It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

News Station Uses Fake Footage Of West TX Explosion

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Didn't see this posted yet. If it's in the wrong forum: Mod's, please move. If it's already been posted, please remove.

Ok, we all know there was an unfortunate & terrible explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, TX. I don't doubt that. My thoughts and well wishes go out to the town and all the people there.

Maybe this video is BS
But IF there is any truth to it, IMO, it's not cool to use footage from a different explosion to cover a news story.



edit on 30-4-2013 by riverwild because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
It does appear to be the same footage, but what purpose would it serve to use footage of a different event?

Is it possible that some intern grabbed the wrong clip by mistake?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


How? the Nevada clip is old..

I saw it after I moved there..

Damage was Incredible...

This is beyond bizarre....

there is no reason for this....



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
It does appear to be the same footage, but what purpose would it serve to use footage of a different event?

Is it possible that some intern grabbed the wrong clip by mistake?


And what reason would they have to search the archives when actual current footage was readily available that day sitting on their desktop?

Nope. Something not right here and we need to ask what is the reason, who benefits etc...

Peace




edit on 30-4-2013 by jude11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
It does appear to be the same footage, but what purpose would it serve to use footage of a different event?

Is it possible that some intern grabbed the wrong clip by mistake?


I don't have the slightest idea?

Maybe they needed footage for the story and didn't have it yet?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
This sort of thing is getting far too common. Media isn't necessarily trying to lie...they are just being outright lazy and making things look how they figure it ought to look. The same things have been seen in Syria for street footage morphed into 'harrowing scenes' of a family going through a combat zone and who can forget the Israeli bombing raid awhile back where no less than the Associated Press stringer was caught adding columns of smoke to make a small bomb run look like Apocalypse Now or something.

Authenticity doesn't seem to matter as much as flashy eye candy ..and who cares if it's technically right or not, seems to be the thinking. Close enough is good enough and no one will remember by next week anyway. Sad isn't it?

* There are reasons I stopped watching TV/broadcast news entirely before the start of the New Year. With RARE exception of a few minutes here and there, I've pretty well held to that too.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
No doubt they're graduates of the Anderson 'green screen' Cooper school of accurate (CIA propaganda) broadcasting.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Authenticity doesn't seem to matter as much as flashy eye candy ..and who cares if it's technically right or not, seems to be the thinking. Close enough is good enough and no one will remember by next week anyway. Sad isn't it?



I think this is rather spot on the mark.
The media have decided that getting the story first is best, and it doesnt matter if they're correct with the facts or not. If they cant be first, they have to be sensationalist. If they cant find the video or the photo or the interview, then any old stock image will do.
For them, there's no downside. Its not like they'll ever be taken off the air for such "mistakes by a junior employee".



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Wow it's the exact same footage.

Of course, the media is going to explain away why they used old footage by 'accident' - every time.

Notice too, officials never give them a call and say hey you used some old footage.. its almost as if upper officials know its intentionally being aired.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I'm with you there Wabbit.

I seldom watch the news anymore (except when there are tragic happenings). Not sure I will bother watching those either anymore after seeing this.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by riverwild
 


maybe that was simply a better view of a fire than what they had as stock...the media sucks in general



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   


“Those who don’t read the newspapers are better off than those who do insofar as those who know nothing are better off than those whose heads are filled with half-truths and lies.”


--Thomas Jefferson

Now, replace "read the newspapers" with "watch the news"



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I'm just looking at the most obvious possibilities before I jump into conspiracy mode.

More often than not there is a logical explanation.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
My guess is they asked an intern to find a clip for the broadcast, and he/she found they had a ton of stock footage that was more impressive looking than whatever they managed to capture (if anything) of the Texas event. The director says, "oh that looks good" and doesn't necessarily know (or care) that it isn't related footage. It happens a lot. Or they didn't want to pay the licensing for the best footage that maybe belonged to a non-affiliated network.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
My guess is they asked an intern to find a clip for the broadcast, and he/she found they had a ton of stock footage that was more impressive looking than whatever they managed to capture (if anything) of the Texas event. The director says, "oh that looks good" and doesn't necessarily know (or care) that it isn't related footage. It happens a lot. Or they didn't want to pay the licensing for the best footage that maybe belonged to a non-affiliated network.



You are probably right,

Sadly, it shouldn't happen that way.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
I'm just looking at the most obvious possibilities before I jump into conspiracy mode.

More often than not there is a logical explanation.


No conspiracy. Just poor and/or lazy reporting IMHO.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by riverwild
 


No, you're right. It shouldn't happen that way.

It's a sort of institutional laziness. Someone gets lazy on the bottom, and the top is too busy to stop and check it out because they assume they bottom is competent. This happens in every industry, really. The rest of us just don't broadcast our mistakes on the air for everyone to see.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by riverwild
 


No, you're right. It shouldn't happen that way.

The rest of us just don't broadcast our mistakes on the air for everyone to see.


The rest of us couldn't get away with it.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
It does appear to be the same footage, but what purpose would it serve to use footage of a different event?

Is it possible that some intern grabbed the wrong clip by mistake?


This is most likely the answer....

The news channels were going back in time discussing the other explosions that have occurred in the same manner. Another network went down the road of the explosion that was felt as far away as 250 miles in Louisiana.

Also if this news channel did not have the video, which is always possible if its captured by third parties who want money for its use, they improvise.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
thpt

b
edit on 1-5-2013 by Bspiracy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join