Luton Airport Car Park Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jack by the hedge said:
Your photoanalysis skills are astonishingly poor. Well, okay, I should know better than to be astonished, but they're risible.

Slope: you have no horizon to compare. You have no idea which way the floor slopes other than perhaps to note burning diesel was flowing to the car's left.

Extinguisher: looks fine to me on my phone. Maybe you could flesh out your objection a bit. Or maybe you can't.

Lane: that is not a white line. It's just the edge of a concrete slab. One-way traffic means the car has the whole broad lane to use, except the green lane to one side for pedestrians.
Click to expand...
You missed out the bonnet. Maybe someone advised them to open it up & let the smoke out?
 
Vixen said:
That is not correct. The person concerned is someone called Rebecca Croft.

Daily Mirror
Click to expand...

"...told the same..." should be your clue. That she said it doesn't mean that he didn't.

Dear FSM :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
There is such a thing a criminal libel which means technically whilst the brand might be Range Rover it might technically not be liable for the fire caused by driver error or misdemeanour. Should its sales be impacted by such a libel then technically it could sue for business reputation damage.
Click to expand...

Nope. Someone saying the fire started in a diesel Land Rover model X when the fire started in a diesel Land Rover model X is absolutely not actionable. Telling the truth is an absolute defense to such an action.

I know a talk show host who has been sued for libel several times. Because what she said was the truth she won every case.

And criminal libel? Perhaps you can cite a criminal violation that would qualify for such a ridiculous notion.
 
Vixen said:
Note how in picture 2

the vehicle now appears to be on flat ground or even in a 'valley'
Click to expand...
In the first picture the vehicle is at the top of the frame, indicating that the camera was aimed towards the floor. In the second picture it's in the middle, so the camera is level relative to the floor.

There is no anomaly.

the fire extinguisher to its left (back view on its right) is disproportionately large
Click to expand...
You never heard of perspective? It's behind the vehicle so it will appear larger from behind. Without knowing the lens focal length (which changes with zoom setting) you can't determine exactly what the size difference should be.

There is no anomaly.

the vehicle is now too wide to fit in its lane. It straddles the centre white line!
Click to expand...
You must have bad eyesight, because it does on the first photo too.

There is no anomaly.

the bonnet/hood appears to be floating above the , er, bonnet.
Click to expand...
The bonnet appears to be unlatched (not 'floating above'), probably because they tried to put the fire out by lifting it and spraying the fire extinguishers into the engine bay (a huge mistake!).

There is no anomaly.

suddenly, the registration plate is readable! Quelle surprise!
Click to expand...
In the second photo the vehicle is closer and the lighting is better from the front. No surprise therefore that the front plate is more readable.

There is no anomaly.

I must say the sign saying to 'terminal' is a nice touch. Well faked...
Click to expand...
Very poor attempt. I was expecting better from a seasoned conspiracy theorist. Big Oil must be wondering if they are paying you too much...
 
Roger Ramjets said:
You never heard of perspective? It's behind the vehicle so it will appear larger from behind. Without knowing the lens focal length (which changes with zoom setting) you can't determine exactly what the size difference should be.

There is no anomaly.
Click to expand...
Screenshot-from-2023-11-07-13-59-17.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0
Small.... Far away....

That should be the name of this thread 'One last time'
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
The bonnet appears to be unlatched (not 'floating above'), probably because they tried to put the fire out by lifting it and spraying the fire extinguishers into the engine bay (a huge mistake!).
Click to expand...

Or, as is more likely, they unlatched the bonnet to make a gap wide enough to direct the extinguisher spray through the gap. That's the way you are advised to do it.
 
Thermal said:
What the hell are you talking about? The car is in the same relative lane place, on the same slope (not that a tilted camera wouldn't easily alter that) and the extinguishers are the same?
Click to expand...

Do you have a reliable source for that video other than an anonymous unverified user on Twitter with 232 followers?
 
phiwum said:
Looks pretty damned similar to me. Your "differences" don't seem inconsistent. Different angles, different perspectives, and a hood that maybe appears to be ajar. Do you really think that Andy made the image from scratch and had to add a hood behind the smoke? Truly bizarre.

Mind you, I won't take either photo as the God's honest truth without some verification, but I don't find the second photo inconsistent with the first.

Of course, we're not all eagle eyes and Vixen is undoubtedly really good at this stuff...

ETA: Is it your opinion, Vixen, that this hybrid fan searched the database for a similar vehicle registered as a diesel ICE with a similar color and similar year and appropriately poor emissions rating so that he could fake a photo with that license plate? If so, he's quite dedicated, ain't he? Or perhaps he's on the Jaguar payroll.
Click to expand...

I think it has been identified as an Evoque so I think someone is keen to turn it into a diesel proper that cannot have been a hybrid.

Do you have an enlargement of the number plate that proves it is the Sport registration number as claimed?
 
catsmate said:
Some of us are capable of doing our own research. You should try it sometime.


Despite your pathetic attempts at obfuscation and outright, lying, the initial vehicle in the fire was a diesel Range Rover, nearly a decade old and vastly less valuable than you claimed. Your childish conspiratorial rants fool no-one.
Click to expand...

So speaks a poster who gets their 'research' from an anonymous twitter user.


Do you have a reliable source for your claim it was a ten-year-old diesel banger?
 
Vixen said:
So speaks a poster who gets their 'research' from an anonymous twitter user.


Do you have a reliable source for your claim it was a ten-year-old diesel banger?
Click to expand...

The fire service has confirmed that it was a diesel car
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Your photoanalysis skills are astonishingly poor. Well, okay, I should know better than to be astonished, but they're risible.

Slope: you have no horizon to compare. You have no idea which way the floor slopes other than perhaps to note burning diesel was flowing to the car's left.

Extinguisher: looks fine to me on my phone. Maybe you could flesh out your objection a bit. Or maybe you can't.

Lane: that is not a white line. It's just the edge of a concrete slab. One-way traffic means the car has the whole broad lane to use, except the green lane to one side for pedestrians.
Click to expand...
At this point I feel it's not worth engaging with Vixens spews; they're the type of conspiratorial drivel familiar from the old days of the 911 nutters and similarly redolent of desperation and fractal ignorance,
 
Vixen said:
I think it has been identified as an Evoque so I think someone is keen to turn it into a diesel proper that cannot have been a hybrid.



Do you have an enlargement of the number plate that proves it is the Sport registration number as claimed?
Click to expand...
So you started with the conclusion that the vehicle isn't an Evoque and tried to prove that the photo showing the license plate is faked?

I have no opinion whether it's an Evoque or not. I haven't even tried to read the license plate. My point is only that the front photo looks consistent with the rear photo and it's implausible that a Twitter nobody went to the effort to fake a whole video just to put out a fake license plate number.

Unless, of course, he's well funded by some baddies. Even then, there must be easier ways to fake just the plate.

But the particular make and year aren't terribly important. I'll wait for the report for those details. What if the official report says it was an older Evoque? Will you believe it then or will it just be an official lie?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Vixen said:
Do you have a reliable source for your claim it was a ten-year-old diesel banger?
Click to expand...

Do you have any worthwhile reason to describe a 2014 car as an 'old banger'? That's a quaint old term I haven't heard in decades.

Do you perhaps have an outdated view on how long a typical car lasts? I think the average is now around 16 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom