Use this thread to discuss the video surveillance of the white truck(s?), aka "The DWT".
Last edited by bessie; 08-04-2012 at 11:28 PM.
HANNAH GRAHAM TIP LINE (434) 295-3851
Muddy water in the street; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"
Well I figured I'd be the first to post here, gotta be first at something!
Thank God for the video of the truck taken by the LCG camera, the same camera that captured the picture of Mickey biking. If not for those images BSL would still be roaming the streets.
Thank you to all those that helped in making the arrest possible, especially the lady (hero) at Don's Wholesale.
The DWT/FWT postings did reach a fever pitch with those creative photoshopped photos. As I look back, some were quite comical.
And a final thanks to those that converge here to brainstorm and share banter!
I'm a bit confused by the new layout. But glad I can now say that when I zoom in on the truck on my iPod, whatever is under the truck has shadows, so it can't be a shadow itself. Phew, been wanting to say that for a while but didn't want to get eggs thrown at me
Copied my own post from MUCH earlier in the threads re: my feelings on the DWT.
I feel like an idiot.I really do because I do see MS and the bike under the truck in the one picture. I absolutely see it...BUT at the same time I know it can not be...there is just no way, logic tells me there IS NO WAY (oh, and a few of you may have reminded me too). Yet, my eyes see what they see and I keep having to force myself to not believe my eyes. For me that picture is the definition of my eyes playing tricks on me. So, no I do not believe she is in the picture...but heck if I do not see it still.
So what if the bike WAS under the truck! Could Mickey not have taken off on foot only to be nabbed later on Coliseum ?
Inquiring minds want to know!
~jmo... and I will stand by it until the photo is explained by LE (if ever)
I know it was said at one point... blah blah blah... LE can stretch the truth...
whenever they deem in necessary....
There is definitely something under the truck. They said it wasn't Mickey, but no matter how much I look I DO see the bike. Maybe Mickey thought she could lose him on foot and didn't feel any safer going to circle k? I think the other camera that caught her was supposed to be after but wasn't it said that they had to estimate the times?
There is definitely shadows cast by whatever is under there, and definitely a light. I know that some people thought more damage would have been done by the truck, but trucks are quite high and truck is at an angle, maybe he had tried to avoid the bike but knocked it and quickly threw it in the back. People who think that he may have approached and said something to her, how about I saw you drop your bike, I have I here?
I don't know. I wish we weren't trying to work any of this out at all. I don't care what time of night it is. No one has a right to do this
OK! I only asked like 12 people...
When I suggested that it could be a bike at 2 am... they offered the headlight...
I can wait until the trial.
IMO LE only released the photo to see if the perp would run... It was NOT for the "public" to locate him... yes they may have "missed" it when he ran and torched the truck... OR they were "on top of him" but lacked evidence to apprehend him at the time...
THEY "KNEW"!!! Just didn't have "enough" at the time!
eta: maybe LE even made the image "look like" there was something there when there wasn't?
Whatever! I see it. "Smudges" in front and behind the right front tire of the DWT... and a "headlight" on the ground.
it's not a horse or a donkey or a coal miner! It's a BIKE!
Last edited by gngr~snap; 08-07-2012 at 07:34 AM.
Yup...I still see the bike under the truck every time I look!!!!
I had to make sure this thread wasn't a trap... before posting.
I didn't see a light under the truck for a good long time. When there started to be posts asking or pointing out the light, I started to wonder. I pulled it up into Adobe Photoshop, I zoomed in, I cropped out. I layered, I sharpened, I blurred. I couldn't see anything except that light out of place. Then I started checking lights with the color picker with the truck picture and Mickey by herself. I made sure density was the same in both photos and started checking lights and objects in both photos. Numbers started matching. The light in Mickey's photo, matched the light under the truck. I still wouldn't think it was her bike or her if I didn't do that. The software says it's the bike light.
