Fabricating Evidence - A Lesson in Ethics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- A modern-day case study in ethics and "expert advocacy" in the legal system.
The 𝙊𝙣 𝙋𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩 offers viewers a deep dive into Josh Porter's decades of experience in the construction industry. • On Point
In the 𝙊𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙅𝙤𝙗 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩 we take you out of the studio to where the real action happens, the job site. • On the Job
The 𝙊𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙊𝙣𝙚 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩 contains interviews with industry professionals discussing everything related to condominiums, construction, and engineering. • One on One
Building Integrity Supports Crossroads Hope Academy. To Donate to Crossroads Hope Academy, please use the following link: www.crossroads...
To see more videos about Crossroads and the amazing work they are doing, please watch the following playlist: • Crossroads Hope Academy
Do you agree with my conclusions at the end of the video about the "4th engineer"? What are your thoughts?
I had to wonder if at least in part the actions of #4 were due to incompetence rather than outright malfeasance.
Proposed thought process:
"I have these images, and they clearly don't line up. But they were produced by some unknown but obviously reputable engineer, because this is government data, and the government never lies. So what can I do to use it?
"I could stretch and skew the new image to overlay the older larger image. But then I would be distorting the image, and that is fabricating data. Besides, I can't make the whole thing match. Even if I use Photoshop to skew, rotate, and distort to get the image edges to match, I can see that nothing really matches internally.
"So I can't change the image sizes, since that would be distorting data, which is wrong. But I feel I can rotate the image without scaling to get the best visual match. But no one match will work for the whole housing area.
"So I will pick several areas of interest and rotate and move the new image to do a 'best match' to the old image and then measure from there."
Of course, how he did that and didn't notice that the house outlines in the area didn't match is rather beyond me.
And how he picked those 'shore lines" that were 15 feet back into the middle of the lawn areas also makes no sense, other than questioning the integrity of the person drawing the lines.
On top of that, using 0.01' "accuracies" on data that is only good to a foot only goes to show that the "engineer" never took basic engineering math, or likes to deliberately lie to his clients. Or maybe both.
@@lwilton Yea I would hope this is a case of a PE handing it off to an intern.
I was involved with aerial reconnaissance for 20 years, and you are spot on. Orthorectification is not subjective. This is a clear case of either not knowing what they are doing, or they created their "truth" to advocate for a particular outcome.
One thing that really struck me was that at no time was this referenced to any legal survey of the land or the developer's surveys, designed and as-built distances from the property line(s) to water's edge, variations in the elevation of the ponds, properties and such. I'd imagine that the developer would have done this to cover their butts in case of something like this and to ensure that they met or exceeded any building / water pond regulations or guidelines.
I have to wonder how much of the supposed erosion was just due to the lake level changing over time.
This is like engineering CSI, totally fascinating!
Thank you. I was very concerned this would be too dry.
@@BuildingIntegrity Too dry? Never! Bring on more of these. I worked, briefly, as a nonprofessional (marketer) for an AutoCAD-based geospatial mapping company. I understand the basics of AutoCAD and similar software, but my boss, who was a gifted engineer, could never find a way to get my head around orthorectification. When you explained it here, after years of darkness, the lights came on. Thank you. Learning can indeed be enjoyable.
Well Done, from Tasmania!
@@BuildingIntegrity there was LOTS of juice in the skullduggery that you were showing lol
The other suspicious behavior was not sending the AutoCAD files with the first supeana response. Did they hope no one would notice?
John, glad you noticed that. It's not "proof" of anything... but it was a failure to comply with the subpoena and, I agree with you that it was suspicious.
@@ReachOutToWilliam data was extrapolated from evidence, but the data created (measurements and percentages) was created by manipulation of the pictures, rather than legitimate scientific assessment, so yes, the 4th engineer attempted to use the "Art of misdirection and suggestion" to lead a jury to a certain conclusion, which Science did not support.
And the fact that the Autocad had so much damming evidence in it, showing the distortion of the facts, points highly to it being intentionally left out.
Maybe you are the 4th engineer? Lol
"molested the art of science". Seems like a phrase that deserves remembering. :-)
It is on daily display right now with COVID.
A quote-worthy line
As an aspiring data analyst and someone who loves engineering and construction...I really hope you do more of these. This was fascinating!
