Not a chance. I've followed the whole "Scare Force One" brouhaha with mild interest, wavering between deciding it was a bureaucratic screwup and the idea that there might be more than meets the eye.
(Yes, Obama knew. He had to because he had to know that his actions would have to be different if he had to evacuate the area when both of his planes were not available--both planes always fly together, you don't have just one make a trip with the president. Thus there would've been at least a mention in the morning briefing: "Sir, one of your planes is in NYC this morning for a photo op, so in an emergency while it's gone, this is what would happen..."--a two-sentence review of security procedures he's previously been briefed on).
But this morning as I once again saw that poor excuse for a publicity pic in Ann Althouse's post, it hit me: If you wanted publicity photos of AF-1 over NYC, you'd take them from a helicopter so the photographer has a clear shot without a windscreen/canopy in the way... but there were no helicopters accompanying the president's plane over DC that day. In extreme circumstances, I suppose you can mount a camera on the ouside of a jet (though I haven't actually heard of that, it makes sense). And yet the photo they released that was supposedly taken by the professional is not only compositionally inept, it's taken though an F-16's canopy.
As a commenter of Ann Althouse theorizes, the photo the White House released was a souvenier taken by a pilot or RIO (his back-seater, whatever they call them these days) because he wanted to be able to say, "I took that when I flew wing on the president's plane."
No way it was a professional effort to take "new publicity pictures of AF-1." Not a chance. All those beautiful aerial pictures we see of carriers at sea? They're so crystal clear that they practically jump off the screen. They're taken by a photographer on a helicopter, not someone sitting in the backseat of a fighter jet. Why else is that the only photo they released? Why not release the rest if they were intended for publicity anyway? Answer: there aren't any publicity photos to release.
Althouse's commenters also point out that the weather was not ideal for that kind of photography. If photography was the point, they would've just rescheduled. But apparently that wasn't an option, the passenger's schedules were not as flexible. This was no PR exercise. And the president wasn't on the plane, nor are they saying Michelle was. Thus it was a "favor" to someone, someone the White House doesn't want publicly acknowledge.
I have no idea who was on the plane, but it's certainly a fascinating question...
(Yes, Obama knew. He had to because he had to know that his actions would have to be different if he had to evacuate the area when both of his planes were not available--both planes always fly together, you don't have just one make a trip with the president. Thus there would've been at least a mention in the morning briefing: "Sir, one of your planes is in NYC this morning for a photo op, so in an emergency while it's gone, this is what would happen..."--a two-sentence review of security procedures he's previously been briefed on).
But this morning as I once again saw that poor excuse for a publicity pic in Ann Althouse's post, it hit me: If you wanted publicity photos of AF-1 over NYC, you'd take them from a helicopter so the photographer has a clear shot without a windscreen/canopy in the way... but there were no helicopters accompanying the president's plane over DC that day. In extreme circumstances, I suppose you can mount a camera on the ouside of a jet (though I haven't actually heard of that, it makes sense). And yet the photo they released that was supposedly taken by the professional is not only compositionally inept, it's taken though an F-16's canopy.
As a commenter of Ann Althouse theorizes, the photo the White House released was a souvenier taken by a pilot or RIO (his back-seater, whatever they call them these days) because he wanted to be able to say, "I took that when I flew wing on the president's plane."
No way it was a professional effort to take "new publicity pictures of AF-1." Not a chance. All those beautiful aerial pictures we see of carriers at sea? They're so crystal clear that they practically jump off the screen. They're taken by a photographer on a helicopter, not someone sitting in the backseat of a fighter jet. Why else is that the only photo they released? Why not release the rest if they were intended for publicity anyway? Answer: there aren't any publicity photos to release.
Althouse's commenters also point out that the weather was not ideal for that kind of photography. If photography was the point, they would've just rescheduled. But apparently that wasn't an option, the passenger's schedules were not as flexible. This was no PR exercise. And the president wasn't on the plane, nor are they saying Michelle was. Thus it was a "favor" to someone, someone the White House doesn't want publicly acknowledge.
I have no idea who was on the plane, but it's certainly a fascinating question...
It's not the crime, it's the coverup...
A VA ANG Viper driver of my acquaintance tells me that the 16D is routinely used as a camera ship and with a good combat cameraman aboard, photos can be professional-quality. He says the 187FW bird was likely borrowed from AL ANG because the ADW F-16 unit (113FW, DC ANG) did not have a D-mod available for the op date. It's not unusual for Air Guard units to swap assets and personnel.
