Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[phiwum]

No, it is not an update. It is a correction. Someone boobed and omitted to exclude MHEV's.

It's still on the site. Surely, someone would have fixed it by now if they want plausible deniability.

 

[phiwum]

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

No one is saying that Geoff Buys Cars shouldn't speak. The question is why you decided he is an expert when it comes to recognizing Lithium battery fires.

 

[JayUtah]

The very fact that you've attempted to defend this erroneous assumption with irrelevant appeals to artistic perspective [...] proves that you don't know what you're talking about, or at the very least, that you'll never admit to being wrong about this.

I doubt she's even proficient in that. Since I learned engineering graphics back in the days of drawing boards, pencils, vellum, and ruling pens, I have a remarkable collection of textbooks on perspective drawing. These were written in the 1940s and used well into the 1970s, because the geometric principles on which they are based come from physical law and do not change. I had to learn all those. And then later I was taught the actual mathematics of how it works, whereupon I taught to others at the university level.

Beginning drawing students learn one- and two-point perspective, and very often graduate to three-point perspective. The vanishing-point methods we use are a pure geometry formulation of what we formulate more formally (and analytically usefully) using linear algebra. It is a projection through a perfect lens, but turned inside out. Three-point perspective techniques give you a rendering of objects through an arbitrarily-aligned projective framework: but only of objects that share an alignment in affine space.

What the texts go into, that I suspect Vixen has no understanding of, are the perspective techniques to produce perspective renderings of objects that are arbitrarily oriented and positioned in affine space. Each has its own affine transformation to orient it with respect to the affine reference frame, and the projection of that affine transformation through the projective transformation onto the image plane results in many more projected reference frames than are need for the simple, canonical perspective drawings—many more vanishing points. Unless you are confident about the original affine transformations, you will botch the photogrammetry.

Merely waving one's hands generally at "perspective in art" doesn't convey that confidence, or in fact, any confidence. Noting that art employs perspective to produce realistic renderings is not tantamount to understanding how perspective works and why you can't make certain claims in the absence of certain data. Understanding the "how" tells you want you need to know. If you can't demonstrate you understand the "how" in the proper spatial reasoning terms, then you're just blowing smoke.

Plus, "perspective in art" might also include the Cubists, which appears to be where Vixen is getting her magical photographic interpretation skills.

 

[phiwum]

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


You have got it.

The latest press release explicitly excludes all hybrid vehicles as Car Zero. It's months since the fire.

If they claimed that they were merely re-reporting the info available the day after the fire, no one would possibly accept this excuse. The press release was on March 21.

See, the thing is that the first word of "plausible deniability" matters.

 

[phiwum]

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?

On March 21, the fire department issued a press release explicitly (and intentionally) excluding a hybrid as Car Zero. This was an update, clarifying the information they had at that time.

 

[catsmate]

Do you have a citation for this, or is it simply an argument along the lines of 'If you criticise EV cars you are supporting Russian oil sales'?

I personally think it is a good thing that ordinary knowledgeable people are allowed to freely express an opinion.

This is just childish. Your supposed expert, in addition to lacking qualifications and expertise, parrots Putin's propaganda lies.

Come on Vixen, where are the "many experts" you claim support you?

 

[catsmate]

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.

Bollocks. You haven't even bothered to examine his history have you?

 

[catsmate]

In a serious incident, such as this, the Police are involved as well as the Fire and Rescue Services, who collaborate in investigating what happened. The Police has always been insular and give out information on a 'need to know' basis. The Fire Brigade is responsible for producing the report. The Fire and Rescue Services are answerable to the government.

wiki

So your belief that they have a free hand in giving out information is misconceived.

More childish nonsense.

 

[phiwum]

This is just childish. Your supposed expert, in addition to lacking qualifications and expertise, parrots Putin's propaganda lies.

Come on Vixen, where are the "many experts" you claim support you?

Honestly, the question here should be about relevant qualifications and expertise. His political views are purely irrelevant.

