User talk:Anyeverybody/Archives/2010/February

A request
Hello,

You may or may not recognise my name. It's been a while since I was active on en.wp, but when I did I was very active in the area of air accidents and incidents. I have always been impressed by your work creating computer generated aircraft to fill these in - I've used some of your images on the main page on Wikinews to accompany lead articles about the accidents referred to.

I have a request to make. Would you be able to create an image of a B747 in the early stages of a breakup sequence? I want it to go with a major special report I've been working months on on Wikinews but it would be very useful on Wikipedias as well. I will not be offended/disappointed if you refuse; it would be a long and difficult job and I have no idea what other commitments you may have.

If you can do it a) I seriously owe you a beer b) I'll get back to you with full details of what I want and photographs/reference materials. Reading the AAIB report has left me with a fairly detailed knowledge of the breakup sequence. In case you're wondering, the accident in question would be the Lockerbie bombing. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure thing :) The AAIB report is very good indeed so I'll probably do what I did with China Airlines Flight 006, just animate the model falling apart based on AAIB data and select the best pictures which means it doesn't just have to be the beginning. Anynobody(?) 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be ideal. The point I ideally wanted would be with the aircraft veering down and left, either with the forward section just starting to break away or as the nose came to meet the No. 3 engine, and the scene still lit by explosion and fireball. I should try and find out how bright semtex is; it should be very bright as I know the amount inside the aircraft would have produced 3,000°C+. One other moment that springs to mind now is the point at which the remaining section (wing and remaining rear fuselge, still attached) enter their verticle dive. Oh, I should point out that this sort of quality image seems to be lacking in the media, which focuses on the impact in the town, so you'd effectively be putting WP and WN at the forefront. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the sequence I've worked out so far. The explosion effects, most lighting/shadows, sky and city details are not included because I wanna make sure the basic breakup is accurate before I add those (so don't worry about the 40 second image and significant lack of debris, there will be much more accuracy when I'm done.) Anynobody(?) 21:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You are a fast worker! I'm impressed with it so far. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well that was the easy part, detailing the images is the complicated part :) I've come to a point where a choice on your part is necessary so I updated the preview. Do you want extra light in some or all of the images? Also, are you sure the fireball was still visible when the nose met engine number 3? If so that would mean a fireball over three seconds long, which seems kinda long IMHO.


 * To confirm these are the images: First just before, second at detonation, third is just after the nose breaks free as it hits engine number 3, fourth* detail of the separated nose section in the air, fifth and final will be the wing section around 10-15 seconds prior to impact. (*Though maybe you'd prefer the aft fuselage falling apart which is occurring around the same time.) Anynobody(?) 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at those, I think the images are going to need extra light except for possibly the last one of the wing section. I'd agree with your choice for image four. The fireball thing depends on what Semtex actually does: something I didn't consider is that as a high explosive it may well be the kind of thing that simply produces a quick, powerful bang and then instantly vanishes to leave the pressure wave to get on with it unlit. If, however, it produces the more stereotypical extended fireball then I would expect there to still be some firey trails coming back from the point of detonation three seconds later, although I'm no explosives expert. I'll do a little digging and get back to you. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the vastly reliable source that is, eh, YouTube, it looks like Semtex explosions are short and sharp with no long fireball. So you're right that there would be no light when the nose struck engine No. 3. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, if you wanted me to nod at that selection of images, yes they're ideal. I briefly considered asking you to trade the seperated nose detail for one of the aft fuselage breaking free of the wing, but I decided against it as the nose is such a powerful symbol. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's all good, I knew what you meant (I assumed if you wanted different perspectives or something for the images nearing completion you'd of said so). I've completed number 1, am tweaking number 2*, and encountered another question for the remainder; Do you want people? Bear in mind I'm not talking about really gory detail, after all it happened too fast for any details or "gibs" to be noticed, but whole people would be hard to miss because of their unique shape. Some folks may find it offensive, yet the pictures look somewhat eerie without them.


 * I agree with your youtube research, and it's caused me to second guess the blast as drawn. I bet it was pretty bright for an instant in the cargo bay but by the time depicted there would only be escaping air and debris. So I was thinking, if you want something with light effects, of moving the image ahead a few frames to show sparks and flames in number 2 as pieces were sucked in. This means of course that extensive peeling in the nose section would be going on, as depicted in the AAIB report.