My VA ANG contact is also a buddy of the DC ANG pilot who actually flew the photo op. If you would like to get in touch with him yourself, email me and I will send along his contact information.
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/090113-F-6737G-921.jpg
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/050812-F-2295B-347.jpg
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/081107-F-7823A-070.JPG
I know the cover story seems thin, but really, consider that in order for this "somebody was being rewarded" conspiracy theory to be true, the VC-25 was using its ordinary, MQT/CT callsign (VENUS 1), and not the "VIPs are aboard" (SAM 28000) or "relatives of VIPs are aboard" (EXECUTIVE xx) callsign.
And all sorts of 89AW and ADW ATC personnel would have to be keeping their mouths shut about an obvious falsehood with no real opsec or national security rationale. Which is possible, to be sure, but strikes me as... unlikely.
Seems that would be vague enough without actually endagering anyone. Saturate the media with that for a few days and when the planes show up, everything's fine. I mean, I live near a couple aviation bases and they announce when traffic patterns will change due to exercises. They don't tell you the exact flight path, but they say aircraft may fly low over the community from the hours of X to Y on certain days.
I don't get that part.
And I'll admit I've been looking for something to gnaw on lately, and a public figure was a better target than a "real person" I actually have to behave myself with. :P
;^ )
I should note at this point that Chris' comment was held in moderation until I set it loose this morning - so nobody who commented after his comment and prior to this one had seen it yet.
Frankly, the idea that there was some conspiracy is more comforting on some levels--implies at least some competence... :P
Thanks so much for the info about the F-16Ds, Chris! I think I might take you up on that offer. I'll be in touch. :)
Ooh, and we give a door prize to the one who can come up with the one least likely to happen. I thought it was Mel 'Roving-Eye' Gibson who was the Theorist. I will have to check my notes.
D-oh!
Apparently someone blew up still from someone' s video, and the tail of the Viper does seem to be all red. Since Lucas' in-production movie is called Red Tails, about the Tuskegee Air Men, the theory is that this footage will bookend the finale. Consider the symbolism of the modern Red Tails escorting a black President over New York City....
Anyway. That's the theory. :)
Exactly, and so if you wanted to prove that it was a photo-shoot, why not release some good photos? The only sensible answer is that there aren't any. Why not? Because it wasn't a photo-shoot. So why is the White House lying about something like that?
I think they'd use China Lake, since it's got a huge, empty bombing range.
Maybe some kind of built-in sensors that need a city?
If we're going to make this a Conspiracy Theory Du Jour, why haven't we ladled in the now-canx'd P3 flight the Navy wanted to fly up the Hudson? That actually fits in with your testing sensors meme.
And, just what is it going to prove if you *do* ferret out that it was a Sekrit Mishun?
What will have been gained there?
Knowing that there is something new about VC-25 that the AF wanted to test? Great, now your providing intel to people who might wish to know just what, for nefarious purposes.
That the mission was handled badly? At this point, all that would be revealed is that they're clumsy bunglers in a different way. If you're looking for meme-fodder about bungling, your just changing what the details of the meme are, while possibly at the same time acting as an intel conduit for people with bad intentions.
Which brings me around back to... what's the point?
And ask yourself this question - if this had happened one year ago - would you be digging or defending, or ignoring?
If it is classified, someone who Knows aint talking.
So far, the theories of why they'd do something so addle-pated as secretly planning to buzz a city that has recently been attacked in such a manner are:
Photo Op of AF1-- despite lack of photos or good place to take them from, Stat. of Lib is understandable choice; why secret?
Campaign Favor/ other favor-- no evidence, but believable; bad choice of location because of panic, but rich in photo0chances.
Testing something about AF1-- no evidence, but believable; probably bad choice of location (without knowing test requirements, can't tell-- might require a specific of the plane)
Some kind of funky mind-game to scare folks-- it'd explain the addle-pated choice, but a bit funky on the belivable scale.
Can anyone think of any *other* reasons?
Using Government Equipment for Campaign material IS a violation of the law, and I wouldn't put it past somebody in Obama's inner Circle to come up with this bonehead idea, pitch it 'just right' and now they're probably erasing the DVDs. It would also explain the shitty photo, since a frame-capture from Video would wind up blurry and badly lit if done by someone with less than maximum dedication to 'The Cause'.
Oooh! That's a good additional one:
Ground-based video of AF1 in flight.
That would get around the "bad still shots" problem, explain the two-jet escort, explain the location, and if folks had bought the official reasoning of "we need more stock pictures" it wouldn't be questioned as a use of gov't funds for campaign purposes.
Shoot, give it three years-- might still be useful.