That feels so good to type and not get laughed at, and called crazy. *sigh
I don't know if she was under/in/or down the road in this photo of the truck. But, her bike light is under. It hurts me more every time I see that truck. My aching gut tells me he hit her too hard. Then everything after that was cover up and lies.
I know that my view is not popular, but I wanted to make the case for physics, specifically regarding the "bike headlight." Just as everyone has the right to discuss why they believe they see a bike headlamp under the truck, I would like to explain why I believe that the physical laws of refraction and reflection combined to create a convincing optical illusion:
I still think that what many see as a "bike headlight" is actually the reflection of the truck's headlight off of the camera lens, onto the inner surface of the plexiglas dome over the camera, and reflecting back into the camera lens, thereby adding to the refraction originally occurring when it passed through the plexiglas dome.
A strong light source, pointed at a camera, encounters the refractive effect when it passes through a transparent medium. This means that the light rays are slightly shifted as they come out the other side of that medium, a plexiglas dome, for example. Light rays passing through a transparent material are always slightly diverted from their original trajectory. This same effect can be seen by placing a straw into a glass of water and viewing it from the side, or standing in a pool and seeing how one's legs are foreshortened.
With respect to the LCG camera, a strong light (the DWT's headlight) was indirectly shining at the camera. It's the strongest light source closest to the camera. The light rays traveled in a straight line from the headlight to the plexiglas dome. Once the rays hit the dome, and headed toward the lens, they were diverted slightly downward as they exited the inner surface of the dome, due to the refractory effect of transparent materials.
In the case of the plexiglas dome, some of the rays, instead of traveling through the camera lens onto the sensor, bounced off the curved surface of the camera lens, reversed direction but at a different, non-diametrically-opposed angle, due to the lens curvature, and reflected off of the inner surface of the plexiglas dome back into the camera lens. Therefore they shined on a different spot of the plexiglas dome than they had originally passed through.
Due to the curvature of the lens, the curvature of the plexiglas dome, the laws of reflection, and the original slight refraction caused by the plexiglas dome as the rays were coming in from the truck, the reflected rays bouncing off the camera lens and hitting the inside of the plexiglas dome are dimmer and lower than the original light source, the truck headlight. The reason that they create this refraction illusion directly under the truck headlight is that both the dome and the lens curve directly backward as one heads toward the bottom of it, changing the angle of the reflected light rays.
That reflected light off the lens then bounces off of the inside of the plexiglas dome, to be recorded by the camera as a dimmer version of the truck headlight - which masquerades as a bike headlight. Had the camera and dome been turned 90 degrees sideways on the City-Hall wall, the "bike headlight" would have appeared to the left or to the right of the truck headlight.
All this is just my opinion, based upon my knowledge of physics and the refractive and reflective properties of transparent materials, with regards to light rays. It is not to address anything else in the photo. But given the physical laws of refraction and reflection, it may be a fruitful exercise for folks to re-examine the picture, and intentionally ignore the "bike headlight," and see what that analysis reveals.
FWIW...it also appears to me that the right front tire is off the ground...running something over. Also, Mahouston69 states (and I quote them) that "The software says it's the bike light." How is that explained? And, IIRC, Mahouston69 is not the only one who has stated that.
Regardless, the weight of that truck would steamroll right over that bike or send it flying, imo. I don't think the bike weighs enough, in comparison to the truck, to raise the truck off the ground like that. A stationary object, or one with great mass, maybe, but not a bicycle...
Deja vu' all over again!
FWT does stand for FABULOUS WHITE TRUCK......The one that started the process of taking BSL down!
Regarding mahouston69's density examination:
I do not claim to be a Photoshop expert, and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I have worked with Photoshop extensively for 13 years.