 * Oh yeah, when do you need this by? Anynobody(?) 01:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * PS I can still do the aft fuselage instead of falling nose. Anynobody(?) 01:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * People... It is very tasteless, yet I take the view that we shouldn't shy away from such things. To quote myself from a recent Wikinews discussion: "People need to understand the reality of life for a good many people. And no, it isn't pretty. If you are disturbed then you should do something about it; sign a petition or give money or join a protest march. Don't bury your head in the sand and hope it goes away. It won't. It gets worse." This is part of why I want this image; folk have this vague idea of immediate disintegration and no-one realising what happened. In reality, there is an outside chance some were conscious at impact - it was as terrifying a death as was possible. So, yes, I think we need people; I said nothing since you could have been uncomfortable doing it. You are aware several folk were strapped in their exposed seats on the wing at impact?


 * If you wouldn't mind going ahead to the point of debris ingestion that would be very good. Could you maybe reduce the extra light a fraction in image 1, so the contrast between cabin lights on and off is very clear?


 * No to the aft fuselage. I did think about it, but as the landed nose became such a symbol the detail of it falling is too powerful an image to ignore. I hope to ignite real feeling from those who read the report. As to when, it is seriously non-urgent. Feel free to refocus on other things if they need done. I'm about to chase and complete my second major interview, which has been promised to me. From there I have an email for at least one more man I'd like, and even then I may decide to speak to a certain pair of ex-FBI lab workers at least before I'm ready to run. Jimbo himself is interested and happy to plug my report when it comes out. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

People: I agree that realism is the way to go, and since my computer isn't exactly a work station it can't handle an excessive amount of falling bodies so it'll be less gratuitous. (In fact I was playing with views of the forward fuselage meeting engine number 3 and got a great perspective when I tried it from behind and slightly to the right. Looks kinda like a bird turning its head to look at the camera.)

I went ahead and created two versions of the first image, both with enhanced contrast between lights and the rest. Since this is going to be a series of images I like the more realistic dark at the top for this image to give an idea what it really looked like since there will be three "bright" images depicting the actual breakup. However this is gonna be for an article you are writing so which do you prefer? Anynobody(?) 22:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(PS I imagine folks in their seats at impact were probably limp, so they may look a tad zombie-like in their posture.) Anynobody(?) 22:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good call. I'd agree the darker image is the one to go for; realism where possible. My understanding is that the people are assumed to have been out cold by the time they reached the ground but nobody knows for sure in most cases. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Image 1



 * "Submitted for your approval" - I approve! It looks very good. One minor point is that there are some indistinct grey lines running along the underside. Otherwise, the image is perfect. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * D'oh! I did the mapping incorrectly so seams on the fuselage and lights ended up under instead of on the side of it. I fixed that and re-cut the image to remove empty space. Anynobody(?) 22:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Image 2
Anynobody(?) 22:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks great! Last issue was no biggie - although I love the other stuff you've done to image one. I suppose the only minor noise I could make is the brightness of the red flasher, but it doesn't distract from the important area of the image. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 01:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I kind of liked how the rotating beacon aligned with the camera angle, which was totally by chance. Just for kicks I manually rotated it and tried a couple of other things ending up with something a tad better than before IMHO but I'll leave that up to you :) Anynobody(?) 04:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I did like the beacon, but I felt it was a tad too bright. I do like the smoke effect; this is something we can only guess at - only those killed can know for sure how much smoke escaped and I doubt that was their top priority. I wonder if it might have been whipped back a bit more, though, given that debris had already entered the engine? Or would the delay in the smoke following the pressure wave mean it was only just exiting? I've been chewing this over for about a day without a satisfactory answer so I guess we can just leave it as it is. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This image is a blend of three frames, the target frame as well as the ones just before and after it. Together they represent 3/20th of a second, which is an eternity in situations like this, but is the best my 'puter can do.
 * The one before shows engine 2 operating normally as shrapnel and a small cloud of smoke/air has expanded about a meter outside.
 * The target image has sparks but no fire in the engine with more air/smoke that is being blown against/around the fuselage toward starboard by strong winds described in the report . (I hadn't factored in the wind as strongly as it should have been for the strobe version.)
 * The final frame has even more air escaping while sparks ignite pockets of unburned fuel inside number two. (Once inside an operating turbofan engine, even the smallest things get pretty spectacular very quickly- check out this 767 :).)
 * In my mind I imagine it as kind of a race between air in the cabin escaping vs shrapnel entering number 2 engine. I'm pretty sure shattered bits of skin and debris had time to enter the engine before the cabin finished depressurizing, but just barely. As long as there is still time I'm happy to make any changes you want. :) Anynobody(?) 23:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Image 3


