Lol!

That looks like it is in the mountains somewhere. Oklahoma is mostly, kinda flat to hilly. Also the license on the car is conveniently cropped out. That looks more like Montana or Idaho.

the slope, in the photo, is not used in Oklahoma. Cable barrier is used to prevent crossover accidents but not
as a slope guard.

Now that's serious!

The story implies that this happened in the U.S., however the photo was cropped to hide the license plate which is not a U.S. plate.



The original pic looks like it was from a Romanian site:

http://dezvaluitorul.ro/cum-putem-afla-cand-va-fi-urmatorul-cutremur/

I am totally opposed to fracking, but misleading people about damage that has occurred is wrong.

I forgot to check there and did a reverse search instead.

Someone is trying to mislead with that picture. None of the earthquakes in Oklahoma were that bad - yet anyway.

"un-Oklahoma". Definitely not a plain some wind can come sweeping down.

I think that's what the OP was about: a stronger quake is possible to follow..

of the pic, a central image to the story. They also crop the license plate out, which implies willful intent to mislead.

Sorry, but let's leave that kind of poor journalism for the pros.

It really doesn't matter where the pic is from, IMO. It illustrates a point of what may happen.

Thats how I see it anyway.

and they directly state or imply that this happened in Oklahoma,

For example:

(PICTURED ABOVE: one of 2,547 earthquakes caused by Fracking in Oklahoma since 2009)

http://omitlimitation.com/2014/07/09/new-study-links-fracking-with-earthquakes/

The photo wasn't licensed since a properly licensed photo has copyright data embedded, whereas such data is stripped out of this photo. The original source for the photo appear to be this site, documenting damage caused by an earthquake in Japan on October 23, 2004. The road was damage by a landslide.

http://www.geerassociation.org/GEER_Post%20EQ%20Reports/Niigata-ken_2004/November2.html

No one was talking about fracking in Oklahoma in 2004. Again, it is improper to use a photo in a news story without attribution and in a manner that is deceptive or misleading.

I get it now.

Fracking caused earthquakes are a real and serious problem. But the story does imply that this is a photo of actual damage in Oklahoma, and has been repeated on many blogs.

It could be used to make anyone referring to this story also look foolish or deceptive, even if that is not the intent.

This is below minimum standards for even a blog post in my opinion.

But we seem to have some folks who believe that lazy, unethical and/or deceptive actions are fine, as long as it is for a good cause.

A lot of cops start out with that way of thinking. Next thing you know they are planting guns on people they shot a dozen times.

Could be a matter of privacy or it could be coincidence. Willful intent is an over the top interpretation - but I fully concede it is your right to go there if you choose.

and it was nothing involving protecting anyone's privacy. Many sites have used the photo and claimed or insinuated it was in Oklahoma. The photo was from a group of structural engineers evaluating damage in Japan following an earthquake in 2004. I posted links elsewhere in this thread.

That pic is in and related to the part of the story about potential for damage to sensitive structures that are susceptible to the developing trendline in OK's seismic activity. They neither state nor imply it is a photo of Oklahoma - it is a sample of damage from a strong earthquake of the type that is threatening the storage tanks.

Given the accuracy in the rest of the article, I think your complaint lacks legitimacy and that your charge is petty behavior.

I said "willful" not malicious. I know you read it, since you actually quote my post in your reply title. "Willful" and "malicious" are not synonymous.

I explicitly explain the picture's provenance in this post:

(PICTURED ABOVE: one of 2,547 earthquakes caused by Fracking in Oklahoma since 2009)

http://omitlimitation.com/2014/07/09/new-study-links-fracking-with-earthquakes/

The photo wasn't licensed since a properly licensed photo has copyright data embedded, whereas such data is stripped out of this photo. The original source for the photo appear to be this site, documenting damage caused by an earthquake in Japan on October 23, 2004. The road was damage by a landslide.

http://www.geerassociation.org/GEER_Post%20EQ%20Reports/Niigata-ken_2004/November2.html

No one was talking about fracking in Oklahoma in 2004. Again, it is improper to use a photo in a news story without attribution and in a manner that is deceptive or misleading.

That is AKA "lying" or "deceiving" - which is a malicious act.

I still hold the view I expressed above - they used a photo demonstrating the earthquake forces that the fracking tanks are potentially subject to. And I frankly don't give a flying fuck about your crusade against someone that used a picture in a manner you think inappropriate. Get over yourself.

What is really fucking immoral and unethical is the environmental hazard that is going unaddressed - AS POINTED OUT IN THE ARTICLE.

One can willfully misuse a photo to illustrate a valid point claiming that making the point is more important than using a deceptive bit of evidence to make the point. Malice, "the intention or desire to do evil" doesn't bloody well enter into it.

Also, misleading someone is not the same as lying to them, nor is lying automatically a "malicious act". Intent is what matters when one must judge an act malicious. And since I did NOT see the act as "malicious", I didn't use the word "malicious".

However, people who cut their teeth on this type of improper manipulation of facts can graduate into the big leagues and into maliciousness.

Having accused me of describing someone's conduct as "malicious", you now try to characterize me as being on a "crusade". I use the words I mean to use, which have specific definitions. You seem to take a more "elastic" view that words mean what you say they mean, and may become other words entirely at your behest.

Are you really this desperate for attention?

Pfffft.

that my attempt to engage your limited attention span is anything more than an (apparently futile) effort to educate you in basic ethics.

And, as I am wasting my time...

Good day.

...and a little less arrogance.

...so what?

in Japan in 2004. It is all over a number of enviro sites claiming explicitly or implicitly that it is Oklahoma:

Original site:

http://www.geerassociation.org/GEER_Post%20EQ%20Reports/Niigata-ken_2004/November2.html

Pix is now an FB meme.

?itok=UZMNzupr

web site without attribution. I posted the link to the original above. Sadly, people elsewhere in this thread see no problem with this.

This is the topic:

I said,

He just ain't got a clue...

where she talks about how dangerous the whole mess in Oklahoma is and part of why.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/new-alarm--frackquake-threat-to-oil-storage-546223683598

But wait, there's more...


there was also a segment about it on Weekend Edition on NPR this morning.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/05/458587533/oklahoma-oil-workers-worry-about-industry-linked-earthquakes