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

Status
Not open for further replies.

CajunStrong

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
406
Reaction score
0
Just wanna give a shout out to you kgeaux, and a very big thank you. Forgive me as I have forgotten what LE stated about the original. Agree with you 100%. The main point in all of this is that information shouldn't try and be gathered from an enhanced image because we Do Not Know how it was enhanced.

Only an original unaltered image should be used for those purposes, and that is in LE's hands.
MOO

I am curious to what degree it was enhanced. Was it enhanced very little to just have some clarification or enhanced to blur out and cover things? No way to know of course.

Their enhancements could be why the pictures contain so many anomalies that do not seem to belong. Then I have to wonder why they would have the need...what was there?

As soon as they received the video from the LCG camera they really did hone in on Brandon's truck.
 

CajunStrong

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
406
Reaction score
0
It was an attempt at injecting some levity. Some get it, some apparently don't.

Cheers.

I apologize HouDat. My comments were truly not directed at you personally per my last statement in that post. More so towards those types of statements. You have always been respectful. Just doesn't take much for those with less respectful intentions to follow.

I guess it is just a sensitive area for some of us that really do see something that makes sense to us in the pictures. It can be upsetting to have your thoughts devalued. And it is frustrating to see 'something' but have no validation of what that something is.
 

HouDat

Prominent Member
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
678
Reaction score
1,418
There is something over the rear wheel well that we thought could be a Wood Group logo on a saddle type tool box.

In the KATC report timestamped just after the 6PM news earlier this evening, there is reference made to the value of the truck which, when combined with the tool box which was also reported stolen, equaled over $30k.

Missing is a description of said tool box, but it has been speculated here once before, and now again here, that a tool box may be responsible for some of the peculiarities some WSers report seeing in the pic of the DWT.
 

LaffySleuth

Vehicle Identifier Helper
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
227
Reaction score
0
I don't know if it's the way it's worded or what...but it says the "red tool box was in the truck".

That could mean in the cab or in the bed.
 

HouDat

Prominent Member
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
678
Reaction score
1,418
I apologize HouDat. My comments were truly not directed at you personally per my last statement in that post. More so towards those types of statements. You have always been respectful. Just doesn't take much for those with less respectful intentions to follow.

I guess it is just a sensitive area for some of us that really do see something that makes sense to us in the pictures. It can be upsetting to have your thoughts devalued. And it is frustrating to see 'something' but have no validation of what that something is.

Thanks.

I have stated in some of the early threads (probably before you began posting here, granted) that I did see some sort of distortions in those images. There was much dialogue as to shadows, light sources, fisheye lens distortions of light, reflection, refraction, and so forth.

For instance, if you look at the bottom of the truck, where the line/shadow in question sort of intersects with what appears to be a step rail (or simply some black striping or other accenting), there appears to be a break in the line of the truck.

Another one discussed was what appears to be some sort of symbol on the back window of the truck. Some speculated that it was a West Coast Choppers logo; others said Sportsman's Fleur; still others said it was a Chevy logo; etc.

And then, of course, there are the discussions of the shadowy figures in the windows (Muslims, great horned owls, blue/green shirts, etc.).

At this point, of course, most of that discussion is now moot. But rest assured, a full-cavity search was given to that photo by members of this forum.
 

kgeaux

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
7,598
Reaction score
18
I am curious to what degree it was enhanced. Was it enhanced very little to just have some clarification or enhanced to blur out and cover things? No way to know of course.

Their enhancements could be why the pictures contain so many anomalies that do not seem to belong. Then I have to wonder why they would have the need...what was there?

As soon as they received the video from the LCG camera they really did hone in on Brandon's truck.

When the stills were released, LE said that they had been enhanced to make them as clear as possible. They were working with FBI at the time, so we have their expertise to take into consideration when we look at the originally released photo stills. I see no reason to believe LE or FBI would "blur out" or "cover" anything up. If they would have been able to see the driver clearly enough to get a description, they would have released the description to the public. If they had seen Mickey or her bike run over or in distress by the Circle K, I think they would have stated that as a fact, and told the public, THIS IS THE TRUCK THAT WE KNOW TOOK HER.

