Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[JayUtah]

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

Straw man. It was a straw man the first time you tried it. It's a straw man every time you try it.

 

[JayUtah]

That doesn't mean one has to agree with him.

You assert that he's an expert and that his opinion should have evidentiary value. We're telling you why that's untenable.

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.

No, Vixen. No one is cowering in fear at the prospect that you disagree with them. That you have a different "view" is hardly remarkable. That you are wantonly inventing facts to support that view, is.

Speaking of cowering in fear: any reason why you haven't yet answered my challenge to your proficiency at photogrammetric rectification?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

How exactly did you conclude the burning car is at a higher level?

You have no reference for a horizontal. The car nearest the photographer is presumably on a floor which is flat, though not necessarily horizontal, so that car will have the same tilt as the floor (if any).

The burning car could be uphill, downhill or exactly level with the near car. How would you tell the difference?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

No. The people who contact this obscure social media poseur are not "in the know". They are fellow travellers who naturally gravitate to outspoken CT-ists such as him.

We've long since added "ability to judge veracity and reliability of sources and their information" to the near-endless list of things that you think you can do but in fact cannot do. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

No. You can't tell by eye "that the ground is flatter". You can fool yourself by assuming the camera is held exactly upright in both pictures. There's no reason to assume that. You can fool yourself that the roof indicates a horizontal, but in reality it supports the floor above and so will almost certainly have exactly the same degree of tilt (if any) as this floor has.

 

[Vixen]

How exactly did you conclude the burning car is at a higher level?

You have no reference for a horizontal. The car nearest the photographer is presumably on a floor which is flat, though not necessarily horizontal, so that car will have the same tilt as the floor (if any).

The burning car could be uphill, downhill or exactly level with the near car. How would you tell the difference?

Here's the full video here, taken by the Romanian lady. Note in the 4-second video the slant of the ceiling.

https://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/t...i-storey-car-park-partially-collapsed-4368267

The video was recorded on Tuesday night at 8:52 pm, almost an hour before Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue declared the airport incident at 9:38 pm

 

[JayUtah]

No. You can't tell by eye "that the ground is flatter". You can fool yourself by assuming the camera is held exactly upright in both pictures. There's no reason to assume that. You can fool yourself that the roof indicates a horizontal, but in reality it supports the floor above and so will almost certainly have exactly the same degree of tilt (if any) as this floor has.

Indeed, cars rarely sit level even on level ground. And cars on a slope do not sit level, nor at the same angle of the slope. Vixen probably doesn't understand that cars have suspensions, or that a car roof has a contour that makes extracting a straight line (much less a horizon) from it nearly impossible.

 

[JayUtah]

Here's the full video here, taken by the Romanian lady. Note in the 4-second video the slant of the ceiling.

No, that's not how it works. "Because that's what I see" is not a proper reference frame.

 

[SpitfireIX]

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.

Oh. My. God. You can't possibly be this ignorant about what's going on in Ukraine.

Rationally argued that we should just force Ukraine to surrender in the face of brutal aggression??

Rationally argued that we don't know who the good guys or the bad guys are in Ukraine??

Rationally argued that Russia had to step in because Ukraine was about to commit genocide in the Donbas??

Rationally argued that the US and the UK forced Russia into the war??

Rationally argued that Ukraine was murdering, torturing, trafficking, and medically experimenting on ethnic minorities??

And I thought your attempt to rehabilitate Anders Björkman was outrageous.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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...

The Russian seems to have come to his view through believing a pack of outrageous lies. Does the same apply to Geoff?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

And some people seem terrified of admitting an error or their ignorance, and cannot bear to listen to those who are patiently explaining their errors/ignorance so will plough on regardless with their pathetic conspiracy theories and pathetically attempt to play the victim.

 

[junkshop]

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.

You have attributed both of these images to "Username Vixen". This attribution is false.

It is a lie.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Here's the full video here, taken by the Romanian lady. Note in the 4-second video the slant of the ceiling.

What about it? The roof of one floor is the underside of the next floor. They will both have the same slant (if any).

You don't know if the lane slopes up, down or level.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's the full video here, taken by the Romanian lady. Note in the 4-second video the slant of the ceiling.

https://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/t...i-storey-car-park-partially-collapsed-4368267

Are you truly that ignorant of basic geometry?

In simple terms: if the camera lens was angled down below the horizontal, a perfectly flat floor (ie perpendicular to the vertical axis) would appear in a photograph/video to be an upslope.

It's both shocking and laughable that you have no idea what you're talking about, yet keep insisting that you're the expert here. LOL.

 

[Vixen]

The Russian seems to have come to his view through believing a pack of outrageous lies. Does the same apply to Geoff?

Ah well, I only ever saw three or four of his videos - rarely had time to watch all the way through. Seemed articulate enough.

 

[junkshop]

Ah well, I only ever saw three or four of his videos - rarely had time to watch all the way through. Seemed articulate enough.

[Toymaker] Well, that's alright then! [/Toymaker]

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ah well, I only ever saw three or four of his videos - rarely had time to watch all the way through. Seemed articulate enough.

You know who else was a persuasive public speaker?

Without wishing to Godwin the thread, being an articulate speaker is not a sufficient recommendation that what a person says should be heeded.

 

[zooterkin]

Ah well, I only ever saw three or four of his videos - rarely had time to watch all the way through. Seemed articulate enough.

You know who else was articulate? Adolf Hitler.

Do you read what you write?

 

[junkshop]

Ah well, I only ever saw three or four of his videos - rarely had time to watch all the way through. Seemed articulate enough.

That's some top-notch dilligent research, there. Very thorough.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's some top-notch dilligent research, there. Very thorough.

Oh, Vixen's already confidently pronounced that she's a top-notch, diligent, precise and scrupulously accurate researcher.


ETA: How utterly bizarre that junkshop and I used exactly the same adjectives at the same time!