Hoax Reports

[Ric Burney]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-hoaxes_02tex.State.Edition1.4bd37db.html
Looks like someone is going to get more attention than they wanted... FBI is investigating.

[Rob Wadsworth]

This kind of thing happened last year as well. There was a very large thread about it here on Stormtrack. I don't remember the name of that thread - maybe someone will chime in with it and post that link here.

There have been changes made, as far as Tyler Allison's was concerned. I believe it was one of the very reasons that he put out the storm spotter testing online. People who would report storms thru his software online would have to be verified clients.

Of course, this doesn't stop John Q Public from doing the same thing using a telephone and calling in false reports to the NWS. Small wonder the FBI has gotten involved. Under PDS circumstances, someone who knowingly reposts falsely can mislead emergency services from where they may be needed most. Or - confuse those in the NWS who are trying to get adequate warning to those who are in most in need of it. This amounts to terrorism; and the FBI won't stand for that.

Decent subject for a thread; now someone needs to post last years thread as the prime example...

[Ric Burney]

Ah, might this be the one? http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21130
I thought I remembered reading this one a while back.
Just goes to show ya, the first three signs of senility are a failing memory and I can't remember the other two.

[Stephen Barabas]

Ruh roh. Someone is going to get into trouble! That's not cool at all, though. Jeopardizing peoples lives is stupid. Crying wolf on purpose is the worst thing someone can do in a science where it's hard enough to get truth and accuracy in dangerous weather reports. Stupid stupid people.

[Rob Wadsworth]

Ah, might this be the one? http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21130
I thought I remembered reading this one a while back.
Just goes to show ya, the first three signs of senility are a failing memory and I can't remember the other two.
Nah, that isn't the one. But it is just as well that link is also brought in as well.

Some of the vets here can probably remember the name of that thread - I just can't. Drawing a blank...

[Chris Lott]

Is everyone talking about the "Bobbie Cookie" thread?

http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18218&highlight=Bobbie+Cookie

[Rob Wadsworth]

Thaaaaaats It!!!
Thanks...I couldn't remember the name...Interesting read if you want to read about a 'hoax player'...

[David Reimer]

Im glad to see the Dallas Media would pick this up. Im also glad to see something is being done about false reports.

[Jim Saueressig]

By all standards it terrorism.

[mikedeason]

By all standards it terrorism.

Huh? Could you elaborate on that?

[Jason Boggs]

By all standards it terrorism.

I wouldn't quite go that far.

[Jim Saueressig]

Huh? Could you elaborate on that?

Using a hoax to terrorize people:

Definitions of terrorize:

terrify: fill with terror; frighten greatly
terrorization - the act of inspiring with fear

We could go on but essentially I could see someone being charged with terrorism for this if they were caught though I think it would be a reach.

[Tim Vasquez]

Well, that definition of terrorism would cover most practical jokes. I'm not a lawyer but I'd imagine that this would fall more under the scope of unlawful interference with official duties or emergency services.

Tim

[Tim Vasquez]

Actually it occurred to me that the real definition of terrorism is already defined by legal documents, so I looked it up. In USC 18 Section 2331 it says:

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.I concede the definition does fit, barely, but it's kind of heavy handed and I'm not sure any prosecutor would charge them with that kind of offense unless there was serious loss of life involved.

Tim

[Rob Wadsworth]

You certainly did the homework. Tim

However, one must remember that people will often be charged with a greater offense, and then the prosecution would re-file and charge the accused for a more suitable, lesser charge to attain a conviction. Something like terrorism if there is any conspiracy or extensive pre-meditation involved; false report to a fed agency if a prank. But neither is treated lightly, and prosecution will follow. Depending entirely on meditation and extenuating circumstances - of course. Probably a few other factors to boot...

The FBI are rabid and staunch in their zeal to investigate and arrest, and then let the DOJ charge and prosecute. If someone should start a dumb/crazy/stupid/intentional act as this - it compels them to follow through.

Getting someone hurt or mislead emergency crews in the wrong direction by a prank -and if there should be any loss of life because of it? Aii-yii-yii!!!
Something about 'throwing the book' at someone comes to mind...

