Nice Try -- AZ Tornado

[Ryan Wichman]

This just tried to get pushed around on Twitter, but was shot down in pretty short order. A person tried to say the picture on the right was from today. Looks a bit too much like Campo, CO for my liking though

The image on the right is a still from a video on the weather channels archived video.

 

[Lanny Dean]

Fables Fable? LOL...just a thought!?!?!?

 

[Jeremy Gilchrist]

I would say it is someone ripping it off. This happened with the NYC tornadoes also. Sun angle is the same along with the look of the surrounding sky in addition to the TOR itself.

 

[Adam Lucio]

Sometimes I would like to interview the idiots that try and pull this stuff off. I mean what is seriously going through their head. "hmmm, I need a picture of a different tornado so I can try and make millions by becoming famous!!!"

Watch the movie Idiocracy...its happening right now, every day.

 

[Ben Holcomb]

Who knows? It could just be storm chasers punishing the TV networks for accepting ireport photos by sending bogus ones to make them look bad.

 

[Wes Carter]

Who knows? It could just be storm chasers punishing the TV networks for accepting ireport photos by sending bogus ones to make them look bad.

If that's what it is, I'll laugh my @$$ off. It's insane that people are willing to work for free just so they can get the "look at me" factor going on. Either what's going on is just the market forces sorting themselves out and a new viable model of news reporting is going to morph out of it, or like Adam L said, we are going to be living in a world akin to the one in Idiocracy. And the more I think about it, Adam's prediction is not that unrealistic.

 

[Jason Foster]

Well, when the mainstream media calls itself 'entertainment' than you know it's a loosing battle. Accuracy is pointless, getting ad revenue is king.

If it's fake, let the publisher/media outlet know. Then....shoot good and submit your own real stuff. Do it long enough to be vetted. It is much easier and more productive to just pay attention to your own work and make it better.

 

[Chip Redmond]

It is all likely how the person interprets the picture and the use it was put in. A option that is also possible is that a news station wrote a story on the tornado and since they didn't have an actual image of the tornado, they instead found an image in their archives and used in the article. They never had to state that it was the tornado or not but just wanted it to catch a viewers eye. The unknowing viewer/reader then didn't look into the image much and assumed that it was a photo. Just another option that crossed my mind while reading this thread...

I realized this idea a few weeks back in the Ohio/WV outbreak when a volunteer firefighter told us on the damage survey he had a photo on his phone of the Nelsonville tornado. He showed it to us and it was an image like that from the Campo tornado. Flat and wide open. No way it was the same photo. He had it sent to him from someone else, who had it sent to them, and the person before that...etc. People are often dumb and don't think about things, just going off of another person story. For instance, the telephone game, the story gets changed more and more till its totally false.

Chip

 

[jmarc Pourcelet]

L'image de droite est un reste d'une vidéo sur les canaux météorologiques archivées vidéo.

C'est flagrant que c'est la même tornade : nuages identiques. Un peu de respect pour ceux qui ont travaillé pour les vraies vidéos et honte aux faussaires.

 

[Ryan Wichman]

Well, when the mainstream media calls itself 'entertainment' than you know it's a loosing battle. Accuracy is pointless, getting ad revenue is king.

If it's fake, let the publisher/media outlet know. Then....shoot good and submit your own real stuff. Do it long enough to be vetted. It is much easier and more productive to just pay attention to your own work and make it better.

I realize in most cases you are correct now-a-days. But this one was easy enough to point out the error and put a stop to it being distributed.

 

[Jim Rood]

L'image de droite est un reste d'une vidéo sur les canaux météorologiques archivées vidéo.

C'est flagrant que c'est la même tornade : nuages identiques. Un peu de respect pour ceux qui ont travaillé pour les vraies vidéos et honte aux faussaires.

brb: signing up for French class.

 

[Jacob Ferden]

L'image de droite est un reste d'une vidéo sur les canaux météorologiques archivées vidéo.

C'est flagrant que c'est la même tornade : nuages identiques. Un peu de respect pour ceux qui ont travaillé pour les vraies vidéos et honte aux faussaires.

Via Google Translate:

The right image is a remnant of a video on the weather channels archived video.

It is obvious that the same tornado cloud identical. A little respect for those who worked for the real videos and shame on counterfeiters

 

[Jason Foster]

I realize in most cases you are correct now-a-days. But this one was easy enough to point out the error and put a stop to it being distributed.

Yeah...wasn't against calling it out. I just threw that in there to remind other (and myself) that where the real focus can (should) be. It is good to have threads like this, because in some ways it allows us to let our media clients know they need to stay with "known" quality providers.

If it was a "file photo" is should have been marked as such as I see 99% of the time it is.

 

[Jeremy Gilchrist]

People love to fake things online just for the sake of attention or trolling etc. They do it just to throw people off. Case in point would be a widely criculated pic of a supercell thunderstorm labeled as "Eye of hurricane Katrina".

 

[J Brooks]

People love to fake things online just for the sake of attention or trolling etc. They do it just to throw people off. Case in point would be a widely criculated pic of a supercell thunderstorm labeled as "Eye of hurricane Katrina".

Haha yeah it was quite funny seeing the supposed pictures of Katrina in the corn fields.