Sadly, Vixen's only evidence of expertise is the number of views a video has received. This, of course, is a fallacy of another sort.

 

[catsmate]

The energy density of ethylene glycol (undiluted) is around 20 MJ / kg. Dilution gives a roughly linear reduction according to the dilution ratio. So it will support combustion, but no it is not an accelerant.

The flash point of pure glycol is ~130C, far higher than diesel.

 

[Vixen]

LOL!

Vixen, what do depth of field or light quality have to do with establishing the precise orientation of the camera in order to determine the orientation of the floor in the images being discussed?

Once more, let's say someone shoots a photograph looking down a hallway. The camera is centered down the hallway laterally, but is tilted upward by 5° relative to the floor. What can you determine about the actual slope of the floor relative to true level from that image? The answer is "nothing". The hall could be perfectly level with the camera tilted upward by 5° relative to true level. The hallway could be sloping upward (away from the camera lens) at 5°, with the camera at 10° from true level. The hallway could be sloping downward at 30° with the camera aimed down by 25°. Hell, the hallway could even be a vertical shaft with the camera aimed down by 85°. In any of those scenarios the images shot by the camera would look exactly the same, because there's no reference point to tell you where true level is.

Yet you're looking at the second photo and assuming the floor is sloping down away from the camera because you make the unwarranted assumption that the camera is aligned with true level. The very fact that you've attempted to defend this erroneous assumption with irrelevant appeals to artistic perspective, depth of field setting and lighting conditions proves that you don't know what you're talking about, or at the very least, that you'll never admit to being wrong about this. Your attempts to establish empirical evidence to back up your "deep fake" claims regarding those images have completely failed.

In the picture from behind, you have something in the foreground of the blazing vehicle, which gives an indication of the incline: it is the roof of the car over which the photographer, almost certainly from a mobile phone, is taking the shot. They are not sitting in the car beside it because they are looking over the roof of the car to film the burning car which is at a higher level than the roof of the car, they are filming over.

front by Username Vixen, on Flickr

In the other image, which is a four second video, you can see the slat of the low roof, so the footage appears to be from someone tall enough to get all of that in, albeit from a safe distance - and the ceiling is low, anyway - and it may well be cropped. So you can tell the perspective by eye that the ground is much flatter than in the first picture. This too, was likely taken by smartphone, which generally has a good quality of resolution these days, and the image appears reasonably sharp. Yet a viewer of Geoff Buys Cars says when he tried to focus in on the numberplate, no way was it at all decipherable, and it sounds as if he went to some effort, claiming he adjusted the various shadows.

back by Username Vixen, on Flickr

In addition, the 4-second video appeared on a brand new twitter account, apparently, and since then there has been no trace of it in the mass media.

 

[LondonJohn]

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


You have got it.

It's genuinely astonishing (not to mention highly amusing) that you've convinced yourself that since the CFO's comments to the media (not a press release, note) the day after the fire, every consequent official press release from BF&RS has been simply a lazy and incorrect rephrasing of that initial press comment (with, of course, a total and utter lack of any credible/reliable evidence to support this ludicrous claim).

And likewise, it's astonishing and highly amusing that you've convinced yourself that there's some sort of government-imposed embargo on the release of official information about the fire and its investigation (with, of course, a total and utter lack of any credible/reliable evidence to support this ludicrous claim).

And it's astonishing and highly amusing (but totally par for the course) that you've convinced yourself that a) you're simply an inquisitive person "seeking out the truth", and b) you're especially talented, intelligent, insightful and perspicacious compared with the common sheeple and every other contributor to this ridiculous thread.

 

[SteveAitch]

In the picture from behind, you have something in the foreground of the blazing vehicle, which gives an indication of the incline: it is the roof of the car over which the photographer, almost certainly from a mobile phone, is taking the shot. They are not sitting in the car beside it because they are looking over the roof of the car to film the burning car which is at a higher level than the roof of the car, they are filming over.

