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

[reedus23]

Didn't her friend say the lights on her wheels would fall off easily? Did the supposed person who supposedly ran over her supposedly take the time to pick up lights and whatever else might have been left from the supposed crash?

Do you have a link or source for this fact regarding the lights? Regarding the second question, I would suggest not. Too many people/cars/videos around.

 

[reedus23]

Gestalt figures

If told that the image you should see is a duck, most people will see a duck. If told that the figure you should see is a rabbit, most people will see a rabbit. Everyone eventually can see both duck and rabbit, but what they perceive first depends to a large extent on what they expect or are otherwise influenced to see.[/QUOTE]

But if you asked me if I see a truck in this picture I would tell you no. Its too distorted and blurred.

 

[courtneyb]

Gestalt figures

If told that the image you should see is a duck, most people will see a duck. If told that the figure you should see is a rabbit, most people will see a rabbit. Everyone eventually can see both duck and rabbit, but what they perceive first depends to a large extent on what they expect or are otherwise influenced to see.

All I see in the area circled in red is a Darth Vader helmet. Has that been ruled out, lol? But, seriously, what do others say they are seeing here?

 

[reedus23]

Someone checked it out and it's a low electrical box.

About the hitting/ not hitting of Mickey on her bike. None of us were there so we cannot say one way or the other.
For those spouting physics, you cannot prove she wasn't hit because people do not always fly onto the hood of a car, nor do they always fly forward. The behaviors depend upon the speed of the truck, the speed of the person on the bike, whether the bike rider was at a complete stop, which part of the truck hit what part of the bike,did it just bump the rear or swipe the side, were the roads dry, were they wet, had it rained just before, had it rained a good while before, was the road completely dry or just a bit wet, etc.

I can guarantee that whether she was moving forward or stopped, whether the truck was going 1 m.p.h or 100 m.p.h., regardless of what part of the truck struck what part of the bike, whether the roads were wet or whether they were dry, that if Mickey was struck, there would be some forward movement to her bike and body from being struck from behind. She may go under the truck, she may go on top of the hood, but either way, there is still forward movement of her body and bike. She only ends up under or over the truck because the truck was moving at a greater velocity than Mickey was, but still at a point that was forward of the initial impact. MOO

 

[reedus23]

Not necessarily. Did you see the bike pic I posted from yesterday's..sorry, day before yesterday's accident? The bike and rider only moved approximately 1-1.5 ft. The rider fell with the bike, over and under the nose of the truck. She was traveling..moving with traffic..hit from behind by a white Ford Ranger. There was no debris, no blood, no pavement scrapes, no markings at all. Taken by helicopter to the hospital. Physically possible.

I'm not sure this is accurate. I clearly see evidence markers, at least three of them, anywhere from 3 to 15 feet back from the direction the bike was presumably traveling.

 

[reedus23]

http://jbarcycling.blogspot.com/2010/02/local-cycling-safety-instructor-struck.html

Same, similar scenario..left an intersection, moving while mowed down by truck.
Bike under truck, Cyclist not hurt, no debris, Rim bent

I think claiming it goes against physics is completely false since I have found 20 pictures on google showing it's very possible.

I think the photos shows Mickey's bike hit and bike light under the truck. I think she is out of sight.

With all due respect, this picture alone shows me nothing. The truck in the picture blocks any view of where the initial point of impact was. If you are merely saying that a bike can end up under a truck when struck, I would agree, but it would only be under the truck at a point further along from the point of initial impact in the direction the truck was moving.

 

[Unscripted]

I'm also wondering why we had a second counter on the timestamp early on. That info is hard to come by now.

The second counters on the timestamps were on the surveillance cameras from the businesses (strip mall) on University at Azalea:

1:49:38 AM Re: Hooptie -- ruled out
1:51:27 AM Re: White truck with bed cover -- ruled out

See: http://www.lafayettela.gov/police/press_releases.asp?PR_Id=4677

 

[Fishin'chick]

I have to wonder how many, if any of these times are right.

BW said they left Artmosphere at 12:44 (to go about a mile to his house on Ryan).
They were on video at TB at 1:24. (a 5 min drive from Ryan St.)
Mickey left Ryan St at 1:44?

Mickey was hungry and not feeling well and it took about 35 minutes to bike 0.9 miles, lock bikes and get in the car?

Maybe TB time is wrong. Or else BW is wrong or the video stills.Or they sat around hungry for a little while for some reason before they left to get food.

I don't know how much faith I have in all of these clocks. The clock in my car is different then the clock on my phone is different than the clock on my microwave is different than the clock where ever..... I seriously doubt the clocks at Artmosphere, Taco Bell, or any of the cameras she is captured on are in sync either. At best, the times are "loose", IMO.

