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

[CuriousinNY]

Who owns the camera that took the video of the DWT? Is it possible to view a still of a video taken around the same time of night and note the light reflections and distortions? (There certainly seems to be enough white trucks driving by). Maybe compare it to a daytime still?

 

[beach]

Glad you tiptoed out of lurkdom, courtneyb!

:welcome:

 

[jacksonsquare]

I just cannot believe if this truck hit Mickey in front of the Circle K - with people outside pumping gas - nobody saw or heard anything. I doubt if she was mowed into that she flipped up in the air like a pop tart and landed in the bed of the truck, along with her bike. That would have to be how it happened, and I just cannot buy it.
I do want to know why it appears there is something under the tire of the truck.

 

[Mahouston69]

I still haven't seen anyone explain how she was supposedly hit and neither she nor her bike moved forward. (and, in fact, some are now suggesting she moved backward)

More importantly, this is a still frame from a video -- which would clearly show any such accident occurring in this location.

Sorry, I'm sure I come off a bit frustrated, and it's directed at no one in particular. I just think we (collectively) are better served trying to explore other options to explain what happened to MS, and (hopefully) to find her, rather than engage in this terminal loop of science-bucking and otherwise illogical thinking.

I linked an article from my local paper yesterday that showed the bike where the truck hit her and where the bike and truck ended up. About a foot past impact. Is Mickey not approximately a foot or foot and half behind the bump in her last image? Is the truck with something under the nose by the tire not a foot ahead of where she was caught last on video? As shown in the .gif?

That's my interpretation of the photo. I don't think it is illogical since a very similar accident happened just yesterday and the damage to the bike in that accident is similar if not identical (we don't have LE confirmation of that) to the damage done to Mickey's bike. Why is it illogical thinking?

 

[liltexans]

If Mickey was hit as some are suggesting wouldn't the people that were caught on the same cameras at circle k getting gas hear the crash? the cops should be able to tell who was getting gas as most people pay with credit or they go inside to pay with cash after dark. We have to trust that they have interviewed these people as well. Praying for answers soon..

:wagon:

 

[jacksonsquare]

I want so badly to see whatever is in those blown up stills, I really do. But I can't.

 

[LaffySleuth]

Guess I am confused. You think LE is NOT looking for the truck? But you DO think it is seen running over something?

A few of us have altered these stills every which way for many threads now and a lot of us believe there is something under there. Some think the truck hit Mickey and some think the truck only hit her bike.

To me it looks like the bike but not a person.

I would think this would make them look for it for sure.

I think the truck hit the bike, not her. I think LE would be pressuring us to find this truck, if they were looking for it.

As for my last post, I was suggesting the handlebars/bikelight was under the truck.

 

[Island hopper]

Originally Posted by waiting1979
this object can move.. also, a bump in the road cannot move. if it's 'just a bump', it needs to pick a lane. LE's description of the bike damage is not consistent with a multiple drive over kind of event.. but mostly it's their silence yelling at me.

the bump goes across the whole road. i wish someone could find chickenfried's pic. it's like the whole road is higher all the way across where the front wheels are. like a ramp. a ramp is the best way to describe it.

i agree that it REALLLLLY looks like her bike light under that truck, but the physics of it keep me from being convinced. i never thought about the truck going in reverse, but someone at the Circle K would have noticed thaaat, right?

Why would the physics not work in this scenario? Mickey was captured at 1:48am. The truck was captured at 1:49am. ....meaning that it could be as little as a second between the two stills up to a full minute.

 

[HouDat]

I linked an article from my local paper yesterday that showed the bike where the truck hit her and where the bike and truck ended up. About a foot past impact. Is Mickey not approximately a foot or foot and half behind the bump in her last image? Is the truck with something under the nose by the tire not a foot ahead of where she was caught last on video? As shown in the .gif?

That's my interpretation of the photo. I don't think it is illogical since a very similar accident happened just yesterday and the damage to the bike in that accident is similar if not identical (we don't have LE confirmation of that) to the damage done to Mickey's bike. Why is it illogical thinking?

If the truck hit the bike and simultaneously slammed on its brakes, then that might explain the bike being there.

But not Mickey. Unless, of course, she was buckled (or otherwise fastened) to the bike...

Had Mickey been hit from behind, her inertia would have continued moving forward.

Given the fact that in the frame we are shown, there is no truck visible; and in the subsequent frame, the supposed "Mickey" figures have moved (by your estimates) only one foot...it simply does not compute. The truck would have to be traveling at an excessively high rate of speed relative to the posted speed limit, and then...coming to a halt, without screeching (because there are no skid marks on the street), thus stopping the bike...but sending Mickey forward.

I'm sorry, I didn't graduate from one of those schools that teaches that the Loch Ness Monster is real, so I'm just not able to buy this line of thinking.

