Operation forty pic

[Drew Phipps]

If you have a "front on" picture of Plumlee with eyes open I can get a pixel ratio between width of nose (at the specific point crossed by the coat) and distance between pupils. That may not be a perfect biometric measurement but it might be more consistent with one or the other of them. Small numbers of pixels in these photos means a higher margin of error.

Data: Hide photo: eyes 18 pixels, nose 5 pixels, ratio =~.278

Sturgis photo: eyes 22 pixels, nose between 6, 6.5 pixels, ratio = .272-.295 (from post above)
Sturgis photo (from below) eyes 49 pixels nose 14 pixels, ratio = .286

Plumlee photo eyes 25 pixels nose between 6.5, 7 pixels, ratio= .26 - .28

found this one, is it him?[ATTACH=CONFIG]6088[/ATTACH]


heres a better photo of Sturgis for pixel counting [ATTACH=CONFIG]6089[/ATTACH]


Neither of them are excluded by the pixel counting. Sturgis' nose is almost too wide to be the hiding man, and Plumlee's is almost too narrow. I do note that Plumlee's eyes in the color photo appear to be darker than blue. (if that's really him).

The hiding man in the original photo has his face angled slightly to the right of the camera, which would tend to make the measured ration slightly larger than the actual nose size. Plus, if that jacket is exerting any pressure on the nose it would look wider not narrower. After looking at the Sturgis mug shot, pixel counting favors Plumlee as the hiding man.

If this guy isn't Plumlee then maybe you have a more pixel friendly photo of him from the front with eyes open.

Edit: Using .pdf of Plumlee from below post I get a ratio of .283, still close enough to be the hiding man but far closer to Sturgis than I expected. So at this point the nose/eye ration is kind of a toss up, with Plumlee's being closer but both falling within any pixel counting range of error of the Hiding Man. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.