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53314085486_0165dfd981.jpg[/qimg]front by Username Vixen, on Flickr

In the other image, which is a four second video, you can see the slat of the low roof, so the footage appears to be from someone tall enough to get all of that in, albeit from a safe distance - and the ceiling is low, anyway - and it may well be cropped. So you can tell the perspective by eye that the ground is much flatter than in the first picture. This too, was likely taken by smartphone, which generally has a good quality of resolution these days, and the image appears reasonably sharp. Yet a viewer of Geoff Buys Cars says when he tried to focus in on the numberplate, no way was it at all decipherable, and it sounds as if he went to some effort, claiming he adjusted the various shadows.

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53314330133_289228d1ff.jpg[/qimg]back by Username Vixen, on Flickr

In addition, the 4-second video appeared on a brand new twitter account, apparently, and since then there has been no trace of it in the mass media.

I think you've got your picture labels the wrong way round.

Which doesn't inspire confidence.

 

[JayUtah]

In the picture from behind, you have something in the foreground of the blazing vehicle, which gives an indication of the incline: it is the roof of the car...

No. Not a suitable reference. You cannot distinguish the effects of contour and loadout.

So you can tell the perspective by eye...

No. As I pointed out, the rectification of a photograph is far more than, "Looks like it to me."

Do you have the answer to my proficiency test yet?

 

[LondonJohn]

In the picture from behind, you have something in the foreground of the blazing vehicle, which gives an indication of the incline: it is the roof of the car over which the photographer, almost certainly from a mobile phone, is taking the shot. They are not sitting in the car beside it because they are looking over the roof of the car to film the burning car which is at a higher level than the roof of the car, they are filming over.

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53314085486_0165dfd981.jpg[/qimg]front by Username Vixen, on Flickr

In the other image, which is a four second video, you can see the slat of the low roof, so the footage appears to be from someone tall enough to get all of that in, albeit from a safe distance - and the ceiling is low, anyway - and it may well be cropped. So you can tell the perspective by eye that the ground is much flatter than in the first picture. This too, was likely taken by smartphone, which generally has a good quality of resolution these days, and the image appears reasonably sharp. Yet a viewer of Geoff Buys Cars says when he tried to focus in on the numberplate, no way was it at all decipherable, and it sounds as if he went to some effort, claiming he adjusted the various shadows.

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53314330133_289228d1ff.jpg[/qimg]back by Username Vixen, on Flickr

You're merely indicating yet further here that you're abjectly ignorant about the subject of photogrammetry, and even relatively simple concepts such as perspective and slope. For example, without a reliable reference set (eg three reference axes) you (and we) have no way of knowing the orientation of the camera or the car versus those reference points. You have no idea what you're talking about.

In addition, the 4-second video appeared on a brand new twitter account, apparently, and since then there has been no trace of it in the mass media.

Jeez. I've already told you that the mainstream media now have zero interest in covering this fire and the ensuing investigation. As I told you, this was a nationally newsworthy story on the day of the fire and the day after, chiefly because of the rather dramatic footage of the fire that was available. Since then, this story has - rightfully - fallen totally off the news agenda.

It's only the nutters who believe that a) there's some sort of government-ordered conspiracy afoot to avoid linking EVs to the cause of the fire, and that therefore b) the mainstream media should be calling out this conspiracy and crying foul. However, Vixen, no such conspiracy is/has been taking place. It's all a pathetic (and entirely incorrect, of course) conspiracy theory in the heads of an few arrogant obsessives who think they're a whole lot smarter than they actually are.

 

[Vixen]

His video "Don't scrap your old car! Send it to Ukraine. Says man."



From the auto-generated transcript, starting about the 5:30 mark:




Additionally, here is an excerpt from the only comment to this video that he pinned, with no commentary of his own; this clearly shows that he approves of the sentiments expressed.

