It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Loughner Mug Shot Released

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
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 .


the official reason, (stated by the judge) is that the second photo was released because it is "tamer" than the first. That seems like tampering with evidence to me, trying to change the way the public perceives Loughner. What's funny is that the second photo basically has the same expression (unless you look at it closer and see they are different people).




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Yo ,
according to this unless im mistaken , both mugshots were from the same day ? 11 th jan ?

edition.cnn.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by filosophia
 


Yo ,
according to this unless im mistaken , both mugshots were from the same day ? 11 th jan ?

edition.cnn.com...


Nice find!


The U.S. Marshals Service took the photographs when Loughner first appeared before a federal magistrate in Phoenix, three days after the shooting


People said that the recent photo shows a skinnier Loughner but that's okay since they assumed it was taken recently since it was released recently. I guess now they'll have to talk about how the camera flash puts on some pounds.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Looks errily like a cancer patient wit nothing to loose,temporary insanity,but why?Who got on his goat.What mae him !Someone with a terminal illness would`nt care,so theres something to think on.Somethings are never revealed to protect national interests,or hide something.Really he looks iLL.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by crimsonninja
 


They look identical to me!





posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by gringoboy
Looks errily like a cancer patient wit nothing to loose,temporary insanity,but why?Who got on his goat.What mae him !Someone with a terminal illness would`nt care,so theres something to think on.Somethings are never revealed to protect national interests,or hide something.Really he looks iLL.


judging by his eyes I'd say he was on some type of powerful psychedelic like '___' or a anti-depressant. (I'm talking about the original photo).
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
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 .


I believe it is a game - albeit a serious one. The entire story is ridiculous and there does appear to be a deliberate attempt to lead some people to question the official story and to demonstrate that people will believe anything that's on TV.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Exactly ,
I said last night that if I found that both mugshots were from the same day I 'd know "something" was up _

I dont claim to know exactly what happened but I am sure as hell not going to believe anything Without proof .



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by filosophia
 


Exactly ,
I said last night that if I found that both mugshots were from the same day I 'd know "something" was up _

I dont claim to know exactly what happened but I am sure as hell not going to believe anything Without proof .


The "smoking gun" is the surveillance video which they won't show during trial and probably won't show it after trial, and if so they will edit it down. That will prove that Loughner either did it, the feds lied, or the tape was (most likely) altered to conceal the fact that the feds lied.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The pictures look the same to me...I have to agree with some of the early posters in that the only difference is the lighting and slight different angle. Take two pictures of yourself...one in very harsh bright lighting and another is soft (perhaps lamp) lighting...you'll see how much different you'll look.

Michelle



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla


I dont claim to know exactly what happened but I am sure as hell not going to believe anything Without proof .


What we know right now is the political establishment is using the Loughner case as a way of getting people to go along with gun control

azstarnet.com...

So we can say that at best they are using this specific incident to remove rights and freedoms from everyone, and at worst this is a false flag to put the blame on conspiracy theorists, sovereign citizens, and gun owners.

The man who tackled Loughner had a gun but didn't use it, that is an example of a person having a gun for protection but using restraint when using it. If he didn't have a gun, maybe he wouldn't have been so brave to tackle Loughner who did have guns. Conspiracy or not, people should be able to see through the stupidity of saying that gun laws would prevent these incidents from happening.
edit on 23-2-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by filosophia
 


Exactly ,
I said last night that if I found that both mugshots were from the same day I 'd know "something" was up _

I dont claim to know exactly what happened but I am sure as hell not going to believe anything Without proof .


I don't think we can know for certain when these shots were taken or, shall we say, photoshopped. They could have been created weeks before the actual event, just ready to roll out when the time came, for what I believe is some kind of real time virtual reality show.

And I disagree that the first photo looked like Elmer Fudd. I think it's more like a cross between Uncle Fester from the Adam's Family and The Joker.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by gwynned
 


Well if we can trust the mainstream media (which we can't) they were the mugshots taken shortly after the shooting happened. The media says what the government tells them, so all we have to decide is if we can trust the government, which usually we can't.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by gwynned
 


YES brother and THAT is what scares me .

Like their testing us to see if they can get away with it .
Just remember if he gets sentenced Without proof that we can verify and study . It means they can do it again , and next time it could be me and you .

What proof do we have right now nothing .


DO YOU GUYS REMEMBER the story that Jared went to the FEDS to complain that someone was using his id and pretending to be him online ?? The feds did nothing .

WHAT if he has been framed ?

What if he was never there ?

What if the internet "evidence " was just planted there to back up the theory that hes a "crazy deranged political assassin ?



edit on 23-2-2011 by Doomzilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 

Yeah i agree,its like his brain has been fryed with something,definetly iLL,that does`nt excuse what happened but really weird.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Check this bro .
www.kgun9.com...

About the id theft I mentioned .

"on Oct. 2, 2008, Loughner told sheriff's deputies someone stole his identity and posted a picture of him when he was 16 on a MySpace page.
The deputy noted that Loughner was slow in answering his questions. "He often hesitated as if he was trying to think of an explanation," the deputy wrote in his report.When deputies tried to contact Laugher after this report was taken, no one answered and there was no voicemail set up
. A man Loughner called "Alex," whom he suspected of stealing his identity, could not be located by authorities.Loughner said he reported the incident because he was trying to get a job and didn't want prospective employers seeing "someone using his identity on their profile."



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 



Same guy, different lighting and a closer shot is all.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doomzilla
reply to post by filosophia
 


Check this bro .
www.kgun9.com...

About the id theft I mentioned .

"on Oct. 2, 2008, Loughner told sheriff's deputies someone stole his identity and posted a picture of him when he was 16 on a MySpace page.
The deputy noted that Loughner was slow in answering his questions. "He often hesitated as if he was trying to think of an explanation," the deputy wrote in his report.When deputies tried to contact Laugher after this report was taken, no one answered and there was no voicemail set up
. A man Loughner called "Alex," whom he suspected of stealing his identity, could not be located by authorities.Loughner said he reported the incident because he was trying to get a job and didn't want prospective employers seeing "someone using his identity on their profile."


Nice find, I'm going to post this on my other thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


You may get a kick out of this (from your source)


Loughner walked inside the Safeway to change a $20 bill to pay the cab driver. Then he walked over to Giffords and shot her in the head.


Why would he not just give the cab driver 20 dollars? Exact change seems to be a strange thing to worry about right before he shoot someone. And does this mean he went into the store, got change, gave it to the cab driver, and then shot Giffords? How it is written, yes, he paid the cab driver in between going into the store and shooting Giffords (in the parking lot)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I can (as can anyone else that has been taught to memorize faces) tell you that those 2 photos are 100% the same person. EVEYTHING ISN'T A CONSPIRACY.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join