My greatest “win” was stating that the omission of the truth is the equivalent of a lie before the Judge. Defense attorney disagreed, Judge agreed with me.
Aka, "lies of omission." The concept is not new.
In the UK, witnesses swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
@@usvalve Yep, we americans took that line from you guys!
Some truths are different depending on the individual looking at the evidence. And even though the real truth is eventually often uncovered, it’s often their short term “alternative” truth which is their goal.
In America between 2016 and 2019, there was a group of people that tried to sell the “truth” of Donald Trump as a deep asset to Russia.
That truth was later debunked, but during those years almost every media firm was selling that as the “truth”. Just a small example of modern truth.
I’m not in your field but I AM a highly detailed person. Loved you explanations.
You’re a professional and a gentleman!
Just like a poker game. You called their hand and they had no choice but to fold! Well done Josh!
To give the engineer the benefit of the doubt, I am going to guess they knew the images didn't line up exactly. As you can see, if you line up the images from any particular point, the further you get from that point the greater the deviations. I am assuming for each location, they realigned the 2019 image to a reference point in the middle of the area of concern to "maximize" the matching of the photos in said area (instead of using software to prospective correct them as you mentioned, because it would likely be impossible at this point without certain data).
As you show in the peninsula example though, the photo deviations still become greater than the amount being measured by the time you get to each area of interest from whatever center point of alignment they used.
I would expect such a flawed analysis from a layman, not an engineer.
It does beg the question that either the engineer knowingly produced flawed evidence or s/he is so incompetent that they should not have a license.
As a math/science grad, the use of sig figs beyond the accuracy of your least accurate data source used for calculations drove me crazy. That doesn't even include his/her lack of producing a measurement error figure for your methodology.
If you look at the numbers they come up with, after dropping the added digits and accounting for measuring error, there is nothing meaningful in these measurements.
That is not how it works. You have to adjust the entire image and rectify all landmarks and features.
@Dragon's Red is correct: Distortions from map projections, including perspective skew, typically increase with distance from a reference point. By using different matches, one for each region of interest, one can minimize the impact of an overall distortion.
Alas, given the "drama digits", the obviously too coarse polygonal tracing, and weird slope sampling point selection, I strongly suspect that we need not explain by malice what can equally well be explained by … lack of competence.
Re: "layman, not an engineer", I agree. This result is the sort of work I'd expect from giving a student a homework assignment: "From these three images, determine how much the shore line changed in each time period". Except that the teacher gave the homework assignment before teaching the class how to do it properly so that the teacher can use the resultant errors as a learning tool for the rest of the class.
For a student who didn't know any better I would say "Not the worst approach, but explain to me how you got such precise numbers."
The only parts that make me suspicious are 1) the initial failure to turn over the auto-cad files and 2) The obvious image resolution vs measurement significant digits. Significant digits is taught in high school, though I've seen plenty of people who should damn well know better make the same sort of mistake. Inexcusable for a professional engineer.
Totally agree.
One hopes that the 4th engineer isn't designing buildings.
I have absolutely no reason to research these things, but I found your videos by chance and I've been binge-watching them. You're such a good communicator! Thank you.
Your combination of curiosity, organized thinking, and clear communication keep me coming back for more!
This was really fascinating as somebody with no connections to this field of expertise. Cheers!
There is a distinct difference between “Professional Opinion” and evidence. Given the same set of circumstances (evidence) you and I with similar experience and credentials may reach different conclusions. The idea of manipulating the data to fit your case is unethical and should not be tolerated within the professional engineering community. The idea that this work was performed by someone who just didn’t know any better then issued under the PE’s stamp is just as bad.
Missed your videos! It is so refreshing to experience honesty and integrity!
Appreciate you taking the time to produce this video. I am an engineer and this helps with the knowledge base.
I’m really glad you were there to be a REAL engineer, analyzing primary data to find the truth. Not only were you able to do this by using your professional expertise, but you were able to communicate it so clearly that all involved could see it clearly regardless of technical training. You taught them what they needed to know in order to see the truth for themselves. That teaching aspect is not something every engineer has in equal measure, but you are a natural teacher as well as a clear and logical presenter. You converted that court proceeding from “trying to convince based on the word of someone with an agenda” to “showing the truth clearly and letting it speak for itself.” It must have been so very satisfying.
