Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[zooterkin]

Fiddlesticks. The press release of 11 October 2023 can only have been based on speculation.

You mean the press conference by the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service; people who had been on the scene?

 

[smartcooky]

As a matter of interest, WHY hasn't the owner come forward?

Maybe he doesn't want to attract the attention of ill-informed conspiracy theorists... like you!!

I promise you, if it was my car that started that fire, and I had a bunch of conspiratards running around spouting misinformation, disinformation and lies like you have been doing here, I would be keeping my head well below the parapet!!

 

[zooterkin]

People talk. It is a free country. Be glad that people are allowed to talk. Unlike in Iran, China or Russia.

And people are free to talk complete bollocks, and others are free to point out when they do so, or lie repeatedly.

Does this stop the car where the fire started from being a diesel?

 

[Vixen]

Indeed, her claim that she can just intuit the effective slope because she's seen art that uses perspective is comically desperate and naive.

Ironically, rotation about the optical axis is the only affine transformation that is preserved in the projection. You can literally apply the same transformation to the projected data and obtain the same result as rotating about the optical axis prior to projection.

Affine space is the three dimensional space in which objects nominally exist. Affine transformations are those we apply to affine measurements which preserve the "affinity" of the data. Moving a car one meter to the left does not change the distance between the points of the car. And it changes the distance from all the points of the car to some reference plane by exactly and only a linear function of the parameter of the transformation. Ditto scaling and rotation. Affine transformations can be accumulated, and the affinity is a function of the accumulation—again linear.

What we see in photographs is projective space. The projection transformation is not an affine transformation and is not affinity-preserving. Transformations of the measurements in affine space are not preserved through the projection. For a simple lens, the projection is governed by a scalar parameter. For most lenses used today, the projection parameter is a function. This is referred to in the literature as the "lens model."

Photogrammetric rectification is the process of inverting the projective transformation. This is difficult in some cases because projection is not theoretically invertible. Several points in affine space will project to the same point in projective space. Thus the inversion of a point in projective space is a line in affine space. This is all linear algebra—points, vectors, and matrices. The projection matrix is a 4x4 matrix. The photogrammetrist's job is to populate this matrix for some photographic frame with actual numbers. Then by inverting the matrix insofar as possible, we can obtain a line in affine space that corresponds to a point in projective space. We use other cues to locate a desired point along the line. Only then can we say that we have points in affine space derived from a photograph that you can then use to reason about angles in affine space that provide such practical information as terrain slope.

Numbers, points, and vectors are not Vixen's strong suit. Pretending that she can perform this exacting calculation in her head simply because she's seen art that uses perspective is as arrogantly presumptive as claiming one can produce an accurate recipe for soup by seeing a photograph of a bowl of it.

Really? I used to be an amateur photographer with a couple of SLR's and a whole range of different lenses, flashes, film, manual adjustments, etc. etc. What do I know about calculating depth of field or light quality.

 

[zooterkin]

Really? I used to be an amateur photographer with a couple of SLR's and a whole range of different lenses, flashes, film, manual adjustments, etc. etc. What do I know about calculating depth of field or light quality.

Based on evidence provided so far, the square root of bugger all.

 

[SteveAitch]

Really? I used to be an amateur photographer with a couple of SLR's and a whole range of different lenses, flashes, film, manual adjustments, etc. etc. What do I know about calculating depth of field or light quality.

I know several people like that.

In their case, at least, the phrase that comes to mind is "all the gear, no idea".

 

[Vixen]

No. Again, you just pulled this out of an orifice so you can pretend that you're not promoting conspiracy theories. Jay gave you the definition from the OED, which you claim to consider authoritative, and that's not what it says.




No. You tried this gambit in your repeated attempts to rehabilitate Anders Björkman, claiming that he is merely "curious," holds "a different opinion," and questions the "logistics" of the September 11 attacks, the possibility of human space flight, and the existence of nuclear weapons, when he's obviously a lunatic conspiracy theorist.

As for the hilited, as has been noted previously, no, we aren't trying to shut you up because we're afraid you're trying to reveal some awful truth that we just can't handle. We wish you'd face the fact that all available evidence indicates the car that started the fire was an ordinary diesel.




FTFY




It may be less implausible, but it's still a conspiracy theory.

What does Anders Björkman have to do with anything? Just because I support people's right to take an interest in whatever they wish, it doesn't follow I endorse them. Some people are more curious about the world than others.

 

[Vixen]

This is, in my 'ever so 'umble, the crux of this thread. Vixen, as you know, the BF&RS have publicly stated that the instigating vehicle was a diesel and not an EV or a hybrid. Do you believe, as you have insinuated, that this statement was knowingly false?

If so, then you are accusing them of lying.

Waffle about some imagined Jenny/Jeremy in Comms/PR is irrelevant. The published opinion of the BF&RS is that it was a diesel powered vehicle.

Waffle about British deference to the authority of the upper classes is irrelevant. The BF&RS are not the upper classes.

Waffle about the Two Ronnies is, obviously, irrelevant. They are both very much dead.

