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

[fairest of them all]

OK so you mean zoomed in which naturally eliminates foreground and background. I thought you meant the actual images were tampered with.
Thanks for clarifying.

Also makes them more blurry than the bike pic????

The actual images were "tampered" with..... truck pics are far more blurry than Mickey on bike pic...I am asking if that would have to have been intentional?
Did they intentionally mean to crop out foreground and background?
Did they intentionally mean to make the trucks unrecognizable by the general public? There are literally pages and pages worth on exact make model and year of the trucks. Wouldn't they be more easily identifiable if they had NOT been zoomed in or cropped?

IMO.....my posts are very clear. IMO I don't think I have stated anything as fact at all or anything anyone could mistake as fact.

 

[HouDat]

when we don't know how many seconds apart these two frames are.

Link? My understanding is that these frames are a minute apart. Further, we've even taken the liberty here at WS to grant (for the sake of this debate) that the first pic could, in theory, be 1:48:59 and the second pic could be 1:49:00 -- only a second apart.

What I'm hearing on WS is that other municipal cameras in the vicinity of the Consolidated Government building take pictures every 1 minute, or 60 seconds. If the later is true, there is no way to calculate any physics at all. No speed, no sense of direction. We don't know if it took a right or a left to get onto Landry. Too many X factors, namely time,direction, and rate of speed. You don't have that, you got nothing.

I would whole-heartedly agree with this notion, if that part bolded by me were the case. I believe we've been told otherwise, though.

 

[Isabelle]

when we don't know how many seconds apart these two frames are. Early on ppl were willing to put them 5 to 8 minutes apart. They appear to be a lot closer than that, especially with LE's description of the truck being 'turning onto St.Landry, right behind Mickey'. What I'm hearing on WS is that other municipal cameras in the vicinity of the Consolidated Government building take pictures every 1 minute, or 60 seconds. If the later is true, there is no way to calculate any physics at all. No speed, no sense of direction. We don't know if it took a right or a left to get onto Landry. Too many X factors, namely time,direction, and rate of speed. You don't have that, you got nothing. I think LE would have shared with us Mickey's progress down St.Landry if she indeed made any. They would want us to know the last time she was seen IMO. This is the last place she was positively seen.

ps: this is an 'animated gif', the gif format is 'lossy' compared to jpg. I did not make it.

First time I am noticing that the gif format shows "Mickey" on her bike and she is cast in shadow in front and slightly to her right. On the outside edge of the shadow, a tiny light is seen (from the headlight on her bike). Once the gif advances to the truck scene, a bright light shining out from under the truck is seen, just in front of the front passenger side wheel. In the absence of the truck, there is no bright reflection on the road under "Mickey".

 

[cityslick]

Do you have a theory? What would you like to talk about? I really do want to hear other people's wild guesses. Its easier to adopt Someone else's than come up with my own. I know it sounds sarcastic but I myself am running out of theories and possible scenarios. I really would like some food for thought.

I don't have one. There are numerous scenarios of what could have happened, up to and including ones that do not involve a stranger abduction. There are not enough facts in the case to form anything concrete at this time.

It's very possible she was struck by a vehicle. I just don't happen to believe that (or any other incident) was caught on camera, like the numerous other missing person's cases where people just vanish out of thin air.

 

[TxLady2]

Here's what I think.

I think if she was hit and the video captured that, LE would of told the family this fact. I think LE would of told the media this fact. I'd love to hear explanations as to why they would not tell the family that she was indeed hit and it was captured on video.

Second, and it was just brought up above, that corner would of been deemed a crime scene, there would of been more investigation of the ground (tire marks, blood, etc) at that corner and the media certainly would of caught on to that and reported it.

You can blow up pictures on here, put nice red circles around pixels and all that, but LE, plus whatever other agency is involved with this investigation have tons better investigative techniques on how to view pictures and video and if they made a sound determination that either the bike, human being or the tooth fairy was under that truck, they would of made some sort of comment on that, if not to the media than to the very least the family. I don't say this because I'm trying to shoot theories down. But you follow enough missing persons cases, especially on this forum, you pick up on patterns. Patterns by LE, patterns how the investigation seems to be going, etc.

There is nothing under the truck. I know some want there to be, because it's gives an answer to what happened to her. It also puts a potential perp on camera. But that is not the case here. And until either LE/FBI or someone can provide a photo or video that clearly shows an object under the truck rather than some blown out pixels, I will continue to believe there is nothing there.

I agree. I don't post on this thread a lot, but I do follow it as best I can.
You made some very good points, but I want to make another one. There is NO WAY that LE is going to release still pics from surveillance videos of Mickey or her bike actually under the truck. They just simply would not do that, it would be insulting to the family, and it would go against everything LE stands for. They do have a code of ethics, and they also have to be mindful of potential lawsuits.
I see pictures in our local paper and on local t.v. stations of wrecks where someone has been hurt or killed. NEVER do they show the actualy body of the person(s) or even hands, feet, etc. It is always pictures taken after the body has been removed, or where the body itself cannot be seen. It's bad enough to see pictures like that, but to have to see the mangled bodies of people would be horrible for a lot of us. LE is just not going to release those stills... I firmly believe that.
I know some here won't agree with that, and that's okay. But IF any of Mickey's family is reading here, I feel sorry for them having to come across posts describing seeing her or her bike under that truck. Imagine how upsetting that would be!

 

[fairest of them all]

First time I am noticing that the gif format shows "Mickey" on her bike and she is cast in shadow in front and slightly to her right. On the outside edge of the shadow, a tiny light is seen (from the headlight on her bike). Once the gif advances to the truck scene, a bright light shining out from under the truck is seen, just in front of the front passenger side wheel. In the absence of the truck, there is no bright reflection on the road under "Mickey".

