PROOF that BP faked their command center photo

reply to post by Bonified Ween


I never said they couldn't be faked, I just said they're not fake. I have provided proof that they are not. If you don't want to believe it, then that is your right. I won't however force you to change your opinion.

reply to post by atlguy


I agree with you and specifically about the ROV feeds, this is why. I have worked in the Audio/Video industry in various aspects as well as the computer industry for 20 years now.

In the case of the ROV units, the data being displayed as an overlay on the image is not PART of the image that is received by the uplink. Rather, it is encoded in a seperate data feed. This is done this way for various reasons, such as being able to monitor the status of the ROVs as well as trigger alarms and log audit information. The data is overlayed onto the video via a computer prior to being consumed by human eyes. The raw video feed can be aquired without the overlay data at any time with a simple command and the data can be placed on a seperate video just as easily witha few lines of code or configuration settings.

I don't know that there would be any reason to fake the ROV video, given that they can hide things by simply pointing the ROV in a differant direction, but that does not change the fact that the numbers and the video are not one and the same.

As far as the OP issue is concerned, I have to share another link I saw today that can explain what happens when PR/Markeing guys run a little bit off the reservation:

Digitally altered sports photo - Now you see him, now you don't

Originally posted by DragonFire1024
lol...really? Still no evidence of this? All that ranting for nothing. Provide evidence this is being done IN THIS CASE RIGHT AT THIS TIME. You have not done that.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by DragonFire1024]

You need to take a deep breath and relax. Please show the class where I stated that BP was faking the feeds.... I won't wait, because I never said it.

I merely stated that it was POSSIBLE.

Since BP has already been caught faking one seemingly inconsequential thing - the trust is shattered and everything else they do is open to suspicion. Quote:

To me, if they are willing to photoshop something as trivial as an alleged "picture" of a command center, they're willing to fake other things as well. Like live-feeds from the ocean floor.

Nowhere was it stated that I thought they were doing it. I DID say that I thought they'd be willing to as they have shown the capacity and desire to deceive. There's a difference there, you know.

I will not be able to convince you of the ease of faking the feeds, should they wish to do so. You're stuck on GPS coordinates and calculators without giving credence to technology currently present in every single newsroom across the country. Beyond that, I think the folks over at ILM would be able to knock something out in about 10 minutes that you'd swear was legit and would give GPS coordinates to your bedroom.

I presented pix of some of my awards to lend credibility to my background, although the irony was duly (and deservedly) noted. You've bested me by publishing your real info, but as a young journalist - that's part of your job. It is not part of mine, and I've got more to lose than you. Like I stated earlier, I'd be happy to chat offline but I won't be publishing my name here.

Regardless - the focus and purpose of this thread was to highlight ironclad evidence of a company that has the intent to deceive. That, in and of itself, is worthy of your time and energy as a burgeoning reporter.

[edit on 7/20/2010 by atlguy]

reply to post by atlguy


That's why the news industry fails. Because they want to speculate on the what if's and maybe's. Where I write we focus on facts...not speculation or opinions. So I disagree...it is NOT my job, as a journalist, to report my opinion or speculate about a story. The news is SUPPOSED to be about facts. Instead we watch news shows and talk shows believing that their opinions are the facts.

When it comes to publicity shots everyone fakes em. Even nasa. It's not the 'truth' about anything. It's the image the company or other entity want's to put out there.

Great Find! I wonder what else BP is trying to hide.

What I find funny... Their spending millions on a PR campaign. Maybe some of that money should have been used to hire a better photoshopper.

Originally posted by DragonFire1024

That's why the news industry fails. Because they want to speculate on the what if's and maybe's. Where I write we focus on facts...not speculation or opinions.

I'd fire you from my newsroom if that was your actual ethic. I think you mis-stated it, however, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

You think it is a journalist's job to accept whatever you are being told and NOT ask "what if"? Not wonder if there's something more to the story? Not look beyond the well-crafted and slick looking media kit? If so, then perhaps you need to change your calling to "reporter" since that's all they really do - report what they find, which is usually spoon-fed to them from PR hacks. A "journalist" is one that isn't afraid to go out on a whim and chase that little tickle in the back of their mind that says there's more to the story than what they've been told.

Like I said, I think you mis-spoke, so don't get all bunched up.

Originally posted by DragonFire1024
So again, if the coordinates are fake then the calculator WOULD NOT WORK. I think an IT specialist and Web Developer knows how to make a calculator...oh unless he's fake too.

/facepalm. Again, you're stuck on the surface. The calculator works because it is getting the info from the GPS info on the ROV's. My counterpoint is to say that the information, including the GPS coordinates, can be faked at the head-end - to produce seemingly accurate coordinates - before your calculator comes into play.

The GPS info is simply DATA - and data can be manipulated.

Originally posted by DragonFire1024
If they are so fake, then why would BP show anything that is leaking? If they wanted to cover all this up and make fake live feeds, then they wouldn't show ANYTHING bad.
[edit on 20-7-2010 by DragonFire1024]

Again, I am not saying that they are faking the feeds, merely that they could, and that they've shown the capacity and intent to deceive. HOWEVER, your argument above is naive.