They did not say what was done to enhance the photos (stills! I know!) just that there were enhancements made. (Without a base line of the original, unenhanced photo still, we can't deduce what enhancements LE/FBI made, can't take those enhancements into account, can't say that any further enhancements are accurate.)

This is really why I cannot "justify" anything that is seen in photos (stills) that have been further enhanced. IF LE AND FBI made the pictures as CLEAR AS POSSIBLE, why do we think we can do even better? Especially if we don't know WHAT was done, what program was used by LE and FBI? (I am going to assume they used something at least as good as PhotoShop.)

At this point, I'm not even sure what it matters. We KNOW the truck is a 2011 Silverado Z71, which later burned up in Texas. We KNOW that LE has stated Mickey disappeared between (the intersection of) St. Landry and St. Mary and the Coliseum. That statement, to me at least, means that Mickey made it past the University/St. Landry intersection (past the Circle K) so what are we trying to prove?
 

kgeaux

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
7,598
Reaction score
18
I don't know if it's the way it's worded or what...but it says the "red tool box was in the truck".

That could mean in the cab or in the bed.

Y'all know I've got six sons, right? LOL, two of them drive trucks with a "tool box" that spans the width of their pickups, from left to right. These are silver, sort of hammered looking, they open up on the left, on the right and in the middle. Hubby has one like that too. These were purchased separately from their vehicles, but once installed, they would be VERY DIFFICULT to remove and steal. I personally haven't seen one that is red.

We also have a "red" tool box, which is portable. Looks like the first and second one at this link: http://www.sears.com/tools-tool-storage-portable-toolboxes/s-1025214

This tool box is pretty big. It is way, way heavy. But it IS portable, it is possible to steal.

I'm thinking we are hearing about one like the one in my link, but again, if I am wrong, it will not be the first time, or the last.
 

LaffySleuth

Vehicle Identifier Helper
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
227
Reaction score
0
Y'all know I've got six sons, right? LOL, two of them drive trucks with a "tool box" that spans the width of their pickups, from left to right. These are silver, sort of hammered looking, they open up on the left, on the right and in the middle. Hubby has one like that too. These were purchased separately from their vehicles, but once installed, they would be VERY DIFFICULT to remove and steal. I personally haven't seen one that is red.

We also have a "red" tool box, which is portable. Looks like the first one at this link: http://www.sears.com/tools-tool-storage-portable-toolboxes/s-1025214

This tool box is pretty big. It is way, way heavy. But it IS portable, it is possible to steal.

I'm thinking we are hearing about the one in my link, but again, if I am wrong, it will not be the first time, or the last.

I've got one of those too...

I've also seen the silver ones you speak of in black, but never red.
 

CajunStrong

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
406
Reaction score
0
When the stills were released, LE said that they had been enhanced to make them as clear as possible. They were working with FBI at the time, so we have their expertise to take into consideration when we look at the originally released photo stills. I see no reason to believe LE or FBI would "blur out" or "cover" anything up. If they would have been able to see the driver clearly enough to get a description, they would have released the description to the public. If they had seen Mickey or her bike run over or in distress by the Circle K, I think they would have stated that as a fact, and told the public, THIS IS THE TRUCK THAT WE KNOW TOOK HER.

They did not say what was done to enhance the photos (stills! I know!) just that there were enhancements made. (Without a base line of the original, unenhanced photo still, we can't deduce what enhancements LE/FBI made, can't take those enhancements into account, can't say that any further enhancements are accurate.)

This is really why I cannot "justify" anything that is seen in photos (stills) that have been further enhanced. IF LE AND FBI made the pictures as CLEAR AS POSSIBLE, why do we think we can do even better? Especially if we don't know WHAT was done, what program was used by LE and FBI? (I am going to assume they used something at least as good as PhotoShop.)

At this point, I'm not even sure what it matters. We KNOW the truck is a 2011 Silverado Z71, which later burned up in Texas. We KNOW that LE has stated Mickey disappeared between (the intersection of) St. Landry and St. Mary and the Coliseum. That statement, to me at least, means that Mickey made it past the University/St. Landry intersection (past the Circle K) so what are we trying to prove?

Like many other questions we ask here, I think it is a matter of satisfying our own curiosity as to what we think we see and how each of us have formed our own theory based on what we think happened.

