Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth

BP Caught Photoshopping Disaster Response Photos 560

Posted by kdawson
from the at-least-hire-a-decent-graphics-jockey dept.
An anonymous reader tipped a post up on Americablog revealing that BP Photoshopped a fake photo of their crisis command center and posted it on their main site. The blogger commented, "I guess if you're doing fake crisis response, you might as well fake a photo of the crisis response center." While this story was just being picked up by the Washington Post, an Americablog reader spotted another doctored BP photo on their website, this time of a "top kill" working group. How many others?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BP Caught Photoshopping Disaster Response Photos

Comments Filter:
  • Who cares (Score:3, Insightful)

    by richy freeway (623503) * on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:17AM (#32975160)
    Really, who cares? They photoshopped an image for aesthetic reasons, big deal. If you don't believe what's going on you can watch the streams yourself.

    http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=9034366&contentId=7063636
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This is just an attempt to get more hits on that shitty blog. These images are just filler material for purely aesthetic purposes, it's not like BP submitted these in court to prove that they were trying their bestest to stem the leak.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mentil (1748130)

        Just because it has a low profile doesn't make it any less an instance of disinformation.
        It deserves to be uncovered on a blog, but probably isn't Slashdot-worthy.

      • This is just an attempt to get more hits on that shitty blog. These images are just filler material for purely aesthetic purposes, it's not like BP submitted these in court to prove that they were trying their bestest to stem the leak.

        So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies... because most stories they tell about their products and business model are in the media basically for aesthetic purposes.

        In fact, commercials too are all about aesthetics.

        The point is that BP have done an awful lot of things for "aesthetic purposes" lately. Like changing a few numbers (flow of oil) in the media. Like predicting when it'd all be solved. Like saying that oil isn't dangerous.

        It's easy to do "aesthetics" if you have billions of profit

        • by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:53AM (#32975376)

          So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies... because most stories they tell about their products and business model are in the media basically for aesthetic purposes.

          Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Pharmboy (216950)

            Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?

            More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup? Can be a scary thing sometimes, perhaps best left unseen.

            • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @05:09AM (#32975466)

              Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?

              More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup?

              No, I haven't. :(

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              You must be new here.

            • by ndavis (1499237) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @06:59AM (#32975970)

              Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?

              More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup? Can be a scary thing sometimes, perhaps best left unseen.

              I have and I now only have one arm!

            • by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @07:47AM (#32976392) Homepage Journal

              More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup?

              Yes, and it's been my experience that no amount of makeup will make an ugly woman look good. Ever notice how morbidly obese women wear tons of makeup as if it will cover up the fact that they're fat?

              Makeup will nake a good looking woman look better, and then only if it's applied right. Makeup won't help an ugly chick at all.

              Now, your being drunk will make an ugly woman look good, that's when you wake up sober the next morning and say "OMFG!!!!!! WHAT HAVE I GOTTEN MYSELF INTO?!?" But that's your bad, not hers.

              • by gorzek (647352) <gorzek@NOSpaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @07:51AM (#32976444) Homepage Journal

                I've seen my share of women whose makeup makes them look worse than they would without it.

                Though I know there are no girls on Slashdot, here's a tip: if I can tell you're wearing makeup, you have already failed. Proper makeup application enhances beauty, it doesn't attempt to replace it.

                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by gorzek (647352)

                    Thanks for linking a perfect example. She looks decent without makeup. With it, she looks completely fake. It's not subtle at all.

                • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                  by GooberToo (74388)

                  Though I know there are no girls on Slashdot, here's a tip: if I can tell you're wearing makeup, you have already failed. Proper makeup application enhances beauty, it doesn't attempt to replace it.

                  The same can be said for perfume. The intent of perfume is to make someone want to get closer to smell it. If you bath in it such that everyone can smell you in a 40x40 room then it implies you're trying to hide an oder which will make the average male puke. And if you can be smelled 40 feet away, there is no incentive to want to get closer. In fact, it will likely drive people away who get too close.

                  In fact, it wasn't so long ago that such actions would label you a whore. After all, only a whore need cover

              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by Pharmboy (216950)

                Makeup won't help an ugly chick at all.

                Not true. Just add dim lighting and alcohol.

              • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @11:51AM (#32979514) Homepage Journal

                Yes, and it's been my experience that no amount of makeup will make an ugly woman look good. Ever notice how morbidly obese women wear tons of makeup as if it will cover up the fact that they're fat?