I am a scientist who has always searched for truth too, though my area of expertise is different (cell biology and biochemistry). In designing experiments and interpreting data, there are three primary questions or steps:
1. What is the real question that must be answered? (Often this is much harder than it first looks. The question cannot be a vague generality, it must be precise and answerable with a doable experiment or analysis of existing data.)
2. What assay/measurement method is being used to get the data and is it sensitive and reliable enough? (Often addressing this has required extensive preliminary assay development work, because without an appropriate assay, there will be no meaningful data.) If new data are needed, go on to #3.
3. Experimental plan/ new data: Are there controls to rule out alternative explanations and thus reveal either the answer or the next step toward the answer?
Your analysis actually followed these steps too. You identified the real question as “Are these measurements accurate and do they support the claim?” You then moved on to the assay validation step, and there you uncovered deliberate falsification in order to generate a fake result. No further work was needed to get the answer, so you could skip getting new data in Step 3.
That engineer committed a crime: deliberate large-scale fraud. It’s also an egregious violation of the central purpose, the heart of engineering. They also probably misled the HOA and got paid for it. I hope there was some exposure and accountability, but the system often doesn’t work that way. I suspect this excellent, clear video is not only intended to teach but also to publicize the wrong that was done in that case.
I have worked with academics and engineers who believe odd numbers with two decimal places must be more meaningful or more true than saying "the bank is a nearly two feet narrower than it used to be" and then explaining why the degree of accuracy has to be so loose. Even comparing plan and sectional drawings (design or as-built records) with current photos on the ground the best you could hope for is to create a consensus about the degree of change. Then you have to select a datum from which to measure - top of designed bank or distance from property, and know how much earth was sacrificial or planned to change through settlement over time. Then you could begin to quantify loss. Relying on satellite imagery to claim a 1/100th of a foot resolution is madness, even if the development had been built by NASA and had GPS markers installed in the undergrowth specifically for such future correlation and measurement. My conclusion is the 4th engineer was tasked with proving a number to support what the client wanted to claim. Whatever that number was, that in turn would need to be offset against the real value of the works and I look forward to the next (6th?) engineer stating that the loss from erosion was within design tolerances. The lake is now bigger - who pays the developer for that? Great video, thanx.
The trial is have a jury tell you what the "truth" is when the parties refuse to agree on the truth. As for insurance experts; as an insurance professional, all I want from my experts (I do construction surety claims) is the truth. If we owe, I want to know sooner than later to avoid unnecessary legal fees from a lost cause, because in my experience juries almost always get it right when given the whole picture.
Yes and I am very careful not to imply that all insurance companies are bad or all engineers that work for insurance companies are bad... only that the incentive to lie is definitely there. Engineers and professionals must acknowledge that and resist the urge to advocate for their client.
Excellent explanation. We got law, engineering, satellite imagery, all in one bundle.
Orthorectification A new power word for the vocabulary. I was aware of the concept but not its applications. Knowledge. Thank you.
This case study is a great example of why it is SUPER important to include comprehensive metadata with any kind of maps or output files you can create in software like ArcGIS
Without knowing what projection methods, vectorizing techniques, etc. were used to create a data layer you won’t be able to use or interpret it properly
Very interesting video!
I love your analysis.
It would have been nice if you had gone to this housing tract in person and taken pictures of the land. It does look like there is some changes in the shoreline from 2006 to 2019 but it is hard to tell if there is a real erosion problem of if it is just a change in the color of the vegetation.
Thanks for watching! I did go there personally. I also reviewed photos from the other three engineers and lake maintenance contractors spanning from around 2011 to 2020. It was a big study with lots of aspects to it. I chose to just focus on the "4th engineer's analysis for this video.
"Molested the art of science": For courtrooms, t-shirts, and reality in general everywhere.
Wait a minute, what about the actual Plat, as-builts, and lot surveys done by actual licensed surveyors? (I'll bet it didn't fit the "narrative")
@@kirkhamandy A picture tells more than a thousand words. Aerial images look so nice that the story would persuade the laymen in the court. I.e. the lawyers and judge.
@@kirkhamandy Engineer #4 was hired to produce the results the HOA wanted and make HOA members happy. He had achieved those two goals and got his payment :)
@@ivankuzin8388 Correct.