I like this view. It captures the violence of the breakup, which was my ultimate aim. I would still like the closeup of just the nose section, though, falling isolated; the symbolism is very powerful. The goal with the illustration is to make viewers - some of whom won't know anything of events two decades ago - care when they see it played out before them. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Image 4


That is actually a very interesting idea. I don't believe the report mentions at which point the container departed the rest of the aircraft, probably because nobody is entirely certain. I'm wondering two things: 1) Would the container have shredded into smaller pieces and 2) would it be more blackened? I do know the report describes the pieces as clearly having been involved in an explosion due to blast 'petaling' and, I belive, charring. I will look into the latter; not obviously sure where I might determine the former. I do very much like the idea, though. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Checking the report, you're spot on with it. No soot evident on the exterior panels of the container, and whilst much of the rest of the container was ripped to fragments, that angle captures a fairly intact section. Well, with that checked out, I'd say you should most certainly keep the container. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger that, keeping the container. Anynobody(?) 18:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Image 5
Since I'm unsure if this image will work, as a precaution I've also been working on a distant view of the impact fireball lighting up the surroundings. 18:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks as if its been causing you some difficulties. If it's too hard the fireball would be fine as an alternative. If you can salvage the wing section view, could we have some yellow lights from the town below? (Streetlights etc are more yellow than white here). Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I had an idea, and merged the two concepts. Showing the wing at top left and explosion at bottom right. Does this look workable? (Yellow lights, sounds like y'all have the same sodium lights we have here. I'll add a yellow tinge to all images showing lights :) Anynobody(?) 01:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That looks good. Having the fireball allows viewers to feel they 'followed' the aircraft right the way through its destruction. As far as streetlights go, Commons:File:View From The Erskine Bridge.jpg shows a modern view of Glasgow; the white lights are on industrial units, office block and the like, things unheard of in Lockerbie. The remaining yellow lights are fairly typical, except in very recent years. Good job! Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent, I'm glad you like it :) It dawned on me that the fireball would also include the unfortunate folks on the ground who were killed. (For that reason alone I was surprised they let that a-hole go home to Libya, like a hero. What can I say, justice is screwed up all over the world.) Anynobody(?) 18:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if my report might change your views on his guilt when completed :p. No, Libya should not have paraded the release, even if it achieved the miracle of making our Prime Minister briefly popular in at least one country. The reasoning may or may not have been influenced by oil, and politics, but the basic theory behind compassionate release is fine. The worst serial killer in American history - the Green River Killer - only showed remorse once: When a victim's father stated that he was forgiven.


 * That got him crying.


 * Anyway, I digress. I'll be back in a moment; you should like what's coming. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm cool with compassionate release, to a hospital or hospice. Don't get me wrong, there are always exceptions and the dude in jail wasn't the dude that came up with the whole idea, making him more like Eichmann than Hitler. However like Eichmann, he did carry it out so IMHO he ought to have spent the rest of his life without freedom since the people he killed are locked in to their fates and their loved ones lives will never be the same.


 * I absolutely LOVED seeing footage of the kindly old man in rainbow suspenders who made Ridgeway weep like a little bitch. He, the victims father, managed to actually give Ridgeway something to feel guilty about while he spends the rest of his life behind bars. (It's ironic, I'll bet the people who cursed him just made him feel BETTER about killing the others.) Anynobody(?) 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue with release to a hospital is that you get secure hospitals for prisoners already, and it would be too easy to shove them in there and then slowly eat away the benefits so that they are released only in name. Perhaps giving them a choice between a hospice or house arrest with their family is a better idea (as well as brief full-on releases with a supervisor for things like funerals, which I believe occur already).