Much of the curiosity comes from this picture being the last confirmed sighting of Mickey and knowing that the truck, later determined to be her killer, traveled in this spot within the same minute.

The only bearing it will have on the case is just knowing exactly what did happen.

In the beginning I heard, and have read it posted here since then, that the detective/s that viewed this video snapped a picture of the actual video screen at the LCG building and this is the first still picture that we saw. Supposedly, in that original you can see some bluish on the otherwise greyscale photo, which was a bit of reflection of the detectives blue shirt. This was not incompetence on their part as they just wanted to get the truck picture released as soon as possible and knew it could be days before an enhanced still would be released.

A couple to a few days later another, clearer and slightly cropped, still that appeared to be identical was released. One of the mainstream news sites does show a timeline with the original photo released on the 25th and then a couple of days later show what they state as 'police released another clearer image of the same truck', something along those lines. I saw it ysterday and will have to go back and look. It was virtually the same still but again, a tiny bit clearer and slightly cropped.

And something I will stand by to my last day is that police WOULD release a still showing the bike underneath the truck if it wasn't obvious. They would NOT state any details of what is in the still unless it was very obvious. They are under no obligation to do so. It would be part of the investigation as many other factors are that are not released to the public. I believe the still was released before they really had a chance to see what was exactly on it.

I do believe that Mickey may have been seen further down St. Landry and perhaps that is where the actual abduction and/or crime occured. But that doesn't change my mind that what I see in the still picture can be explained by shadows and light reflections.

It seems obvious that her bike was hit at some point in this general area and no debri or obvious crime scene was found here or further down St. Landy/Blackham. In my opinion, this photo appears to have the possibility of being more of a crime scene than any other area. So why not explore it?
 

kgeaux

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
7,598
Reaction score
18
I've got one of those too...

I've also seen the silver ones you speak of in black, but never red.

thanks. Sometimes I think I'm nuts! I think I've seen them in silver, black, and white. Mostly silver. But Never, Never, Never Red!
 

CajunStrong

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
406
Reaction score
0
thanks. Sometimes I think I'm nuts! I think I've seen them in silver, black, and white. Mostly silver. But Never, Never, Never Red!

Some of us thought there was a saddle or bedrail type toolbox over the passenger side wheel well that looked like it had red lettering or a red patch. Could this be it?
 

danzn16

For the missing
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
3,667
Reaction score
1,363
When the stills were released, LE said that they had been enhanced to make them as clear as possible. They were working with FBI at the time, so we have their expertise to take into consideration when we look at the originally released photo stills. I see no reason to believe LE or FBI would "blur out" or "cover" anything up. If they would have been able to see the driver clearly enough to get a description, they would have released the description to the public. If they had seen Mickey or her bike run over or in distress by the Circle K, I think they would have stated that as a fact, and told the public, THIS IS THE TRUCK THAT WE KNOW TOOK HER.

They did not say what was done to enhance the photos (stills! I know!) just that there were enhancements made. (Without a base line of the original, unenhanced photo still, we can't deduce what enhancements LE/FBI made, can't take those enhancements into account, can't say that any further enhancements are accurate.)

This is really why I cannot "justify" anything that is seen in photos (stills) that have been further enhanced. IF LE AND FBI made the pictures as CLEAR AS POSSIBLE, why do we think we can do even better? Especially if we don't know WHAT was done, what program was used by LE and FBI? (I am going to assume they used something at least as good as PhotoShop.)

At this point, I'm not even sure what it matters. We KNOW the truck is a 2011 Silverado Z71, which later burned up in Texas. We KNOW that LE has stated Mickey disappeared between (the intersection of) St. Landry and St. Mary and the Coliseum. That statement, to me at least, means that Mickey made it past the University/St. Landry intersection (past the Circle K) so what are we trying to prove?

Trying to prove that they are seeing something in the photos, regardless of physics, camera refraction/pixels, LE evidence released, etc. I'm pretty sure after trial, if it is in fact found that nothing is actually in the picture other than BSL's truck, there will still be a DWT thread and still be claims.

