Maura Murray

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill, you certainly know more about this than I do. Did you blow up the picture and look at it pixel by pixel? The "shadow" does not appear to be in the right place. If you have blown it up to look at it and still standby what you say, I will drop it and defer to your better knowledge on this one.:-)

Judged:

2

1

Snowy wrote:

so, the multi-monikered come and go, play in the sandbox, play dumb or throw sand.
some make an appearance before retreating back to the woodwork to nibble on a few pieces of cheese.
8 years is a long time.
hope something changes soon, but it seems doubtful.

Judged:

2

2

1

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree w this statement, it very well could be dithering. The black/white scale is not right in this photo so no worthwhile conclusion can be drawn from it.
But I guess that again brings up the question of why didn't they use any up to date pictures of her?
One of the pics is clearly her high school senior pic and another is her most likely at the prom. Why? Yea she looks wicked cute in these pics but how r they gonna help find her? Then judging by the size of her cheeks/dimples most of the other pics look pretty old as well.
In nov 03 she looked completely different, much much thinner.
Did they not have current pics of her? Did they not take any when she was there for the holidays?
Is there a reason they didn't want to use current photos? Seems highly unusual for a family to release 2-3 yr old pics of their missing loved one.? This, as with many other aspects of this case, is just not standard operating procedure for a missing persons case.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. I only made it as big as it was in the original (what I think is the original) And you would be correct that the black may not be where you would think it would be.
http://www.expertglossary.com/definition/dith...
This is a pretty good description of what gray scale dithering is. You can see that the actual black, or white dots don't need to be where the actual representation of the color is. Instead of one gray colored pixel of a certain value, it uses four black or white pixels in a two by two matrix (can be three by three or higher matrices). Remember that two by two matrix is trying to replace one gray matrix so it cannot be placed in the exact position. You will start to generate artifacts, in particular if those patterns start to combine because you notice that they are always skewed in the same way. The 25%, 50% and 75% always use the same pattern. Because of that they can actually create patterns themselves. The shadow may look odd because everything may be set to a gradient which because of the way it represented in the dithering adds all the filled in black parts of the dither together, making it look black even though its actually not that dark.
Add to that the I am guessing that it likely started as color. Who the hell uses black and white or gray-scale any more, except artsy folks. So we converted from color to gray-scale and then for whatever reason gray-scale dithered that and then only to about four levels.
I can't really tell you what that picture shows. Truthfully they have reduced the amount of graphical information in it so low, that, like you, I can't really tell what it telling us.
I suspect that the original photo was color. It was reduced, likely to gray-scale, guessing here, for release in a newspaper? From there it was scanned for Renners publication again, dithering it further?
Just my opinion but I will mention that the implementation of image processing algorithms was something that I spent many years doing early in my career. Without seeing the original, I would be far more concerned about that giant splotch in the center of her forehead. Trying to figure out where that came from. 8-)
Bill

Judged:

1

1

1

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey snowy can you please tell us who you r referring to when you say the "multi monikered"
Honest question, I reallly have no idea and would like to know who is usin multiple names on this board

Judged:

1

Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
According to the copy I have of the Grafton Co Sheriff's Log, at page 19, Faith Westman's call is entered first at 19:27 (7:27 P)... then the call from the SBD residence is entered at 19:43 and presumably that is where dispatch got the description of Maura. The first noted BOL "for a female abt 507 on foot, victim of crash" is entered after the entry of the call from the Atwood residence, so it doesn't look like LE had a description before they talked with SBD.

Judged:

1

1

1

jwb wrote:

Anne, You really should talk to the NHCCU.I know others have suggested it, but have you done it?

jwb wrote:

Anne, You really should talk to the NHCCU.I know others have suggested it, but have you done it?

Judged:

1

1

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree w this statement, it very well could be dithering. The black/white scale is not right in this photo so no worthwhile conclusion can be drawn from it.
But I guess that again brings up the question of why didn't they use any up to date pictures of her?
One of the pics is clearly her high school senior pic and another is her most likely at the prom. Why? Yea she looks wicked cute in these pics but how r they gonna help find her? Then judging by the size of her cheeks/dimples most of the other pics look pretty old as well.
In nov 03 she looked completely different, much much thinner.
Did they not have current pics of her? Did they not take any when she was there for the holidays?
Is there a reason they didn't want to use current photos? Seems highly unusual for a family to release 2-3 yr old pics of their missing loved one.? This, as with many other aspects of this case, is just not standard operating procedure for a missing persons case.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Black eye or not, I think the rest of what you're saying is important.
Isn't it interesting how certain questions here get ignored, and then the subject changes?

