LA - Mickey Shunick, 21, Lafayette 19 May 2012 - #31

Status
Not open for further replies.
And I only said I thought the debate was over. I said nothing about u saying it's Mickey. I'm not one of the people actually debating with you saying it isn't. I thought this debate was over after ACI called because that topic went away sort of, but because of no new information it came up again.

I understand you're already frustrated (we all are) so I apologize if my post rubbed you in the wrong way.

Nah..sorry if I sounded strident.

I just think it's unnecessary to be dismissive of a theory based on a tangible fact when we have nothing else.

Not you, specifically, sorry. Definitely not what I intended.

The dismissal is why I've been off thinking about this in a cave.

I wish I could visit Lafayette.

I'm a little tired of strolling around town with google man. He never has anything new to say.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get lost at this point.
 
I don't think it's crazy either! Even with all the enhancements from expert WSers... WE can't all agree! Lol~

Srsly. Nothing is crazy at this point.

I think back along thread 2, 3, 4 ish, someone definitely dismissed The Rapture as a possibility, so there's that.
 
To add new information here, that is not a light post near the road-work sign. I had assumed it was, too, but when I went out there, it wasn't. I forget what it was, but I remember being surprised at my own assumption being wrong.

The light casting a shadow from the sign would be coming from somewhere else, which would change the projected location of the sign's shadow. Worth having a look at at night for those wishing to continue the old argument. Myself, I won't be makingf a special night-drive though.

Another tidbit for those wishing to pursue this theory, is that that road-work sign there is medium orange, not bright yellow as someone said the other day.

I agree about the shadow, but I keep hearing about the yellow glow halfway of the truck bed. All I can think of is the type of light being shined on the shine and type of white paint on the truck is causing a yellowish glow on the truck bed despite the sign being orange. I remember from physics class that the color of something is due to it absorbing the spectrum of light except for what color it appears to be.

Short version is every object is every color except the one you see. I believe it is proven that the source and type of light can alter our perception of color. I know that people must have seen clothing that appears maybe purple for example and then at another angle and light source that may see blue clothing. I think it happerns mostly with dim fluorescent lighting. Go outside and it makes a difference. JMO

/lol that wasn't so short was it. The sign may reflect orange, but the light we see it through makes it appear yellow. I'm on the fence about it, but I'm fairly certain thats not a tool box back there. The more I enlarged it the worse it got in the supposed tool box area. I keep wondering if there was some sort of identifying letters or logo there and it was blurred out, just to keep from tipping anyone off. Of course this is JMO.
 
I'm a little tired of strolling around town with google man. He never has anything new to say.

Yes but at least you don’t have to chide him for refusing to stop and ask for directions. :bananajump:
 
Yeah... hubby thinks I am seeing the curb at the gas station...not the top of the door...
also said I need to just stop giving my opinion on these pics!
I have Serous Retinopathy in my right eye!
Time to come to terms with that fact...
while color and the overall image is ok
any lines are distorted...
This is how a normal eye sees
View attachment 24090
This is how my right eye sees
View attachment 24091
:no: I can't see like I used to.
:tmi:-gracefully bowing out of any future image discussions:seeya:

I had serous retinopathy in my left eye and had laser back in the dark ages, didn't do anything. Weird, huh! Took almost 1 year to diagnose the problem.
 
There is a very noticeable distortion in the image. The front part of the truck is bumped upward. The same effect can be seen in the running board and the top of the windshield frame, heading down toward the front tire. The picture is quite distorted all over - quite subtly. The "ONLY" markings in the street have been hugely stretched in the horizontal direction. I believe that the odd blotches are a combination of changing lighting, and the clear, rippled, plexiglas dome over the camera. As well, I believe that the tires are turned slightly left because the driver sees Mickey up ahead of him in his lane, and he's beginning the process of changing lanes.

MOO. JMO.

Yes I believe you are correct. Its like "Wearing Sunglasses at Night". Need FoxFire to post the song here from youtubel
 
http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/display.aspx?p=33784019&pg=7

LSU Fan
Coral Bay, St. John, USVI
Member since Nov 2005
40968 posts
Online

re: Mickey Shunick Investigation Information as of 05/30/12 (Posted on 5/30/12 at 4:20 p.m. to purpleleaf)

quote:
Just curious, how do we know this? How do you know that it wasn't put there by the person taking the picture? I don't know. I am asking.



quote:
Comment From Shane Was the Missing Poster at whiskey bay that we all saw on tv put there by the camera crew or was it there when LE arrived

2:31 AmandaMcElfresh: Shane: It was definitely there when LE got there. It had the tape the volunteers are using and definitely looked like it had been there a few days.
 
Yes I believe you are correct. Its like "Wearing Sunglasses at Night". Need FoxFire to post the song here from youtubel

Here ya go!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_HlTGzkKeE&feature=player_detailpage"]Corey Hart - Sunglasses At Night Stereo - YouTube[/ame]
 
It's this statement from LE and the conversations here on WS many threads ago that make me think Mickey turned down Braeshear St.

On my strolls with Google man, I have thought the same thing. Google man doesn't walk at night, so I don't know how the street appears in the dark.
 
