Log In | Register
- (20 April 2011)
BP's credibility sank to an all time low with the discoveries of photoshopped images of the gulf response operation centre and recovery efforts. However, perceived as a “responsible corporate citizen” with the promise of doing it right, BP were given the benefit of a doubt that all these adulterated (photoshopped) images were innocently done to improve the image of the company in the face of widespread adverse publicity. As Scott Dean (BP's spokeman) tried to spin, there was nothing sinister in photo alteration as in “improving the beauty of one's face”. See some of the previous reports on photo adulteration using photoshop. A pig with a lipstick is still a pig.
21 July 2010 BP-blaims-photographer-for-photoshop images
When BP got caught altering one of the photos on their Gulf response press page, whom did they blame? "A photographer."
Washington Post: "Scott Dean, a spokesman for BP, said that there was nothing sinister in the photo alteration and provided the original unaltered version. He said that a photographer working for the company had inserted the three images in spots where the video screens were blank."
AP: "He [Dean] says the photographer was showing off his Photoshop skills and there was no ill intent."
The photographer's name shows up on the image's meta data. He's been doing work for the company since at least 2004. "Showing off his Photoshop skills?"
21 July 2010 BP Photoshops Another Official Image Terribly
This week it came to light that BP had photoshopped—poorly—an official image of their crisis command center. Apparently, that wasn't an isolated incident. Let's take a closer look at this view from a helicopter, shall we?
The photo, sent in by a tipster and entitled "View of the MC 252 site from the cockpit of a PHI S-92 helicopter 26 June 2010," shows up here, a section of BP's website that hopes to explain their response effort through pictures. This one, sadly, is fabricated.
The Macondo blowout killed 11 drilling crew and many others directly or indirectly due to the consequences of the ensuing oil spill. That makes the wells drilled and all the information related to the incident, criminal evidence. Manipulating and tampering with criminal evidences is a crime, is it not?
There had been many previous articles giving examples and instances of how the ROV coordinates and details had been manipulated. Why is it necessary for BP to manipulate the information if not to hide the truth? One year later, we are still discovering more and more discrepancies in the official information, ROV data and photo images released by BP to the public. More examples from our archives will be released in stages.
Part 153:1 The case of the “travelling” blown-out crater with oil gushing out of the riser from the north.
Figure 153-1a to 1d show the “larger of the 2 leaks on the broken riser” from 8 May to 17 May 2010. This was the first and only oil gush location shown until 15 May 2010 when videos of the second leak on the “bent riser attached to the BOP” was later released. Videos of rov inspection at the source location (well A if that was truly the well that blew on 20 April 2010) were never released until after mid June, more than a month later. Why would BP show the “leak on the riser 480 feet from the top of the blowout preventer (BOP)” and not the critical BOP itself? Wasn't the BOP and the location of the blown-out well more critical than the “end of the riser leak”? By hiding the critical videos, BP appear to be criminally guilt of a serious crime of mega proportions. Is BP not bound to show the critical rov videos on the BOP and blown well location in the first few weeks following the blowout incident under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? Is it not an offense to hide/dispose/deny data or information from a criminal investigation on the crime scene? There are lots of questions which the Oil Commission Investigators apparently forgot to ask. More of this in another article. In this article, we want to focus on the adulteration of information or deliberate manipulation of data with the purpose of disseminating misinformation.
Though all the four videos given at BP's official you-tube website show the same “oil spewing location”, the information contained in the videos and accompanying description showed vastly different locations. The seabed spew location seems to be travelling southwards to as far as 2,813 ft SE of Well A. These “errors” in the coordinates seemed deliberate as they cannot be logically explained by instrument malfunction, inaccuracy or random noise.
See the tabulated summary in figure 153-2. Amazingly all the four videos were downloaded on 27 May 2010. Either these misinformation were meant to create public confusion or the BP's department that uploaded the videos was technically incompetent with regard to the basic notion of time and space.
Using the coordinates imprinted on the rov videos, the same leak location on the seabed was computed to be:
515 ft NW of well A location on 8 May 2010,
1,533 ft SW of well A location on 11 May 2010,
2,813 ft SE of well A location on 17 May 2010.
Honestly, could a LEAK LOCATION ON THE SEABED, have travelled that far and wide. Did BP think the Public would be so stupid not to notice?
Amazingly none of the oil companies, with all their technical expertise and promulgated environmental (HSE) protection policies, had publicly condemned BP on their unprofessional misconduct and blatant deceptive dissemination of information on the disaster. Do birds of the same feathers flock together? Can the public trust these giant oil companies to carry out exploration activities responsibly, if they can so irresponsibly turn a blind eye to BP's blatant deceptions and environmental destruction? Is it not time to get rid of the black sheep in the oil industry? Or are the black sheep in the oil industry the majority and public mass deception has been the normal practice all along? So help us GOD.
To be continued with ….
Part 153:2 - ROV Northing coordinates adulterated by 2,300 ft, revealed another blowout location (?).
Part 153:3 - The amazing morphing of the LMRP cap.
Part 153:4 - Oil-gas flow defy physical laws of fluid dynamics.
Part 153:5 …....