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Black eye or not, I think the rest of what you're saying is important.
Isn't it interesting how certain questions here get ignored, and then the subject changes?

Judged:

4

4

4

Anne wrote:

<quoted text>Advocate, I know this now, of course but it still does not explain why the initial chatter we heard was car slid off the road and no one around at about 7pm and shortly later people looking for young female about 5ft 7. This was before call of car in ditch. It always seemed plausible to mme a second accident or that we had missed the initial call somehow. I was sure someone had died when they didnt call rescue out and were just driving around looking for this female.

Judged:

3

3

2

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>
Amy can you elaborate?
Thank you.

Judged:

1

1

1

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I have posted several questions asking about things I think are honest, objective questions. Some of these posts have been deleted, others unanswered.
I've asked if anyone knows who was with her at the parties in Goshen (NYE) and at the dorm party the night her dad was in town. I've asked if anyone ever confirmed the rumor that she had a boyfriend in Amherst, and if so whether he was questioned. I've asked if a gentleman named Mason who used to post on Advocate's board ever was able to obtain the work records for Fred's alibi. I've asked if LE was informed of Maura's past, or if it was just kept out of the public/media.
I understand if no one has the answers or is allowed to say. But the response has been to accuse me of having an agenda, working for Renner, tell me I am Beagle or his lawyer etc. Someone also phoned me from a blocked number to "mind my own F-ing business". Related to this? I don't know. But I don't get calls like that on a normal afternoon. Maybe this place is making me paranoid.
I just think they are legitimate questions. I am not trying to accuse anyone or pry into anyone's life, or anything like that. I try to be objective and look at the big picture, and part of this picture is missing.

Judged:

1

1

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I have posted several questions asking about things I think are honest, objective questions. Some of these posts have been deleted, others unanswered.
I've asked if anyone knows who was with her at the parties in Goshen (NYE) and at the dorm party the night her dad was in town. I've asked if anyone ever confirmed the rumor that she had a boyfriend in Amherst, and if so whether he was questioned. I've asked if a gentleman named Mason who used to post on Advocate's board ever was able to obtain the work records for Fred's alibi. I've asked if LE was informed of Maura's past, or if it was just kept out of the public/media.
I understand if no one has the answers or is allowed to say. But the response has been to accuse me of having an agenda, working for Renner, tell me I am Beagle or his lawyer etc. Someone also phoned me from a blocked number to "mind my own F-ing business". Related to this? I don't know. But I don't get calls like that on a normal afternoon. Maybe this place is making me paranoid.
I just think they are legitimate questions. I am not trying to accuse anyone or pry into anyone's life, or anything like that. I try to be objective and look at the big picture, and part of this picture is missing.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Without seeing the original, I would be far more concerned about that giant splotch in the center of her forehead. Trying to figure out where that came from. 8-)
Bill

Judged:

3

2

2

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Anne your posts are becoming more and more confusing. First you claim you and your husband heard an earleir accident, then you claim that it wasn't you that heard a second accident, then your friend lives on Bradley Hill Rd and then you say she lives on Hill Rd. Now you're again claiming that you did hear a car slide off the road with no one around at about 7PM.
Who was looking for her and if she wasn't around how did anyone know she was a female about 5ft 7?
Where was this first group of searchers that were just driving around looking for her when the police and EMS were on their way to the "2nd" accident at the Weathered Barn?
OK I'm going to get my basket out to collect the peanuts and have my fire extinguisher handy to put out the flames I'm sure to get but I have to say that I think this a a bunch of BS that we've been fed for years.
And before mcsmom comes running like her britches are on fire waving old newspaper articles with "evidence" of there being an earlier accident by these two words"about 7" I say don't waste your energy. IMHO when I hear something happened about 7 or about 6 or about 2 it doesn't mean that whatever happened happened exactly at that time or 5 minutes before or after or even 15 minutes before or after. It simply means that something happened about that time.