                I'll go you one better. I just got back from my 20th high school reunion. The girls who were nice and fun to be around in high school were - without exception - attractive and young-looking. Some had, um, eaten well, but they were still pretty and had contagious smiles.

                The girls who were spiteful and snotty in high school were - without exception - unattractive and worn. Some had nice figures but their faces where creased with scowl lines and crows feet.

                Lesson learned: "good personality" is a much better makeup than anything you can buy in a store. It lasts a lot longer.

            • by ctchristmas (1821682) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @07:53AM (#32976464)
              I photoshopped myself next to one once, does that count?
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by sjs132 (631745)

              Women who false advertise? Not only no makeup in the morning, but:

              * no pushup bra so not as big as you thought
              * or you find out they are silicon induced (Still partly acceptable... ;)
              * no colored contacts so no blue eyes, just brown
              * maybe the fake nails are off
              * maybe the fake eyelashes are off
              * no platform or high-heel shoes, so about 2-4" shorter (or more)
              * no tummy tuck wrap, so she's got a gut
              * no trimming panties, so she's got waves of cellulite
              * botox lips
              * Silicon eyebrows

              deceptions... deceptions

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by youn (1516637)

            This is slashdot my friend, people post mathematical equations about what women look like, hypothesise about the probability of running into one... heck a rare few have seen one once ... without make up? :)

        • by thegarbz (1787294) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @07:00AM (#32975972)

          So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies... because most stories they tell about their products and business model are in the media basically for aesthetic purposes.

          In fact, commercials too are all about aesthetics.

          The point is that BP have done an awful lot of things for "aesthetic purposes" lately. Like changing a few numbers (flow of oil) in the media. Like predicting when it'd all be solved. Like saying that oil isn't dangerous.

          It's easy to do "aesthetics" if you have billions of profit to keep the logo looking green.

          How the hell is this modded insightful?

          a) They didn't give the flow number, that was your very own coast guard that gave the wildly wrong estimate.
          b) From the very beginning they started drilling relief wells, from the very beginning they said it would be mid august before they are ready, from the very beginning they said this will be the final solution and they will simply attempt all sorts of other methods of stopping the flow in the meantime.
          c) {citation needed} and not just some shitty blog either, every single press release from BP is available in full on their website. Show me where BP has officially said oil isn't that dangerous.

          Call it what it is, It's marketing. Everyone does it. I'm more disgusted that Microsoft photoshopped out black guy on their polish website. These pictures are just another crap job rather than some stupid conspiracy.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by slack_justyb (862874)

          So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies

          That's why we here on Slashdot are so confident about Microsoft's pledge to not sue Linux users for $INSERT_RANDOM_PATENT. Because, like BP, they have so much money that they don't need to lie.

          Seriously, if that's a question then the answer is a resounding, "yes!" Why would you believe anything a multi-billion dollar company would tell you? The only time you can actually buy what they're saying is when there are some legal repercussions for not telling the truth.

          It's not that giant companies are p

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rtb61 (674572)

          I find in extraordinary that anybody could consider corporations lying as routine aesthetics. Why would any consider the individuals hiding behind the façade of a corporation have gained the moral right to lie to every person outside of the corporation.

          Substantive misrepresentation of company or product capabilities for one can 'illegally' alter the public's perception of the value of the company and artificially inflate it's share price. It is the responsibility of the regulatory to investigated ar

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by omnichad (1198475)

          Another example of "aesthetics" would be the chemical dispersants used to hide the oil spill below the surface of the water.

      • Re:Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Teun (17872) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:49AM (#32975358) Homepage

        it's not like BP submitted these in court to prove that they were trying their bestest to stem the leak.

        It's called the court of Public Opinion and it's unforgiving.

        • by c6gunner (950153) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @05:59AM (#32975678)

          The court of public opinion has decided that oil = bad. If a BP exec were caught on camera tickling a puppy, there would be at least a half-dozen sites declaring "Evil BP overlords publicly torture puppies".

          • Re:Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)

            by jandersen (462034) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @07:47AM (#32976400)

            The court of public opinion has decided that oil = bad

            Which may not be such a bad thing, in a sense. The world really, seriously needs to get off its oil-addiction, and I don't think people will be willing to give up the convenience of cheap energy unless it somehow becomes a massively uncool things to use oil in the public imagination.

            Yes, I am fully aware that this is not "fair" - since when has that mattered? Fairness has never been the watch word in the world of business before, so why should it be now?

