‘Hurricane Matthew’: Is the Public Being Misled?
The storm is presented as the reason to advise people leave their homes. “This [storm] is going to kill people” warns Florida Governor Rick Scott. President Obama has similarly participated in the fear-mongering.
Yet on October 6 conservative blogger Matt Drudge remarked to his followers how there is no way of verifying date on “Hurricane Matthew” issued by such government agencies as NOAA’s National Hurricane Center.
This observations struck a chord with MHB, as a deluge of government pronouncements and reportage on Matthew over the past several days have appeared over-the-top. This point was driven home on the evening of October 6 when the alleged Cat. 4 storm passed our area in Southern Palm Beach County with negligible effect. Now the Hurricane Center is attempting to rewrite Matthew’s history altogether to suggest that Matthew barely touched South Florida (below).
Similar anomalies are evident in subsequent Weather Channel coverage on Matthew’s alleged October 7 impact on Georgia and South Carolina.
The Saffir-Simpson scale provides a classification scheme and demarcation points for hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions based on windspeed.
Taking the above into consideration and according to The Weather Channel’s own reportage “Hurricane Matthew”in fact appears to be at most a tropical storm. This is evident, for example, in the outlet’s reportage of October 7, which depicts two contrasting images. In the screen shot below the animated satellite image on the left shows a tropical storm without any clearly defined “eye.” However, the smaller image on the lower right is a (potentially enhanced) graphic with an apparently more coherent storm and eye resembling a much more ominous looking weather system.
Another indication of potential subterfuge is suggested in the still shot below taken from the same October 7 Weather Channel broadcast. Much like a Weather Channel telecast of October 6 charting Hurricane Matthew’s path alongside Florida’s east coast, and keeping in mind Saffir-Simpson scale parameters, the wind speeds below indicate that Matthew can only be deemed at most a Category 1, and more realistically should be regarded as a poorly-defined Tropical Storm.
Perhaps with the above anomalies in mind, NOAA’s Hurricane Center now appears to have modified its own forecast of “tropical storm force surface winds” to almost entirely omit Florida’s southern and central peninsula! Yet less than 48 hours ago these very areas were given dramatic reportage via corporate media after having been placed under severe “hurricane warnings” by Governor Rick Scott, who based his decision on Hurricane Center data.
What’s going on here? Is there a chance perhaps that the same intertwined government and media entities that regularly seek to pass off terrorist bombing and active shooter drills as genuine events–that have brought us such events to publicly mourn as Sandy Hook, the Boston “bombing,” the Umpqua College, San Bernardino, and Orlando nightclub shootings, are now trying their hand in transforming a mild tropical storm to hurricane proportions? Its own data at the very least should give one pause.
Yet on October 6 conservative blogger Matt Drudge remarked to his followers how there is no way of verifying date on “Hurricane Matthew” issued by such government agencies as NOAA’s National Hurricane Center.
This observations struck a chord with MHB, as a deluge of government pronouncements and reportage on Matthew over the past several days have appeared over-the-top. This point was driven home on the evening of October 6 when the alleged Cat. 4 storm passed our area in Southern Palm Beach County with negligible effect. Now the Hurricane Center is attempting to rewrite Matthew’s history altogether to suggest that Matthew barely touched South Florida (below).
Similar anomalies are evident in subsequent Weather Channel coverage on Matthew’s alleged October 7 impact on Georgia and South Carolina.
The Saffir-Simpson scale provides a classification scheme and demarcation points for hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions based on windspeed.
Taking the above into consideration and according to The Weather Channel’s own reportage “Hurricane Matthew”in fact appears to be at most a tropical storm. This is evident, for example, in the outlet’s reportage of October 7, which depicts two contrasting images. In the screen shot below the animated satellite image on the left shows a tropical storm without any clearly defined “eye.” However, the smaller image on the lower right is a (potentially enhanced) graphic with an apparently more coherent storm and eye resembling a much more ominous looking weather system.
Another indication of potential subterfuge is suggested in the still shot below taken from the same October 7 Weather Channel broadcast. Much like a Weather Channel telecast of October 6 charting Hurricane Matthew’s path alongside Florida’s east coast, and keeping in mind Saffir-Simpson scale parameters, the wind speeds below indicate that Matthew can only be deemed at most a Category 1, and more realistically should be regarded as a poorly-defined Tropical Storm.
Perhaps with the above anomalies in mind, NOAA’s Hurricane Center now appears to have modified its own forecast of “tropical storm force surface winds” to almost entirely omit Florida’s southern and central peninsula! Yet less than 48 hours ago these very areas were given dramatic reportage via corporate media after having been placed under severe “hurricane warnings” by Governor Rick Scott, who based his decision on Hurricane Center data.
What’s going on here? Is there a chance perhaps that the same intertwined government and media entities that regularly seek to pass off terrorist bombing and active shooter drills as genuine events–that have brought us such events to publicly mourn as Sandy Hook, the Boston “bombing,” the Umpqua College, San Bernardino, and Orlando nightclub shootings, are now trying their hand in transforming a mild tropical storm to hurricane proportions? Its own data at the very least should give one pause.
No comments:
Post a Comment