As for the phantom Mickey others are seeing? That's no more Mickey than it is Jesus-on-toast. I'm not going to get into the business of proving a negative, because no one here has proven the affirmative. It's merely a gratuitous assertion and, as such, can easily be countered with an equal-and-opposite gratuitous assertion.

 

[waiting1979]

If Mickey was hit as some are suggesting wouldn't the people that were caught on the same cameras at circle k getting gas hear the crash? the cops should be able to tell who was getting gas as most people pay with credit or they go inside to pay with cash after dark. We have to trust that they have interviewed these people as well. Praying for answers soon..

Circle k is flooded with it's own light, and at least 3 vehicles worth of sound. The Z71 is LOUD, like a muscle car, throaty and gurgling. You could nudge a girl of a bike, back up over the bike, and it wouldn't compete sound wise. There were some early reports of a girl screaming, but unconfirmed. I'm reviewing threads from the past to expand my knowledge. If you add a weapon, like a billy club or a gun, you can buy some silence and some control with that. LE said the truck 'turned onto St.Landry, following Mickey closely', didn't say from what direction the truck turned. That would seem to throw cold water on a theory that was floated about the Silverado having it's lights off and stalking Mickey earlier on St.Johns, before it turns into Landry crossing University. It would also place Mickey a second or two in front of the truck, meaning the two images from the Consolidated Government cam are just a second or 3 apart. So, it's totally reasonable to toggle these tow images back and forth like a movie. I think this is the reason they haven't released the whole thing. I've heard LE was 'called' and this person reported back to WS that 'Mickey was not under the truck'. I agree. IMO she is in between the back of the road work sign and the truck. The truck's strongest identifying characteristic is the custom wheel well utility box.

 

[mamacat]

I just cannot believe if this truck hit Mickey in front of the Circle K - with people outside pumping gas - nobody saw or heard anything. I doubt if she was mowed into that she flipped up in the air like a pop tart and landed in the bed of the truck, along with her bike. That would have to be how it happened, and I just cannot buy it.
I do want to know why it appears there is something under the tire of the truck.

The sound of a truck hitting a cyclist could be minimal IMO, especially if she was purposely nudged, so that she was forced to stop in her tracks or fall over. The perp(s) could have grabbed her, with hand over mouth, so quickly, that no screams were heard. Mickey could have been taken by surprise and in total shock/fear and it could have occurred in a dark area near the empty car park further down the street after Circle K. This may have zero to do with the now infamous damn white truck! It could be that someone was waiting in a parked car just a bit further down the street from Circle K, pulled out from a parking lot, tapped her from behind, and if this is the case, it could be premeditated. JMO

 

[cluciano63]

I'm interested in finding out where Mickey is now. Whether she was hit by a truck or car, or run over, or knocked off her bike by someone on foot or another bike rider, we need to figure out where she was taken.

I agree, to the extent that since she is not on the road NOW, that means she is someplace else and to me, the photo doesn't really tell us anything that is useful NOW. Even if she is under the truck...JMO

 

[HouDat]

Chevy Chase, you don't have an explanation for this!

Distortion.

Look at the way the lines of the running board are distorted. Ever see a running board do a zig-zag like that?

It's not her. It's not the bike.

 

[courtneyb]

Glad you tiptoed out of lurkdom, courtneyb!

:welcome:

I've barely gotten my tee-tiny little toes out of lurkdom. You guys are very intelligent, thorough and present some great thought provoking ideas/theories. In reading other threads, I see how quickly a missing person case can just go cold and not get the attention it should. BTW, I am local... I live about an hour or so away from Lafayette, and it is frustrating that there seems to be a lack of coverage, at least on my local television news, of this case.

 

[waiting1979]

If the truck hit the bike and simultaneously slammed on its brakes, then that might explain the bike being there.

But not Mickey. Unless, of course, she was buckled (or otherwise fastened) to the bike...

Had Mickey been hit from behind, her inertia would have continued moving forward.

Given the fact that in the frame we are shown, there is no truck visible; and in the subsequent frame, the supposed "Mickey" figures have moved (by your estimates) only one foot...it simply does not compute. The truck would have to be traveling at an excessively high rate of speed relative to the posted speed limit, and then...coming to a halt, without screeching (because there are no skid marks on the street), thus stopping the bike...but sending Mickey forward.

I'm sorry, I didn't graduate from one of those schools that teaches that the Loch Ness Monster is real, so I'm just not able to buy this line of thinking.

As for the phantom Mickey others are seeing? That's no more Mickey than it is Jesus-on-toast. I'm not going to get into the business of proving a negative, because no one here has proven the affirmative. It's merely a gratuitous assertion and, as such, can easily be countered with an equal-and-opposite gratuitous assertion.