I'm guessing that is exactly what the first three report did, which is why they were not appreciated by the HOA.
I discovered your videos related to surfside last year. Your videos are so fascinating and educational. If I had seen these in high-school, I imagine I'd have taken a different career path at university.
I want you on my side when buying property !!! Or dispute on property lines. Excellent Excellent video !!!! Five stars !!!
In mech eng, we have a golden rule of 10 for measurement (metrology): you need an instrument capable of measuring 10x more than the precision you report. In other words, if your vernier’s smallest increment is 0.001 inch, you should only report of to 0.01 inch of the dimension you are measuring. Of course I’ve “casually” written down to the resolution of my instrument for internal testing but never for something like QA.
In that regard, reporting to the hundredth of a foot when your pixel accuracy is 1 foot per pixel is laughable.
It is good that they were caught...how many are never caught..ethics are real. Thank you for honesty.
Thank you for a very clear explanation of how to create fraudulent arguments.
Also, since the court system is not about the truth but to convince someone or a group of people, then how do you define the truth?
What is the truth? But we moving away from engineering, or do we?
US schools currently teach that "the Truth" (always with a capital T) is "just your opinion", and "everyone has their own truth, which is why there is no such thing as Truth". Since everyone learns that from childhood, there is little attempt to find an actual truth. Which may be one reason the US no longer produces scientists of any note, or has any manufacturing.
@@lwilton Thank you for your response. Maybe, that is also why this country as more people in jail than even China and Russia combined. Even as time goes by, more and more jailed people are being released on fraudulent charges.
The problem with the scientists may also be linked to religions power in America. Too bad for the country on the long term. For the manufacturing, it is just all about money. Period. People on top only care about making money and keeping it for themself. But, He! what do I know.
I love your videos, you are a good teacher.
@@lwilton, it’s ‘interesting’ watching you use a false statement as ‘evidence’ to support your false assertions about ‘truth’, even as you dishonestly resort to conflating the literal and metaphorical meanings of the word.
My great-grandfather was a blacksmith. I pretend to be a wordsmith. Which means I value words over many things. This then means I won't waste words, and there's one word that sums ups the settlement and case. "CAUGHT" Great detective work- bravo!
Interesting study. Congratulations on the win.
Josh, there has been a lot of social media talk on the repairs to the Millennium Tower in San Francisco. It would be interesting to see your weigh in on it.
I enjoyed your presentation on this case. Incompetent or dishonest? I suppose the various legal people can wrestle that aspect. Well done on your part.
I'm grateful for all involved that you uncovered this abuse of trust. What sort of reprimand could that engineer face for his abuse?
This was awesome. Thanks for sharing the story. And congratulations on the victory.
Awesome! I've followed you Champlain Towers collapse analysis and was impressed. This is the first I've watched outside that. It is very interesting!!!
Thank you Greg!
Another fantastic video. Keep up your amazing work!
EVERYBODY in the legal system will shop for an expert at one point or another. You'd hope the "experts" would be unbiased but, they're not. You'd hope all the experts would be equally well qualified but, they're not. You'd hope all the experts would be honest but, they're not.
So..... that's another reason we have juries.
A trial is legal theater managed by the judge, performed by the lawyers and witnesses, in front of 6-12 experienced BS detectors.
All you can do is point out the BS and hope the jury is paying attention.
There's nothing "wrong" with an attorney asking experts for their opinions and it's not surprising the attorneys will go with the opinion which supports their story of the case. Many times no report is ever generated so there's nothing to discover or subpoena.
Now prove the engineer is "lying" or advocating and not just mistaken or incompetent...... that's the real issue.
Hi - re "6-12 experienced BS detectors". juries are not necessarily "experienced" in anything at all to do with the subject matter, and certainly they are not necessarily "BS detectors". They are humans who are given to emotion and BS and browbeating and charismatic or uncharismatic attorneys, good or bad storytelling, etc., as much as any of us.
@@curtandoscar ,
There are several different dynamics at play in a trial but, the jury is asked to be the "finder of fact" which means they have the job of determining who to believe.
How they come to their belief will be driven by things other than the testimony. Things like: who the like, who they identify most closely with, who they think is better educated among the "expert witnesses", whether the expert got paid, how much the expert got paid etc.
You can't really separate one dynamic from all the other factors but, the jury are ultimately the people who decide who's "telling the truth"
I love when the Wolf gets bitten by the TRUTH. Thank you for shutting that one down.
Very interesting video. Thanks very much. Very good presentation. Cheers.
Thank you!
Totally agree on the ethics and truth... My question is would there not be a land survey of all the perimeters? Why are we dealing with satellite imagery at all?
Excellent Josh, thank you so much.
Great storytelling. I always enjoy listening and watching you. So candid, so honest. And I bet that the developer was so relieved that you literally caught the 4th engineer fudging lines and data to fit his own narrative. I so enjoy your videos. Thanks BUILDING INTEGRITY, and especially Josh 👍
Thank you. Let the truth prevail!
I love your presentation and analysis. I would think it would have been "fun" to actually present this to a jury and see the look of the faces of the Fourth Engineering Firm. You have a knack for explaining complex principles to lay persons. Just an example to show that there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Awesome story Josh. My takeaway is that details matter.
Very well done, interesting video. Thank you for this.
Josh I love all your dissection of the facts fascinating thank you , an old fart in wembley
A resolution of 6inches is super impressive. Doesn't make their analysis better, but I am impressed. I've done some GIS but I think the finest resolution I tended to work at was 10m. I was doing land use based stuff though.
Independent of that CAD file, I doubt that the point of this lawsuit makes any sense. Shoreline erosion simply happens. It's maintenance that needs to be done from time to time. Suing the developer for that erosion little different from suing because the homes needed repainting or the shingles need replacing.
Someone at the HOA assumed they could recoup ongoing maintenance expenses from the developer, and thought a lawsuit would work.
I think their claim was that Developer did not do proper maintenance in the years when he was responsible for it - before 2015, and therefore should bear part of the costs.
@@ivankuzin8388 Correct, and this claim was proven wrong in my report. But to Michael's point... erosion will happen no matter what level of maintenance you undertake... as with everything in the universe.
Excellent deductions! You caught em!
If this image looks blurry on your screen that’s because it IS a blurry image 😂
Bad. a$$…totally enjoyed the presentation !!!
Thanks!
Another excellent case study!
A 💯 agree with you . When you have 3 engineers saying something that doesn’t fit their narrative so they find the 4th engineer or they pay them to get a report that backs them to present . Automatically a majorly red flagged. I know this isn’t illegal, but they should at least be red flagged somehow. And whoever this 4th engineer clearly doest have the experience or ethics to be able to write these reports.
This needs to be illegal and god Knows how many times this happens.
This is going to be rife when CTS goes right into litigation. Thankfully the developers in this cast got you .
Two minor criticisms:
At 12:09, the 'raw satellite' image is stretched in the wrong direction for where the viewpoint is shown. The left (closer to satellite) end should be relatively expanded compared to the right.
At 22:54 you are comparing the roof level outlines (perhaps 4m above the ground). What matters here, and what should be aligned between the images, is the ground level features. If that is done correctly, the roof level features will only align if the satellites were at the same place when each photograph is taken. Even some level of inconsistency is expected, if the houses have different height eaves. (Although I'm not confident that all the inconsistencies can be laid to this.)
If you trust people to have kept the edges of their driveways and footpaths neatly trimmed, you should instead have compared sharp ground level features like corners of driveways.
If one overlays the two frames whare BI showed the white drawings (shifted so the white boxes match) - the patterns on the ground (roads, pathways) actually looks well-fitted!
How do you turn a 2d image into 3d data? Does erosion mean waterline? What was the elevation? Either this engineer was an idiot or was malicious.
Law of Lawsuits - go after somebody with money. If they have money maybe you can get some.
Josh, that was incredible! I like the way you deconstructed their case, piece by piece. I hope the 4th engineer is suitably humiliated and learned a lesson. Any other cases that see your name on the expert witness list needs to make sure their homework is done. Or they can run like hell away from the courtroom when you appear. Thanks.
Gosh, I so offended. There is no such thing as truth, and that is a fact. Oh wait, wouldn’t me making that as a factual claim be a “truth”. 😵 Oh dear, I just admitted there is truth.
Nicely done, thanks for interesting insights to into ortho correction of imagery.
I've long been highly suspect of 'implied levels of accuracy'.
Have too often seen 'research scientists' take a single grain of sand and build Waikiki Beach, all the while attesting that their level of extrapolation to be valid (as they purse additional funding for their research........)
First, we should all be seekers of the truth. Judging the images and the required ortho rectification, this would have been difficult for any two parties to come to the same conclusion provided with the same. The real issue is the manipulation of data to fit the required result and although I know this exists everywhere in our society, it saddens me to see engineers stoop to these horrid depth and abandon what I believe is our role to improve life for society with best practices.
Excellent job! Brilliant investigation. Thx. Subscribed for more vids.
Thank you Valorie!
I am a private practice forensic nurse examiner. It has been my experience that many "experts" are there to say whatever their attorney client wants them to for the paycheck. We work in facts, provable facts but I have listened to alleged experts who testify to things that are literally impossible. I have lost faith in most "experts" as having ethics. Many seem to have the ethics of who can pay me the most.
Way to go!! Love your videos!!
Keep making videos!!
Thank you, I will!
Sounds like the coastline paradox. In three-dimensions, the area of a surface, the length of a perimeter, etc.; always varies. As it is dependent on the resolution of measurement, in order to reconstruct the same conceptualization in fractal surfaces.
“There is no your truth and my truth”
Based
Watching this reminded me of something that happened just before I retired from the state DOT. There was a developer who purchased some property where the DOT was going to build a new on-ramp. The developer's lawyers had a preliminary survey in their hands and it is my understanding they were essentially touting everything as being official, including the calculated square footage of the parcel in question which was erroneous. Being a licensed surveyor myself, I had already built out the parcel with completed area calc's. I then built out the preliminary survey and the differences were less than 200 square feet in just over two acres, well within tolerance for the property values at hand. I eventually discovered the probable source of the error where including the long chord of one curve instead of the curve itself, resulted in a value very close to the errant area presented. In the end, they agreed with my original calculated area.
But anyone attempting to use a preliminary document as though it were official, is being grossly unethical in my opinion. Preliminary documents are works in progress and are subject to revision including correction of errors before the final recorded document; I essentially defended the surveyor whose preliminary stamp was on it.
I think the reason the case was dropped so fast was not just the report, but the opposing lawyer realizing that Josh could explain the problems in a way the jury could understand it. This wasn't going to boil down to he said/she said. They had no choice but to abort mission.
I feel that the phrase "molested the art of science" is a particularly memorable one. I wonder what the first three reports concluded?
As someone who did a lot of site plans and such for developments and had to make use of aerial and satellite images, I would have been going directly in the direction you were. I had times where I had to use multiple images from different times and sources, and at times there was not way to make them work together.
Question: in coming up with the overall percentage of 73.76%, did Engineer 4 turn linear measurements into areas (for 2006, 2014, and 2019) and then find percentages of the areas, or did he just get a mean of the percentages of the linear measurements for 2014. Note how big the contribution of 100% of 3.19' would be in that case compared to the 43% of 11.32'. Taking an average of the linear percentages would be completely bogus, even if the rest of the methodology were OK. (Which you showed it clearly wasn't.)
Very interesting report. Good video!
You are an excellent teacher, thank you once again for such an incredible lesson. I pray I never need something like this in one of my developments but if I do, you have taught me another valuable lesson.
In 2006 surveyors were using GPS for As Builts. Even if GPS wasn't used, an as built is incredibly accurate or at least in my area. Projects/homes haven't been able to be completed and sold here in Anchorage, Alaska since the 80s without one so why wasn't that used?
Your presentation makes engineering seem so interesting. Yes, I cringe when I see construction drawings dimension things as 4.79 feet long. Do they mean 4'91/2" or 4'9 15/32. I slap my forehead when they say 73.76 of the damage occurred when the thickness of their pen is 5 or 10%. Clearly, they realised they method was hogwash.
The only thing I can think of is the angle of the imagery (sat lense to the earth surface) between the years is so bad when you Ortho the photos as a whole that you can't use the images. And so you Ortho the specific peninsula so you have less warping and can control the warping of raster images to some degree.
But I would have checked the cul-de-sac sidewalk edges rather than the buildings (when going between the years) because the skew is always off on buildings, because satellites are never in the same spot twice.
Also check the scale at those sidewalks per peninsula, even check vs actual to make sure your scale per pixel is close, that way you can find how accurate your pixels are within a tolerance.
Again tho there would be a design and as-built of those lots and peninsulas you'd think and you could check them, legal plans should give a distance to waters edge at elevation, or some definition you can easily check.
To me, more important than whether I agree with your conclusions was the PROCESS of working through the evidence. And yes, the evidence spoke for itself. I hate crooked people and I love it when they get caught.
Good work pays off.
Mr. Porter I really enjoy your videos! What would have been a proper way for the HOA to assess whether or not the bank erosion was excessive and if the developers were partially responsible for any deficiencies in the design or maintenance of the lake banks? Were there any developing site conditions or problems that initiated the original claims by the HOA or is this a case where the HOA did not manage the transition of the turn-over properly?
Great video for the layman
Very educational : thank you
Subdivision plats and/or as-builts would have been best place to start. Follow that with surveys. I'm retired now, but have seen the tracing practice used more frequently. It can be done, but requires some skill. Tracing should be the exception rather than the rule, especially if plats and surveys are available.
Correct. I would assume there is a monument in the street or curb cuts that would allow them to establish lot lines and to accurately scale the lot lines to the imagery.
Interesting how they systematically fabricated up some imaginary numbers. If they had used permanent landmarks such as structures and trees and included a little footwork with a measuring wheel they could have more accurately estimated erosion.
The houses themselves are landmarks, as he reveals at the end of the video. A better methodology might be to scale the area around each house, to determine the shore boundary. Even that is flawed, due to varying lake levels.
@@gordonrichardson2972 A problem with using the houses is that the photos are not straight down and consequently you have a parallax problem impossible to rectify. In other words, the height of land above water will be skewed slightly because you are not looking straight down or at the same angle in each photo.
Great video!
Job well done! I thoroughly enjoyed your dissection of their lie, er, "questionable ethical actions." This really shows how easily a lie can become accepted fact if not challenged, and how much more effort it takes to defend the truth.
I wonder where the limits of the lots were. I guess not where the water was but higher up. As a developer I would have laid out the lots so that they end several (10 or so) feet from the water's edge. Was the case about change in total, common property? Or more about paying for measures to stop erosion so the houses will not end up in the water?
Fun fact: In Germany the ocean water belongs to the government by law. When a shipyard, which is on the edge of the water, wanted to improve its lot in the harbor they dug out a portion of their lot. Situated at the waterfront it got flooded. At that point the government stepped in. It reclaimed that inundated portion because it was now a federal property (i.e. harbor/ocean water) and the shipyard could only claim ownership to the dry section of the lot. The shipyard's owners were flabbergasted. They should have built a cofferdam or some such to keep the ocean out and have only a lake on their lot. In the end the Feds gave in with some little help of the local government. Like workplaces and economy.
Excellent!
I expected nothing less.
Thank you Raja!
I would say the only way to actually prove anything in this case is to start with survey marks in the roads and using a physical measuring tape, measure each property line out to the water's edge. You would need at least three data sets like this to establish anything, so an annual or at least once every 5 year check would be needed to document any change.
Thank you so much for sharing this information there is so much wisdom in what you say and is a great reminder to keep emotions out of these types of situations. What is your setup for video?. Do you have an Ipad connected to a monitor? So you can do on-screen markups?
That was pretty cool. Present real verifiable information and the roaches go running. Good thing they made the right decision and didn't cost everyone more time and money. Hopefully a teachable moment for "engineer 4".
Thank you for taking that "engineer" to task. I think he hoped if he threw enough info at them, they would scratch their heads and say let's settle. I understand an expert defending their opinion but this was wholesale fabrication. Keep up the good work!
Nice work.
Job well done!!!
The purpose of "expert testimony" is to provide the jury with some perspective the jury would not ordinarily have from their own life experience.
We don't bring in "expert" drivers for drunk driving cases because the jury ordinarily has the perspective of what it's like to drive a car and what it's like to be drunk. Therefore no "expertise" is required for the jury to make a determination in the case.
In court there isn't "an expert" there is "the expert" for each side.
