Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire III

[Foster Zygote]

I notice this isn't a question.


Which witnesses say the fire started on the roof of the car park with no ceiling? Please look carefully yourself, and indicate any who say that explicitly (rather than any who say they saw "the top floor" on fire, perhaps unaware that there is a roof level too).

This appears to be another example of Vixen's lack of reading comprehension.

This BBC article quotes a witness saying the following:

One witnessed said he saw an explosion on the roof of the car park followed by a "flame that shot across the car park like a flamethrower".

After that, he saw cars exploding "every few minutes".

This was clearly someone observing the fire from some distance away. The quote says nothing about seeing the fire start on the roof, and nothing about when the witnessed event occurred relative to the timeline of events.

 

[MBDK]

How do you know it is a RR Sport 2014...?

Did you forget already what exactly I was replying to? Allow me to attempt to refresh your memory. You asked this (which I included in my post):

And your explanation for the lack of an obvious exhaust pipe in the video..?

So, I provided a very pertinent answer with:

Because neither of them would be visible due to their placement on the auto and the lack of illumination of the back of the vehicle.

I don't think I need to repost the image I previously shared.

So, even you should be able to see that I answered your question, as you posed it, and my answer was accurate within that frame. Do you have the honesty to admit that the original photo of the burning car does not have sufficient detail to discern the image of tailpipes if they existed?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because neither of them would be visible due to their placement on the auto and the lack of illumination of the back of the vehicle.

The windows aren't even distinguishable in that image.

 

[Metullus]

But this is what conspiracy theorists do (Column B, Row 2) - and Vixen has previous!!

They source-shop for bits of information that will fit their pre-determined conclusions (Column N, Row 4) and ignore any they find that do not (Column G, Row 2). Usually, but not always, those sources are dubious sources and are often also conspiracy theorists themselves.

When confronted with evidence they don't want to see, they pretend it doesn't exist (Column G, Row 2) by refusing to address it (Column I, Row 2).

Example, I posted this earlier



Did Vixen respond by addressing any of the points I made? Nope - those points were handwaved away. Instead, her response was...



... as if an absence of evidence was in any way significant.

I could also point out..

Does the lack of an obvious left hand sidelight cluster mean the car didn't have one?

Does the lack of an obvious left hand headlight mean the car didn't have one?

Does the lack of obvious driver and passenger door handles mean the car didn't have any?

Does the lack of an obvious left wing-mirror mean the car didn't have one?

And its worth pointing out a couple of extra inconvenient facts for the benefit of Vixen.

1. In the top right photo (the rear view of the red car), even in a professionally taken photo for a motoring magazine, taken in broad daylight, the left hand exhaust pipe is hardly visible at all - what chance seeing it in a smoke-filled building?

2. There is no such thing as a 2014 Range Rover EV. Land Rover will be released their first ever fully electric Range Rover this year
https://media.landrover.com/news/20...ver-electric-now-open-prototype-testing-phase

3. 2014 was the first Range Rover PHEV, but both its sidelight/air intake clusters and its taillights are vastly different from the 2014 Sport Diesel.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6nvrhrmw49mdj2ckuz0u1/2014-RangeRoverPHEV.jpg?rlkey=ybl2y0lvu1fzq38rxg4ino931&raw=1[/qimg]

To summarize, the vehicle in the burning car photos is clearly, and obviously a 2014 - 2019 Range Rover. There is NO QUESTION about that. Given that it is not EV because there was no Range Rover EV until this year, and given it is not PHEV or an MHEV because, even though there were 2014 - 2019 models of these, they have obviously different sidelight and taillight configurations from the burning car, then it MUST be a 2014-2019 Range Rover Sport - Diesel or Petrol.

Time to stop digging Vixen!!
‎
‎

It could be a cleverly disguised PHEV or MHEV Range Rover, no?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It could be a cleverly disguised PHEV or MHEV Range Rover, no?

Good point. Have we eliminated the possibility it was a clevely disguised Tesla in a 2014-2019 Range Rover bodyshell? Or for that matter a small alien spaceship with a cloaking device projecting a 2014-2019 Range Rover image? Maybe the cloaking projector overheats and becomes hazardous in Earth's oxygen-rich atmosphere. We just don't know. Didn't think of that, did we?

 

[JayUtah]

It could be a cleverly disguised PHEV or MHEV Range Rover, no?

Or it could be a hologram. Frankly the frantic effort Vixen has gone to to evade the bleeding obvious is patently childish.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Or it could be a hologram. Frankly the frantic effort Vixen has gone to to evade the bleeding obvious is patently childish.

How very dare you, she's only interested in the truth! She doesn't mind being wrong and she can always adm...no sorry I can't finish that with a straight face.

