Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[Mojo]

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)

Fakes are always landscape, kemo sabe?

 

[phiwum]

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.

Oh? It was established that it was from a phone in portrait mode? Well, gosh, no way anyone could make a deep fake that seemed like it was from a phone in portrait mode.

But how has it been "established"? What new source of information convinced you that the video you had insisted was a deep fake is actually the real McCoy?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Oh? It was established that it was from a phone in portrait mode? Well, gosh, no way anyone could make a deep fake that seemed like it was from a phone in portrait mode.

But how has it been "established"? What new source of information convinced you that the video you had insisted was a deep fake is actually the real McCoy?

Why the highly directional, jet-like, magenta flames, of course.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen do you believe you are knowledgeable enough on vehicle fires and/or photographic/videographic analysis to be able to accurately assess images and videos of the fire?

Answer my question please vixen

 

[Vixen]

Answer my question please vixen

Don't need to be an expert. Suffice to be a UK taxpayer who expects to be given relevant answers on current affairs issues.

 

[JayUtah]

Don't need to be an expert.

Yes you do.

I and others pointed out many things you got wrong, and which you are still getting wrong. You're maybe an accountant. I'm licensed and published in this field (i.e., photographic interpretation for forensic purposes). Which of us is more likely to be correct on the subject of what expertise is needed to do what you're trying to do?

Suffice to be a UK taxpayer who expects to be given relevant answers on current affairs issues.

No. "Taxpayer" is not a qualification.

 

[JesseCuster]

Don't need to be an expert. Suffice to be a UK taxpayer who expects to be given relevant answers on current affairs issues.

All you need to determine the type of fire and/or engine type from a crappy phone video is "to be a UK taxpayer"?

Pathetic. The amount of questions you've dodged, ignored, etc. is genuinely pathetic.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

All you need to determine the type of fire and/or engine type from a crappy phone video is "to be a UK taxpayer"?

Pathetic. The amount of questions you've dodged, ignored, etc. is genuinely pathetic.

Excellent, I'm a UK taxpayer. Jay, gissa job!

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Don't need to be an expert. Suffice to be a UK taxpayer who expects to be given relevant answers on current affairs issues.

Stop dodging the question. It's a yes or no. You can expand upon your answer if you wish but the first word should be yes or no.

Incidentally your response here has very bad English in it.

 

[JayUtah]

Excellent, I'm a UK taxpayer. Jay, gissa job!

I don't want it, but thanks. I should also add that a significant portion of my business for the past 25 years has been in large-scale rocketry. I do know a thing or two about jets of flame and what they look like. I'll take my judgment over that of a maybe-accountant who doesn't know what a blind trust is and has only a casual flirtation with truth.

 

[JayUtah]

All you need to determine the type of fire and/or engine type from a crappy phone video is "to be a UK taxpayer"?

Pathetic. The amount of questions you've dodged, ignored, etc. is genuinely pathetic.

Agreed. If Vixen is correct and no expertise is needed to perform an evidentiary forensic analysis on a photographic record, then anyone's opinion would seem to be probative. The consensus among the commentators here, then, is still against her.

Her position is—of course—wrong. But it's also inconsistent. She told us that "experts" had offered judgment that the fire in the video is from a lithium ion battery. It doesn't matter that those "experts" turned out to be no more than self-promoting YouTubers. What mattered is that she originally acknowledge this was a task for experts and that experts agreed with her. Only now that this argument has failed does she fall back to claiming no expertise is needed.

I've seen this happen with pretty much every conspiracy theorist. This is because they use conspiracy theories as a way to appear smart. When it doesn't work, they fall back to claiming no one is smart. It's pure ego, which is why armchair detectives are worse than useless. They can't abide the proposition that they aren't the smartest person in every room.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Don't need to be an expert [on vehicle fires and/or photographic/videographic analysis to be able to accurately assess images and videos of the fire.]

It sort of seems like your lack of expertise would have prevented you from claiming that one of the videos was a deep fake based on your mistaken belief that you could tell which way the floor was sloping based on a photo with no reliable geometric reference. I likely would have prevented you from making claims dependent upon making color analysis of photographic images with unknown color fidelity or from asking people to compare colors on completely different video displays.

Actual expertise, or even a reasonable education on the subject, might have prevented you from saying that diesel needs high pressure to burn, or that the lights can't still function when there's an electrical fault in a car, or that welding doesn't cause steel to melt, etcetera...

In short, while you certainly don't need to know what you're talking about to make a comment, it helps if you want to make a comment that has the slightest informative value.

 

[JesseCuster]

I'm not a UK taxpayer, which is why I'm not offering any opinion on the video, anything I have to say isn't valid without the qualification of living in the UK and having a job.

 

[Steve]

I'm not a UK taxpayer, which is why I'm not offering any opinion on the video, anything I have to say isn't valid without the qualification of living in the UK and having a job.

I believe Vixen has previously claimed to reside in Finland. I further believe that Vixen is not reluctant to offer opinions on this topic.

 

[zooterkin]

Don't need to be an expert. Suffice to be a UK taxpayer who expects to be given relevant answers on current affairs issues.

I thought you were living in Finland now?

 

[junkshop]

It's a parody of your point of view.

How so?

Still waiting on an answer here, Vixen.

This may look like a trivial little thing to get hung up on, but I try to make my point of view, and the thing I have a point of view on, very clear in my posts. If my intended meaning has not been clearly expressed, then I would appreciate feedback so that I may avoid such ambiguity in the future.

I cannot fathom how your post could work as a parody of my point of view without there having been a fundamental failure in communication between us. Whether that failure lies in my expression or your interpretation, I can't say without knowing how you interpeted the post you went on to 'parody'.

Maybe my "How so?" was a little glib. I hope that this post better explains what I was asking.

If you have any rebuttals or responses that rise beyond parody to the points I raised in post #120 I would be interested to hear/read them.

 

[junkshop]

Yes, sorry about the digression. Back to the helpful stuff.

Bringing in stuff from other threads enables/is digression and/or distration from the topic under discussion here. It also enables a party to have any posts that address that other thing booted out for being off topic, and that's fair enough: it is off topic.

I'm not saying that on topic arguments with a conspiracy theorist are neccessarily helpful, but off topic arguments are definitely unhelpful.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I thought you were living in Finland now?

I checked, and Finland has a double taxation agreement with the UK. If Vixen is paying taxes in Finland, there is no need to pay tax in the UK as well.
I expect that we'll get some kind of wriggle, like "taxpayer=citizen in postgraduate accountancy terms".

 

[Craig4]

I thought you were living in Finland now?

Only in a different thread.

 

[Mojo]

I thought you were living in Finland now?

Perhaps she needs a better accountant.