Supposed leaked video of a recent fly-by over the gulf of mexico.

Come to think of it when there is a flood or landslide the media has helicopters all over it for days. Where is all of the footage of the oil?

Originally posted by g146541
The No FlyZone and media restrictions had been lifted as of yesterday.
It seems someone put it out that there was actually no law or "Official" release of said restrictions. so yesterday they announced a lift on the ban.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by g146541]

Maybe that's why somebody got courageous enough to bring this to light. It could possibly be from a boat in some parts of the video, and from an airplane in other parts. Or it could possibly be a hoax.

By who? Your guess is as good as mine

Found a nice recent(July12) Nasa satellite slide show, and pic # 9 looks like the no fly zone and it is pretty saturated.
www.nasa.gov...

And for the record, I'm not trying to cast any doom n gloom here, I just want to know the current extent of the damage, from a birdseye view.
Peace

[edit on 15-7-2010 by speculativeoptimist]

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Found a nice nasa satellite slide show and pic # 9 looks like the no fly zone and it is pretty saturated.
www.nasa.gov...

Peace

Wow some of those images are astonishing.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


I'm no scientist, and I don't claim this to be a statement of fact, but a simple question.

Wouldn't all these fires further increase the temperature in the gulf?

Don't higher temperatures in the ocean lead to bigger and bigger hurricanes?

Just another two cents...

reply to post by ImYourHuckleberry

The NOTAM has not been lifted.

Take a close look at the boat in the second video. I really get the impression it is CGI. It is in perfect condition and there is no details, like antennas insignias stains, etc. The flatfield is perfect in all of this footage too. I've never seen such perfect light control and dynamic range from Ariel footage before. And the way the camera pans in on it perfectly. Am I off base here.

Originally posted by ImYourHuckleberry
reply to post by speculativeoptimist

 

I'm no scientist, and I don't claim this to be a statement of fact, but a simple question.

Wouldn't all these fires further increase the temperature in the gulf?

Don't higher temperatures in the ocean lead to bigger and bigger hurricanes?

Just another two cents...

"Ocean temperatures greater than 26.5 °C (80 °F) through a depth of at least 50 metres (160 ft) are generally favorable for the formation and sustaining of tropical cyclones. Generally the higher the SST, the stronger the storm and greater chance of genesis. However, there are many factors affecting the strength of such storms."

So there is a higher chance of formation in increased water temp, but not necessarily stronger. Also the gulf is over 80 degrees this time of year, fires or not. I really don't think that those fires burn hot enough to increase the water temp to a depth of 50m in any significant way.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Endure]

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Endure]

reply to post by ImYourHuckleberry

Wouldn't all these fires further increase the temperature in the gulf?

Don't higher temperatures in the ocean lead to bigger and bigger hurricanes?

Man I hope not! It would take a lot of fires, but even the ones they have now are pretty nasty.
I did not know there still were fires. Looks like they are trying to burn the oil. That is part of the procedure I guess.
The pilot's reminder that what is seen on the surface is only 1% of the oil in the water is a sobering perspective.

Peace

[edit on 15-7-2010 by speculativeoptimist]

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by ImYourHuckleberry

 

Wouldn't all these fires further increase the temperature in the gulf?

Don't higher temperatures in the ocean lead to bigger and bigger hurricanes?

I did not know there still were fires. Looks like they are trying to burn the oil. That is part of the procedure I guess.


[edit on 15-7-2010 by speculativeoptimist]

Not only are there fires... but more than there were to begin with.

One (or possibly more) of the boats mentioned in the video is so hot from the flame that it has to be constantly sprayed with water.

I would probably lean more towards the assumption that this fire would make a significant impact on the water temperatures, at least in the immediate area. I would postulate that flames of this proportion would heat the water to a depth of 50m by at least one or two degrees.

Not to mention the impact it must be having on the temperature of the air and barometric pressures in the area.

Originally posted by Endure

Originally posted by ImYourHuckleberry
reply to post by speculativeoptimist

 

"Generally the higher the SST, the stronger the storm and greater chance of genesis. However, there are many factors affecting the strength of such storms."

So there is a higher chance of formation in increased water temp, but not necessarily stronger.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Endure]

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Endure]

You would be incorrect, by your own words, to say that "there is a higher chance of formation in increased water temp, but not necessarily stronger" hurricanes.

According to your post, "generally the higher the SST", (SST = Sea Surface Temperature), "the stronger the storm and greater chance of genesis".

