Bogus Oil Slick Photo Circulating in MSM

Looks to me like they're washed up on the shore, not floating in water. And it looks to me like they're starting to shrivel, thus the indentations.

Oh and Drudge is a premier news site? Since when? Drudge is a new collector with a bit of editorial commentary thrown in. More like a fancy blog than a news site.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
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.

I think you made the case for the opposite actually. If these fish floated through this from underneath it, wouldn't they be discolored some way? Yes, I do believe they wouldn't look clean like they do. BUT, if they were placed on top of the viscous oil, I think they would look like this which it what I think they actually did here.

Originally posted by DaMod
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]

That is 100% untrue.

I live two blocks from lake Pontchartrain. I go fishing all the time. I use a cast net to catch bait. we catch many shad and pogy all the time.. the lake is a brackish lake- half salt, half fresh. But U.S. Wildlife and Fisheries considers the lake a salt water lake.. I have to buy a salt water fishing license to fish in it.

Most fish I catch are hard core salt water fish and very little fresh water fish.. most fresh water fish that cannot adapt to the salt stay out of the lake.

Shad we catch by the thousands in our cast nets. So if Shad is labeled a fresh water fish, it just means they are known for being found in fresh water.. it does not mean they cannot survive and thrive in brackish water at least.

Does the article say exactly where that pic was taken? There are many places in the marsh that is brackish water that the oil from the Gulf has gotten into. So, yes, this could be Shad (it's not though its a pogy) in salty oil infested waters. There is no proof of a hoax here in your claim.

My big fear is that it will start to get into our lake.



[edit on 21-6-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

Originally posted by Night Star
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.

Except that, no, there is no evidence that crude oil kills wildlife any more than a thick coat of molasses is toxic to wildlife. Over the decades of fishing and crabbing on the Gulf Coast, I've caught every kind of fish in the shadows of offshore oil rigs, with crude oil in the water all around the boat. I've seen blue crabs exhaling oil — crude oil, specifically — when I dropped them into my ice chest.

Crude oil does not, of itself, kill wildlife. Crude oil is organic, composed of organic molecules. It's even food for certain species of microbe. Chances are, if you've eaten fresh seafood on the Gulf Coast, you've eaten your share of crude oil.

The main problem with the BP oil spill is that it's a type of heavy crude that is the same density as seawater and emulsifies easily with seawater, so it tends to temporarily deplete the oxygen content; however, at a depth of nearly a mile — which is where these "oil plumes" are said to hold forth, the oxygen content of the seawater is already very low, too low to support large sea creatures.

The real toxins at the Deepwater Horizon site are the synthesized chemical dispersants being pumped into the water column.

So far, all I've seen are a lot of anecdotes reported as news stories with no photos to substantiate them, a handful of photos of oily pelicans — which are NOT dead, which are still flapping and waddling around — and an assortment of dead fish close-ups that could originate on any beach anywhere on Earth, with or without an oil spill.

A good many of these "environmental disaster" pix, like the one in the OP, look posed or intentionally staged.

As I've said before, I've seen real environmental disasters that are totally natural — such as the Red Tide algae blooms, which leave millions of large, dead fish covering miles of beach. It's possible for anyone to stand in the middle of such a die-off and take a panoramic photograph of millions of dead sea creatures stretching off to either horizon.

Yet, with the BP "environmental disaster," I'm not seeing any such photos. Rather, I'm seeing these photos of maybe a dozen or so dead fish, maybe one dead crab, on an isolated little area of otherwise pristine beach.

Where are the big, panoramic photos of a real "environmental disaster"?

Apparently, such images are rather hard to come by. Which is at odds with the "official reports."

— Doc Velocity

Here's a slideshow with some similar photos of other creatures...some by the same Reuters photographer.

There's a crab, a turtle, and something that looks like an insect (shrimp?).

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Oh and Drudge is a premier news site? Since when? Drudge is a new collector with a bit of editorial commentary thrown in. More like a fancy blog than a news site.

Drudge has broken more news stories than any other news outlet, and the MSM outlets are always several hours behind Drudge in covering breaking news. That's why Matt Drudge makes more money in one hour than you will make in your entire life.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


LOL you have no idea what I'm worth now, do you?

Good thing Matt doesn't make up headlines like you do when he's not sure. Oh wait...

Some more similar photos on National Geographic's website. Some by the same photographer, Sean Gardner.

Sean might get a kick out of your topic here.

Here's his contact info if you want to contact him and ask.

He lives in NOLA by the way.


[edit on 21-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]

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...

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]

How about that...

The photos are legit...

Thank you Burdman!

Another thread fail...


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4ed90b74000d.png[/atsimg]

[edit on 21-6-2010 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
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.

I think you made the case for the opposite actually. If these fish floated through this from underneath it, wouldn't they be discolored some way? Yes, I do believe they wouldn't look clean like they do. BUT, if they were placed on top of the viscous oil, I think they would look like this which it what I think they actually did here.

You ever seen a fish flip... out of the water... on to the pier.... into the boat.... into a puddle of oil floating on the top of the water?

You just have....

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Except that, no, there is no evidence that crude oil kills wildlife any more than a thick coat of molasses is toxic to wildlife.