So, do you believe that the unambiguous statement by the BF&RS is knowingly untrue? Are you accusing them of lying?


ETA: To clarify, I'm not yet asking why you believe that they are or aren't lying, that comes after. For now I am asking you to clarify whether or not you believe that their unambiguous public statement is knowingly false (a lie).

As I said before, it is early day speculation not a verdict. So not 'lying'.

It is quite obvious BF&RS are constrained in what they are allowed to say.

So, if a mainstream newspaper is not allowed to say, 'Mr. X. is a theif and a crook', that is not because it is lying, it is because the newspapers lawyers will advise, 'No, you cannot publish that'. It could even be an edict from the police, the government or the intelligence services. So your attempts to focus blame on BF&RS for the obvious news embargo is quite misconceived.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Fiddlesticks. The press release of 11 October 2023 can only have been based on speculation.

Yet more 'because Vixen says so' nonsense.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

What does Anders Björkman have to do with anything? Just because I support people's right to take an interest in whatever they wish, it doesn't follow I endorse them. Some people are more curious about the world than others.

Bjorkman isn't 'more curious' about the world, he's a delusional crank.

 

[Vixen]

And, naturally, you ignored the "no qualifications and a near pathological hatred of EVs" part of catsmate's post. Further, did it occur to you that a Putin shill would have an interest in attempting to discredit the British government?

He is a petrol head, not a Putin shill. He has a healthy scepticism which is useful for others who want to understand the latest EV developments. Some people are early adopters, others want to 'wait and see' how the early adopters get on. I cannot see anything sinister about that. It is a well known phenomenon in the technological industry.

If the government does not provide information then people will turn to perceived knowledgeable persons within their community.

 

[Vixen]

Don't be ridiculous. Do you need to be spoonfed links to the MULTIPLE and increasingly specific press releases published by the BF&RS since their CFO's initial press conference yet again?

No, you are well aware of what they have stated in their press releases. Stop fannying around and answer the question.

ONE press release, periodically updated to reiterate the first one.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

ONE press release, periodically updated to reiterate the first one.

Nope. You're simply lying about this.

 

[Vixen]

100%.

I fully expect that when the official report comes out, and it doesn't back up Vixen's extraordinary and ludicrous claims, she will at the very least summarily dismiss its contents, more likely, she will claim its writers have been got at by the Deep State! This would be par for the course for conspiracy theorists...

As someone else I have conversed with on the internet is has said...

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution"

What 'extraordinary and ludicrous claims'...?

 

[Vixen]

What has this got to do with waiting for the report? This in no way answers my question about why you said they were not reporting the prime minister's money making shenanigans yet because of some kind of protocol.

The most likely reason, IMO, for not publishing make, model, year, colour and trim level of the car is that they did not have that info confirmed at a time when it was newsworthy. The video they published will have been with the permission of the person who took it.

Now will you explain what it is you think the press will reveal when "protocol" permits? You're accusing them of colluding in covering up a deception on the British people. Do you anticipate their admitting that?

If, as you say, 'The most likely reason, IMO, for not publishing make, model, year, colour and trim level of the car is that they did not have that info confirmed at a time when it was newsworthy', then ipso facto the press release on 11 October 2023, which has not changed, is 100% speculation based on 'best educated guess'.

We will not know whether it is 'colluding in covering up a deception on the British people' until we see the report. Let's see if they name the brand, make, model and year or whether it remains unspecified. I suspect Sunak is 'protecting the Tata JLR brand' and that would be more to do with ethics and why people accept that level of self-interest.

 

[Vixen]

"The vehicle involved was diesel-powered – it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle. "

Sure, that just reeks of plausible deniability. Why, if it turns out that it was a hybrid, they could just say, "Yeah, but we didn't say what make it was or whether that video was real! Can't blame us just because we literally and explicitly said it was not a hybrid."

'...as of that stage when we gave the press release'.


You have got it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... So, if the Luton Airport car park fire was caused by a fully diesel car then something like this might have caused the super-rapid spread to other cars.

By what measure do you claim there was a "super-rapid spread"?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As a matter of interest, WHY hasn't the owner come forward?

Come forward to whom?

 

[Vixen]

Well, according to Vixen, a lack of sprinklers causes fires.... and by the way, she has still not explained the mechanism behind that claim, despite being asked several times.

I am pretty sure I explained at the time I left out the phrase 'the impact of'.

I also explained that sprinklers might have helped in keeping the general atmosphere of the car park cooler thus slowing down the fire.

 

[Vixen]

"Dang. Looks like I was wrong on this one. Better luck next time I guess."

Vixen, why is this not your line?

The press release was on 11 October 2023, whilst the fire was still smouldering behind Andrew Hopkinson and he very clearly said, 'we believe'...'at this stage'...subject to further investigation'"


There has not been any further press release because we are all awaiting the report.

The 'update' in March was simply a reiteration of what was said 11 Oct 2023.

You might be content with the initial supposition being a final verdict but I will wait for the proper report, if that is OK with you?