[Andrew.Gardonia]

SECOND HOAX

Three days later, in Charleston, S.C., a caller on a telephone line reserved for National Weather Service storm spotters reported damage in Liberty County, Ga. Radar readings already had caused forecasters to issue a tornado warning, which gave urgency to the reports from the ground, so forecasters sent storm reports to the media.

um how is the second one a hoax?

If the guy called a report in and the weather service already had radar readings to verify the call, and they issued a warning how the hell is that a hoax?

This was a poorly written article and you can tell the writer failed to provide complete information, and almost undoubtedly failed to do his/her homework.

Did the call come from a guy who lived in Charleston, but was out chasing in Georgia? Did the phone call come from Charleston itself, and the guy was actually in Charleston at home? Was the phone call made from a home phone or a cell phone? We're missing information on the 2nd so called HOAX, thanks in large to poor journalism and failure to follow up on missing information.

Makes me now wonder if the entire article isn't a hoax...like most things that come from the drive-by media and their so called "journalists". :rolleyes:

[David Reimer]

um how is the second one a hoax?

If the guy called a report in and the weather service already had radar readings to verify the call, and they issued a warning how the hell is that a hoax?

This was a poorly written article and you can tell the writer failed to provide complete information, and almost undoubtedly failed to do his/her homework.

Did the call come from a guy who lived in Charleston, but was out chasing in Georgia? Did the phone call come from Charleston itself, and the guy was actually in Charleston at home? Was the phone call made from a home phone or a cell phone? We're missing information on the 2nd so called HOAX, thanks in large to poor journalism and failure to follow up on missing information.

Makes me now wonder if the entire article isn't a hoax...like most things that come from the drive-by media and their so called "journalists". :rolleyes:

Without reading the article, It would sound like there was not damage, or the damage was not as extreme as the report stated.

[Steve Worthington]

Hey Andrew
Maybe it`s the media covering up their own poor reporting ;)
We know how good their reports can be, don't we...lol

[Andrew.Gardonia]

Hey Andrew
Maybe it`s the media covering up their own poor reporting ;)
We know how good their reports can be, don't we...lol

yes we sure do!!!!

I call bs on this entire article. they gave no facts, and didn't source any of their info either.

not to mention the author didnt even bother giving his name to the article.

hmmm...wonder why that is?

[Lanny Dean]

Just my two cents (because the media card was pulled and since I spent quite a number of years working in it) and find it very interesting how we are so quick to "hammer" someone nowadays when IMO we do not have all the facts/know the whole story. Years ago, stuff like this was basically just swept under the rug or not discussed in open....I assume to avoid the publicity.

No one on this thread probably knows or remembers the situation near/in Ryan OK on May 8, 1993. Without devulging any names, you had a "named" chaser reporting live on air of a devastating tornado near and in the town of Ryan OK. Reports not only were live on tv but also live through affiliate radio stations, one of which we were listening to. The "chaser" went on to inform that "the tornado was entering the city limts of Ryan and was doing massive damage" however, as we drove into Ryan we could not see any damage.....long story short, there was no tornado in the town of Ryan. No damage in the town of Ryan. No nothing in the town of Ryan.
Talk about crying wolf!

[John Robinson]

um how is the second one a hoax?

If the guy called a report in and the weather service already had radar readings to verify the call, and they issued a warning how the hell is that a hoax?

This was a poorly written article and you can tell the writer failed to provide complete information, and almost undoubtedly failed to do his/her homework.

The article that appeared in the Dallas paper was only a portion of the original Associated Press article.

I know the reporter who wrote the article and he is very conscientious. His name did appear on the full-length article. The AP spent more than two weeks putting the article together and editing it.

As for the hoax part, the caller to the weather office reported more than two dozen houses damaged, numerous trees down, and three people injured. This caused an emergency response by county agencies. When they got to the scene, they found no damage. Sure sounds like a hoax to me.

[Andrew.Gardonia]

The article that appeared in the Dallas paper was only a portion of the original Associated Press article.

I know the reporter who wrote the article and he is very conscientious. His name did appear on the full-length article. The AP spent more than two weeks putting the article together and editing it.