That is among the most ridiculous statements I have ever read.

www.sciencecorps.org...

Can you possibly support your claim with something a little more concrete than "I'm not seeing millions of dead fish like I see when red tide happens?" Maybe add some science a little more modern than the pre-middle ages "personal observation alone" methodology?

You are also dead wrong about the oxygen levels in the deep Gulf. The waters where these plumes are settling are the richest in oxygen. The colder the water, the higher its Oxygen storage capacity is. The shallow water in the Gulf is most oxygen depleted.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
That's why Matt Drudge makes more money in one hour than you will make in your entire life.

— Doc Velocity

What on earth has money got to do with credibility/scruples? What an asinine retort.

I would've thought you'd mellow a little after your recent "dizzy spell" and realize karma is a boomerang. Apparently not. I sure did but had the real thing.

And BTW, the photo in OP was clarified as real, so what's the point of arguing further?

[edit on 21-6-2010 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by nunya13
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?

In a nutshell, yes.

I lived on the Gulf Coast and fished there — both surf fishing and offshore fishing — for most of my life. Dating from the very earliest days, I've been aware of crude oil coming ashore all over the upper Texas and Louisiana coasts.

There are 714 oil rigs in the Gulf, and virtually every one of them leaks crude oil, and they have leaked crude oil for more than 50 years. You've been swimming in it and eating it for decades, and most honest Gulf Coast residents know that what I'm saying is a fact.

I'm willing to bet that there have been multiple oil leaks of the Deepwater Horizon variety over the years, and I'm willing to bet that the offshore drilling pros know how to cap this sort of leak in a week or less.

Run a tube down the open wellhead, inflate a high-pressure hydraulic balloon in the hole and, PRESTO, no more oil leak.

Based on the fact that crude oil has been pouring into the Gulf 24-7-365 for half a century, I'm fairly certain that crude oil degrades naturally in seawater (it does) without destroying the marine environment — and environmentalists know this, which is why nonstop crude leaks are hardly ever in the news.

Until now, that is.

This administration and its cohorts in Congress NEED an "environmental disaster" to seal their Cap & Trade and Carbon Tax agenda — so I'm saying that an easily controlled oil leak is being allowed to apparently run out of control in order to drive up YOUR fear level to the breaking point.

Which is, apparently, working, judging from the hysteria in the ATS Deepwater Horizon threads.

Strangely, BP doesn't seem hysterical about it, and neither does the Obama administration. They're off yachting and golfing while you guys are chewing your fingernails.

That's because THEY KNOW this isn't an "environmental disaster"... Instead, it's another one of the White House's "golden opportunities" to screw you, and they're taking advantage of it, allowing the MSM to blow it out of all proportion, fabricating anecdotal news stories and running FAKE photos to scare the little people.

I mean, they had to do something, since their Manmade Global Warming hoax collapsed.

— Doc Velocity

The same cap and trade GWB was for and BP wrote? That cap and trade?

Originally posted by kinda kurious
And BTW, the photo in OP was clarified as real, so what's the point of arguing further?

Clarified by whom? I'm not aware of anyone proving that the photo is real. It appears to defy physics.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Also, density is a wonderfull property of matter which ultimately doesn't mean jack squat in relation to fish floating on it.

Density is density. If the oil is floating on the surface of the seawater, we can be reasonably certain that physical law hasn't broken down completely — the water is denser than the oil.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
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...

Oooohh... So, if you tossed a 5-lb fish onto this patch of oil, the fish would properly punch right through the oil... But if you tossed a few small baitfish onto the oil surface, they would remain

Gotcha

The whole point of my OP was that these fish had been placed atop the oil — posed, as it were — which is obviously the case. Using your own stilted logic, there's no way they could have penetrated the floating sludge from below, either.

And neither could that pristine shrimp floating atop the oil, photographed by the same enterprising photographer. Hey, what ya got in the bait bucket? Shad and shrimp, you say? Hand me a couple of those to toss on top of the oil. Now hand me my camera.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
The same cap and trade GWB was for and BP wrote? That cap and trade?

Yeah, the Cap & Trade that Bush couldn't push through because he wasn't crooked enough nor clever enough to stage an "environmental disaster"... BP was always clever enough, but needed a criminal in the White House. Now they have one. Green light to Cap & Trade.

— Doc Velocity

Where is your proof that Obama staged this environmental disaster? Did you post a topic on that that I missed?

Or that these photos are fake? Did you contact the photographer as I suggested?

"Posting false and defamatory information online also amounts to libel, not just on a website but also in the context of a discussion in a USENET newsgroup, listserv or IRC chat room. Several libel lawsuits in various countries have been brought against parties for Internet libel, somtimes referred to as cyberlibel. "

[edit on 22-6-2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


So your asserting that the whole thing is a hoax? Holy cow...I'm not even going to try to counter such a preposterous notion.

And as for your "oil has always been spilling into the gulf" argument, would you rather have a pot or two worth of water leaking into your house through your roof a day or thousands of gallons a day? May not be a perfect analogy, but you get the point.

edit: spelling




[edit on 22-6-2010 by nunya13]

Originally posted by Night Star
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.

Right on. Nothing like common sense to find out where reality is located.