 

[reedus23]

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)

You are certainly entitled to that opinion. My own opinion is that the family hopefully and understandably does not read every single post. So when they do come on and just read what is immediately in front of them, they likely catch some of the wild speculation and conjecture that is going on and form their opinion of WS based only off of that and therefore don't want ACI to have a "web presence" and think that an interview would be "foolish". Just my own opinion.

 

[OldSteve]

Another pretty young blonde college student goes missing:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177224"]CA - Linnea Lomax, 19, Sacramento, 26 June, 2012 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[kgeaux]

.....snip....

Sorry if this offends someone (and i'm sure it will) but i've been stewing over this for days now and had to get this off of my chest.

A lot of us agree with you. My neighbor, the one I mentioned earlier who works for the city, actually LAUGHED at me when I told her about the posts speculating the bike was under the truck. She was familiar with the forum, had been one of our many visitors here, and her opinion gave me some insight into why the Shunick's think it would be foolish to participate with us.....

You sure went to a lot of trouble!

Wodalo is not a verified expert in any area. What he has to say has no more weight behind it than do any posts by any unverified person. He may SAY he is an expert in enhancing pictures, but unless he is verified, we have no way of knowing he is telling the truth.
I, personally, find his posts interesting, but no way do I think he has accurately described what happened.

 

[cluciano63]

Another pretty young blonde college student goes missing:

CA - Linnea Lomax, 19, Sacramento, 26 June, 2012 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

To be fair, under very different circumstances.

 

[gngr~snap]

In regards to the "bike under the truck" believers...
(since I won't attempt to "see" anything in the blurry pics anymore....)

This is MS's bike.

This is reported to be a close replica...

Here is the Missing Mickey flyer with both pictured.
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&h...81&start=64&ndsp=13&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:64,i:314

Did her bike have reflectors on the wheels?
Are they added later?

Hard to tell as the wheels were moving in the pic with
her riding it.

Do we know for a fact she had a headlight? (I thought so...)
That was obviously put on at a later date.

Notice the handle bars! They are much shorter than
what I was thinking! (tried to find some info on a "Madison Schwinn" bike, with no luck)

They look to be about the same length as Mickey's hip to knee length.
I took a hip to knee length myself. (mind you I am 5'8")
It was 16"...

Does anyone know how to locate specifics on bike models?

These pics I CAN see clearly!
moo

 

[reedus23]

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. Since she isn't strapped to the bike, I think it is possible, even likely, that Mickey could have been thrown backwards, past the point of impact. If she was just "bumped" at a lower rate of speed, she could have rolled onto the hood and off the side of the truck. However, I cannot see Mickey in the pictures, no matter how hard I try. I just see Darth Vader, for some reason. I do see the bike under the front tire, always have.

I know its an obvious statement, but not everything in the movies is as it seems. Could Mickey be thrown on top of the truck? Yes Could she move backwards when struck from behind? No I also do not see Mickey nor the bike under the truck. In fact, the pictures have been so messed with I could not even confirm they are the same as the originals. JMO

 

[mamacat]

I probably won't be posting for a while, as I'm going on vacation for a couple of weeks. Mickey and her family will remain in my prayers, and hopefully there will be good news when I return. Keep on sleuthing. God bless you guys and gals. Just a reminder that looks can be deceiving. I remember finding this image weeks ago, very soon after Mickey disappeared, and it stays in the back of my mind. http://www.myspace.com/geyzerkaizer/photos/2793705#{%22ImageId%22%3A2793705} :seeya:

 

[reedus23]

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.

Do you have a link or source saying they were tampered with by LE or someone else? The only people I have seen admit to tampering with the pictures are those on WS that have stated as much, that they changed this or that and then posted them. And that's not they shouldn't but only that they did change or alter them from the original content.

 

[reedus23]

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!

Well said and likely the reason it would be "foolish" for them to be interviewed on WS.

 

[De2385]

It's important to note that if she wasn't stopped (and her posture in the picture definitely looks to me like she's pedaling) then a reasonable estimate of her speed would be 15 miles per hour. That means she would be travelling 22 feet every second. So in a second she would have moved well out of the picture.

I figured 15 mph, it's a good steady pace in a city with redlights, stop signs, and on a fixed gear.

 

[reedus23]

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.

You are correct, I made some basic assumptions that I do not believe are too far fetched. First, that in order for the truck to get to the point it is at in that picture, it had to have moved at some point in time at some rate of speed. It did not magically appear there. I also presume that the vehicle was traveling forward in order to get to the point it is at. I feel that is a fairly safe presumption as a vehicle traveling backwards would certainly garner way too much attention and is unlikely to the extreme. Given those factors, as I indicated before, I believe it is physically impossible for Mickey or Mickey's bike to be under the truck or over the truck as shown in the picture released by LE. JMO

Also, can you provide a link please that 59 seconds elapsed between the two stills? Thanks.

 

[reedus23]

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

Everyone would have been looking at him wondering "What in the heck is he doing?" and thus a ton of witnesses.