rigorousintuition.ca

LilyPatToo wrote:I hesitate to step into this thread, but dilated pupils can make a blue-eyed person's eyes look dark, especially in a black and white photo. And a number of drugs have that effect, as does the nasty stuff that eye doctors use before exams. I used to have an especially horrid ID photo that made me look as though I had very dark eyes, when in fact they're a light-to-medium blue gray. Just sayin'...

LilyPat

True that. But honestly, the number of ways in which an institutional/ID-type portrait can be unflattering or misleading are almost infinite, as are the number of ways that a photograph that's been non-digitally reproduced. And while it can't be proven that that's what we're discussing here, neither can the reverse. Broadly speaking, imo, the former is both the more logical and more likely assumption, though.

Speaking of proof. It seems to me that the entire avenue of inquiry has been destined to be a blind alley from the very outset. Because although the objective has shifted somewhat, the whole quasi-forensic exercise rests on an unexamined premise that's highly questionable at best and false at worst, to wit:

That it's objectively fair, reasonable and accurate to describe that picture as

Mac wrote:That Scary Photo

And on a thing-in-itself basis, I don't think that's so plainly what it is as to require no further justification or explanation. On the contrary. I think the odds that anyone in the focus group of one hundred demographically representative people to whom the psy-oppery department of a major media outlet distributed that photograph along with instructions to write down the first twenty adjectives they'd use to describe the person in it putting "scary" anywhere in the top ten are vanishingly slight. (For me: "Thin, young, frightened, vulnerable, shy, surprised, white, male, uncomfortable, sad."***

After that and "sensitive," I'd probably have to get more looks-ist than really comes naturally to me. But I'm sure there are just as many people who'd do it the other way around. And it still wouldn't get to "scary" under those criteria anyway. Or under any criteria that fell much short of: "This is a photograph of a killer. Please list the first twenty adjectives that you'd use to describe him." So moot point, for thing-in-itself psy-oppery-based photo-selection purposes.

As to this:

Mac wrote:THE BLURRED, BLACK-AND-WHITE FACE OF PURE, UTTER EVIL

If I were a morally judgmental bully bent on browbeating others into compliance with my agenda by any means necessary, I might call that a vile insinuation. He doesn't look at all evil to me, the poor soul. He's barely any more than a child. And since there has, in point of fact, been very little (if any) anger or outrage directed at him personally in the media coverage of the shooting -- as opposed to, say, Holmes/Aurora -- it seems reasonable to me to assume that even if most people don't think that exact thing, they do think something that's more closely equivalent to it than it is to "pure utter evil."

_________________

Some proof or evidence in support of its being a scary photo seems called for, is what I guess I'm saying. In short. Because it's not a QED-type of a thing, at all.
________________

*** "Unfocused" would have displaced one of those if I'd thought of it in time.

Agree entirely.

compared2what? wrote:And since there has, in point of fact, been very little (if any) anger or outrage directed at him personally in the media coverage of the shooting -- as opposed to, say, Holmes/Aurora -- it seems reasonable to me to assume that even if most people don't think that exact thing, they do think something that's more closely equivalent to it than it is to "pure utter evil."

All the attempts to link the actions of the unassuming computer nerd in the "mystery picture" to issues surrounding mental illness have created just the opposite effect of demonizing Lanza. There's an undeniable degree of sympathy surrounding him, his mother and his family that is unusual for events like this. And though that may be largely unspoken in specifics, it is precisely his look that has separated him from the revulsion accompanying the image narrative of, say, Jared Loughner, whose face one might more profitably caption as evil, even if the idea of mental illness equally accompanies the understanding of both events. There's no option here to imagine Lanza as somehow enjoying or savoring the attacks in the way that most people require to create the evil aura, and that's partly the result of the vulnerability of his image.

ok, I can find a pic of the Tech Club photo in yearbook context, the headshot version, I'm not finding anything like a basic source for, it may indeed be retouched or something. I've seen it said to be from a 2005 yearbook. ABC and WSJ state that the Tech Club pic is from 2008 yearbook.

ok Mac, I'm now unsure WTF that picture in question is from

Thank you, drew.

I don't actually know where it came from

Thank you, c2w.

