Audi vs. Tree...Guess who won!
03-24-2004, 06:27 PM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 2,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take on this is that that the car in the picture DID wreck at that same spot but NOT at the time the pictures were taken. Here are the three possibilities:
1) Accident reconstruction excersise:
This was my first impression, but there were a few things that didn't add up. If it was an accident investigation/reconstruction training excercise like many people suggested, why does it look like an investigation rather than a class? There doesn't seem to be some kind of formal class or tutorial going on. Why are there so many investigators scattered around? Why is there an ambulance present? I don't think you would really need one for that sort of exercise. Where is the truck that brought the car? Why are they doing it on a public road?
2) Real accident:
Most common arguments against it are the lack of fluids and undisturbed soil. I can see the lack of blood happening. You can fatally injure a person without tearing the flesh. I can also see the undisturbed ground happening. If the pieces bounced and then came to a rest, the ground would remain mostly undisturbed. A bouncing/tumbling object will not do much to a bed of soft, loose pine needles compared to an object being dragged. Far fetched, but possible. It's the lack of fluids from the car that I couldn't figure out. As someone said earlier, the ground can't soak up 6 quarts of oil and a few gallons of coolant that fast (and without leaving stains to boot).
3. Driver's ed or DMV educational video shoot:
This is the one I'm voting for, and it seems to have at least one reliable source to back it up. The things that don't add up in the two scenarios above make sense here. The background looks like a real accident scene because it had to look realistic for the vid. There are no instructors because it's not an excercise. The parts look like they were placed there because they really were, but they fit perfectly because it really happened there. The newspaper article is real, written when the accident really happened, of course. They chose to recreate an actual accident that appeared on the news at the same spot it happened to make their DMV/driver's ed video as convincing and shocking as possible.
Yeah, I'm bored tonight...
1) Accident reconstruction excersise:
This was my first impression, but there were a few things that didn't add up. If it was an accident investigation/reconstruction training excercise like many people suggested, why does it look like an investigation rather than a class? There doesn't seem to be some kind of formal class or tutorial going on. Why are there so many investigators scattered around? Why is there an ambulance present? I don't think you would really need one for that sort of exercise. Where is the truck that brought the car? Why are they doing it on a public road?
2) Real accident:
Most common arguments against it are the lack of fluids and undisturbed soil. I can see the lack of blood happening. You can fatally injure a person without tearing the flesh. I can also see the undisturbed ground happening. If the pieces bounced and then came to a rest, the ground would remain mostly undisturbed. A bouncing/tumbling object will not do much to a bed of soft, loose pine needles compared to an object being dragged. Far fetched, but possible. It's the lack of fluids from the car that I couldn't figure out. As someone said earlier, the ground can't soak up 6 quarts of oil and a few gallons of coolant that fast (and without leaving stains to boot).
3. Driver's ed or DMV educational video shoot:
This is the one I'm voting for, and it seems to have at least one reliable source to back it up. The things that don't add up in the two scenarios above make sense here. The background looks like a real accident scene because it had to look realistic for the vid. There are no instructors because it's not an excercise. The parts look like they were placed there because they really were, but they fit perfectly because it really happened there. The newspaper article is real, written when the accident really happened, of course. They chose to recreate an actual accident that appeared on the news at the same spot it happened to make their DMV/driver's ed video as convincing and shocking as possible.
Yeah, I'm bored tonight...
03-26-2004, 04:04 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: West River
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why do you guys think there has to be oil on the ground?? Is it not possible that the oil pan was intact?? Why would an engine have to leak oil just because it flew out of the car?? Coolant should have leaked and that will definately soak into the ground by the time this pics were shot.
I just don't get why ppl automaticly assume that oil would have gone everywhere???
I just don't get why ppl automaticly assume that oil would have gone everywhere???
03-26-2004, 11:16 AM
#37
Former Moderator
Originally posted by TurboVtk
humh did anyone notice how the speedo reads 90mph?
humh did anyone notice how the speedo reads 90mph?
Yes. It froze at 90. (or was put there and careful photography)
If a motor gets ripped out of a car like that, there is no way in hell that no oil would come out.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post