Many of you have said that LE would not knowingly release a pic of Mickey and/or bike under the truck. I agree w/ that. We, I think, would all agree that the quality of the released pics is poor.

Do you think there is any possibility that LE released the truck pic(s) without realizing what may be under the truck? For those that have kept track of every press release, timing, etc... What agencies were involved when the truck pic was released? Was it only LPD?

Nothing against LPD, but maybe they did not know/see what we may see in the pics at that time. I know we have some phenomenal sleuths here with extraordinary skills - perhaps more skilled that the local PD at the initial phase of this case.

Is there a chance that LPD released what they thought were pics of truck only, only to find later after closer observation/testing/enhancing that there is indeed more to see (Mickey, bike, etc???).

So... now they can't backtrack and say, "Oooops, we should not have released that?"

Even if they are stills from continuous video - the darn quality is so poor, who knows what it shows? Maybe someone got it wrong that told ACI and others that it's continuous?

I also agree with those that have wondered too why the released pics are perfectly centered vs. if they were chance shots from a camera that snaps pics every so often. I can't take credit for that thought - others thought it before me. Don't want to seem like I "thunk" it up! Why also, as has been brought up, does the focus/cropping change?

Thoughts?

I think it's a possibility.
 
LE could have a shot of a vehicle pulling out of the LCG lot behind DWT. They could know that that vehicle is the perp and not want to show us what that vehicle looks like which would explain the way the still is cropped. They could be showing us the DWT because they know that it is a witness and LE just wants to know what they saw. LE might not want us to know what the perps vehicle looks like because they don't want him/her to know they are on to them.

I hope it's something like this.
 
You don't have to sweet talk, just call and ask. I did. Phone: <modsnip>. They are not continuous. They are just like all the traffic cams.

I have shown you several cases with links and photographs, including one local in my newspaper that shows that Mickey's bike and Mickey being under that truck, after being hit while moving or standing still is physically possible. Why do you keep saying it goes against physics?

I'm gonna try and give this a shot and see if it makes any sense. From the position of the truck and the position of Mickey in the photos, given the truck is no where in sight(hasn't rounded corner yet as I understand it) in Mickeys photo. For the truck to be on top of her it would have had to drop from the sky. It's just not possible IMO. If she was standing still for her to be under the truck she and the bike would have to be laying on the ground when the truck got to her give the photos. Some unknown distance has to be added for the trucks speed and impact. That goes back to it dropping on top of her. Can't happen IMO, and I'm referring to being under the truck.
 
59 seconds of unknowable action between 1:48 and 1:49, the time (i think) of the stills, from a camera that is said to take 1 picture a minute. Mickey would have had time potentially to get off the bike, when threatened, with the intention of letting the vehicle pass, only to have the vehicle reverse direction. We're missing 59 seconds of potentially conscious action by 2 to 3 people. I think only see two. Mickey and someone in the passenger seat of the truck wearing a hoodie and sunglasses. Strikes me as being a female, but I don't know why. I don't see 8 feet of distance between where Mickey definitely was, and where I'm suggesting she ended up. Looks more like 4 feet to me. I'm comfortable with the truck traveling forward at a speed of 10mph during and just after a rt hand turn, somewhat faster with a left hand turn, onto ST.Landry going west.

We don't know that it was 59 seconds. We were given a vague time stamp (accurate only to the minute, not down to seconds or milliseconds).

I replied to you earlier that yes, if the estimates of several minutes between frames is accurate, then all bets are off. MS could have circled the block, pulled into the LCG parking lot, made a U-turn...you name it...all in the span of several minutes or, quite frankly, 15 seconds.

But...the assertion that was being made -- the one which I was employing physics to refute -- was that MS was shown as she was being struck by the DWTIQ in that screencap, in the location where she was shown (where some here assert that she was "stopped"), and then thrown backward an estimated 8+ feet by said impact...all in the time span of 1-4 seconds.

That simply did not happen. That's been my stance all along. Some here have chosen to disagree, and that's their prerogative. But I and others (LE, CF, ACI, etc.) have offered far too much evidence to the contrary. And even factoring out all of that evidence, there's still common sense which prevails.

It's not to say that if someone were hit from behind while being at a dead stop, that their torso wouldn't lurch backward as their lower body was lurching forward simultaneously. I can easily see that happening, per my earlier analogy of a football WR being hit from behind, having his legs cut out from underneath him. But at worst, they would land at the point of impact; and at best, they would be propelled forward.
 
I keep looking at that .gif image and saying " what if the truck was in REVERSE and not going forward?!"

I think someone might have a hard time explaining how the rear tire incurred the damage.
 
Have you also seen evidence of Mickey's existence after the Circle K video still?

It's that simple, that basic. One question.

Seeking factual, verifiable evidence is the basis of our legal system and should not be the subject of derision, in my opinion.

I have not, but apparently ACI (or one of his informants) has. ACI is a verified (by WS) and licensed (by the state of LA) private investigator. I'm inclined to accept his information as reputable, especially in the absence of supporting evidence to the contrary.
 