Pinned by Geoff Buys Cars
@timkelly5602
7 months ago
A car with a machine gun is no match for Russian missiles, the chances of them helping anything except ferrying press ganged youngsters and over 60s to the front line to be blown apart in the first Russian defences.... it's not a war of terrorists firing at each other from the back of pick ups, this is full missile barrage massacre or meat grinder for the Ukrainians... more likely they will be used to terrorise civilians than rescue them, given Ukraine's record of 9 years firing missiles at their own citizens in the East, (plus abductions, torture, murder, child trafficking and medical experiments of any ethnic minorities, which includes Russian speakers, Romany etc) who unsurprisingly prefer to be joined to Russia which actually protects them... the people of Ukraine are caught between a hugely corrupt criminal regime in Kiev (78% blame [z]elensky for the corruption) and ultra nationalist groups who enjoy shooting Russian speakers 'we shot them like pigs' (actually SBU special police stated this when they rounded up 'collaborators' and Russian sympathisers) and tying folk to lamposts in imitation of the village stocks of old....

this is a very sick and twisted regime that have killed thousands of their own people for the sake of Ukrainian 'superiority'... (likely cheered on and directed by the US/UK who were determined to force Russia into conflict since 2014) Russia stepped in just days before up to 120,000 troops were due to genocide up to 1.5 million people in the Donbass region for daring to exercise their right to self determination of seceding from a Neo-Nazi embedded regime....
for Russia their SMO (special military operation) has three aims 1. demilitarising Ukraine as it refused to obey Minsk ceasefires and kept bombing civilians (still do daily after 9 years) 2. to Denazify Ukraine and prosecute killers within those ranks 3. to Protect the Russian speakers of the Donbass (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaparoje etc) and secure their territories which the Ukrainian regime wished to kill the owners and steal the lands as most industry and fertile lands are in the East, historical Russian lands until 1991 and owned by Russian speaking families for generations... likely that the grifters in the Ukraine regime would then sell those lands to Blackrock/Monsanto as they have already sold 170,000 acres from the West... the Western created regime there are acting like they were brought in to 'break up the company and sell off the assets'.... while also weakening Russia, which has totally backfired on Europe via the insane refusal to buy fuels from Russia which has decimated Germany industry and many small businesses throughout Europe... and Russia getting stronger militarily and economically... [ellipses original]​

Assumes facts not in evidence.

ISTM, whilst I disagree with Geoff Buys Cars views on the situation in Ukraine, together with the pro-Russia commentator, both seem to have argued their point of view rationally of why and how they came to their view. As someone whose ancestors have been at constant war with the Russians (my 8th-great-grandfather fought shoulder -to-shoulder with Jacob de la Gardie in the Ingrian War, beating back the Russians), I don't have any problem with how they express their views. I do block people on Twitter who argue in an offensive way, or example with hate speech. I honestly cannot see that Geoff Buys Cars is a 'shill for Putin'. ISTM he is anti-war and it is a fair point that huge numbers of young men and older men are dying for whatever reason, on both sides. If he was arguing against EV's because he was a Russian bot and pro-Russian oil, that is a different matter, but I don't get the impression he is a shill for anyone in particular.

 

[Vixen]

No one is saying that Geoff Buys Cars shouldn't speak. The question is why you decided he is an expert when it comes to recognizing Lithium battery fires.

He gets contacted by the British public in the know. He neither endorses nor rejects their views, he relays whatever is an interesting topic of the day. That doesn't mean one has to agree with him. It is like listening to a radio phone-in; some people talk sense others not. Some people seem terrified of coming across a view different from their own and cannot bear to listen so will shout and talk over people. I am not that type.

 

[Mojo]

Some people seem terrified of coming across a view different from their own and cannot bear to listen so will shout and talk over people. I am not that type.

Yes you are. You have been pretending that information that contradicts your view doesn't exist.

 

[Vixen]

On March 21, the fire department issued a press release explicitly (and intentionally) excluding a hybrid as Car Zero. This was an update, clarifying the information they had at that time.

Fine. I look forward to the make, name, year and model of the car being confirmed in the report.

 

[Steve]

Fine. I look forward to the make, name, year and model of the car being confirmed in the report.

Why? It will not conform to your fantasy and you will therefore claim that the actual info is being suppressed by..... someone, in order to protect some upper class twit.