Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[Steve]

Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word parody either.

Scientific accountants have no need to learn the meaning of words.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Try this video here from the front view.

https://x.com/andysoullinux/status/1712232395049422942

First, isn't that the infamous "deep fake" video, with the floating hood and incorrect slope to the floor? Do you grasp how funny it is that you're now turning to this video in an attempt to support your conspiracy theory?

Do you now see how the flames shoot out in projectile bursts sidewards?

I thought we were supposed to be looking for highly directional, jet-like flames, not sideways projectile bursts. I've seen flames like that from campfires.

Do you see the white/grey vapour /smoke?

Again you show your ignorance of photography and variations in lighting.

Do you see the flames spurting from beneath the car?

Since when was beneath the car the 'engine bay'?

There's this force (well it isn't really a force) called gravity, which attracts anything with mass toward the center of the earth. Since diesel oil and other flammable liquids have mass, they can leak out of the car and collect on the ground beneath it, where they will burn.

 

[Foster Zygote]

There was also the red Corsa which crashed thanks to a daft swan thinking the motorway was a river. That car was identified. No problemo.

So now you have a sample of two. That's so much more statistically valid. Now all you have to do is prove that news media virtually always report the make and model of any car involved in an accident and you'll have established an anomaly.

 

[JayUtah]

It's a parody of your point of view.

If that’s what you thought it was, then it’s just an especially ham fisted straw man.

 

[JayUtah]

There was also the red Corsa which crashed thanks to a daft swan thinking the motorway was a river. That car was identified. No problemo.

No, it doesn't work that way. Your argument relies on this being so ubiquitous a practice that any departure from it implies some sort of information embargo. Simply continuing to cherry-pick an example here or there fails to carry your burden of proof.

 

[JayUtah]

...is the normal trajectory for flames.

Why do you think that's a thing?

Note also the colour of the vapour/smoke.

Why do you think you can determine that from this evidence? What do you think that shows?

What do you see?

Someone going to greater than usual effort to beg the question.

 

[JayUtah]

Try this video here from the front view.

You didn't address the post. You just added more question-begging.

Do you now see how the flames shoot out in projectile bursts sidewards?

No, I don't agree that the video depicts any such thing. I see a normal entrainment in ambient flow.

Do you see the white/grey vapour /smoke?

I see what looks like smoke. I don't agree that the conditions presented in the video allow an accurate assessment of its color or composition.

Do you see the flames spurting from beneath the car?

No, I don't agree that's what the video depicts.

You'll need to provide actual evidence. Frantically begging for people to agree with your uninformed, handwaving interpretation doesn't cut it. This is why we tell you to stay in your lane. You are absolutely terrible at, well, everything.

 

[phiwum]

I don't wish to be unkind but anyone who believes a drowned body was found by someone using psychic powers or that a person would be convicted of murder for simply turning cartwheels is exhibiting gullibility and a heavy reliance on peer pressure. The antidote is very simple: read the report / court documents which sets out clearly the science behind both situations.

Likewise, take a look at the burning vehicle, it can be identified as a Range Rover and that it looks like a lithium-ion fire.

Forget the anonymous, unauthored, unsigned statement that says otherwise.

I think you meant to say, "official press release of the BF&RS".

 

[wollery]

Try this video here from the front view.

https://x.com/andysoullinux/status/1712232395049422942


Do you now see how the flames shoot out in projectile bursts sidewards?

How does that demonstrate that it's a Lithium-ion fire?

Do you see the white/grey vapour /smoke?

How does that demonstrate that it's a Lithium-ion fire? are there no other substances that would produce a white/grey vapour or smoke?

Do you see the flames spurting from beneath the car?

Since when was beneath the car the 'engine bay'?

Where do you think the engine is?

More to the point, where do you think the fuel lines in a diesel car are located?
Can you tell exactly what point on the side of the vehicle the flames and smoke are coming from?

I also note that you haven't even tried to answer the questions that I actually asked about the colour of the flames and the capability of the cameras. Could you please address those questions.

 

[JayUtah]

...it looks like a lithium-ion fire.

"...because I say so."

Forget the anonymous, unauthored, unsigned statement that says otherwise.