But, while I won't say that a person will ALWAYS be thrown backwards, even possibly several feet behind the point of impact, I still believe it's entirely possible.

If a person is hit from behind and they remain upright, they should be propelled forward. However, if a person is impacted at mid back level or below, their feet will likely come out from under them, and the forward momentum from the truck will be exerted on the underside of the body, and the truck will pass UNDER the body, causing that "flying over the hood in mid-air" effect. Imagine the illustrations you may have seen where they demonstrate air shear and drag around cars and airplanes.


I think the one point that is being missed is that this is all relative to the point of impact.

IOW, I can see a scenario where a person would be hit low (to continue with your example), hurled upward into the air, feet and legs thrown forward, causing the torso to "lean" backward. The point of impact would be roughly akin to the fulcrum of a see-saw, only rotated 90 degrees.

The upper half of the body could indeed move "backward", relative to that fulcrum point of impact on the body.

But...relative to the point of impact, the idea that MS was hit where she was stopped and thrown backwards 8+ feet is simply an untenable position for one to defend with sound science. In other words, if I spray painted an X in the exact spot where a person was stopped on the road, and you measured that person's final resting spot resultant of that impact, their torso could, in theory, be laying on or very slightly behind the X...but not 8 feet. And the chances of that happening would further decrease, concurrent with increased speeds.

I once hit a deer while driving. It was terrifying. It's body ended up behind my car, half in the ditch on the passenger side. It just sailed right over my car. Wouldn't, if your logic were true about forward motion, in all cases, it make it impossible for that deer to end up behind the point of impact?

I think a deer, being more rounded in body, might have the capability to be thrown upward and slightly forward; then, as the car continues forward progress and rolls beneath the now-airborne deer, the deer would then land on the roof, roll off the roof and then continue rolling off back of the vehicle.
 
http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/display.aspx?p=33784019&pg=7

LSU Fan
Coral Bay, St. John, USVI
Member since Nov 2005
40968 posts
Online

re: Mickey Shunick Investigation Information as of 05/30/12 (Posted on 5/30/12 at 4:20 p.m. to purpleleaf)

quote:
Just curious, how do we know this? How do you know that it wasn't put there by the person taking the picture? I don't know. I am asking.



quote:
Comment From Shane Was the Missing Poster at whiskey bay that we all saw on tv put there by the camera crew or was it there when LE arrived

2:31 AmandaMcElfresh: Shane: It was definitely there when LE got there. It had the tape the volunteers are using and definitely looked like it had been there a few days.

I wondered that too... What if it had the perps fingerprints on it?
 
We don't know that it was 59 seconds. We were given a vague time stamp (accurate only to the minute, not down to seconds or milliseconds).

I replied to you earlier that yes, if the estimates of several minutes between frames is accurate, then all bets are off. MS could have circled the block, pulled into the LCG parking lot, made a U-turn...you name it...all in the span of several minutes or, quite frankly, 15 seconds.

But...the assertion that was being made -- the one which I was employing physics to refute -- was that MS was shown as she was being struck by the DWTIQ in that screencap, in the location where she was shown (where some here assert that she was "stopped"), and then thrown backward an estimated 8+ feet by said impact...all in the time span of 1-4 seconds.

That simply did not happen. That's been my stance all along. Some here have chosen to disagree, and that's their prerogative. But I and others (LE, CF, ACI, etc.) have offered far too much evidence to the contrary. And even factoring out all of that evidence, there's still common sense which prevails.

It's not to say that if someone were hit from behind while being at a dead stop, that their torso wouldn't lurch backward as their lower body was lurching forward simultaneously. I can easily see that happening, per my earlier analogy of a football WR being hit from behind, having his legs cut out from underneath him. But at worst, they would land at the point of impact; and at best, they would be propelled forward.

I've been posting that animated gif mostly to show what stays and what goes. I'm comfortable with an actual time frame of 30 to 59 seconds apart. Someone did an excellent job of lining both images up perfectly.

I am now searching for a published account of the Consolidated Gov building cams' time stamps, independent of WebSleuths. What I seem to have found is a time stamp for the Mickey pic and no time stamp for the truck. If it's the same camera, I'd say the second time stamp is available but being held while investigation is ongoing. For what it's worth I've never claimed I sw a person under the truck, only the bike. For where I think I see Mickey, I'd place her almost on the curb, mostly in front of (the back of) the roadwork sign.

Here is a fantasy scenario. Perp sees camera from the street, puts truck into park, climbs over passenger seat to avoid getting out of the driver's side, get's out on rear passenger side, deftly avoiding the bubblecam @ Gov building, drags Mickey into the truck via rear passenger door, with one hand over her mouth. Srry 4 all that. I don't like it either.

I'm going to keep looking outside of WS for a while to find someone that spilled the beans on the time stamp early on. If I were a lawyer, defense or plaintiff, the timestamp info to the second is what I would need to make my case.

ACI's stuff is rumor-ish IMHO. Locals seem to take him at his word. I'm not local. I put CF a little higher up on cred because he posts pictures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
1,840
Total visitors
2,021

Forum statistics

Threads
589,951
Messages
17,928,083
Members
228,013
Latest member
RayaCo
Back
Top