How could Jez and Gerry not see Jane?

[stephen25000]

The case has not been solved yet.

No kidding.

[Robittybob1]

No kidding.

What I'm allowing for is an alternative outcome. 

[Alice Purjorick]

The case has not been solved yet.
In my opinion the Tanner sighting is not an abduction.  The child being carried is not Madeleine.  But it wasn't creche man either.

Oh no! Surely not Whicker Island again?

[sadie]

I'm enquiring as to why they didn't see Jayne rather than why they didn't see Tannerman.

OK,

I covered the likely reasons in my post « Reply #82 on: November 27, 2016, 10:38:47 PM »

It is fairly long winded so you probably skipped it ... but it is thorough.


It may or may not be correct in its entirety, but the fact that people cannot see beyond certain angles, as specified in  Heriberto Janosch’ report is beyond disbelief.

We simply cannot see too wide a vision.  If both men were intent on looking down at the toddler in the pushchair, neither would see Jane pass by.   In one of his statements, Jez has said that he thinks that the pushchair was at the side of him pointing down the road.  Looking at the baby would mean that Jane was simply beyond his line of vision .....
simples.

[G-Unit]

OK,

I covered the likely reasons in my post « Reply #82 on: November 27, 2016, 10:38:47 PM »

It is fairly long winded so you probably skipped it ... but it is thorough.


It may or may not be correct in its entirety, but the fact that people cannot see beyond certain angles, as specified in  Heriberto Janosch’ report is beyond disbelief.

We simply cannot see too wide a vision.  If both men were intent on looking down at the toddler in the pushchair, neither would see Jane pass by.   In one of his statements, Jez has said that he thinks that the pushchair was at the side of him pointing down the road.  Looking at the baby would mean that Jane was simply beyond his line of vision .....
simples.

It wasn't only vision, there was movement and probably sound also.

[sadie]

It wasn't only vision, there was movement and probably sound also.

Movement is registered in vision. 
If it was not in the "field of vision" cos they were both looking down at Jez' baby, then no amouint of movement would enable them to see Jane .... simples


Maybe there was a flip flopping sound, but maybe there wasn't.  It depends on the quality of the "flip flops"

But I hardly think that Jane would go to dinner in rubber beach flip flops!   She is the long term partner of a medical consultant and also has a good position herself .... she could afford some really nice evening "flip flops" ... the silent kind !

[G-Unit]

Movement is registered in vision. 
If it was not in the "field of vision" cos they were both looking down at Jez' baby, then no amouint of movement would enable them to see Jane .... simples


Maybe there was a flip flopping sound, but maybe there wasn't.  It depends on the quality of the "flip flops"

But I hardly think that Jane would go to dinner in rubber beach flip flops!   She is the long term partner of a medical consultant and also has a good position herself .... she could afford some really nice evening "flip flops" ... the silent kind !

Here is what can be seen out of the 'corner of the eye'. The rods which detect movement are very numerous in our peripheral vision, more so than in our macula area, where cones are more numerous.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html



Silent flip flops? A bit of a misnomer then. I have looked, but they all seem to make that noise unless you practice for hours to walk silently.

[ShiningInLuz]

Here is what can be seen out of the 'corner of the eye'. The rods which detect movement are very numerous in our peripheral vision, more so than in our macula area, where cones are more numerous.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html



Silent flip flops? A bit of a misnomer then. I have looked, but they all seem to make that noise unless you practice for hours to walk silently.

I haven't read the article yet, which I definitely will do.  But have you tested this idea out for yourself?  Preferably in lighting conditions which approximate to those of Gerry/Jez?  (Obviously I can't have done the latter yet due to the time of day.)

I'm interested because I would estimate my peripheral vision, side to side, to be close to 170.  I don't get near the up-field in that diagram, probably as an evolutionary characteristic to stop me getting blinded by the sun.  I think I get close to the down-field because I can see the tips of my toes as I walk.  But I'm sure my brain is designed to filter that out otherwise I would fall over constantly.   Hmm, maybe it is for snake detection?  Just thinking out loud.

I need to read the article and I need to emulate the sighting conditions.

[G-Unit]

I haven't read the article yet, which I definitely will do.  But have you tested this idea out for yourself?  Preferably in lighting conditions which approximate to those of Gerry/Jez?  (Obviously I can't have done the latter yet due to the time of day.)

I'm interested because I would estimate my peripheral vision, side to side, to be close to 170.  I don't get near the up-field in that diagram, probably as an evolutionary characteristic to stop me getting blinded by the sun.  I think I get close to the down-field because I can see the tips of my toes as I walk.  But I'm sure my brain is designed to filter that out otherwise I would fall over constantly.   Hmm, maybe it is for snake detection?  Just thinking out loud.