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by mcgrew (92797) *

            Oil does in fact equal bad regardless of public opinion. The worst part is, it's a necessary evil in today's world. BP's problem is that they cut corners for money while drilling, ignored their engineers, and caused a catastrophe that killed people and badly polluted the entire Gilf of Mexico and ruined the Livelihoods, lifestyles and lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

            BP deserves no pity and no slack. Period. I don't care how many puppies they tickle. Someone should be in prison for what BP did.

        • Re:Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)

          by bwalling (195998) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @07:21AM (#32976130) Homepage

          It's called the court of Public Opinion and it's unforgiving.

          The court of public opinion is downright foolish. We're all pissed about the oil spill after we chanted "drill, baby, drill" and keep driving around in our SUVs with no passengers.

    • Re:Who cares (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:24AM (#32975198)

      Really, who cares? They photoshopped an image for aesthetic reasons, big deal.

      Might as well just actors and a set then if asthetics are what count.
      PS - maybe they did, seems the metadata in the file says the image from 2001, not 2010.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by OeLeWaPpErKe (412765)

      It's a fake crisis, like so many others. Photoshopped news is not that rare. And often, it's for more than just aesthetics

      http://www.speroforum.com/a/34500/Reuters-admits-to-doctored-photos-of-Gaza-Flotilla [speroforum.com]
      (after all the story was that Israel attacked "unarmed" protestors, can't have huge knives in the hands of protestors, especially when they appear to be using them on soldiers)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies [wikipedia.org]

      http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184452.php [mypetjawa.mu.nu]

      I guess in some c

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by HungryHobo (1314109)

        In the case of reuters and other serious news companies photoshopped images generally lead 1 or more people getting canned.

        This sort of thing- companies releasing images to simply mislead the public is far far far more common.

        I've seen some odd ones like a coal company releasing photoshopped images of coal faces.(clone tool to make it look like there was more coal than there really was)
        Police have been caught photoshoping images subtly for court proceedings.

        But the worst offenders seem to be governments. Be

    • Humanity cares (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BonquiquiShiquavius (1598579) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:54AM (#32975382) Journal
      The reason this story is newsworthy is because humanity in general hates liars. Call it what you will...spin, doctoring, touching up for "aesthetic reasons", etc...it's a variation from the truth.

      That being said, I agree there's a boundary where nobody cares anymore whether it's real or not - e.g. if a cover girl's photo is severely doctored to conform to the beauty standard of the times. Why? Because it's bubblegum pop news.

      BP on the other hand is not only front page news, it's currently the antagonist in what will be recorded as one of the worst environmental disasters of the 21st century. History will forget that People Magazine's cover of Britney Spears makes it look like she's a D cup instead of a B cup*, but it won't forget that BP downgraded the seriousness of the situation at every available opportunity.


      *This is a purely fictional example...I have no idea of what magazines splashed Britney Spears' cleavage all over their front page, and what her actual vs depicted dimensions are...all I care is that she appears to be popping out of any garment they squeeze her into.
    • by Required Snark (1702878) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @05:35AM (#32975586)
      BP is acting like their major problem is PR. They are not acting like they have committed a major environmental disaster. They are trying to weasel there way out of responsibility in many ways, some of them truly evil. They are trying to silence scientists who might provide evidence against them in both civil and criminal proceedings http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/bp_buys_up_gulf_scientists_for.html [al.com]

      They are keeping legitimate news organizations away from key locations by pretending that it will interfere with the cleanup. (Just check NPR for reports on this.) They are hiring local off duty cops, IN UNIFORM to keep people from seeing what is going on. When the cop tells someone to leave, you have no idea if they are working as sworn officers of the law or stooges for BP (not that there is much difference). They are paying local fisherman to help in the clean up and exposing them to harmful substances, and keeping them quiet by threatening to kick them off the payroll if they talk to reporters, or tell anyone that they are getting ill from chemical exposure.

      Right after the explosion, they make rig workers sign papers saying they had no injuries BEFORE THEY LET THEM GET ON SHORE. They have consistently lied about how much oil was being released, because penalties are based on a per barrel amount. This is still in process, which is why they were trying to silence local scientists who would be able to provide evidence about how bad the spill is.

      I can't say that they have killed anyone, but they have bullied, lied and intimidated people to a disgusting degree. If you think this is OK, then I suggest you change places with someone who has their life ruined by corporate greed and then see how you feel. Yeah, a little PhotoShop tweaking is no big deal, but when it is a part of a pattern of law breaking and corruption then it is just one more fact that needs to be brought out to insure that the truth is not ignored.