 

[phiwum]

Question 7: How was Mr. Hopkinson in a position to state so confidently it was 'not an electric vehicle but a diesel one' as of within hours of the fire being extinguished? Even if the owner had provided an ID how can he know that the DVLA description was accurate and how can he be absolutely certain it was the vehicle filmed by the Romanian lady that started the fire?

Most of these questions are irrelevant, since it has been confirmed to be a diesel ICE that started the fire. However. let's look at Question 7.

I don't know how the chief (?) knew the kind of engine in the first car. Perhaps that will come out later. However, as far as why we reckon the filmed vehicle was the first car:

1. There were no other cars on fire near that vehicle. The video is clear enough on that point.
2. Hence, it seems that either that was the first vehicle or two vehicles coincidentally caught fire without any causal connection between the two of them.
3. The driver of the first vehicle reportedly attempted to put out the fire with an extinguisher and an extinguisher is found in the video.
4. Thus, to add to the coincidences, if there are two vehicles that happened to catch fire at about the same time, both fires were unsuccessfully treated with a fire extinguisher.
5. The first vehicle to catch fire was not in a parking space and neither was the vehicle in the video.

The coincidental fires are pretty damned unlikely. Even if you could imagine that the first vehicle fire somehow caused the fire in the video, despite no evident fire nearby, the other two coincidences remain unscathed.

Hence, it is very likely that the video does indeed show the first vehicle to catch fire.

Vixen, you missed my previous post where I pointed out that your response to the above was an utter non sequitur. Let's focus here.

I think the above reasoning is very good evidence that the car in the video is the first car to catch fire. The alternative requires a second car to mysteriously catch fire though no other cars are ablaze, be situated in a lane rather than a parking space and also have an extinguisher right next to it. This would be a very unlikely set of coincidences.

Do you agree that it is quite probable that the video shows the initial vehicle? If not, do explain why not.

NOTE: I'm not making any claim about what kind of vehicle is ablaze in the video. I am just pointing out that all of the evidence gives a quite high probability that the vehicle in the video is the first car to catch fire.

 

[phiwum]

How very dare you, she's only interested in the truth! She doesn't mind being wrong and she can always adm...no sorry I can't finish that with a straight face.

You know that we can't see your face, right?

 

[Mojo]

Or it could be a hologram. Frankly the frantic effort Vixen has gone to to evade the bleeding obvious is patently childish.

Or it could be a Range Rover disguised as a Tesla and the video deepfaked to make it look like a Range Rover.

"Look, I know the boss told us to cover up it being a Range Rover to protect his investments in JLR, but his investments are in a blind trust so he doesn't realise they are actually all in Tesla. Better change it back."

 

[Steve]

It could be a cleverly disguised PHEV or MHEV Range Rover, no?

Burning it to ashes would be an effective disguise.

 

[JayUtah]

It could be anything disguised as anything. As long as one party to this discussion absolves herself of any and all obligation to provide evidence, shifts the burden of proof, and pretends she can see things in photographs that ought to make everyone suspicious, the question remains open and generating a prodigious page count for her thread.

As I wrote above, questions of authenticity in real investigations have a clear epistemology. Anyone asserting that evidence is fraudulent has the burden of proof. The standard of proof is very high. Vixen will not undertake the burden of proof and is ill-equipped to carry it. That's literally where the question stops as far as real investigations are concerned. Whatever Vixen arrogantly whines about from her armchair is irrelevant.

 

[catsmate]

Good point. Have we eliminated the possibility it was a clevely disguised Tesla in a 2014-2019 Range Rover bodyshell? Or for that matter a small alien spaceship with a cloaking device projecting a 2014-2019 Range Rover image? Maybe the cloaking projector overheats and becomes hazardous in Earth's oxygen-rich atmosphere. We just don't know. Didn't think of that, did we?

It was obviously the Master's TARDIS.

 

[Mojo]

Burning it to ashes would be an effective disguise.

And would make it lighter to carry.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Or it could be a hologram. Frankly the frantic effort Vixen has gone to to evade the bleeding obvious is patently childish.

Haven't some people invoked holograms to explain their 9-11 CTs? There would be precedent, is all I'm saying.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You know that we can't see your face, right?

Because of the media embargo on Mark's face?

 

[Mojo]

Because of the media embargo on Mark's face?

Have there been any press conferences about it? Well?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Have there been any press conferences about it? Well?

Just the one - where they said he's probably not a reptilian overlord.

 

[Mojo]

Just the one - where they said he's probably not a reptilian overlord.

That's just a provisional statement, so it can never be confirmed.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

That's just a provisional statement, so it can never be confirmed.

I'd like to say that I can confirm that I'm a human. I'm not a Reptilian, Zetan, Grey, Reticulan or any other form of space alien bent on obtaining "delicious human meats".