Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
IMO
IMO I saw a blurred "something" under the truck (with a HEADLIGHT...)So glad the two of you have been able to release your thoughts on those pictures! Every time I would offer an opinion I was quickly hushed by insults or snide remarks. I know logically under certain circumstance neither Mickey nor the bike would be under the truck. But we don't know all of the circumstances was she stopped, coasting or turning into to parking lot? If any of those things happened I do believe that either one of them could be under the truck. I still don't know what would be so horrible about a picture being released with the bike being under the truck. I have heard way more theories that don't even come close to that. IMO I think everyone knows what the possibilities are. It just breaks my heart to think this could have happened to someone like Mickey who had the face of an angel and from what I have heard such a wonderful personality. I have the utmost respect for Mickey's family for their love for her, their devotion to finding Mickey and their self control. God bless all of them and please let Mickey come home.
IMO I saw a blurred "something" under the truck (with a HEADLIGHT...)
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....
again JMO
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
I know 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 am free to discuss why I believe it is 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, reflecting back into the camera lens, added 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, they were diverted slightly downward 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:
Orrrrrrr....it's Mickey's bike's headlight. :crazy:
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.
Orrrrrrr....it's Mickey's bike's headlight. :crazy:
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.
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 apologize but what software is available that can tell you that a light source is coming from a bike light? Versus a flash light, a fire, a reflection, etc? What software is so sophisticated that it can do this? I was not aware of such.
I apologize but what software is available that can tell you that a light source is coming from a bike light? Versus a flash light, a fire, a reflection, etc? What software is so sophisticated that it can do this? I was not aware of such.