Bogus Oil Slick Photo Circulating in MSM

Have you people seen this photo?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2c1430416502.jpg[/atsimg]

I just pulled that from the premier Internet news site, the Drudge Report, in association with a news story about the BP oil spill affecting marine life off the Alabama coast.

Can anybody out there tell me what's wrong with this photo? I mean, you don't have to be a fekking rocket scientist to figure it out.

This is a very poorly-hoaxed photo of dead fish (I believe they are shad, a common bait fish) seemingly floating in a pool of crude oil.

Problem is, fish don't float in crude oil — fish are as dense as (or denser than) the water in which they live. Water is many times denser than crude oil. Therefore, fish are many times denser than crude oil, as well. There is no way in hell that these fish could be floating serenely in a pool of oil. There is no way in hell, likewise, that these fish could wash up on shore in pristine condition atop a modest layer of oil, perhaps about an half-inch deep.

Therefore, IMO, this is a hoaxed photo circulating in the mainstream media. For the sake of the photo, the photographer has intentionally deposited a couple of dead bait fish atop a small oil puddle on a flat surface (which was probably also intentionally placed there).

This wouldn't fool anyone who knew anything about the density of oil relative to water, but such a photo might fool its intended audience — the uneducated and gullible masses out there, clenching their little fists and hugging their endangered polar bear photos.

Goddamn British Petroleum!! Goddamn them all to Hell!!

Yeah, right. Goddamn all those people, but let's not question the integrity of the Mainstream Media, which is well-known for inventing the news where none exists.

That's like the story in the Los Angeles Times today, talking about the oil spill's affect on Florida tourism:

Navarre Beach was among several tourist-dependent west Florida towns where tar balls were reported Sunday and where cognitive dissonance reigned: Everyone knew that the oil had come and that millions more gallons were threatening offshore. But many tourists happily indulged in sand and surf anyway.

Caitlyn Blizzard, an assistant in the Santa Rosa County public information office, said that despite the official report of tar balls, she walked Navarre Beach on Sunday morning and saw nothing but blue water and pearly sand.

I love the fact that a Santa Rosa public information representative surveyed the beaches and saw nothing out of the ordinary, despite the "official reports" of tar balls. Anybody who has visited Navarre Beach knows that the sand there is as white as sugar, the water as clear as glass. You could spot a dark tar ball on Navarre Beach a mile away, literally.

Just keep your eyes and ears open, and you'll see all sorts of contradictory information — and photos — regarding the reports of this "environmental disaster" and the actual facts.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 6/21/2010 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


The black stuff in the photo looks more like tar than oil to me (which I do not believe was released in the spill).

That being said, I'll play devil's advocate.

Don't fish (dead ones) float in water? So a dead fish is less dense than water. Now question is....is a fish less dense than oil? I dunno...

Im sure this is a stock photo as I have a forgive the pun , a photographic memory for the mundane and remember seeing this pic years ago is not a recent one and if so is copied.

To me, the facts say that oil kills wildlife. I don't need a photo to know this. I'm not surprised there are fake photos, but we all know that wildlife is dying from the oil.

Dead fish float due to the air pocket they have in their backs that keep fish floating upright. They also float when dead due to decomposition which is not yet the case with the fish in the photo. Never the less dead fish do in fact float.
Now as far as the substance in the photo that looks more out of place than anything to me. Also why are the fish not discolored due to being pickled in crude? I am not saying this is not a hoax photo, I am just saying that dead fish float.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Those are shad alright. Shad are freshwater only fish.........

I repeat freshwater only

[edit on 21-6-2010 by DaMod]

The photo is from Reuters and was taken this weekend at Port Sulpher, LA. They are called "Peggy Fish"
news.yahoo.com...

Considering the other photos taken on the 20th in Port Sulpher show the results of the oil collecting boom there, I would assume this was taken from one of those collected boom pools.

Also, density is a wonderfull property of matter which ultimately doesn't mean jack squat in relation to fish floating on it. Oil is viscous. Look: www.genesisny.net... The viscosities listed for these crudes range from 1.98 CST to 11,233 CST with most falling well over 10 CST. In comparison, water has a viscosity of 1cSt at 20 degrees C. en.wikipedia.org...

That means at the very least we can assume that this crude is 10 times more viscous than the water it is sitting on. That means anything of equal density to water will have trouble punching through it UNLESS it weighs more than the displaced crude it rests on. These fish are small, light, and have quite a bit of body surface area, thus they float on the oil. If you tossed a dead 5 lb catfish onto the crude, it would likely sink... at least until bacteria inside the fish's gut created gases which would add bouyancy to the fish.

THE PHOTOS ARE LEGIT.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by burdman30ott6]

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Don't fish (dead ones) float in water? So a dead fish is less dense than water.

Nope. Fish are the same density as the water in which they live... Or else they'd all be living above the surface. When fish die in their natural habitat, they lose control of their air bladders, which brings them to the surface, but you have never seen a dead fish floating ABOVE the surface.

Pop the fish's air bladder, and it will sink like a rock.

If these fish had been killed by crude oil or a layer of tar(?) in the water (which I seriously doubt), they would still be floating BENEATH the water's surface and BENEATH the oil or tar.

No way they're going to float above the surface.

— Doc Velocity

That slick appears to be so thick that I bet a brick could almost be kept afloat by it.

By the legnth of your thread, I though it was sure to provide some convincing statements to support this photo being a fake, but I do not see any. I say it is NOT a hoax in any way. There would need to be a MUCH more convincing argument to say otherwise.

Its a MESS down there just judging by a FRACTION, of a FRACTION of the photos that actually DO surface to the public.

Okay, so we have the MSM using a picture for dramatic effect. I'm not really sure what else you're trying to say here. We all know the MSM is full of BS and only plays on emotions nowadays, but it also seems that you are suggesting the very idea that there is oil in the Gulf is a hoax.

Is this what you're saying?

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Ahh I see what your saying now. Yes they appear as though they were tossed on top, or placed on top of whatever substance that appears to be. They do float when dead though.

If they had died and floated to the top surely they would have oil all over them?
The tops of those fish seem perfectly clean, unlike other wildlife that have succumbed to oil in the water.
Looks like they were thrown on top to me.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by realmatrix]

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The photo is from Reuters and was taken this weekend at Port Sulpher, LA. They are called "Peggy Fish"
news.yahoo.com...

Actually, caption at link says they are "Poggy" fish. Definitions of poggy include a small whale. Finally we are led to the fish being a "Porgy".

Still looks like a shad to me.

well it is kind of hard photgraphing fish beneath the oil. But a hoaxed photo in MSM what's new?

reply to post by Doc Velocity


I actually haven't seen this photo.

Also, you should know that all of my rage at BP has nothing to do with photos...

I simply look at the data from the Texas City Explosion in 2005... And the rest of their history...

So in 2005, while the rest of us were focused on Terri Schaivo and the Easter Weekend....

BP was sweeping the Texas City oil Refinery explosion under the rug...

Here is a link from ATS in 2006 titled "BP knew about poor safety practices at an Texas oil refinery

But even then... there were no replies....

This is a CBS news report about the findings from the US Chemical and Saftey Hazard Board or CSB.

nternal documents show that budget cuts and a lack of leadership contributed to significant safety problems at BP PLC's Texas City plant, the site of last year's deadly explosion, federal investigators said Monday.

In preliminary findings, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board said BP management knew about maintenance, spending and infrastructure problems well before the March 2005 blast that killed 15 people and injured more than 170.

CSB Chairwoman Carolyn Merritt said BP did respond before the explosion with a variety of measures aimed at improving safety.

"However, the focus of many of these initiatives was on improving procedural compliance and reducing occupational injury rates, while catastrophic safety risks remained," she said. "Unsafe and antiquated equipment designs were left in place and unacceptable deficiencies in preventative maintenance were tolerated."

BP officials said they were surprised by the CSB's latest findings in its ongoing investigation.