Sorry JMO.
 

kgeaux

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
7,598
Reaction score
18
Trying to prove that they are seeing something in the photos, regardless of physics, camera refraction/pixels, LE evidence released, etc. I'm pretty sure after trial, if it is in fact found that nothing is actually in the picture other than BSL's truck, there will still be a DWT thread and still be claims.

Sorry JMO.

No need to apologize to me. I totally agree.

Unfortunately, LOL, I "saw" a kitten looking up through the foliage in some of the crime scene photos from where precious little Caylee Anthony's body was found. I KNOW there is no kitten looking up through those leaves---the scale is completely wrong---but I never was able to "unsee" it after I "saw" it.

In this case, I am 100% sure that LE did NOT try to block out or hide identifying features from the public in these pictures. But I also KNOW I won't be able to convince anyone to "unsee" what they've "seen."

The best I can do is to try to dispute it. Even if it won't be received or believed.
 

gngr~snap

Verified Pediatric Nurse Georgia
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
14,365
Reaction score
15,356
Some of us thought there was a saddle or bedrail type toolbox over the passenger side wheel well that looked like it had red lettering or a red patch. Could this be it?

:what: This "tool-box" sounds more like a "rape kit" IMO something he could carry...

He probably had to burn it due to DNA evidence in it!
 

kgeaux

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
7,598
Reaction score
18
:what: This "tool-box" sounds more like a "rape kit" IMO something he could carry...

He probably had to burn it due to DNA evidence in it!

Well, he was a mechanic. I don't know what he had in the tool kit, but I'm willing to bet it was tools!
 

vap27

New Member
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
5
Reaction score
12
I've brought up this point before, but it was many threads ago and I'm sure it's gotten lost...I think we need to look at the reason LE decided to release this particular still of the DWT. If the camera on the building is taking continuous video, then the DWT would be clear of the road sign in just a few frames. In a matter of seconds we would have seen the DWT with no obstacles to obscure our view. We would have easily seen if it was a crew or extended cab. We would have had a much better chance of identifying whatever is located over the rear wheel well. But, for some reason, LE gave us this image. Why? Is it because frames beyond this one could not be released because of what they would show? I want those who think the discussion regarding the truck is ridiculous to explain why LE would ask the public to identify a truck and then show us a picture of it that obscures our view when we know it would have been unobstructed in a matter of seconds.
 

Jkg005

New Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
224
Reaction score
0
No need to apologize to me. I totally agree.

Unfortunately, LOL, I "saw" a kitten looking up through the foliage in some of the crime scene photos from where precious little Caylee Anthony's body was found. I KNOW there is no kitten looking up through those leaves---the scale is completely wrong---but I never was able to "unsee" it after I "saw" it.

In this case, I am 100% sure that LE did NOT try to block out or hide identifying features from the public in these pictures. But I also KNOW I won't be able to convince anyone to "unsee" what they've "seen."

The best I can do is to try to dispute it. Even if it won't be received or believed.

Hey I am more than ready for someone to be 100% certain. Just tell me how you have come up with it. Did you see the actual video at LGC? We're you a witness when this video was shot? Did you actually release the still? Again I would LOVE to know.
 

kgeaux

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
7,598
Reaction score
18
Hey I am more than ready for someone to be 100% certain. Just tell me how you have come up with it. Did you see the actual video at LGC? We're you a witness when this video was shot? Did you actually release the still? Again I would LOVE to know.

None of the above. I just know how earnestly and honestly LE wanted to find Mickey.
 

CajunStrong

New Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2012
Messages
406
Reaction score
0
I've brought up this point before, but it was many threads ago and I'm sure it's gotten lost...I think we need to look at the reason LE decided to release this particular still of the DWT. If the camera on the building is taking continuous video, then the DWT would be clear of the road sign in just a few frames. In a matter of seconds we would have seen the DWT with no obstacles to obscure our view. We would have easily seen if it was a crew or extended cab. We would have had a much better chance of identifying whatever is located over the rear wheel well. But, for some reason, LE gave us this image. Why? Is it because frames beyond this one could not be released because of what they would show? I want those who think the discussion regarding the truck is ridiculous to explain why LE would ask the public to identify a truck and then show us a picture of it that obscures our view when we know it would have been unobstructed in a matter of seconds.

You are so right. I have said this many times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top