  • What's the fuss (Score:3, Interesting)

    by captain_dope_pants (842414) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:20AM (#32975172)
    A quick read of TFAs and some links within them lead me to think this is a non-story. They write that BP had blank screens and photoshopped them to be not blank, saying "Why were they blank? coffee break ?" There's a ton of reasons they could be blank. A bit stupid of BP to 'shop them though.
  • So the story is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord Bitman (95493) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:21AM (#32975180) Homepage

    "BP Removes reflection of camera flash from meaningless publicity photo! UPDATE: Twice!"

    • by SharpFang (651121) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:41AM (#32975306) Homepage Journal

      What kind of flash reflection removal leaves polygonal white outline around someone's head?

      Have one look at the analysis. This is not "this photo has been processed through photoshop before publication". This is a blatant failure of combining various photos into one picture and trying to make them look good. I bet screens full of tables, log displays and emails were deemed not attractive enough and got replaced with colorful photos of most photogenic locations of the disaster.

      • by MachDelta (704883) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @05:11AM (#32975470)

        BP posted the original [bp.com]. All they photochopped were three of the screens, two of which were blank (one says "loading") and one of which looks like it's staring directly at a bright light. You'll also notice the source for the replacement screens are just three of the other existing screens.

        Essentially it's a piss poor (and I mean PISS poor... anyone with photoshop experience could hack that trash out in minutes) touch-up by a company that should be acutely aware of it's current reputation.

        TLDR version.... BP /facepalm

    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      It was not a big deal, just a little wrong but almost to the level of nitpicking. Still good that it got spotted and reverted. It is ok to photoshop ads picture but pictures from news reports are another thing entirely.
    • "BP's Huston Crisis Room turns out to be partially imaginary!"

      Which raises the question, "Just how much of their work to fix the spill also exists only in the form of pixels?".
      Also, it is very much implied that they are pathological lairs a cheaters whose every statement might be a lie.

      So all that "whole truth and nothing but the truth" (once it comes to it) should be taken with a particularly large grain of salt in this case. [youtube.com]

  • OMG!!!! NOES11111 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by theolein (316044) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:22AM (#32975186) Journal

    If you have to find fault with BP, find fault with things they really messed up, of which there are many, but not a photo retouched for aesthetic reasons.

    • by protodevilin (1304731) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:30AM (#32975248)
      BP's credibility as a responsible energy corporation is at stake, and this photo indeed was intended to be a demonstration of BP's response to the oil disaster. Knowing that they'd go to such lengths (albeit haphazardly) to doctor--and subsequently lie about--the photos further damages that credibility. Oil spills are bad, but misinformation about them is no less destructive.
    • by SharpFang (651121)

      find fault with things they really messed up, of which there are many, but not a photo retouched for aesthetic reasons. ...what about falsification of photographic documentation of their crisis response activity?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by BasilBrush (643681)

        Is it significant to the ongoing story of the crisis and the response, that at the particular moment the photo was taken, 3 screens out of 10 in a bank did not have video on them?

        No.

        It was changed for aesthetic purposes. Probably a silly thing to do, but hardly a scandal.

  • More BP news... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:23AM (#32975194)

    Make sure you shake them down real good. Know you, bankrupt them or something. Just don't come crying to me when you wake up and realise a good 38 or 39% of BP is US owned, despite the apparent 'anti British feeling' this whole thing is riding upon. As far as the media are concerned, it's fighting the redcoats all over again... except in actuality, you're shooting yourself

    • Re:More BP news... (Score:5, Informative)

      by abigsmurf (919188) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:41AM (#32975300)
      Also, When can the UK expect Obama to come over and talk with minor MPs to talk about US banks ruining costing the country billions and to pay the British citizens compensation?

      If I was Cameron I would have just ignored those senators. The UK doesn't tell the US what to do with their prisoners, the US shouldn't tell the UK what to do with theirs. The guy probably would have been released on appeal anyway. The evidence against him was shockingly bad and should've been laughed out of court.
    • Re:More BP news... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Burb (620144) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @05:04AM (#32975442)

      Absolutely! The oil spill is bad enough, and there's no point pretending otherwise, but I find the anti-British sentiment that accompanies it unbelievably distasteful. As we say in football (soccer), play the ball, not the man! Deal with the issues, of course. It doesn't matter who owns BP; they and the company should be held to account without regard to their nationality.

