Connecticut Elementary School Massacre

[justdrew]

the lighting and size of the photo don't make eye color clear. pupils appear very large also. so I don't think that pic really shows eyecolor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adam_ ... hooter.jpg
Media data and Non-free use rationale
Description A yearbook photograph of Adam Lanza, the shooter in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
Author or
copyright owner NBC News (cropping from the yearbook below)
Source Original publication: The Newtown High School yearbook

Immediate source: [1]
Date 2012
Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) To identify the shooter in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting with the last best known photograph (who killed himself after the shooting)
Not replaceable with
free media because (WP:NFCC#1) Reports explain that the shooter was not very social, so while there may be a chance of a free image of the shooter, it likely will not come to light very easily. Subject is also deceased.
Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) Only a single photo of shooter.
Respect for
commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) It is a widely distributed (now) of the killer; it is a cropped image of the original yearbook page (which also protects the privacy of those that may have been on it)l.
Other information Please note that due to media rush, earlier photos that claimed to be of Adam were, in fact, those of Ryan, his brother (as Adam had Ryan's ID on him when they found his body). Previous image upload attempts were using Ryan's image. This photo is pretty much identified by major press sources as Adam's yearbook picture.

[MacCruiskeen]

So Wiki claims NBC holds the copyright, and the Daily Mail says AP... impeccably reliable sources everywhere.

Does anyone feel like finding out? It can't be illegal to do so, and it must surely also be permissible to demand to know where the photo originated and who distributed it. After all, we're talking about the identification of a notorious mass-murderer, allegedly -- as opposed to a fabrication designed to mislead the world.

Should be easy, then.

[justdrew]

So Wiki claims NBC holds the copyright, and the Daily Mail says AP... impeccably reliable sources everywhere.

Does anyone feel like finding out? It can't be illegal to do so, and it must surely also be permissible to demand to know where the photo originated and who distributed it. After all, we're talking about the identification of a notorious mass-murderer, allegedly -- as opposed to a fabrication designed to mislead the world.

Should be easy, then.

just because they AUTOMATICALLY claim copyright doesn't mean they ACTUALLY own it.

all the news gathering organizations went through the yearbooks.

or shall we wait upon the sourcing of a random sampling of 5 specimens each of yearbooks covering 4 years, test the ink and paper for authenticity if possible, verify that the printed books match the printing orders placed by the high schools, and that the photos match in all sample specimens?

of all the pictures, it's the MOST RECENT. Not hard to understand why it would be run more than others.

[MacCruiskeen]

just because they AUTOMATICALLY claim copyright doesn't mean they ACTUALLY own it.

all the news gathering organizations went through the yearbooks.

or shall we wait upon the sourcing of a random sampling of 5 specimens each of yearbooks covering 4 years, test the ink and paper for authenticity if possible, verify that the printed books match the printing orders placed by the high schools, and that the photos match in all sample specimens?

Don't be silly. All I want to know is whether it did fact originate in a yearbook or elsewhere.

of all the pictures, it's the MOST RECENT.

It certainly shows an older person, whoever he is. And if you know the date it was taken, please do share that information here, because christ knows I'd be delighted not to have to think about it any more.

Not hard to understand why it would be run more than others.

No indeed. It facilitates the hatefest and keeps the $$$$$ rolling in, while none of the other photos make him look like EVIL INCARNATE. On the contrary. They make him look like someone incapable of hurting a fly, never mind arming himself to the teeth before murdering his mother, six other adults, twenty tiny children and himself.

[barracuda]

You may be right, barracuda. Or you may not. Who can tell? (And why should it be such a mystery in the first place?) And they certainly didn't have to colorize the image to sell it! They must have made millions off the monochrome version alone. (Although... Is it even legal to buy and copyright such an image?)

No, it probably isn't, which is why someone colorized it in the first place. The colorized version becomes your property. And the google date search is pretty good evidence that it was originally b&w, imho. Why do you doubt it?

Also: Who, in the 21st century, takes b&w photos at all? A handful of diehard art photographers, that's who. And that is certainly no art photograph. It looks like a mugshot, or a regrettable ID, or a snapshot taken hastily and incompetently in of those old-fashioned booths. (Do they even exist in the States these days?)

It looks like a photo from a junior college ID. It certainly has all the earmarks of a photo taken under bland instructions to look at a blinking red light near the lens. I suppose it's entirely possible that such a badge or ID was scanned by the police in b&w for inclusion in their press packages of the 17th. And for all we know it was originally color.

This is really starting to piss me off now. Where the hell did that blurred monstrosity come from, before it so handily hit the front pages of the world's press? Exactly who put it out there, and exactly where did that anonymous fucker find it, before someone* made millions off it?

Why are you ignoring the documented fact that the picture originated with the Connecticut State police? It's from a publicly distributed handout from law enforcement. What kind of evidence are you looking for here? Are you hoping to read an interview with the photographer? Or a statement on the record from a member of the police investigative team that found the photograph which details a specific provenance and chain of custody?

I don't get it. Further, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would care enough to make such a big deal about it. Something about the image conjures for you an entire summation of some corner of the conspiracy you intuit. I have no doubt that for Adam Lanza, the picture meant very little. Is there anyone on this forum who doesn't have a fairly recent picture ID with a less than flattering photograph of you? A high school yearbook shot that's laughable? If it wasn't for the crippling fact that I am incredibly photogenic I'm quite certain I'd have a few of my own. It's indescribably mundane.

It doesn't make him look like evil incarnate, at all. He looks like a harmless nerd. Jesus.

I submit that it is not the same person at all.

That's absurd. Anyone else feel that way?

