, which are like fingerprints that are the same in both photos. That is my opinion though. We will have to agree to disagree.

I will have to do more research on the MK Ultra subject.


PS You are right the lighting in both photos suck.

PSS I do work for the government. Local though.
edit on 23-2-2011 by TorqueyThePig because: Added text



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by filosophia
 


Do I have to take two photos of myself with different lighting to prove that they make differences? One had soft lighting, one had hard. There is no technical "bad" light.


Take two photos of yourself, where the lighting changes your eyes from blue to brown. Of course you shouldn't even bother to do this because you've tampered with eye coloring before so I wouldn't trust it.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
reply to post by filosophia
 


I respect your opinion. I however can't see how someone would think these are photos of two different people. There are to many facial features, which are like fingerprints that are the same in both photos. That is my opinion though. We will have to agree to disagree.

I will have to do more research on the MK Ultra subject.


PS You are right the lighting in both photos suck.

PSS I do work for the government. Local though.
edit on 23-2-2011 by TorqueyThePig because: Added text


I don't see how anyone can see one photo of a man with blue eyes and another of a man with brown eyes and say they are the same thing. Well, if they work for the government I guess. You may only work for the local government but that still influences things in my opinion. You wouldn't go around your local government job talking about MKULTRA and CIA patsies because you will get fired. So it's safe to say there is a rather large blanket of trust when it comes to the government, especially within the government, local or federal.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   


EDIT: i dont know why i cant show the whole pic, why wont it scroll?
edit on 23-2-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-2-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)

1. upload the image to above top secret media.
2. click on the photo and at the bottom you will see three options for imbedding.
3. copy the first option
4. come back to your post and click "image" from above.
5. paste the url in the popup window
Then your photo with have the scroll bar on it.


Originally posted by Doomzilla
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 .


The first released image is photoshoped. You need look no further than this image with the obviously painted in black dot with faux white dot eye shine.


To zoom in the picture just download it to your computer and use any image viewing software. Both mac and windows has some and I'm sure linux has some for free. Right click on the image and look for the download or save as option.

Keep up the good work guys and great find on the eyeball picture.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Well he looks better, less crazy.

Although, I think that first shot is going to stick around for awhile.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


YO praze , I'm gonna ask you because i know were on the same side .
Why would they release this latest photo when they know its going to lead to suspicions that the 1st one was tampered with ?

Is this just a game to them ? To see if we cotton on to the obvious flaws discrepancies and conflicting information .
OR if we just take their word for it that this is what happened .





top topics
 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join