    • by AK Marc (707885)
      It's a simple message. If you invest in dirty companies who don't give proper care when care is due, you lose your investment. Something like oil is high risk. It isn't who owns it, that just makes it an easier sale, it's the fact that the company caused actual damage that was a sizable percentage of their market capitalization, and that will either result in bankruptcy or make them ripe for a takeover, both causing massive losses for those who chose to invest in a dirty company. That's how it's suppose
  • by mikael_j (106439) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:25AM (#32975208)

    The first photo had some easy to spot glitches and EXIF data that indicated the photo was nine years old.

    The second photo was so obviously photoshopped it was ridiculous.

    Clearly there's a business opportunity here, I know I could throw together much better fakes in under an hour and even if I billed them for a full day of labor it would probably still cost them less than what this horribly botched photoshop job cost them...

    • by abigsmurf (919188) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:46AM (#32975324)
      The EXIF data only indicates that they probably didn't set their camera clock or it got reset changing the batteries.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mikael_j (106439)

        Yeah, noticed that later, apparently they used a camera that wasn't released until 2007. The images are still clearly doctored though.

        • Why do we have to put up with "apparently"? I want to see the exif data myself to make up my own mind. The blog site should have the original doctored photo on display or for download. None of the images on their page shows the metadata they are claiming.

      • by Urkki (668283) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @10:06AM (#32978084)

        The EXIF data only indicates that they probably didn't set their camera clock or it got reset changing the batteries.

        Don't forget Occam's Razor! Is that really the simplest explanation that fits the known facts? No, not by a long shot! You know how much money oil industry has. It's practically certain they have time machine, which they've used to transfer the command center back in time, to a random time before the accident. That way they could take a photo without showing the panic and chaos there is today, so that they appear to be in control of the situation.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:33AM (#32975258)

    What ever happened to the days where you'd get some skilled laborers and build a set, hire actors and fake a photo LEGITIMATELY?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by SharpFang (651121)

      yeah...

      The "Moon Landing" was a masterpiece. I couldn't find one flaw, and those who say lighting was off are wrong, the lighting was the best of all.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Costs too much.

  • Stupid article (Score:3, Interesting)

    by abigsmurf (919188) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:37AM (#32975276)
    For one thing. Why the hell does it matter? It's an

    However there is utter garbage reporting on that site. They used the exif data as 'proof' the photo was actually taken in 2001. If you're going to call out a company for incompetence and/or missleading people, perhaps it would be best to demonstrate a bit of common sense.

    Do the editors also wonder if they've been caught in a time vortex when they notice their AV equipment flashing 00:00?
  • the graphician is the one who's gonna get fired.

  • by fluch (126140) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @04:59AM (#32975412)

    As far as I can see, the photoshop edit made to the other faked photo [americablog.com] is only of cosmetic nature: the computer presentation has been made darker in order to reduce contrast and make the content better visible. So I don't see a big deal here.

  • The meaning of PR (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Battal Boy (544978) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @05:01AM (#32975422) Homepage
    This is what PR means today: putting up the appearance of doing something seems to be more important than actually doing it. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing nothing but such manipulation (under the name of PR) means that there is a large disconnect between image and content that can only raise questions...
  • Yesterday I photoshopped(actually, Paint.netted) a picture for my job's website. It could mean we hate the environment....or that we're covering up a reflection in the window. Just in case, we better go with the hating the environment angle, because thats the responsible thing to report.

    D

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Huntr (951770)
      'Shopping out glare is one thing. Adding in screens so you, according to you, look somehow busier, is a continuation of the slimy pattern of lies and half-truths these assholes have exhibited all along. No one is claiming this has anything to do with their environmental record directly. It is, however, another data point that reminds us we can't trust anything they say or do.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BasilBrush (643681)

        Adding in screens so you, according to you, look somehow busier

        Interesting word "somehow" you chose there. How indeed does looking at a bank of 10 screens make one "busier" than looking at a bank of 8 screens.

        Another interesting choice was the phrase "according to you", when neither the person you are replying to, nor BP made any claim of the photo representing "busy".

        So what the fuck do you think you are talking about?

  • Transport Tycoon (Score:2, Interesting)

    by johno.ie (102073)

    Take a look at the large version of that photo [blogspot.com]. It looks like someone in the office was busy playing transport tycoon instead of trying to manage some real world logistics.

