• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

[202X] Project Horizon (SW9?): Planning Approved

Nick🎢 said:
This thread is an amazing example of confirmation bias in action. Alert : off.
Click to expand...
I sincerely apologise if I’m exhibiting confirmation bias, Nick. I try and be balanced and rational, but I sometimes can’t help it, and I know I have a tendency to do it without realising.

I get that “rollercoaster” being mentioned could be a piece of evidence, but the sporadic nature of those mentions (only twice in the whole application), the discrepancy with the rest of the wording even in the same appendices (even in the same appendices, every other similar extract says “indoor attraction”), and the fact that those extracts are pasted almost word for word from Exodus’ application bar the statistics suggests to me that someone accidentally forgetting to take out the word “rollercoaster” once or twice is highly possible.

As well as that, my thought was that them mentioning it at all goes strongly against Alton’s apparent desire for maximum secrecy with this project in every other aspect, which makes it seem a little too odd to be intentional, in my eyes.

It’s a third party doing this rather than the park themselves, and it is also the building being applied for rather than the attraction, so there’s no legal culpability if they don’t build a roller coaster in that space. Not least because a roller coaster is a non-legal term with a surprisingly fluid definition.

That’s my thought, but if that’s confirmation bias, I apologise and I will shut up. The backlash to my opinion would suggest I should shut up regardless… sorry to waste your time, everybody.
 
DistortAMG said:
The planning application literally says rollercoaster Matthew.

People are paid ALOT of money to create and submit ACURATE planning applications, it can be considered a criminal offence to put misleading information on a planning application, in rare cases, even if the information that is not accurate is not directly linked to getting the plans approved.

Given that this ride is being built in one of the most sensitive areas in the park, being so close to the village, it would be extremely important to make sure the information is accurate. If it was not a coaster, they would not leave rollercoaster wording in the planning application, which would be a more difficult sell to get past the planners than a non-coaster attraction. They are not purposely going to make their own application more difficult to be approved if it did not need to be.
Click to expand...
Sorry to be Mr Pedant here again, but...
If we are going to shout, using captalisation for effect, can we please make sure we are being ACCURATE, A LOT.
Thank you.
 
Nick🎢 said:
No Matt - You are the one being objective and fair about the situation.
Click to expand...
Matt, people are wilfully ignoring the information you present - that’s not your fault.

I noticed in the plans that there is an elevation change between the extension and the main building, very similar to how Merlin built FotSL
 
rob666 said:
Sorry to be Mr Pedant here again, but...
If we are going to shout, using captalisation for effect, can we please make sure we are being ACCURATE, A LOT.
Thank you.
Click to expand...

Bah! You understood what the words meant..so they served their purpose.
 
tayspru said:
I noticed in the plans that there is an elevation change between the extension and the main building, very similar to how Merlin built FotSL
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that’s necessarily indicative of a ride type; quite a few dark rides and enclosed coasters have lower height extensions before the main building.

It is specified as glass, however, and I think the doors are interesting… could they indicate that this will have some kind of pre-show, with multiple doors to disperse crowd flow?
John said:
It's almost as if people know it's a coaster but can't prove it because that would get people into trouble...
Click to expand...
Ah, sorry… I didn’t think of that.
 
We've gone round in circles for pages.

It's a coaster.
I think it's a DarkKoaster type ride.

Re the 3 doors.... Dueling coasters? 3 loading bays?

World first indoor dueling coaster?
 
Given the space on offer isn’t huge even for one coaster, I’d be quite surprised if it’s dueling coasters.

I do agree that it could very well be a DarKoaster-style ride if it is a coaster in the first place, however.
 
John said:
It's almost as if people know it's a coaster but can't prove it because that would get people into trouble...
Click to expand...

Which helps the point. When you know something it's only human to not appreciate you are interpreting circumstantial evidence as unequivocal proof. That isn't how that evidence looks to people who don't know.

It all feels very accident aliens.
 
What are the rules on excavation depth in terms of planning permission…none?

Believe from memory that Sub Terra never had anything about the pit that eventually came to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tom said:
What are the rules on excavation depth in terms of planning permission…none?

Believe from memory that Sub Terra never had anything about the pit that eventually came to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
They’ve already said in one of the appendices that no digging is to be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top