The DWT - The Truck(s?) and the Surveillance Images

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


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. :twocents:
 
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.
 
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.

Respectfully snipped. If not for two additional odd light sources, the more dense and different hue of the light directly under the right side, AND the directional light pointed down and out at the ground towards the parking lot, I might entertain your theory, but the 'spotlight' spread is obvious, directional, and matches the direct source. If it was just a glare, I don't think we would see that light pattern.
 
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.

And..in both a.Mickey alone, And b.the Z71, there appears to be no one outside.
 
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 bet you are an awesome teacher.
 
Well here we go again! My problem is the light under the truck and the shadows under the tire are not it what I have the most problem with. My problem is the items that in my opinion have been blocked out. What I see regarding the right headlight is not a
Lit headlight at all rather two squares that have been laid one on top Of the other covering whatever (????) in the picture of the truck going towards University it appears the same may have been done there on the back window like a decal may have been covered as well as the right side of the truck bed. If you take a laptop and lean the screen back these items stick out like a sore thumb. Some of the have perfectly straight edges which in my opinion does not happen with direct light sources. Again all of this is my opinion. None of what I see is anything bazaar I don't see cats, dogs or Mickey.
 
A wonderful WS poster did post a photo of the DWT with the driver clearly shown. Now, I recognize that driver as BSL.
 
Well here we go again! My problem is the light under the truck and the shadows under the tire are not it what I have the most problem with. My problem is the items that in my opinion have been blocked out. What I see regarding the right headlight is not a
Lit headlight at all rather two squares that have been laid one on top Of the other covering whatever (????) in the picture of the truck going towards University it appears the same may have been done there on the back window like a decal may have been covered as well as the right side of the truck bed. If you take a laptop and lean the screen back these items stick out like a sore thumb. Some of the have perfectly straight edges which in my opinion does not happen with direct light sources. Again all of this is my opinion. None of what I see is anything bazaar I don't see cats, dogs or Mickey.

I think they did block things out and blurred them as in digital forensics there are many ways to detect manipulation. These photos were previously manipulated, to what extent, we don't know. I won't comment on other photos posted on WS that are indeed manipulated but imported into Photoshop or almost any imaging program can show you they are. Problem is when used in a courtroom, a digital image also shows manipulation markers when it is simply rotated. So it is imperative to preserve digital data as is- if the original raw information is important to your case. If you are using it as a tool to find a suspect, or to let the suspect know you are aware he/she was involved, but not give the defense any prior knowledge of the basis of your case, then you might want to obscure identifying or incriminating digital evidence before releasing it to the public. I hope we find out one day if and what they blurred and covered up with scotch tape ;)
 
A wonderful WS poster did post a photo of the DWT with the driver clearly shown. Now, I recognize that driver as BSL.

They drew him into the photo. The photo was altered by the poster.
 
Don't remember exact date/thread, but it was prior to BSL being named a suspect.

I believe that was Mr. N, (can't remember the entire username) who took parts of other images and super imposed them into/over the surveillance images and called them fantasy images? The attempt was to make them "clearer" by using let's say a fender or a wheel from a stock image of a Z71 Chevy Silverado and "painting" it over the distorted pixelized portion to show a better idea of what we were looking for. Instead, it gave a distorted reality of what we were actually SEEING and taken out of context was really confusing. I could not obtain any detail on the driver no matter what I personally did to extract any.
 
I believe that was Mr. N, (can't remember the entire username) who took parts of other images and super imposed them into/over the surveillance images and called them fantasy images? The attempt was to make them "clearer" by using let's say a fender or a wheel from a stock image of a Z71 Chevy Silverado and "painting" it over the distorted pixelized portion to show a better idea of what we were looking for. Instead, it gave a distorted reality of what we were actually SEEING and taken out of context was really confusing. I could not obtain any detail on the driver no matter what I personally did to extract any.

Believe it was Mr. Noatak. Remember that he used a program that he was better than Photoshop. I'll see if I can find the link.
 
Believe it was Mr. Noatak. Remember that he used a program that he was better than Photoshop. I'll see if I can find the link.

It is the current discussion with Mr. Noatak & he has reposted them in the last day or 2 in the "Theories" thread.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180855"]VICTIM - Mickey Shunick, 21, of Lafayette, LA (Theories) - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
 
Believe it was Mr. Noatak. Remember that he used a program that he was better than Photoshop. I'll see if I can find the link.

the poster used another year model truck overtop of BSL's truck in the "enhancement". the cab is therefore changed in shape including the windshield where the driver could possibly be viewed from. the windows were shaded and seats drawn in and then the poster shaded the seats/driver to have human characteristics. There is no recognizing BSL from this method. You could only recognize that there is human coloring driving in the truck in the enhanced photos, which by the way has a 2010 truck overlaid atop BSL's truck plus coloring overtop of the actual photo. In the actual photo you can not see the driver whatsoever. You can not add pixels to add clearer images to low pixel pictures, even if the program is better than photoshop. It just doesn't work that way.
 
Well, what an imagination... lol... Although I saw Brandon.. Just what you wanted me to see... :floorlaugh:
 
Well, what an imagination... lol... Although I saw Brandon.. Just what you wanted me to see... :floorlaugh:

Whatever. I just know that when I first saw the mugshots, etc. of BSL, he reminded me of the referenced image.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
3,336
Total visitors
3,507

Forum statistics

Threads
592,570
Messages
17,971,183
Members
228,820
Latest member
BBrown
Back
Top