In lay-men's terms, you are saying that as the sea surface temperature increases, generally, so does the chance of a hurricane to form AND the chance for it to increase in strength according to the temperature of the sea surface.

I'm not saying that other factors are not involved, just that the SST generally IS one of the MAJOR factors involved in the formation and strength of hurricanes.

reply to post by dainoyfb


i call CGI too.... im just happy somone else said it first.

Alot of people dont like it when you call their stuff CGI and your all alone.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
Found a nice recent(July12) Nasa satellite slide show, and pic # 9 looks like the no fly zone and it is pretty saturated.
www.nasa.gov...

And for the record, I'm not trying to cast any doom n gloom here, I just want to know the current extent of the damage, from a birdseye view.

Peace

[edit on 15-7-2010 by speculativeoptimist]

If you look at the dates on these photos, they are all from late April and early May. The majority of these were taken over a month ago.

I guess you won't get to "know the current extent of the damage, from a birdseye view" by looking at NASA satellite photos either.

How deep does the cover-up go?

edit to add correction... the latest NASA photo, taken on 12July2010 and shown on their website, is greatly obscured by clouds and the water looks pretty normal from this bird's-eye-view.

Can we get any recent photos of a clear and unadulterated view of the gulf, from NASA?

[edit on 15-7-2010 by ImYourHuckleberry]

[edit on 15-7-2010 by ImYourHuckleberry]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImYourHuckleberry

 

Because there is no other information other than "leaked video" (no location specified) and because there is no reason for such a video to be "leaked" (because any aircraft is free to fly anywhere in the Gulf as long as they are above 3,000 feet in the restricted area) and because there is no other indication that the actual Gulf oil spill bears any resemblance to what is seen in the video, there is every reason to suspect a hoax.

Whether or not the video is a hoax remains to be solved.

I choose to remain open-minded, and quite frankly I think it doesn't matter if the video is a fake or not.

I find it highly suspicious, though, that the most recent photos and fly-over videos we're seeing of this mess are not really that recent at all. Check the dates on the photos and video if you want to argue with me that they were taken or made or recorded recently.

...edit to add correction... the latest NASA photo, taken on 12July2010 and shown on their website, is greatly obscured by clouds and the water looks pretty normal from this bird's-eye-view.



The supposed "fact" remains that there is oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico at unprecedented levels.

(can we agree on that?)

Some interesting points have been brought to our attention that should demand more of our focus than whether the video is fake or real.

Perhaps I should re-cap what those topics are, but it's late and I must be up in an hour... so maybe I can get some help or come back to it later.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by ImYourHuckleberry]

[edit on 15-7-2010 by ImYourHuckleberry]

reply to post by ImYourHuckleberry

It's bad. It's very bad. But that doesn't mean we have to buy into the yellow journalism and "look at me's!" on youtube.

We also don't have to buy into "I can't find it on the internet so it must be a coverup!"

It's bad. Bad enough.

reply to post by Phage


I agree that it's bad, and you're right that we don't have to buy-in to the yellow media.

I also feel that an open-mind DEMANDS an honest look at everything to be judged and weighed by both sides of the story.

In a world of uncertainty every angle and every view-point deserves an honest look, and even if that angle turns out to be smoke and mirrors, it can still provide clues and possibly a step in the right direction towards the "truth"... laughable as that word has become these days

Originally posted by Phage
The videos are of something else, what I don't know and I'm not about to go searching for it.
Hoax.

Wow, really Phage? Read that again, you don't know what it is, you're not going to look into it, so it's a hoax?
It may very well be a hoax, but that's some method of evaluation you got going on there. The second part of the video has a ship from about 2 minutes in to the end, that should tell us something about the video, what kind of boat is that?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImYourHuckleberry

 

It's bad. Bad enough.

Bad enough that... wait a minute... it just MIGHT get worse!

Burying one's head in the sand leaves his six open as wide as a barn

reply to post by ImYourHuckleberry

Yep. It could get worse. I don't think it's going to get any better any time soon.
But tell me, what good does a "leaked" youtube video do? How do unsubstantiated and sensationalist rumors help the situation?

reply to post by Phage


A "leaked" youtube video can do a lot of good. It can raise awareness of the overall topic (truth about the oil disaster), even if it proves the immediate topic (video fake or real?) to be moot, or pointless to argue.

It also brought up some interesting points for me to ponder... and I like to ponder. Whether or not you choose to ponder is entirely up to you.