But Mickey is stand still. The truck is moving. Mickey could easily move sideways. Like putting a pool ball in the side pocket from the back center end. Physics! I don't appreciate your condescending tone. I hope that ends soon. 1dering why you put so much into defending the truck. I'm not Chasing every Chevy. just this one.

 

[Island hopper]

OK. If she's not under the truck & she's not being held for ransom and she wasn't abducted by aliens, where the hell is she?

If we have absolutely, positively nothing after that intersection, where'd she go?

That's what we have. Mickey across from the Circle K --> no Mickey. Poof!

Whatever happened either happened in front of our eyes or just out of frame. Because there is zero evidence of her presence any farther in any direction. None.

And if nobody anywhere has any idea WHAT could have possibly happened out of frame - after all this time - it seems to me that in front of our eyes at the very least deserves continued consideration.

Dogs haven't found her, cameras didn't see her, people have searched. Hundreds of people for hundreds of hours.

If you want to dismiss the under the wheel theory, offer something equally plausible. Why is there nothing after that intersection? Nothing? But that's when and where something happened? Where there's nothing? There's never been anything? Not a sound, not an image, not a witness, no dog picked up her scent further along, but she definitely kept going? And you're completely convinced? By what? Why are you convinced she continued after the last known image? It seems to me that THAT's a bigger leap of faith than under the wheel.

I'm not there. I can't get there. I can't physically touch that street, sniff the air.

I see the right front wheel of that truck in a position indicating that something's under it. Unless there's a photo of a 5 or 6" bump in the road, only on that side, I'm going with it's rolling over something. Something as substantial as a speed bump.

No one's even attempted to show that the right front wheel was flat on the pavement because it can't be shown. It's not flat on the pavement. There is no speed bump there. 30 threads later, there's no reasonable explanation for why the truck's front end is askew. Why not?

Show me a picture of the bump in that exact location that would cause a vehicle that size to so obviously be off kilter and I'll let it go. Really I will. Sincerely.

I don't think it's been solidly demonstrated to be impossible. 'Because I don't think so' doesn't work for me.

I've been scoffed at, schooled in personal versions of possible physics and I put it all away for a while. Went away, did other stuff.

But it's still there. The image is still there. It broke my heart the first time I saw it. I wept for an hour.

I'd love to be wrong. I want very badly for it to be nothing. I hate having that picture in my head.



Show me the 6" bump, give me some peace. Please.

I agree. I have also wondered why the still captured the truck (going in the same direction as Mickey) being partially obstructed by the road work sign making it more difficult to identify. Why not capture a still of it just a few feet ahead? Same with Mickey. The still captures them in the exact same spot.

You would think that if it is a continuous video camera that they could capture the still in a variety of frames and see different angles of the truck and Mickey. It's difficult to tell if the truck is a crew cab or just an extended cab.

It's my opinion that either they cannot capture a still a few feet further because of what happened at this spot or because the camera only takes video once a minute.

 

[Island hopper]

I could be mistaken, but didn't LE issue a statement specifically stating Mickey wasn't under the truck some days ago in direct response to the conversation on here?

They made that statement to one individual while making a statement to another that no scenario has been ruled out. I think we pretty well determined that LE isn't going to confirm either way as that could jeopardize the investigation.

 

[Mahouston69]

If Mickey was hit as some are suggesting wouldn't the people that were caught on the same cameras at circle k getting gas hear the crash? the cops should be able to tell who was getting gas as most people pay with credit or they go inside to pay with cash after dark. We have to trust that they have interviewed these people as well. Praying for answers soon..

In the video still of Mickey and the Truck Z71- there is ONE car getting gas at the pump, and no driver can be seen. He/She could be inside the vehicle listening to loud music. They could be inside talking to the cashier or using the bathroom. The cashier could be using the bathroom, or in the back store room or taking something around the back. Multiple reasons why no "person" saw anything or heard anything". Hitting a person on a bike does not make a sound like two cars crashing into each other. It's metal hitting flesh or very small pieces of metal. Google "Cop witnesses car hitting bicycle"- watch the impact at highway speeds- over 40 probably-That sends bicycle and rider flying forward six feet and bicycle tumbling to the side. Mickeys impact would have been much much slower around 15mph or less but still knock her off her bike, injure her and dent her tire rim like the accident that happened here yesterday, the bike only moved a foot, dented her rim, and sent her to the hospital, with a few scrapes and pit marks on the truck bumper. I am sure the police have checked and they have no reason to comment on those people but my theory is they were doing something else and didn't see anything, or they saw the truck sitting there or headed in the other direction and saw neither Mickey or her bike blocked by the truck...but we know she was there right then, don't we?

 

[waiting1979]

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.

 

[mamacat]

Just gotta say something positive :woohoo:
The good news is that, even after extensive searches, Mickey's body has not been found, so there is still hope! If you're still out there, sweet girl, we are all praying for your safe return :heartbeat: