lat-puzz.com

GalFisk wrote:Are we seeing an accident? Yes. A fire? Yes. A lamp? No. Something wet? Yes. A fake fire which caught on real fire? No. A prop? No. Art? Yes.

AlbatrossLover wrote:Relevant what the art piece was supposed to represent before the accident? Yes. A living being? Yes. An animal? Yes. Something abstract? No. Is it a sculpture? Yes. Another type of 3D art? Yes. 2D art? No.

Are all the black parts of the picture burnt? Yes. Were they originally part of the same object as the orange-ish parts? Yes.

GalFisk wrote:Was there supposed to be any fire at all? Yes. Were the matches part of the art? No. Is the wetness the result of putting out the fire? Yes. Animal: one specific animal? No. A species? Yes, but I'm not 100% sure I understand this and the previous question correctly. A character? No. Cartoon character? No. The entire animal? Yes. Part of it? No. Is a costume relevant? No. Is the shiny black disc plastic? No. Epoxy? No. Relevant? Yes.

GalFisk wrote:Is the shiny black disc edible? No. Flammable? No. Liquid? Yes. formerly liquid? No-ish. Was it black before the fire? No. Shiny? Yes. Were candles involved? No. Was the animal supposed to be illuminated by fire? No. If so, from within? Was the animal a mammal? No. Reptile? No. Fish? No. Mythical animal? Yes. Such as a dragon? No. Was the fire accidental? No. Caused by negligence? Wrong material choices? Is the burned material paper? Yes.

By one specific animal, I mean Harambe the ape for instance, as opposed to any gorilla. By a species, I mean one type of animal, as opposed to a man-bear-pig for instance. Then I answered correctly - not one specific animal, but one specific species.

GalFisk wrote:Is the black stuff sooty water? No. A drink? No. Is the creature from: legend? Works of fiction? Video games? Films? Was the animal ignited by a flame? Spark? Glowing object? Ember? Candle? Match? Relevant what the matches in the photo were for? Yes.

CoffeeBean wrote:Is the bird creature supposed to be a phoenix? Yes.

JenBurdoo wrote:Does the art represent a phoenix killed by dumping water on it? No.

Is the phoenix sitting in a pie plate or pot of some sort? Yes. (Is the circular edge foil? Yes.) Was it being cooked? No.

GalFisk wrote:Were the matches part of the art? No. Is the liquid there because it was used to douse the fire? Yes. Was a match deliberately ignited? Yes. Mistakenly ignited? No. Was any fire deliberately ignited? Yes.

GalFisk wrote:Was anything besides the art mistakenly ignited? Yes. EDIT: Upon further reflection, the answer to this is actually No. Are all matches in the photo burnt? Yes. Was anything besides matches deliberately ignited? Yes. Smoking relevant? No. Candles? No. Fireworks? No.

GalFisk wrote:Thing deliberately ignited: firework? No. Fuse? No. Paper? Yes. Flash paper (magician's disappearing paper)? No. A lighter? No. A gas? No. Liquid? No. Was the deliberate fire intended to: heat? No. Illuminate? No. Create buoyancy? No. Cook? No.

GalFisk wrote:Was the deliberate fire intended to amuse? Amaze? Alarm? Destroy something? Dispose of? Make smoke? Evaporate something? Boil? Melt? Ignite something else?

GalFisk wrote:Destroy: this art? Other art? Other object? A building? Something living? Was it sabotage? Vandalism? Revenge? Edit: destruction as art? Yes and no.

Hobbsicle wrote:Was the person who lit it expecting a different result? Yes. Was the liquid in the pie pan intended to keep it from burning? No. To be burned? No. Was it the same person who both lit and put out the fire? Yes.

Liquizt wrote:To recap:
A phoenix art piece was intended to be lit? Yes. by match? Yes. and burn in a particular fashion? Yes.
When lit, it burned in some fashion other than intended? Yes. and was put out? Yes. with water? Yes.

The external parts of the phoenix are constructed from bright orange paper? No. other bright orange material? Yes, sort of. and some other relevant material? Yes? No? Sort of.
The internal parts of the phoenix are constructed from a different material? Yes.
The foil pan is part of the art work? No.
Strings? No. wires? Yes. are part of the artwork? Yes.

The artwork was commissioned? No. for the purpose of being lit?
The artwork was intended to be lit by the person(s) that constructed it? Yes.
When lit, the artwork was lit only once? No. in the correct place? Yes. in an incorrect place? No.
After being lit, some other part of the artwork caught fire? No. that wasn't meant to? No. that wasn't meant to at the time that it did? No. that wasn't meant to in the way that it did? Yes.
The fire burned bigger than expected? No. produced more smoke than expected? No. in a way that suggested the artwork was constructed from inappropriate materials for this use? Yes. in a way that presented a danger to the surroundings? No. people? No. just to the artwork itself? Yes.

The artwork was lit with the foil pan acting as a base? Yes. in the place it is in this photo? Yes. somewhere else? No.
The artwork was moved after it was lit? No.
The artwork is outside? Yes. relevant? No. was outside when it was lit? Yes. relevant? No.

No water was involved in the artwork itself? Correct. or was present in the immediate vicinity of the artwork in some form? Water was present. other than when it was introduced to put out the fire? No- this was the only water involved. intentionally? Yes. with the agreement of all present that this was correct to do? Yes.
It is relevant from where the water was sourced? No. tap? hose? bucket? fish tank? pond? pool?

All relevant aspects of the photo have been identified? No.

GalFisk wrote:When lit, did it burn bigger than intended? No. Faster? No. Hotter? No. Smokier? No. Sootier? No. Ashier? No. Tipping over-ier? No. Noisier? No. Dangerouslier? No.

GalFisk wrote:Did it burn: smaller than intended? Yes. Slower? Yes. Colder? No. Less smoky? No. Less smoky? I said no! :p Less ashy? No. Too stable? No. Too silent? No. Too safely? Yes. Too brightly? No. Too dimly? Yes. Invisibly? No. Did it glow rather than burn? No, but...

GalFisk wrote:No! I meant "less sooty?"
Was it supposed to burn: quickly? Yes. Completely? Yes. Was it extinguished because there was danger? No. Because of a misunderstanding? No. Because it was pointless to leave it burning the way it was? Yes. Was anything done to modify the fire, except adding water? No. If so, was an accelerant added? No. Did anyone get hurt? No.

GalFisk wrote:So the story is:
Somebody made a paper phoenix? Yes.
Which they wanted to burn dramatically? Yes.
But it burned so undramatically that they poured water on it? No.
Rather than having it sit around smoldering? Yes.

Relevant why they wanted to burn one? Yes. Did this happen on a stage? No. At a party? No. For a film? No. As a performance? Possibly. Relevant why it burned poorly? Yes.

GalFisk wrote:Did it burn poorly because it was: moist? Yes. Had too much glue in it? No. Too thick material? No. Wrong material? No. Wrong size? No. Too little air inside? No. Was made from flame-proofed material? Hesitant yes. Had plastic in it? No. Did the fire relevantly smell bad? No.

GalFisk wrote:Did the relevant moisture come from: when it was made? Yes, in a sense. Before? No. Later? Yes, in a sense. From bulk water? No. Rain? No. Mist? No. Air moisture? No. Is insufficient drying relevant? No. An accident? No. Rushing?No.