lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 29, 2006 10:05:46 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 29, 2006 11:35:42 GMT -4
It might be the hyphens in the file names that are causing the problems. The only thing I can suggest (other than linking to them the way you already have) is to save them to your computer, rename them, and then upload them to an image host like Photobucket. Edit: Actually, I think the reason the images aren't showing up is probably because the website is preventing "hot linking" (linking to their images from other sites, like this one).
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Sept 29, 2006 12:42:36 GMT -4
I'm no expert on fire trucks but it seem to me as if all 6 photos could be showing the firetruck in one single location. As one of the other people in the original thread points out, Jack White seems not to understand parralax. He draws the green line through the tree, and then seems to be arguing that because the truck appears on the left of the green line in one shot, and on the right in another, that the truck must be in different locations in each shot. But the truth is far more simple - the truck hasn't moved, the photographer(s) has(have )moved. This is obvious in some of the shots - you get a front view of the truck in one shot (eg picture 3) and a three quarter (is that what they are called?) view in another (eg picture 4). JW seems to have no clue about how the appearance of objects changes as the viewer's location changes. The people who devote their time on the education forum to debunking this rubbish are heroes.
As for the fire supposedly disabling the truck's water pumping capability, I don't know if that is the case - seems like it might well do that, but is it possible that there's some separate piece of equipment - e.g. a guy on foot with a firehose - standing next to the truck, so that it appears to be behind the truck in picture 5 ? Or, is it possible that that shot was taken not in the sequence that JW suggests, but that it was actually one of the earliest, and the truck became disabled later ?
Oh and hang on a minute, why the heck would they move a burnt out firetruck to some other location, and then move it back to its first location ? And even if they did, how is that evidence of a conspiracy ?
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Sept 29, 2006 17:42:18 GMT -4
I was wondering the same thing myself. What is the profit of doing this? Why attempt such subterfuge with thousands of onlookers watching the burning building?
Jacko has demonstrated before that he simply cannot understand paralax in his complaints about Lunar photos, why should he be any different about terrestrial photos?
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Sept 29, 2006 17:45:36 GMT -4
Picture #1 shows that the nozzle on this truck is above the cab but in Picture #5, the jet of water is coming from well behind that location indicating that the nozzle on the truck is not the source of the water jet.
Lo and behold, in the picture that shows the FF's putting the truck fire out they have what in their control on that side of the vehicle? A hose!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 29, 2006 21:15:22 GMT -4
I think iot's all been said, lol. Paralax, JW's inability to understand changes of position in a 3D scene and a firehose.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Sept 30, 2006 12:04:10 GMT -4
Classic Jack White...
Different positions and angles from which pictures were taken, different focal lengths, but the green line is supposed to show some sort of continuity??? edit...and no time stamping whatsoever...do we have any idea how long the truck was there, and when in the sequence of events each shot was taken? It's just absurd
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 1, 2006 0:30:30 GMT -4
Sorry, I didn't check in this area until today. I don't know much about ARFF (airport rescue and firefighting). But lots of airport crash pumpers are 4x4, 6x6, whatever. It's conceivable in general that such a vehicle with a trashed rear end could be dragged out of a spot by the front drive. Which is a moot point here, as the vehicle evidently didn't move at all. In general, also, the back end of a pumper being screwed up doesn't necessarily prevent it from pumping, as most have the engine and pump both in the forward half of the vehicle. But that's structural firefighting vehicles, not necessarily ARFF ones. But this is also a moot point, as on this vehicle the top-mounted master stream is above the cab of the vehicle, not towards the rear where the stream shown appears. Hold on... Yeah, this reminds me of something I saw a few weeks ago. OK. The vehicle in question is Fort Myer Foam 61, a 2001 E-One Titan 4x4. The story of its crew is here. The firefighter who relates the story did indeed try to drag the vehicle around to work its deck gun, but couldn't. BTW, a quick check of the E-One web site indicates the current versions of the Titan have a rear-mounted engine, so Foam 61 would almost certainly be the same arrangement. Now that I think about it, since ARFF wagons are intended to work their way into a jet fuel-fired crash fire laying down foam, it makes sense that the engine would be in back. ( Structural FF engines, the ones with which I'm familiar, aren't used the same way.)
|
|