Mahouston69
Digital Imaging Specialist
I don't disagree with that at all. I think they cropped (zoomed in) on the trucks to blur and make certain aspects of the photos less clear. Absolutely.
LA - Mickey Shunick, 21, Lafayette 19 May 2012 - #31
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
- Status
I don't disagree with that at all. I think they cropped (zoomed in) on the trucks to blur and make certain aspects of the photos less clear. Absolutely.
Mahouston69
Digital Imaging Specialist
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?
chicken fried
Verified LOCAL
- Joined
- May 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,813
- Reaction score
- 0
If she was pedaling forward at any rate at all, I cannot accept that she and the bike didn't move forward. A picture does not show motion. All indications are that she was moving at a pretty good clip, and the accident you're talking about where the bike only moved a foot or two likely was a slow-motion accident. We'll have to agree to disagree, because, aside from the very unlikely possibility of her and the bike not moving forward, there are so many more factors that are highly unlikely, that for me to multiply it all together and get like a 0.02% chance of it happening goes against my version of logic.
To believe that she and/or the bike is under the truck takes way more unlikely chances to combine, than for her not to be. For me, this one fails Occam's Razor quite badly.
chicken fried
Verified LOCAL
- Joined
- May 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,813
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting about the cameras. I would like to find out the exact rate.
I don't have all your links in one spot to view them together... a bit late - maybe I'll look tomorrow.
What you're saying would still be a very small chance, at best- for her not to move forward at all, (which is what you're saying), and then you 've got the problem of no marks/nothing on the roadway; no witnesses at Circle K, truck somehow coming to a dead stop right on top of the bike, Mickey having not moved forward at all, even though the truck is not in the first pic; driver being able to get out and hoist a bike and rider into the truck without anyone seeing, or, if she was conscious, no one witnessing a scene of a truck stopped dead in the road for awhile - LE baldly releasing to the public a pic of Mickey/bike under the truck, without saying so (if the driver saw the pic, he/she would know LE knew, and so there would be no reason for LE not to say a truck ran over Mickey). etc.
You're asking us to believe an extremely unlikely physical equation, and then to believe all the rest of the unlikely stuff happened as well.
I'm more interested in what happened further down St. Landry, myself. The truck thing is a huge red herring, IMO.
chicken fried
Verified LOCAL
- Joined
- May 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,813
- Reaction score
- 0
I just looked at your link. There is nothing in that story that says the bike didn't move forward when hit.
A photo proving that a bike can go under a truck doesn't prove anything to me. I knew that already.
fairest of them all
Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2012
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 2
Well....I wana "help" or at least try......I think in what you are talking about with the links and photographs are definately that the Person ended up behind the bike because bike was suddenly thrust forward in relation to them......top portion of body might bend backward from point it was at as at the same time rear end is forced forward real fast.....center of gravity moves forward cuz it rests on seat......moves backwards in relation to bike because bike is knocked from underneath them. Person doesn't actually move backward......bike just moves A WHOLE LOT ********FASTER. Leaves them behind.
The point the others is trying to make is that while most people will fall off back of bike they wont fall off the back of the bike or behind the bike 8 feet behind where they were when they got hit......
Unless she rolled onto Hood and rolled off the side but even then would not be that far back.
Like hitting the golf tee from under the golf ball and the ball stays right where its at.
Mahouston69
Digital Imaging Specialist
Thank you for answering my question. Correct, we will have to agree to disagree. The accident involved where the bike only moved approximately a foot to a foot and a half was not a slow motion accident. 25mph. The lady that was hit was taken by helicopter to the hospital. The link from my newspaper and the photo that was taken my friend and photographer spoke to witnesses on scene. Since I have found so many posted on google with similar bike damage, and the bike pinned under the vehicle along with the rider falling next to or pinned by the bike under the vehicle, It's far from unlikely. IMO
..I understand the sore wrists.. I have had surgery on both of mine..
have a good night.
It's equally frustrating that IMO Mickey is right under your nose and you refuse to see her, and spend a lot of energy and time, as well as ACI and CF, in 'debunking' when there isn't enough video evidence to do any such thing. I'd like to see you move MS beyond this point if you can. Offer something instead of shooting this down. Because IMO 'Mickey is right there'. There is no white/shifting light explanation for this figure.
Chevy Chase, you don't have an explanation for this!
I had not previously looked carefully at this part of the picture (sign area) just under the front of the truck which does look odd. Seeing the area in person I just kind of blew off the whole under the truck thing. I am going to have to look for more images and clearer ones to see what is there, but in this pic I do see someone there. Was it added in or pixel distortions & imagination? I don't know.When looking at this I also realized the sign is much bigger than I had really noticed when you compare it to Mickey on the bike or the truck.
