Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire IV

[zooterkin]

Only in a different thread.

Definitely alluded to in previous instalments of this thread.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Definitely alluded to in previous instalments of this thread.

"When I use a use a country name it means just where I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

 

[Thermal]

Definitely alluded to in previous instalments of this thread.

She sounded like she was saying a UK taxpayer, not resident. Maybe property taxes or living in Finland but still a UKer paying tax on income received outside the country?

 

[Vixen]

She sounded like she was saying a UK taxpayer, not resident. Maybe property taxes or living in Finland but still a UKer paying tax on income received outside the country?

I receive UK income and I pay UK income tax. All AOK with HMRC and Verohallinto.

 

[Thermal]

I receive UK income and I pay UK income tax. All AOK with HMRC and Verohallinto.

Thanks for clarifying. That's what the difference sounded like to me, taxpayer not resident, which is what you explicitly said.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Satire is not satire if one has to explain it.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Tell me what you see here.

 

[Mojo]

Satire is not satire if one has to explain it.

Not a successful parody, then.

 

[Mojo]

Tell me what you see here.

An irrelevance.

 

[JayUtah]

Tell me what you see here.

Another straw man, and another begged question.

You were adamant early in the discussion of this point that experts agreed with your interpretation of the video. Now it turns out you didn't actually have any experts, but that's not the point. The point is that expertise was necessary and valuable when you thought it worked for you. Now that it doesn't, you want to change horses and claim that any old taxpayer can draw reliable evidentiary conclusions based on photographic interpretation.

You can't make up your mind whether expertise is necessary. It is, but your "because I say so" changes depending on the needs of your argument du jour, not according to the facts.

The question of whether you have the required expertise is easy: you don't. I do, and you can't answer my questions regarding your approach.

But in trying to wriggle free from your previous claim that expertise was valuable in interpreting videos of fires, you've undercut your own new argument. If no expertise is required, than anyone in this thread is just as qualified as you to interpret the video. That's your new premise. And just like no one gets your jokes, no one agrees with your interpretation.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I receive UK income and I pay UK income tax. All AOK with HMRC and Verohallinto.

Well that wraps up the thread. Case closed. It's been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt by the formerly deep fake, but now absolutely real and critical evidence of the bystander video, that the fire was, unquestionably, caused by a Li-ion battery. We know this because Vixen pays taxes to the United Kingdom and, as she's already established, this is all that's required to make an authoritative analysis of the image in question. Based on that fact, her judgement on the issue is at least as reliable as anyone with actual training in the relative photogrammetry and chemistry.

 

[JayUtah]

We know this because Vixen pays taxes to the United Kingdom and, as she's already established, this is all that's required to make an authoritative analysis of the image in question.

Oh, is that why I couldn't see the zebra?

All seriousness aside, some of my products are sold to UK customers, so I imagine that I pay VAT somewhere along the way. That certainly qualifies me to determine whether there are "jets of flame" in the video. Well, that, and two and a half decades of licensed expertise in the fluid dynamics of high-energy combustion.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Tell me what you see here.

Another evasion. You can assert that the evidence of a battery fire is as self-evident as the stripes on a zebra all you want. That doesn't change the fact that you have repeatedly failed to specifically identify features of the video indicating a Li-ion battery fire. You presented video of the flame color of burning lithium (without acknowledging any difference between that sample and the lithium salt solvent in a battery), but have failed to address why this "evidence" doesn't match the flame color in the Luton video. You've been asked to show the "highly directional, jet-like flames" and have not done so, pointing instead to rising flames familiar to anyone who's ever sat near a large campfire. You've even claimed that the fire is "under the car, not in the engine bay" without justifying said claim at all, or even acknowledging that flammable liquids will most certainly pool under the car, and that just because you see fire from them doesn't mean the fire can't be in the engine bay as well. You haven't even acknowledged that there are fuel lines and a fuel pump under the car.

A better analogy utilizing your zebra photo would be one that has been identified by a zoologist as a specific species of zebra, only for someone else to dispute the species, but when asked to point to any phenotypical features to justify the contradiction, posts a picture of a duck and asks, "what do you see?".

 

[Vixen]

Another evasion. You can assert that the evidence of a battery fire is as self-evident as the stripes on a zebra all you want. That doesn't change the fact that you have repeatedly failed to specifically identify features of the video indicating a Li-ion battery fire. You presented video of the flame color of burning lithium (without acknowledging any difference between that sample and the lithium salt solvent in a battery), but have failed to address why this "evidence" doesn't match the flame color in the Luton video. You've been asked to show the "highly directional, jet-like flames" and have not done so, pointing instead to rising flames familiar to anyone who's ever sat near a large campfire. You've even claimed that the fire is "under the car, not in the engine bay" without justifying said claim at all, or even acknowledging that flammable liquids will most certainly pool under the car, and that just because you see fire from them doesn't mean the fire can't be in the engine bay as well. You haven't even acknowledged that there are fuel lines and a fuel pump under the car.

A better analogy utilizing your zebra photo would be one that has been identified by a zoologist as a specific species of zebra, only for someone else to dispute the species, but when asked to point to any phenotypical features to justify the contradiction, posts a picture of a duck and asks, "what do you see?".

So you reckon you see 'a zebra'. But suppose London Zoo webpage carries the legend, 'This is a lion.'

Do you accept what you see is a lion unquestioningly because you are 'not a zoologist'...?

 

[JayUtah]

So you reckon...

You're ignoring that no one—including you—is buying your begged question that these are equivalent analytical tasks.

You started by saying expertise was necessary and valuable. Now you're saying it's irrelevant. Which is it, Vixen?

 

[Foster Zygote]

So you reckon you see 'a zebra'. But suppose London Zoo webpage carries the legend, 'This is a lion.'

Do you accept what you see is a lion unquestioningly because you are 'not a zoologist'...?

At this point I'm wondering whether we can distinguish between you genuinely not comprehending my critique of your analogy, or you deliberately misrepresenting it because you don't want to address it.

Stop telling us it's a Li-ion battery fire and show us. The criteria you've established for supporting that conclusion, such as magenta flames and highly directional, jet-like flames, are conspicuously absent in the video that, until only recently, you dismissed as a "deep fake" based on erroneous assumptions.

 

[Foster Zygote]

And while you're at it, could you provide some actual, statistically valid data proving that the lack of make and model in the official statement is anomalous?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So you reckon you see 'a zebra'. But suppose London Zoo webpage carries the legend, 'This is a lion.'

Suppose instead London Zoo said it was believed to be a Plains Zebra, subject to confirmation, but some blowhard on X reckoned it was a Grévy's zebra, and they should know because their brother in law used to own a pet shop.

When London zoo later confirmed it was indeed a plains zebra and neither a mountain zebra nor a Grévy's zebra, are you going with the experts or 'waiting for the full report'?

 

[Mojo]

So you reckon you see 'a zebra'. But suppose London Zoo webpage carries the legend, 'This is a lion.'

Do you accept what you see is a lion unquestioningly because you are 'not a zoologist'...?

To bring this back to something near the circumstances of this thread, suppose someone said that it was a lion*, and stated that their status as a UK taxpayer qualified them to say this.

Would you accept unquestioningly that it is a lion?


*Or even a "Li-ion".

 

[catsmate]

Maybe Brass Eye "cake"?