It's an official statement, tantamount to a reliable identification of the initial vehicle. Your only challenge to the authenticity and authority of this statement is a fairy tale you've made up to describe how you think it came about. It boils down (as usual) to "Because I say so." It rests entirely on your purported ability to know what goes on among U.K. authorities, which you've amply demonstrated you don't know how to do. We will not celebrate your mediocrity.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Citation please.

The entire thread is stuffed with your repeating his claim to have used his 'gift' to find the body. You always made sure to say it was his claim, or corrected yourself one time you forgot, and you stated that you do not believe in supernatural powers, but you definitely defended the possibility of his having some kind of a 'gift' which allowed him to improve his chances, and that this might well make him worthy of study to discover what his 'gift' is.

Nobody else in the thread had any interest in whether his being the person who found the body and claiming to have a 'gift' might be an indication he posessed some special latent body-finding talent. That pot was kept boiling by you alone, and you missed no opportunity to wag a finger at anyone closed-minded enough to think that the 100% failure record of psychics to demonstrate they have any sort of gift indicated it's a blind alley.

 

[phiwum]

Try this video here from the front view.

https://x.com/andysoullinux/status/1712232395049422942


Do you now see how the flames shoot out in projectile bursts sidewards?

Do you see the white/grey vapour /smoke?

Do you see the flames spurting from beneath the car?

Since when was beneath the car the 'engine bay'?

I was under the impression that you doubted that this video was authentic. How come you use it when you think that it helps your case but criticize it otherwise?

The user you cite has only 322 followers. I remember when 517 followers was enough to dismiss this video. I guess Bitcoin Bernie is beneath contempt but Andy Soul Linux is beyond reproach?

 

[junkshop]

It's a parody of your point of view.

How so?

 

[Vixen]

First, isn't that the infamous "deep fake" video, with the floating hood and incorrect slope to the floor? Do you grasp how funny it is that you're now turning to this video in an attempt to support your conspiracy theory?


I thought we were supposed to be looking for highly directional, jet-like flames, not sideways projectile bursts. I've seen flames like that from campfires.


Again you show your ignorance of photography and variations in lighting.


There's this force (well it isn't really a force) called gravity, which attracts anything with mass toward the center of the earth. Since diesel oil and other flammable liquids have mass, they can leak out of the car and collect on the ground beneath it, where they will burn.

It was since established it was taken from someone's phone in portrait mode. Thus, it is not a deep fake after all, although that's not to say it was definitely taken at the same event. Remember, we have had no confirmation as to what the car's make was. I also acknowledged the slope was an optical illusion from being some distance away.

Please try again. Look at this video and see if you can see similarities with the other two of the presumed vehicle concerned.



https://youtu.be/mIIdMkwKLp4?si=E5Ff3hsKk7LieBVt

Note the colour of the initial fumes, bearing in mind diesel smoke is black. Note also whence the flames appear from. Not the engine bay nor a tank, but from beneath the vehicle.

 

[JayUtah]

...although that's not to say it was definitely taken at the same event.

Your argument is immaterial unless you accept the premise that this video depicts the initial vehicle in the Luton fire. You win nothing by trying to keep all the options open regardless of evidence.

I also acknowledged the slope was an optical illusion from being some distance away.

No, distance is not what creates an illusion of slope in this photography.

Please try again.

Repeatedly begging the question does not cure the problem that your argument does nothing but beg the question.

Look at this video...

You proffered this video earlier. It was thoroughly discussed. Your inability to address the prior discussion does not entitle you to resubmit the evidence along with your ignorant commentary once more.

Note the colour of the initial fumes, bearing in mind diesel smoke is black.

This is absurdly simplistic.

Note also whence the flames appear from. Not the engine bay nor a tank, but from beneath the vehicle.

You're still begging two questions: first, that this sort of analysis is a skill you possess, and second, that the similarity you purport is objectively evident.

"Because I say so."

 

[Foster Zygote]

It was since established it was taken from someone's phone in portrait mode. Thus, it is not a deep fake after all...

And how, in your view, does the format establish that it was genuine?

...although that's not to say it was definitely taken at the same event.

So it was a completely different fire involving a red, second generation Range Rover Sport that took place in in a garage with the same architecture, and parked in an identical position, with expended fire extinguishers in the same locations?

