Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Steve Davis is a real celebrity in the UK, and there are a ton of photos of him online. So, in presenting two images of him, which provide different and conflicting information about the state of his hair, Lance Upperpunk should have at least had the decency to show us, through other images, about the reality of his hair. 

How do you know about the reality of his hair? All you can do is go by the preponderance of the images of him, and with as many as possible being direct shots with no unusual lighting conditions. 

You notice in the above case that there is no "white lake" atop his head. There is no reason to think we are getting any false impression there, as we do here: 

So, by 2012, he really didn't have much hair. Again, I'll point out that this has nothing whatsoever to do with an image of Billy Lovelady taken outside in the natural, ambient light. But, there is also some irony involved because when Upperpunk first made the comparison in 2014, and even since then....

the implication of it was that a guy with a mostly full head of hair was made to look bald. But, that was not the reality. The reality was that a guy with very little hair was made to look that he had even less in one picture, while in the other picture, he falsely seems to have more.

In other words, the natural assumption is to think that the the top image was the "control" while the bottom picture was the "experiment" but in reality, neither was a control.  In fact, it was the other way around. He was, indeed, mostly bald at the time, with just a little bit of sparse hair on top, combed forward to cover as much area as possible. Again, this is an image from 2008:

In that image there is a little bit of light reflection, but it's small compared to the other. You see how it looks like paint. But, if that was 2008, and this is 2012, what does it tell us?

Since this image is from 2012, it tells us that it is at least as misleading as the other image and perhaps more so. It gives the impression of thicker, more abundant hair than he actually had at that time. 

But, Upperpunk didn't tell us that. He didn't tell us they are both misleading images. He used this one as a "control". He let us think it was. In fact, he hunted and pecked for two extreme images, both of which are, in fact, giving false information, to get the widest possible span, and then implied that the same thing existed between these two images:

It's a case of the fallacy of the false dilemma or the false dichotomy.


There was a lot more information, a lot more clarity that Upperpunk could have cast on this examination than he did. Instead, he played it for all it was worth- a deliberate effort to deceive. 

One more thing: Upperpunk incorrectly stated that the difference in the extreme photos, causing so much information disparity about his hair, was caused by "lighting and angle of view." That's wrong. It's caused by lighting. There was no contribution from the angle of view in causing the deception. It was just the lighting. 

And again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the real issue at hand, which is to explain the disparity between the FBI image and the Mark Lane image of Billy Lovelady. 

I say it's due to FBI malfeasance, and that malfeasance is really very easy to demonstrate. After all, they were shooting under completely controlled conditions. They had control of everything, including the lighting and the angle of view. It was NOT a spontaneous, independent circumstance. There was no other purpose or activity going on except picture-taking. There were no factors beyond their control, like at a snooker competition. So, what excuse did they have for producing results that were so widely and internally conflicting?

This was from the same photo shoot. So how, under highly controlled conditions, could there be that much disparity in the appearance of a man, including his hair? I can't enlarge the image on the right more any more without causing major distortion, but if you look at it closely, it doesn't even appear to be the same face. Let's look at just two:

How could there be that much disparity at the same photo shoot under highly controlled conditions? On the left he looks older and harder. On the right, his face looks younger and much less coarse. The FBI had control of the lighting, the angles, and everything else. So, what explanation is there for this disparity?

It's them being bad, I tell you. Bad men. Evil men. That's what I'm saying. The FBI was involved in framing Oswald. They were deeply involved in framing Oswald. And, it was their job to sell Lovelady as Doorman, and they used photography as a tool to lie, cheat, mislead, and misinform. There is no excuse for them producing such disparate and divergent images of the same man under completely and totally controlled and managed conditions.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.