Could it be a fog light? Where would a fog light on that truck be? Imo I think it looks like the bike light but if it looks like a foglight to someone I could wrap my mind around that too....I'm absolutely abusing Google this morning......I wish I knew how to post pics.....*sigh*

 

[HouDat]

When a person is hit by a car, they are usually thrown backwards onto the hood or into the windshield. We've all seen it in the movies.

I've also seen city-sized alien spaceships in movies, so...

When a person is hit by a car, the point of impact on that person's body is propelled forward at a higher rate of speed than the rest of their body. As such, the head tends to be the slowest to move forward, creating the illusion of moving "backward". If a person walked up to you and pushed you from behind, very forcefully, in the mid-back, your head may snap back...but your body overall would move forward, in the direction of the force of the push, relative to the spot you were standing at the exact moment the hands of the person who pushed you impacted your mid-back.

But you most certainly would not wind up several feet behind the point of impact. Your head may snap in a backwards direction, but ultimately, you'd wind up forward of the point of impact.

Time to make the donuts...off to work for me.

 

[JBean]

Does anyone know what kind of bike light Mickey had? there are all kinds but the light I have is powered only by my pedaling and so when I am stopped-my light is stopped. i do not have a standlight. I would guess she had a standlight- but do we have any info on her lighting system?

 

[courtneyb]

It is troubling to know that someone's been tearing down those posters...could be the 'grey ghost'...or just stupid uncaring <modsnip> IMO :maddening:

Could you fill me in, please? What is the story about the posters being torn down and who is Grey Ghost? Thanks!:waitasec:

 

[OldSteve]

Does anyone know what kind of bike light Mickey had? there are all kinds but the light I have is powered only by my pedaling and so when I am stopped-my light is stopped. i do not have a standlight. I would guess she had a standlight- but do we have any info on her lighting system?

Can anyone make it out (have to enlarge the photo):
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.ne...460834190_1213080012_5103140_1293331917_n.jpg

 

[mahmoo]

I don't see what everyone else is seeing. Nothing at all that leads me to believe Mickey or her bike is under the truck. All I see is wild speculation.

Precisely BB ... I 100% agree with you. My 'inner snarkiness' was coming out in my post.

 

[courtneyb]

I've also seen city-sized alien spaceships in movies, so...

When a person is hit by a car, the point of impact on that person's body is propelled forward at a higher rate of speed than the rest of their body. As such, the head tends to be the slowest to move forward, creating the illusion of moving "backward". If a person walked up to you and pushed you from behind, very forcefully, in the mid-back, your head may snap back...but your body overall would move forward, in the direction of the force of the push, relative to the spot you were standing at the exact moment the hands of the person who pushed you impacted your mid-back.

But you most certainly would not wind up several feet behind the point of impact. Your head may snap in a backwards direction, but ultimately, you'd wind up forward of the point of impact.

Time to make the donuts...off to work for me.

Well, you know, if it's in the movies or the internet, it must be true... :blushing:

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 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?

All of this, mine own opinion, and all that, o'course.

Please forgive me if I am just missing something blatant. It's entirely possible. It's 102 degrees where I am and my brain is quite possibly singed, if not fried, lol. :hot:

 

[waiting1979]

I think you're confused over something here.

No one is claiming that it's impossible for a cyclist to be hit by a truck, have their bike go under a truck, for there to be no debris and the cyclist not be hurt. (We cannot see underneath the truck, so the question of whether or not there were any scratches or scars on the street remains un-answered.)

Physics was evoked because of this:

Another poster claimed that MS was "under the sign". My repeated statements about physics have been to dispel the notion that MS could have been hit at the point where she was photographed, and then thrown backward by 8+ feet to a resting point under the sign.

I can see a scenario where a rider was hit from behind and the rider's torso lurched backward upon impact. We see this routinely when a wide receiver jumps up to catch a pass and has his legs cut out from underneath him, from behind. Feet fly forward, torso flies backward.

But MS was not thrown beneath that sign if she was hit at the point where some allege she was standing still. That's where physics comes into play.

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.

 

[meemonie]

http://www.katc.com/images/news/2012-06/Truck.png.jpg

Since everyone is posting what they see............I see and have always seen a man in this pic along side the drivers door as if talking to the driver. Anybody else see this?. He would have a long white tshirt and black pants.

 

[JurysOut]

They show the stills in their video. Not the actual video. But you can pause it and see fairly clearly. The link is in the long facts sheet I posted. It's in the media link.

It is amazing to me how clear their images of the stills are! You can see that what we think was Mickey is a white car parked.

I am not aware of any proof Mickey was seen further down St. Landry as other posters have stated. I believe that someone tod ACI this but there is no concrete proof that what they told him is true.

I never saw a bicyclist in that photo. If proof of Mickey beyond that intersection is available, I'm not aware of it.

If it exists, it seems like it could be easily verified.

 

[waiting1979]

In the first image Mickey appears to be stopped. In the second image the truck appears to be stopped. 59 seconds of unknowable action in between from the Consolidated Government building cam.

No physics equation is possible without time, speed, direction.

 

[meemonie]

Sorry.........BLACK pants

 

[rhapsdy]

I keep looking at that .gif image and saying " what if the truck was in REVERSE and not going forward?!"

 

[who knew?]

You know, I stayed off this thread for 2 days - came back to check today. And what do you know - still talking about MS/bike under truck. It just is NOT possible. Common sense tells us that. I guess I'll check back in after a couple more days.

 

[JurysOut]

I've also seen city-sized alien spaceships in movies, so...

<respectfully snipped>
.

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.

Evidence of Mickey past that intersection is much closer to a cinematic portrayal of an alien craft than an image that exists in reality.