Remember, we have had no confirmation as to what the car's make was.

Remember that your attempts to prove that this is anomalous have been as successful as your attempts to dismiss said video as a "deep fake".

I also acknowledged the slope was an optical illusion from being some distance away.

I don't remember you doing that, but if you did, you still got it wrong. The distance of the camera has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the complete lack of any reliable geometric references.

Note the colour of the initial fumes, bearing in mind diesel smoke is black.

You still don't get it. In your ignorance, you treat video images as though they are scenes that you are viewing first hand. You ignore all attempts to explain to you the variables involved, such as lighting, camera settings, compression artifacts and differences in monitor types and settings of the screens that you and I are currently using to view these videos. You don't even realize that as you post a link to a video, we're not looking over your shoulder at the same thing you're seeing. We're all looking at different monitors than you are, so saying "compare these colors from these different videos" is ludicrous.

When the Apollo crews took photos of the Lunar geology, they placed gnomons with color charts of known color values allowing prints to be made with precise colors so that geologist could evaluate them accurately. Without that fixed color reference, there would be no guarantee that the color values of a print were accurate, even when making it from the original negative.

Also bear in mind that the color of smoke can appear different depending on the type and direction of the lighting, and that, as has already been pointed out to you several times, there is a great deal of flammable material within a car, so your assumption that only diesel oil is burning in that video is not only unfounded, but ridiculous.

Note also whence the flames appear from. Not the engine bay nor a tank, but from beneath the vehicle.

Can you please explain your methodology for determining that the flames under the car are the only source of fire in the video? Also please explain why a diesel car fire can only produce flames from the engine bay. And while you're at it, please explain why diesel and other flammable liquids can't leak onto the ground and burn, and why this can't happen while other components of the car are burning. You're like someone looking at a video of a house fire that was blamed on a faulty toaster oven and saying, "but there's fire coming from the living room window!".

Again we see that the most truthful thing you've said in this whole multi-part thread is that you don't know anything about cars. Not that that's stopped you from performing your Expert Forensic Witness routine.

 

[JayUtah]

When the Apollo crews took photos of the Lunar geology, they placed gnomons with color charts of known color values so that prints could be made with accurate colors so that geologist could evaluate them accurately. Without that fixed color reference, there would be no guarantee that the color values of a print were accurate, even when making it from the original negative.

A couple of points.

First, the Apollo color film was E-3 Ektachrome, which is transparency film. There is no negative. The image is created and developed as a positive. However, dye shifting did occur, and continues to occur despite careful storage of the originals. And some color anomalies were introduced and propagated to the dupe masters as some of the camera-original rolls were developed according to a modified E-3 process in order to push the contrast. The principle remains that the color chart on the gnomon is there precisely to calibrate the image for accurate color and tone representation, however it may arise.

Second, the gnomon also included a gravity-based vertical reference. No matter how tilted the ground was that the gnomon was placed on, or from what angle the photograph was taken, the center stalk remained vertical in its gimbals and provides an accurate reference for the orientation of the optical frame.

If one can simply look at photographs and glean all this important scientific data by eyeball—as Vixen insinuates she has done and as we all purportedly can do—why the need for such elaborate measures for documentary photography? In fact, nearly all scientific and forensic photography includes references intended to correct for known photographic aberrations and sample-collection bias. Why Vixen doesn't need them seems to be a secret she won't tell.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The Apollo color film was E-3 Ektachrome, which is transparency film.

It's possible I knew that at one point, but if I did I completely forgot it. That's one of the little bonuses of getting older - I get to relearn interesting facts.

 

[JayUtah]

It's possible I knew that at one point, but if I did I completely forgot it. That's one of the little bonuses of getting older - I get to relearn interesting facts.

If you're like me, pretty soon you can hide your own Easter eggs.

 

[JesseCuster]

It was since established it was taken from someone's phone in portrait mode. Thus, it is not a deep fake after all, although that's not to say it was definitely taken at the same event.

Can you explain the highlighted?

How is a video being "taken from someone's phone in portrait mode" mean that it's not fake? (I'm not using the word deepfake because it's silly in this context)