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.
Originally posted by gwynned
Back to shorty. Maybe I'm not looking at this correctly, but why is he shorter than the car behind him which would be further away from the camera? Wouldn't he be taller than a car?
Also, there was an article posted with the release of the new 'mug shot.'
www.radaronline.com...
The newly released mug shots bear a striking resemblance to the previous mug shot, with Loughner’s shaved head and eerie smirk, although the new photos show a prominent laceration on the right side of his head.
First off, there is only one mug shot released that we have seen. Secondly, why would they mention that a mug shot supposedly of the same guy bears a 'striking resemblance? Isn't it the same guy?
Also I find it odd that the Detroit Free Press had to file for release of the photo(s) through the Freedom of Information Act. Does that really apply to mug shots?
Originally posted by gwynned
reply to post by BrokenCircles
I understand perspective, but you apparently do not. Things in the foreground appear larger than they are in relationship to things in the background. Shorty is closer to the foreground than the white car, so he should appear larger, not smaller.
I'm aware of the second shot. I'm just pointing out how odd it is to say that a photo of the same guy bears a 'striking resemblance.' You don't say this photo of Brad Pitt bears a striking resemblance to this other photo of Brad Pitt. Why say it?
Since you are forcing me to repeat myself, I am removing myself from this discussion after this reply.
Originally posted by gwynned
reply to post by BrokenCircles
I understand perspective, but you apparently do not. Things in the foreground appear larger than they are in relationship to things in the background. Shorty is closer to the foreground than the white car, so he should appear larger, not smaller.
You are ignoring the fact that, at this angle in which we are viewing, his feet are lower than the bottom of the vehicles tires.
Originally posted by BrokenCircles
You are only looking at the top of his head compared to the top of the car from the angle at which the photo was taken. Compare his actual height from his feet to his head with the height of the car from the bottom of the tire to the top, and you will see that he actually appears to be taller than the car. However the car is farther behind him so he is actually not as tall as he would appear in comparison.
Originally posted by Doomzilla
Note the drugged sign ?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6316c0e5b497.jpg[/atsimg]
Originally posted by Doomzilla
Care to help the investigation or are you just here to criticise .
Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by Doomzilla
By in large I share you skepticism in many facets of the case. By the way, I neglected to applaud you for this thread. Nice job! It takes jewels to make a case and defend your premise. Thanks for at least striving to find some common ground wth others who may not wholeheartedly agree.edit on 24-2-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by kinda kurious
Originally posted by Doomzilla
Care to help the investigation or are you just here to criticise .
I'll leave the "investigation" to the experts. IMO there is nothing to "investigate."
BTW, I did say 'Sorry' in my post. That is about as apologetic as I can get considering some of the theories you've postulated. I'm not interested in pursuing your 'source' for this nonsense.
As long a I contribute within T&C, I'll post my opinion as I please thank you. I call 'em as I see 'em.
Regards...kk
Originally posted by kinda kurious
reply to post by Doomzilla
Fair enough. Truce and I'll make you a deal. Rather than just infer things like "Drugged?" howz about you add your theory and I'll refrain from firm consternation.
Dealio?