This is progress. We've just established a useful, verifiable fact here. Namely:

It is grotesquely difficult to establish any verifiable facts at all about this case -- even the most basic and indispensable information of all, information fundamental to any serious criminal inquiry: i.e., the identification of the alleged culprit. It goes without saying -- or rather, it should -- that the dependability and verifiable provenance of any such purported identification, photographic or other, is of fundamental importance.

c2w wrote:it does get to be more of a philosophical exercise than anything else, I feel,

I'm amazed to hear you say this, c2w. There is nothing remotely "philosophical" about it. We're not talking about some abstruse epistemological conundrum here. I am not speculating about (say) how we know we exist, nor am I asking for (say) the moon. We're talking about the baby-steps routinely taken in the early stages of any criminal investigation of any murder anywhere.

That photo went round the world. Not only is it one of the very few pieces of evidence against Adam Lanza, it's fair to say that it is the main piece of evidence against Adam Lanza. And therefore, it matters that, so far:

1) nobody can say where it came from;

2) nobody can say when or where it was taken (not even what year!);

3) nobody can say who* released it to, or rather on, a waiting world.

*Yesyes, "LAW ENFORCEMENT", I know -- but what does that mean, exactly? That could mean anything from the Newtown local cops to Robert Mueller himself. And we have been fed so much utter crap about this case by "anonymous law enforcement sources" --- so many barefaced lies, not to put too fine a point on it --- that I am disinclined to take it on trust.

Because anyone who trusts a proven serial liar is a fool.

Therefore, I continue to submit that that is not a photo of the same person. At present (19:21 CET, Jan. 22nd), I have been given no good reason to presume that it is and many good reasons to believe that it is not.

- It beggars belief that it should take so long to agree on so little! Like drawing blood from a stone. I don't use the word "fascism" lightly, but it really disturbs me that so many people I like and respect have gotten so used to taking utter bullshit from "law enforcement authorities" on trust, often without even noticing they're doing it, even when those authorities are demonstrably serial liars. And we are really talking about the absolute basics here, not the fucking moon.

Sophistry. It's a picture of Lanza. You haven't contacted Connecticut law enforcement to try and get any information on this question, have you? And you won't, will you? I gave you all the contact info you need in your Data Dump thread. So let us know what they have to say, thanks.

For c2w, an extract from an interview with his Latin teacher, who taught him for three years:

Jennifer Huettner wrote:“He trusted me,” Jennifer says. “He started talking — that was a big thing. And he looked at me, with big eyes.” They were not the same eyes, she says, that the world has seen in “that horrible picture.”

As things stand, I am inclined to believe that this is literally true: they are not the same eyes. And I certainly agree with his Latin teacher, who knew him well, that the picture is horrible.

Original subtitle:


The photo of Adam Lanza, seen around the world.

Damn right it was.

The Adam Lanza who killed his mother, 20 children and 6 adults — and then himself — “was not the Adam I knew,” Jennifer says. “It was very disturbing to hear he’d done this — to realize the impact he had on the world. I have no idea where this awful, horrible thing came from.”

http://06880danwoog.com/2012/12/21/jenn ... -she-knew/

You have just demonstrated that a person who was documented to have known Adam Lanza agrees that the picture you keep whining about is of his actual person. Well done.

Where does she say that, you insufferable, dishonest smugster*?

Chapter and verse.

*Congratulations, you finally got the reaction you've been yearning to provoke for 50 fucking pages. Who knows, you might even succeed in getting the thread closed.

You may no longer be a moderator (Hallelujah), but by god you are a born Blockwart.

More sophistry. It never ends.



Same guy, same look, different hair. Documented. Move on.

Fuck you, you shameless creep.

Sorry to burst your little world-bubble as you dance on the head of your personal pin. I like you Mac, I admire your steadfastness, but you're wrong-headed about this one. It's a dead end, as your posts above demonstrate.

She made a fucking point of saying that she barely fucking recognised him in that fucking horrible photo, you shameless, dishonest slimeball. Unfortunately for you, people can read.

So stop wasting my time, and stop trolling this thread with your incessant insufferable dishonesty.

No, she didn't say she barely recognized him. You said that.

Fuck. Off.

That probably won't be happening, bro.

It's completely implicit in his teacher's statement that she recognized that the picture, while "horrible" (and who would disagree with that? If my school picture had that deer-in-the-headlights look about it, I'd have gone back for a fucking re-shoot) was nevertheless a picture of her former student, Adam Lanza. Any other interpretation is ridiculous.