As for the hoax part, the caller to the weather office reported more than two dozen houses damaged, numerous trees down, and three people injured. This caused an emergency response by county agencies. When they got to the scene, they found no damage. Sure sounds like a hoax to me.

then it might behoove the AP to source "the" article with a link as a reference, so that the readers can get all of the facts, otherwise had you said nothing, based on the story given to me (of which the linked story clearly gives no link to the original story) I had to call bs. if i recall correctly is not customary to document your sources when writing a summation of another persons work? Or does the AP just think it has some special exempt status from the rules of responsible journalism?

be nice to be able to read the actual story.

[John Robinson]

The editor at each newspaper can edit an AP story however he or she wishes. Often, this is done just to make the article fit into the space available. With budget cutbacks due to reduced advertising, many newspapers have cut back on their "newsholes", the space allotted to articles. This can result in shorter articles in cases where the reader would like to know more about a particular subject.

Below is a link to a longer version of the AP article. I cannot say whether this is the entire article as originally transmitted by the AP, but it does have more details than the article published in Dallas.

http://www.sunjournal.com/node/25650/

[Ryan McGinnis]

then it might behoove the AP to source "the" article with a link as a reference, so that the readers can get all of the facts, otherwise had you said nothing, based on the story given to me (of which the linked story clearly gives no link to the original story) I had to call bs. if i recall correctly is not customary to document your sources when writing a summation of another persons work? Or does the AP just think it has some special exempt status from the rules of responsible journalism?

be nice to be able to read the actual story.

You might want to do some research into the Associated Press.

[John Robinson]

Last week, a person with the supposed-name of Jeremiah Taylor submitted a false tornado report to the NWS office in Nashville, TN, and a false report of damage to KYTV (KY3) in Springfield, MO.

In the communication with NWS-Nashville, he was using an e-mail address of jtaylor@live.com

In the first instance, he left a call-back number to a phone number that was recently changed and was unlisted. In the second case, the phone number belonged to a couple in their 80's.

I know the chief meteorologist at KY3 has an appointment with the FBI scheduled.

If anyone has ever heard of this person, please let me know.

[Andrew.Gardonia]

The editor at each newspaper can edit an AP story however he or she wishes. Often, this is done just to make the article fit into the space available. With budget cutbacks due to reduced advertising, many newspapers have cut back on their "newsholes", the space allotted to articles. This can result in shorter articles in cases where the reader would like to know more about a particular subject.

Below is a link to a longer version of the AP article. I cannot say whether this is the entire article as originally transmitted by the AP, but it does have more details than the article published in Dallas.

http://www.sunjournal.com/node/25650/

yes they can, but if they're not going to put a link to the original story, then why bother? all they did was put a watered down version which leaves readers going huh? where's all the info.

but thanks for putting that link up, after reading it, yes the AP summary is accurate, but without that 2nd link, and all the additional pertinent info, one could only be skeptical.

and that's pretty crazy that people are going to such lengths and reporting false reports of storms and damage.

hope they catch these people and they serve some time.

You might want to do some research into the Associated Press.

they just need to shore up their summarization/sourcing guidelines. I mean how hard it is to post a lousy link to the original story so one can get the "FULL STORY"?

[Ryan McGinnis]

they just need to shore up their summarization/sourcing guidelines. I mean how hard it is to post a lousy link to the original story so one can get the "FULL STORY"?

That is a pretty good idea. I often wonder when we're going to see more hyperlinks in online news stories. I think sometimes newspapers are afraid of directing people away from their website, lest they not come back.

[Damon Poole]

It's one thing if it's someone trained or untrained who honestly, but mistakenly, thinks they see something and report it, that's an innocent mistake. On the other hand, deliberately and repeatedly filing false reports is, and always should be unacceptable. As I said in another thread, these things are no different than calling in a false fire alarm or police report. The people who deliberately do this deserve jail time and a heavy fine, especially if there is an emergency response related to it. I bet a good prosecutor might even go for public endangerment, if it's proven that a real emergency took place while the responders were tied up with a deliberate false alarm. In that case, cuff 'em and stuff 'em.