IF they wanted to cover up something, then they'd produce faked feeds and other information to give the appearance of "doing all we can" and "making progress".

Were it my script, I'd write-in all sorts of obstacles and dilemmas for our hero (BP, the anti-hero, in this case..) to overcome. Any good scriptwriter will tell you that if you let your hero go straight to the damsel in distress, you'll make a boring as hell movie. What are you going to do for the other hour and twenty eight minutes?! In order to create believability and realism, (AKA - the "suspension of disbelief") you must create conflict and/or stress in your story.


[edit on 7/20/2010 by atlguy]

And it really were scripted it would probably be full of plot holes and such that the internet community would tear apart totally. The whole idea of scripting or faking something like this just doesn't add up. Too risky not only because of the publics attention but because of the attention of authorities as well.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
And it really were scripted it would probably be full of plot holes and such that the internet community would tear apart totally. The whole idea of scripting or faking something like this just doesn't add up. Too risky not only because of the publics attention but because of the attention of authorities as well.

I partly disagree with you on this. Scripting doesn't have to be line by line. In my work with animation, the analogy is figure out your keyframes and let the system figure out the junk in the middle. Same with something like this. You figure out Point A and Point B and then let things play out in between naturally with careful guidance to make sure things don't go haywire.

That being said, if there is a Point B that is not what the average joe thinks (ala sealing the well and cleaning up the mess), then it must be something big and off in the distance.

I personally don't see too much in all of this except BP doing everything in their power to avoid having to own up to their mistakes and suffer the consequences of their greed and mismanagement. That and the fact that they may have awoken a sleeping giant.

I'd say that even without line by line scripting it would be too risky. Millions of people and probably thousands of authorities are paying attention. I'm not saying that you can't pull a houdini on them thought. It's possible but still.

reply to post by atlguy


Right...so lets report what if the well explodes, what if a tsunami, what if what if what if...get my drift now? When I watch the news I want the facts of the situation. What the reporter's opinion is does not concern me. If I wanted an editorial I would watch a talk show.

Originally posted by DragonFire1024
reply to post by atlguy

 

Right...so lets report what if the well explodes, what if a tsunami, what if what if what if...get my drift now? When I watch the news I want the facts of the situation. What the reporter's opinion is does not concern me. If I wanted an editorial I would watch a talk show.

And thus his distinction between a Reporter and a [investigative] Journalist. One reports the facts and the other does detective work based on what might have happened. In any case, ATS should be the last place you would expect to find "just the facts". That's not what we are about.

Originally posted by atlguy
you cannot fake the live feeds.

Nor can you "pause" a live stream, to hit play and resume. Yet, VERY often, this is exactly what one CAN DO with BP's supposed live stream.

reply to post by atlguy


This is nothing - some marketing shrill made a command decision that it would be bad PR to have 3 blank screens and photo shopped them in. I've known people like that. I doubt seriously the Queen and the masonic council got together and did this. In other words, yes there is a conspiracy but a dumb one.

NOT A FAKE

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/880873b6acc0.jpg[/atsimg]

I have to go with "SO WHAT?" on this. The official explanation is they tried to make the boring image look a bit more appealing by filling empty screens with something relevant. So what?

When your local news affiliate (Oh I'm sorry, I'm "assuming" you're not one of those pretentious, self absorbed know-it-alls that "don't own a television") shows a clip of something and uses stock footage, do you flip out then too? If so, how's that OCD working out for you?

reply to post by DragonFire1024


I think you give yourself too much credit. In my line of work the testimony of an expert witness always (and I mean always) carries more weight than that of a lay person. In this case our expert witness has 2 Emmy nominations and a win and is in the field of special effects and video editing. This is a guy that does this crap on a daily basis. Our other not so expert witness is a self horn tooting journalist.

Sorry if I side with the special effects expert on this one. I'm not saying he is right, but he presents a far better argument and then you have to take his background into consideration.

As for the calculator issue. You can botch numbers to get different returns. Remember a computer is not biased, it returns whatever info you put into it. I'm sure you could pay someone enough to botch some variables therefore changing the value of the returns.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by DaMod]

reply to post by atlguy

Of course, I believe it all can be faked, they did it, didn't they?

Also, your avatar is a pic of me, but someone photoshopped out my b*tch and put a chainsaw in my right hand.
PC I guess.




[edit on 20-7-2010 by Stewie]

reply to post by DaMod


LOL I am tooting my own horn? You don't see me splashing an Emmy or something on a thread just to say "look at these I must be right." give me a break. All i asked was for evidence that these feeds are fake...I know what you can do with video etc...but I want evidence that these specific feeds are fake...otherwise this turned into a discussion about a fake image to fake feeds with no evidence to support even the thought of them being fake, whether you believe they are or not.

reply to post by DragonFire1024


Actually, he never said they were altering or faking live feeds. He stated:

To me, if they are willing to photoshop something as trivial as an alleged "picture" of a command center, they're willing to fake other things as well. Like live-feeds from the ocean floor.

Meaning that they would be *willing* to fake things like live feeds. I tend to agree that they would probably be willing to fake anything at this point if they thought it would make them look less bad.