You know what that is? An explosive squib. That's all it is. And it's not a valuable statement about the case, or a productive aspect of the discussion. It's a thought-stopper, period, and not even a particularly interesting one at that. For someone griping about evidence, you seem to have no compunctions about throwing out a notion that's self-evidently bizarre in format and character. Non sequitur.

This is a local news story, not the crime of the century. I blame the media for the gist of the blow up, but you've sure done your part.

All I want to know is whether it did fact originate in a yearbook or elsewhere.

Why? What will that tell you about the case?

[MacCruiskeen]

Why are you ignoring the documented fact that the picture originated with the Connecticut State police?

Documented? Where? You mean on Wiki? Is Wiki always reliable? Do tell.

If you know of any other documentation, don't stint.

I am not asking for the moon. I am asking where that photo originated. It is a perfectly reasonable request. So stop fudging.

It's from a publicly distributed handout from law enforcement.

Link?

And spare me your WTC squibs. They're yours, not mine, and they're entirely irrelevant here. If you want to have a go at "conspiracy theorists" in general, do it elsewhere. Here it's just fluff.

[barracuda]

Documented? Where? You mean on Wiki? Is Wiki always reliable? Do tell.

If you know of any other documentation, don't stint.

I'm talking about the AP provenance I linked to on page 46.

• UNDATED FILE PHOTO - BEST QUALITY AVAILABLE. UNDATED PHOTO CIRCULATED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROVIDED BY NBC NEWS. AP PROVIDES ACCESS TO THIS PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED HANDOUT PHOTO CIRCULATED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT

And spare me your WTC squibs. They're yours, not mine, and they're entirely irrelevant here. If you want to have a go at "conspiracy theorists" in general, do it elsewhere. Here it's just fluff.

Really? And this is coming from a man who's analyzing the eye pixels in a .jpg file for evidence of conspiracy. Umkay.

[MacCruiskeen]

^^Thank you, sincerely. And I apologies for having missed it amongst all the jolly japes and superfluous squibs and dancing frogs, etc.

UNDATED FILE PHOTO - BEST QUALITY AVAILABLE. UNDATED PHOTO CIRCULATED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROVIDED BY NBC NEWS. AP PROVIDES ACCESS TO THIS PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED HANDOUT PHOTO CIRCULATED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT

So it's "UNDATED". It's also unsourced, to a school yearbook or to anything else.

All I want to know is whether it did fact originate in a yearbook or elsewhere.

Why? What will that tell you about the case?

It will tell me that the photo originated in a yearbook, or else elsewhere. HTH. If it originated in a yearbook then it is in fact verifiably a photo of Adam Lanza. That would be well worth knowing, because practically fuck-all about this grotesque case is verifiable or makes any sense at all.

And since what you rightly call "a local news story" has been shoved in my face in three languages and BIG SCARY PHOTOS thousands of miles away from Newtown (every bit as persistently and obnoxiously as the ridiculous US "election"), do please kindly stop insinuating that there is something weird about me asking for open documentation and trustworthy sources in support of the most basic facts. It's kind of traditional in intact democracies, it's under heavy attack here too, and so the steady progress of Spectacular Fascism in the USA is of more than academic interest to me and to millions of others here in the home of Oldskool Fascism itself.

[justdrew]

google it mac. I'm satisfied its what is claimed, if you want to prosecute some higher evidential standard, go for it yourself. Of course it is sourced from the god damn yearbook, what possible reason is there to doubt that? what the fuck do you want, someone to mail you a copy of the damn thing?

[MacCruiskeen]

Emphasis added:

google it mac. I'm satisfied its what is claimed, if you want to prosecute some higher evidential standard, go for it yourself. Of course it is sourced from the god damn yearbook, what possible reason is there to doubt that? what the fuck do you want, someone to mail you a copy of the damn thing?

I want what even the quaintest of Old Europeans expect these days, when we're talking about a spectactular mass murder rather than Lady Gaga's latest wardrobe mishap: a link on teh Internet to a reliable, verifiable source.

Sacre fucking bleu...

[justdrew]

google it mac. I'm satisfied its what is claimed, if you want to prosecute some higher evidential standard, go for it yourself. Of course it is sourced from the god damn yearbook, what possible reason is there to doubt that? what the fuck do you want, someone to mail you a copy of the damn thing?[/quote]


I want what even the quaintest of Old Europeans expect these days, when we're talking about a spectactular mass murder rather than Lady Gaga's latest wardrobe mishap: a link on teh Interent to a reliable, verifiable source.

Sacre fucking bleu...

what would that be?

I don't even understand what you're looking for. You already have what you're asking for, several times over. We do not have a central MINISTRY OF TRUTH in which all real things are certified. It might be nice, but this is as vouched for as ANYTHING else ever has been.

[MacCruiskeen]

Go ahead and test me. I'll let you know if your response meets my ineffably exacting standards, mein Herr.

[compared2what?]

Not that it's definitive, but fwiw, my belief that the picture in question was a yearbook photo originated when I first laid eyes on it, in much the same way that my belief that a particular tree was a tree would have done if that had been what I had happened to be looking at.

I pretty much figured that Mac's questions about it arose from his having been blessed enough to avoid the fully immersive cultural experience that comes with being born and raised in the U.S. of A., therefore. But since it had already been addressed by the time I saw it, I also figured it was a moot point.

Anyway. Am I the only person in America who recognizes a yearbook photo when she sees one? Because I really don't mind if I am. I'd be happy to discover I was that gifted, in fact. It's just that I never realized..

[barracuda]

I'd agree with you 100%, but he was pulled out of high school after sophomore year. Therein is the seed of my distrust in the yearbook idea.

[compared2what?]

I mean, just to be clear: There's no guarantee at all that every entity I've ever classified as a tree actually was one. Of course. And same for yearbook photos. I'm not claiming otherwise.