Where you have the area circled I see what appears to possibly be 2 people, a blonde standing/leaning over the shoulder of someone with dark hair who is leaning over ?Mickey ? lying facing the camera in an almost fetal
Position- legs on top of one another and knees bent with her head on the left side of the sign pole. It looks like bent knees and 2 grey shoes on the right.
In other words Mickey is horizontal on the ground with feet on the right and head on the left and the person(s) are maybe bent over or squatting over her. Examine her? Mugging her? Tying her up? I don't know the answers.
CuriousinNY
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Messages
- 436
- Reaction score
- 84
LE says truck 'turned onto Landry right behind Mickey'. These two frames are very close, but can't convey speed. Mickey appears stopped. I calculated her MPH at 20-24 MPH before she stopped.
When this video flips to the truck, what do you think is appearing in the trees behind? It looks to me like headlights of another car. The lights are not there in Mickey's photo.
Probably another DWT!
dejavoodoo64
New Member
Its early here and only on my first cup of coffee, but I would think if she was hit the whole area would have been taped off as a crime scene. Someone would have noticed that. I played around in photoshop for over 2 hrs last night and found nothing on the ground. I think I did debunk the toolbox on bed of the truck. It seem to come from the streetlight and becomes distorted the more the pic is blown up. JMO
dejavoodoo64
New Member
I can't say that I do. It appears to me to be light coming under the truck from lights across the street. Looks like there is a break in it due to the left rear tire. JMO
I doubt the perp is in another country but Im hoping they know who he is and have him under surveillance like in Sierra LaMars case.
CuriousinNY
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Messages
- 436
- Reaction score
- 84
What is the distance to the next camera, relative to the last know picture we have in front of Circle K? <modsnip>
dejavoodoo64
New Member
That would imply that she just sat there and was run over like a monster truck crushes cars. I don't mean to put that image in anyones head, but that seems what it would be like to me and the easiest was to explain it. And IMO if happened slowly there would be blood on the asphalt.
CuriousinNY
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Messages
- 436
- Reaction score
- 84
One more thought. If the family was unaware of ACI and listened to the radio show, maybe there was something he said on the radio show that was way off base which leads them to believe WS is foolish? JMO (with the limited amount of information being released, we could certainly be chasing something that has been ruled out by LE a long time ago)
waiting1979
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
ps: this is an 'animated gif', the gif format is 'lossy' compared to jpg. I did not make it.
fairest of them all
Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2012
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 2
Well the light from circle k is not there in the Mickey on bike pic......moo
Add to that the fact that the week that they got their first introduction to WS was not a good week for us here. There was lots of speculation about the truck that had many of us totally frustrated and there was way too much OT conversation. I remember hoping that the family didnt pop in during some of the conversation and sure enough it wasnt long before they posted asking for all tips to go to their guys. I love this place and would come here ASAP if someone I loved disappeared but I can understand why Mickeys family might be hesitant if all they read was this forum during that particular week.
waiting1979
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 0
LE also said the 'Mickey went through a red light'.
Several threads ago some WSleuths were working on an angle that had z71 following Mickey on Versailles > St.John with their headlights off. I think the Wsleuth had a point about the middle horizontal line of the grille reflecting light as another vehicle is about to turn left onto ST.John.
Mickey appears to be riding standing up, full tilt boogie.
Someone that knows the area could see the red light a distance down St.John, like at about West Convent, and make a decision to take a right onto West Convent or a left on Hamilton Place to avoid the light. Taking a right or a left to get on Landry from University requires what rate of speed? I'd say about 10 MPH tops. IMO this is a nudge, not a hit. It is not possible to do a turn like this at 20+ MPH without risking of loss of control of the vehicle, and I'd expect screeching tires, skid marks. I don't think we have those marks. If the camera stills are 30 to 60 seconds apart, we are really missing the action. A left onto St.Landry would allow a higher speed, with a wider turning radius.
Several threads ago some WSleuths were working on an angle that had z71 following Mickey on Versailles > St.John with their headlights off. I think the Wsleuth had a point about the middle horizontal line of the grille reflecting light as another vehicle is about to turn left onto ST.John.
Mickey appears to be riding standing up, full tilt boogie.
Someone that knows the area could see the red light a distance down St.John, like at about West Convent, and make a decision to take a right onto West Convent or a left on Hamilton Place to avoid the light. Taking a right or a left to get on Landry from University requires what rate of speed? I'd say about 10 MPH tops. IMO this is a nudge, not a hit. It is not possible to do a turn like this at 20+ MPH without risking of loss of control of the vehicle, and I'd expect screeching tires, skid marks. I don't think we have those marks. If the camera stills are 30 to 60 seconds apart, we are really missing the action. A left onto St.Landry would allow a higher speed, with a wider turning radius.
- Status