  • by Overzeetop (214511) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @05:13AM (#32975490) Journal

    Why isn't there a real spill response center? Because there is no spill!!

    I knew it - just like the damned moon landings. This whole spill thing is a fraud, isn't it? Those shots of the oil coming out of the sea bed are probably computer generated! This proves it - BP is clearly just making all of this stuff up. And who is going to question them, huh? Can you go down 5000 feet to see it for your self? NO! You just have to take their word for it, that the "cameras" they have "placed" are really there.

    Drop a few cans of Pennzoil on the surface, dip some wild life if a bucket of goop, and maybe dispose of some of that tar you can't find a landfill to take. Heck, I've heard the stories about how the private fisherman in LA have been fishing the whole time without any problems.

    I call bullshit on the whole spill story. In fact, I think they did it just to make the Obama administration look bad. Yeah, that's it! Make a disaster they CAN'T fix, because it doesn't exist, then blame them for not fixing it fast enough. Bloody geniuses, I tell you!

  • by w0mprat (1317953) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @05:40AM (#32975600)
    BP released the full version of the image they admit was shopped for style. Some claim this image is not of the 'HIVE' response center either and was taken in 2001. This version of the image shows indications on the monitors photographs that it was taken on 16/07/10. (See middle screen above white screen).

    http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/images/HIVE_houston01.jpg [bp.com]

    The clues are in the image metadata:

    Title: HIVE at Houston Command Center 16 July 2010
    Authors: Marc Morrison
    Date Taken: 06/03/2001 3:16 p.m.
    Program Name: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh

    OMG Fake? No... it also shows it was taken with a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III ... now this 20 megapixel camera wasn't out until 2008, and certainly wasn't around in 2001.

    What is unexplained in this the large monitors in this shot are the window titles showing 'Microsoft Excel' but perhaps these are some custom Excel based application that BP uses to display the ROV video feeds.

    So frankly I find this whole event uninteresting. Someone didn't set the date stamp in a camera or a system somewhere along the way.

    This is not a isolated incident however, so why is BP photoshopping so many images and doing such a amateurish job of it? (Ok maybe that latter part needs no explanation).
  • by pandrijeczko (588093) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @06:29AM (#32975804)

    ...I do not defend BP's handling of this or their utter incompetency.

    But why so little mention of Halliburton (= big American corporation) who were actually responsible for the drilling site?

    • by Bemopolis (698691) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @07:49AM (#32976422)
      Because if we were to publicly attack Halliburton, they might start charging us more to run the wars that we started for their benefit.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by iamhigh (1252742)

      But why so little mention of Halliburton (= big American corporation) who were actually responsible for the drilling site?

      Because BP is responsible for the drilling site. The outsourced it to TransOcean, who hired Haliburton, who probably rented the equipment that installed the part that was made by a supplier in China.

      You can drill down to who was responsible for certain portions of this operation, but when the oil bubbles up, it belongs to BP.

  • Photoediting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by markdavis (642305) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @06:30AM (#32975808)

    I really wish people would stop using the term "Photoshopping". There are dozens of programs that can edit photos in such ways. I mean, we don't call it "Gimping", for example.

    I suggest the term "photoediting".... or even just "editing"...

    "BP Caught Photoediting Disaster Response Photos"
    "BP Caught Editing Disaster Response Photos"

    I know, "good luck with that"

  • Who Cares? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @08:18AM (#32976738)
    Reading through the comments and seeing the deluge of "who cares" comments, I'm simply baffled. Who cares about a major corporation deceiving the public? Who cares about this deception occurring while the corporation is dealing with an ecological/public relations disaster? Who cares about a corporation being caught outright lying?

    Yeah. Who cares indeed. Let's invest our attention on finding a new reason to hate Apple instead - they are the new, cool target-of-hate, after all.

    Seriously, when I watch people come up with bullshit reasons to heap hatred upon a tech company at the same time that an oil company gets a free ride when caught outright deceiving the public, I'm left wondering what the hell is wrong with people.

    Mod me troll. Feel free. After all, who cares.
  • by kobaz (107760) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @08:42AM (#32977006)

    Is it just me... or does the picture at:
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/TEXJFhjMElI/AAAAAAAAFDk/Susb7Y6PP9I/s1600/fake_GOM_simops_operations_top_kill_houston.jpg [blogspot.com]

    have a laptop on the bottom left that's left running the sims... or sim city... or something like that?

Things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.

Working...