The problem I see with trying to match density numbers, using the color picker, etc., is this:
The truck headlight is "blown out." The density of the white color has reached one side of the spectrum and cannot go any higher. This is evidenced by the fact that the truck headlight looks much larger than its actual size. The light is so intense that it has overwhelmed the camera sensors to the extent that pure white pixels have been created that are not actually there. The same thing happened to the speed-limit sign in the Versailles Mickey pic. The white light from under the Cathedral-Carmel bus canopy overblew the sensor to the point where it wrapped around the sign and created false pixels.
This effect can be liked to a thermometer left in the sunlight reading at the very top of the scale, even though the air temperature may be 85 degrees, or that of an 85-mph speedometer on a car that is doing 110, pegged against the top stop at 85.
The intense white color of the truck light created an oversized, maxed out, splotch on the camera sensor that bled over to other pixels.
It is possible that the density of the reflection that I describe above, of the truck headlight reflecting off the camera lens, then bouncing off the inside of the plexiglas dome (the reflection that some see as Mickey's headlight), may also possibly be attributed to this maxing-out effect, as well as the density of the known picture of her headlight.
We don't know the percentage by which the incoming bike headlight overblew the camera sensor. It is possible that enough light from the truck headlight reflected off of the lens that its reflection on the inside of the dome (the alleged "bike-under-truck headlight") still had an intense-enough white light to max out the white color and make it appear to be the same density as that of the known photo of Mickey's headlight.
Simply put, an 85-mph speedometer on a car reads the same whether the car is doing 90 or 110.
This effect cannot be definitively detected using Photoshop alone, IMO, without taking into account the technical details of the camera, which we don't have.
To restate, if the light on Mickey's bike, seen in the pic of her in front of Circle K, is at one end of the density spectrum - which it could be, as it is brighter than its surroundings (and we have no way of knowing this without a very technical analysis of the camera specs), how do we know that the reflection of an "overblown" truck headlight, bouncing off the camera lens, wouldn't still be blown out enough to appear to be the same density?
Again, if our speedometer goes to 85 - and the truck headlight is definitely "blown out," as evidenced by its obvious oversized appearance, how do we know that both the actual picture of Mickey's light, and what I deem a reflection (which others see as "Mickey's light under the truck"), are not both figuratively traveling faster than 85 mph - and yet figuratively reading 85 on the nose, in Photoshop, and so falsely appearing the same?
Had the color been somewhere in the middle of the density spectrum, it would be different. But IMO it is not possible to use a blown-out light source, maxed against one end of the scale and thereby creating pure white pixels, to definitively conclude that the light source in the known picture of Mickey's headlight, and the light under the truck, are one and the same.
I admit that I skipped over and checked out during most of this conversation because I had nothing to add. I never really had the capability to see a clear picture as I only use my phone for websleuthing. And... The tone in the "room" was so negative at times! Maybe I am just a Pollyanna.
When the sting of the outcome subsides, and more of the investigation is revealed, I plan to go back and read all of the dwt banter to see how many were correct. I am curious!
For Chicken Fried also in regards to the blown headlight. I compared the light sources from photo to photo. Not focused on one photo. Density being equal, the black points, white points, lights, and object data in photo a. Mickey, should match almost identical to those same lights, and objects in photo b. the truck, same time, within seconds, same camera, same angle, same filter, same resolution...and they do. From data in a. To data in b. Circle k light, matches circle k light. Cement curb, matches cement curb....bike light, matches bike light.
Thank you for taking a LOT of personal time to be thorough and detailed to prove the point. Its not falling on all deaf ears. I, for one, appreciate you taking the time to be helpful despite there still being objection to your logic and reason. I could not be as patient as you. Thank you sir. Well said.
Exercise your 1st amendment right, don't abuse it.
One of the arguments for why Mickey could not have been hit in front of the circle k is that there were people around and they would have certainly seen something/heard something and done something in response. But, if you google "passersby do nothing" (or any version of that) you will sadly realize that the truth is often that people do "do nothing" when a crime or circumstance warranting attention happens right in front of their eyes. Strange and sad, but true. Just wanted to point that out.