 * Gaddafi's involvement may be hotly debated, but everyone can agree he's a nasty piece of work who should be in jail for something. It may interest you to know he's just bought some serious heavy arms.


 * I suspected you'd seen it; I get the impression that's a famous video over there. The world needs more men in rainbow suspenders. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I dunno why I said hospital, since a compassionate release to one wouldn't make much sense. Ideally people should be in a traditional hospital for a limited time and not forever.


 * Surprisingly Ridgeway's trial really didn't get in depth news coverage where I live (either local or national). I saw him crying on a show called Cold Case Files, which ironically reran the episode this week. Even though he is the worst yet caught, ask most Americans to name a serial killer and they'll probably say Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, BTK, the Zodiac, Aileen Wuornos, or even Jack the Ripper before him. (Even me, I suppose I'd of answered the question with H. H. Holmes or Carl Panzram.) I guess Ridgeway's personality, or lack thereof failed to garner the attention warranted by his crimes... then again it's also probably the same reason he was so successful. Anynobody(?) 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, the media is like that. Remember the China Airlines fire? The video made bigtime news over here; I found a grand total of two English-language sources that cared about the arguably bigger story of what the report had to say. One was the Aviation Herald and one was a small, local paper.


 * Interviewing FBI lead investigator at Lockerbie Richard Marquise, he told me a story of how a couple of FBI agents had managed to talk out two escaped 'bad guys' from where they had taken hostages. Marquise was contacted by someone wanting to stick the agents on that monring's news; he cleared it with his seniors and everything was good to go. Shortly before the broadcast, he gets a call from the show to the effect of 'We don't want them, it isn't news anymore.


 * Actually, I get that show here; I sometimes watch that sort of thing to pass time. If you asked me, right now I'd pick Harold Shipman. Or possibly Tony Blair. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I do remember that, and thinking to myself, since nobody died the story would go no further (what did happen? I can totally remember the 737 blowing up but can't recall if it was some problem in the center fuel tank or an engine fire after landing.)


 * Have to say that doesn't surprise me. I remember when I was 13 or so a neighbor's house caught fire, leaky propane tank in the garage. Only the 10 year old youngest son and my 11 yo brother were there. They heard a thud in the garage and noted smoke, prompting them to escape out the front door. (The house looked like a capital L from above, the garage was the horizontal line.) As they exited a guy who happened to be driving by met them and asked if anyone else was inside. Clearly he was performing his civic duty, yet on the evening news they reported him as saving both "scared" children inside (those weren't his words by the way, he was a good guy.) Do you by any chance know what caused them to dump agent Marquise? (What story was suddenly more important.)


 * Shipman could still be killing today, luckily he was also greedy :) I feel terrible for Tony (whom I mentally visualize as the UK during Gulf War 2, so please understand I have less knowledge of his domestic policies than I do about a sewing machine.)


 * P.S. I'm assuming you'll let me know when you're done writing, but I hate assuming. When do you think you'll be done? And thanks for the DeLorean :) Anynobody(?) 23:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In brief: A bolt came loose and found itself on the slat track when the slats were extended to land. When the slats retracted, the bolt was forced into and punched through the wing fuel tank. In long: Japan blames design, maintenance for explosion on China Airlines jet.


 * No, Marquise didn't mention that; from his manner, I got the impression he wasn't told and didn't notice anything he could see as understandable major breaking news.


 * Ah, Tony... Tony is the main man behind the UK's presence in Iraq. Say what you like on wether or not we should be there; the manner we rushed in was such as to worsen many aspects of daily life. Had we settled down, thought about it and gone before the UN Security Council, maybe admitted that we needed helped out with a longerm plan (or actually thought properly about one ourselves) then Iraq would be very much better off and vast nbumbers of Iraqi and British soldiers would still be alive. Looking at the bigger picture, had we convinced Bush to do it this way American losses too would be reduced and the US would be safer from terrorism. Remember, the insurgency problem scarcely existed when Saddam was in power. Considering the UK and US are permanent security council members and could force through any resolution that didn't impact China or Russia, there is no escuse for not, even if an emergency meeting was required. His domestic policy was also lacking, but that is where the deaths on his hands are.