I need to read the article and I need to emulate the sighting conditions.

The macula area is for colour and detail in good light conditions. Colour detection is poor in peripheral vision, but this area performs better in poor light conditions. I think self-protection is a factor.

It certainly seems possible to detect movement using peripheral vision.

[sadie]

Here is what can be seen out of the 'corner of the eye'. The rods which detect movement are very numerous in our peripheral vision, more so than in our macula area, where cones are more numerous.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html



Silent flip flops? A bit of a misnomer then. I have looked, but they all seem to make that noise unless you practice for hours to walk silently.

Where do you get that diagram from Gunit? 
Cant see it on the website, which doesn't seem to have much of interest in it anyway.  A diversionary tactic ?   

It doesn't even explain what the radiating lines mean, if anything.  It is a nonsense without a key... and who produced it?


Anyone know where Heribertos diagram has gone? Hope it hasn't been wiped. 

From memory, I can tell you that his scientific diagram maintained that periferal vision was operative for a considerably narrower field than in your diagram which I am guessing indicates 130*


But even at 130* that elimenates any possibility of seeing Tannerman and Jane as she walked away.  Gerry and Jez would need a 180* field of visiion to see them... and they certainly aint got that !!

[sadie]

Where do you get that diagram from Gunit? 
Cant see it on the website, which doesn't seem to have much of interest in it anyway.  A diversionary tactic ?   

It doesn't even explain what the radiating lines mean, if anything.  It is a nonsense without a key... and who produced it?


Anyone know where Heribertos diagram has gone? Hope it hasn't been wiped. 

From memory, I can tell you that his scientific diagram maintained that periferal vision was operative for a considerably narrower field than in your diagram which I am guessing indicates 130*


But even at 130* that elimenates any possibility of seeing Tannerman and Jane as she walked away.  Gerry and Jez would need a 180* field of visiion to see them... and they certainly aint got that !!

Have just quickly gone thru all Heris posts and an find no diagram of his scientific "Field of vision"

Neither can i find his video /images showing how the shutters could be lifted, the windows slid open and a young child easily lifted out of the window,  That seems to have gone


Heri is an expert, an extremely well qualified expert who has studied this case in great depth .........and his 2 most iconic ... and worthwhile postings seem to have been wiped?


WHAT'S GOING ON ?    where are they?

[John]

Is this the post you are referring to Sadie?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1963.msg63132#msg63132

[Robittybob1]

Here is what can be seen out of the 'corner of the eye'. The rods which detect movement are very numerous in our peripheral vision, more so than in our macula area, where cones are more numerous.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html



Silent flip flops? A bit of a misnomer then. I have looked, but they all seem to make that noise unless you practice for hours to walk silently.

In Jane's rogatory interview she does admit struggling to walk in her flip flops.
The other thing the guys move their eyes and the heads so even if the peripheral vision is limited to a certain angle hence range that is only if the eyes and head body is kept still. 

[G-Unit]

Have just quickly gone thru all Heris posts and an find no diagram of his scientific "Field of vision"

Neither can i find his video /images showing how the shutters could be lifted, the windows slid open and a young child easily lifted out of the window,  That seems to have gone


Heri is an expert, an extremely well qualified expert who has studied this case in great depth .........and his 2 most iconic ... and worthwhile postings seem to have been wiped?


WHAT'S GOING ON ?    where are they?

You can never find anything lol. Here you go;



Not too different from mine. Heri was discussing binocular vision and the likelihood of noticing an open shutter when crossing the car park; a static item, not a moving one.

It is moving items that we spot with our peripheral vision. If Jes was looking into a pram facing downhill he would have seen Jane approaching/passing with his peripheral vision.

[sadie]

Is this the post you are referring to Sadie?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1963.msg63132#msg63132

Thank you John.  I went thru all Heris posts but the images do not show on some of them.  Well done for finding it.

Heriberto

Re: THE FRONT DOOR - WAY IN AND WAY OUT for abductor
« Reply #98 on: July 22, 2013, 07:50:42 PM »

Some pics ...

-snip-

And 50º are just the limit of human binocular vision, although the visual field is uneven, it is not uniform and has its maximum definition in its central part. 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1963.0;attach=2597;image

Thanks to Heriberto Janosch.

When both eyes are being used, the periferal vision is only 100* [between the two blue lines].  So only 50* in either direction.  That is not very great.

Altogether different to your info Gunit.



And it was dark too, so that wouldn't help