The judge doesn't assess the opinions or objectivity of the expert he/she only assures whether the expert has the background, training and expertise to inform the jury of things the jurors wouldn't ordinarily be able to evaluate on their own.
Then, when we get to court, "the experts" present their information to the jury and, with the help of the lawyers, try to convince the jury that their view of the facts and evidence is more persuasive.
If the expert was supposed to be objective and unbiased they wouldn't be selected by the attorneys and presented to the judge for his/her approval. If objectivity were the goal then there would be only ONE expert appointed by the court independent of either party in the case.
This is actually how it is done in my country with Civil law system - lawyers don't get to choose experts, expert is only one and court-appointed. The only thing a lawyer can do is point to a conflict of interest that this particular court-appointed expert has, in which case another one is appointed.
@@ivankuzin8388 Yes, that is how I understand your legal system as well. In the USA, the judge DOES rule on the objectivity of the expert IF a claim is made to the court by one of the attorneys that the expert is acting as an advocate. I don't remember what that process is called... but you are correct, that short of that claim being made, the judge usually will not weigh in on the bias of the expert or not.
@@BuildingIntegrity There is also no jury - basically, in a case like this, both parties would present their case and then a court-appointed expert (they have a list of court experts in different fields) will prepare an expert review of those, and the judge will decide the outcome, based on that review and standing laws. If you disagree with the result - you appeal it, where there will be another judge higher up, all the way to supreme court where there will be several judges on a case, and then you can go to EU court :) So it can drag for years and years.
@@BuildingIntegrity ,
To my knowledge you can only disqualify a expert if you can show their work ( testimony ) is outside the accepted professional standards, would be confusing to the jury in the way its going to be presented, the testimony would be within the ordinary knowledge of the jury ( unnecessary expert), there is some *factual error* in the material the expert is going to use or present.
OR the expert is not qualified to discuss the material to be presented for some reason. Having a personal interest in the outcome *might* get the judge to toss the expert but having an opinion ( even though contested ) would not be enough.
There's nothing that says the expert cannot have an opinion which is not objective. The judge will not on his/her own assess the "objectivity" of the expert because the expert is hired by the attorney and is presumed to have some degree of bias on that basis alone.
There is rule 706 in federal court which allows the judge to appoint an expert and that may exist in other contexts but I've rarely seen that done.
Most civil trials and criminal trials ( where I was involved ) come down to a battle of the experts because one side will say the sky is blue and the other side will say it's more "light blue" than actually "blue." A Judge will let the jury figure out what color the sky is from there.
I'm not a big fan of the way it's done and I'm glad you think the expert should be objective ( so do/did I ) but, it's not a legal requirement.
We can agree to disagree tho.
Point of clarification :
On paper, by the letter of the law, you're *supposed to be* objective.
But, you are hired by one side, you have an opinion favorable to that side, you believe YOUR opinion is correct and the opposing opinion is not.
Therefore every "expert" is in fact biased so the idea that they are "objective" is a bit of legal fiction in a way.
@@artt3165, not entirely.
It is possible for two people to examine the same underlying set of information and come to two different, even contradictory, conclusions and have both of them be reasonable. It is the job of these experts to explain the underlying information and the rationale/methodology by which they evaluated & analyzed it to come to their respective conclusion.
Yes, being absolutely, completely, 200% objective is impossible, because everyone has distinct and unique life and professional experiences. No, that doesn’t mean that being objective is just “a legal fiction”.
You have such an excellent presentation that even an idiot would not try to deny your conclusions. I would love to hear anything you might have to say about the Millennium Tower in San Francisco. I saw some of the videos on water intrusion into their parking basement structure and it sure looked somewhat like the videos/pictures from Champlain Towers South. I have no interest in the Millennium Tower, not even from that State, but it sure looks like it was royally screwed up from the very beginning. Thanks for all your great videos.
That was really interesting, what a fascinating job you have.
Thank you for another interesing video. Not my field of work but appreciate your thinking and the conclusion feels correct, especially as they withdrew the claim
Your description of your orthorectification example is backwards. The side closer to the camera will be more spread out in the image not closer together. It doesn't take away from your point though.
Spent the whole time wondering what the time of year was and what measures were taken to compensate for fluctuations in water levels, because droughts/floods, but this is Florida so that may be much less of an issue.
Great story! Glad you busted that other engineer.