 * I honestly don't know when I will be done; mostly it is a question of finding the time to devote to doing this correctly. I can't currently see this taking beyond mid-Summer and hopefuly long before then. However, when I walked into the Scottish Parliament I expected to be publishing the following day. This investigation has rather grown a life of its own - although from a journalist's viewpoint that's a good thing ;). Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always thought Bush wanting into Iraq so bad, was really dumb at best and outright criminal at worst. Don't get me wrong, Saddam was a monster easily on par with Pol Pot, if not much worse. But he wasn't supporting Al-Queda and his nuclear program wasn't even close to those of Iran or North Korea. I feel like Bush suckered Tony (+ the whole coalition of the willing) either because ole W was too stupid to realize the real situation or just didn't care and figured taking out Saddam would somehow make up for the lack of WMDs. Anynobody(?) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally understand how estimates of finishing times can fluctuate, and I'm pretty sure there is probably a lot the media missed thus taking more time for you :) Anynobody(?) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope to do a piece that will be easier to research, interviewing some US and UK lawyers about the nuts and bolts of the legal theory behind prosecuting the duo for war crimes, to give an informed view to anyone trying to judge the merits of the protests we're getting at our current enquiry into the invasion. Based on what little I've heard, they're all going to agree it would likely see convictions, but we'll see what happens.


 * Yep, true. A big part of the problem is that nobody has tried to investigate in-depth since shortly after the bombing bar Paul Foot for the Private Eye. He produced something I doubt I can match, but had the benefit of following where his POV led. Gathering every side's version of events and repeating them all verbatim, in a coherent manner... You could probably write a book, never mind an investigative report. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about the delay in replying :( I would love to see prosecutions of those behind Gulf War 2, there's so much about the whole thing that pisses me off (like the Project for the New American Century).


 * Damn I have to go, I'll be back, Anynobody(?) 00:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there is still time, I'm gonna keep playing with the images, and if I come up with anything better I'll let you know before I replace anything.


 * Speaking of everyone's version, will you also be discussing any other Libyan has bombings, like UTA Flight 772 or the 86 West Berlin disco? (Lockerbie was in response to our bombing of Libya in 1986 right?) Anynobody(?) 01:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries on the delay. Feel free to play around with them; I'm quite happy to trust you to get it right.


 * I may, if I manage, devote a little attention to the UTA bombing; it is interesting to note the same FBI forensic scientist worked on both attacks and I will be contacting him, so it is easy enough to bring this into the article and discuss it with him. As for motivation.... pffffft. We never got one, but if it was Libya then yes, it was almost certainly retaliation for the bombing of Tripoli. Gaddafi has never liked the West anyway; involved or not, I'm sure he cheered when the plane came down. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've actually had a theory for a while, check it out: This whole thing may actually be about the Gulf of Sidra. After years of low level posturing comes a minor battle in March 1986 where Libya was unsurprisingly clobbered by three US carrier groups. Gaddafi is pissed off, knows he can't get back at the US directly, so his agents put a bomb under a table near the DJ booth at the La Belle discotheque less than a month later. This pisses off Reagan, who orders Operation El Dorado Canyon less than two weeks after the disco bombing. I can't explain the delay between El Dorado and Lockerbie, unless he was counting on Iran Air Flight 655 to cover his action. What do you think, did all these folks die because Reagan decided to push Gaddafi's buttons over a pretty dumb claim in the first place? Anynobody(?) 02:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be honest, I'm unconvinced Libya really was involved. However, Lockerbie is such a mess that I can't rule that out. Assuming it is Libya, your theory holds water. Gaddafi plays the fool, but he isn't one; he's also an incredibly complex individual. There doesn't even need to be a rational explanation for him leaving a gap - although perhaps he wanted Libya to send the US a Christmas present. Maximum impact. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I dunno, it wouldn't shock me if they hadn't carried it out, but I suspect they provided assistance or funding. (Like maybe Iran really did want to get back at us for IA 655, and Gaddafi didn't mind helping out however he could... even if that meant accepting responsibility.) I'll hold off final judgment till I've read your piece though :) Anynobody(?) 01:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)