"We don't understand the basis for some of the comments made by the CSB," BP spokesman Neil Chapman said. "We will await the final written report and hope it will include documentation explaining the basis of their statement."

Sound familiar?

How about this?

"We accept responsibility for the explosion and we regret the suffering it has caused," he said. "Those problems were many years in the making. We were working to address those problems prior to the incident."

But this quote was from 2006

How about this?

"We engaged in many efforts to improve the safety culture," he said, adding that those efforts are continuing.

Now this ATS Thread points to internal documents which were captured during the 2005 incidents subsequent investigation.

BP Settled with A LOT of people over one particular document.... the one which shows the cost benefits of actually implementing safety VS losing lives due to incidents...

EXCLUSIVE: This internal BP document shows how the company took deadly risks to save money by opting to build cheaper facilities for workers. The company estimated the value of a worker's life at $10 million.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b332d0088563.jpg[/atsimg]

Nothing has changed since 2005....

In this ATS Thread titled "Are you happy? Are you happy? The rig's on fire! I told you this was gonna happen."

A discussion is overheard on board the DeepWater Horizon

Tony Buzbee, a lawyer representing 15 rig workers and dozens of shrimpers, seafood restaurants, and dock workers, says he has obtained a three-page signed statement from a crew member on the boat that rescued the burning rig’s workers. The sailor, who Buzbee refuses to name for fear of costing him his job, was on the ship’s bridge when Deepwater Horizon installation manager Jimmy Harrell, a top employee of rig owner Transocean, was speaking with someone in Houston via satellite phone. Buzbee told Mother Jones that, according to this witness account, Harrell was screaming, “Are you f#### happy? Are you f### happy? The rig’s on fire! I told you this was gonna happen.”

Whoever was on the other end of the line was apparently trying to calm Harrell down. “I am f#### calm,” he went on, according to Buzbee. “You realize the rig is burning?”

At that point, the boat’s captain asked Harrell to leave the bridge. It wasn’t clear whether Harrell had been talking to Transocean, BP, or someone else.

Now, the WSJ did an article, in which it's spelled out who was on the other line...

I posted a thread on this titled Who is Donald Vedrine?

The Wall Street Journal Article explains:

It wasn't clear what Mr. Harrell objected to specifically about BP's instructions, but the rig's primary driller, Dewey Revette, and tool pusher, Miles Randall Ezell, both of Transocean, also disagreed with BP, Mr. Brown said. However, BP was in charge of the operation and the BP representative prevailed, Mr. Brown said.

"The company man was basically saying, 'This is how it's gonna be,' " said Mr. Brown, who didn't recall the name of the BP representative in question.

The article is from May 27th, and references a court hearing that was supposed to take place that week.

Mr. Vidrine was supposed to testify Thursday but dropped out, citing an undisclosed medical issue, according to a Coast Guard spokeswoman. Another top BP official who was scheduled to testify Thursday, Robert Kaluza, declined to do so, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the Coast Guard spokeswoman said.

One attorney said it best, who represented many families in the 2005 explosion.. "BP is a pathological liar".

reply to post by Doc Velocity

It does look like the fish were pressed down into the thick oil from above.

If you look around the edges of the fish you can see where the fish was pressed into oil - looks like it to me anyway.

Originally posted by DaMod
Those are shad alright. Shad are freshwater only fish......... I repeat freshwater only

I mean, I've caught shad in cast nets below freshwater dams and used them later for saltwater fishing, and I've seen frozen shad for sale in saltwater bait shops, so I know they're used for saltwater fishing. I would classify them as freshwater/brackish-water fish.

A lot of the fish you see on the near Gulf coast are crossover marine species, they can survive in freshwater, brackish and saltwater with relative ease. Even some of the sharks will swim for miles up a freshwater river.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Bull sharks will, I actually caught one when I was 13 from the Mississippi river. I couldn't believe it even after I saw it. I didn't know shad could tolerate salt water. Thanks for the correction.

reply to post by DaMod


Nope they are not shad
2nd line

[edit on 21-6-2010 by hillbilly4rent]