Comments for Photo Ex?

Photo Ex?

Sun, 10 May 2009 12:02:00 -0600

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...

Comment from Foxfier on 2009-05-13

Wed, 13 May 2009 12:55:32 -0600

Cannonshop-

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.

Comment from Cannonshop on 2009-05-13

Wed, 13 May 2009 03:47:48 -0600

Um...never assume Malice where stupidity is a clearer explanation? Someone wanted a cheap thrill ride over the Statue of Liberty, maybe, maybe someone was thinking of running a video, not just photos, showing AF1 flying there as an assertion of 'Strength" for their eternal campaigning?

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'.

Comment from Foxfier on 2009-05-12

Tue, 12 May 2009 23:04:02 -0600

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?

Comment from Cricket on 2009-05-12

Tue, 12 May 2009 22:02:07 -0600

We are now searching for a scientific Methode of finding the 'real' theory. So far, sticking one's finger into the wind is getting a lot of consensus....

If it is classified, someone who Knows aint talking.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-12

Tue, 12 May 2009 06:22:45 -0600

Or, they could use the Atlantic test ranges, and, they could use any large metropolitan area, pretty much almost anywhere from Washington to New York.

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?

Comment from Foxfier on 2009-05-12

Tue, 12 May 2009 00:27:40 -0600

FBL-
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?

Comment from FbL on 2009-05-12

Tue, 12 May 2009 00:02:36 -0600

Well, since I posted this I've run across another interesting theory: That it was a test of electronic counter-measures. That would explain the thin cover story, but why would that test need to be over a city? Lots of "natural" interference, maybe? Then again, I'm reading people saying that kind of testing would be done over Edwards or some other big AF base... I don't know. I just know I don't buy that it was just a photo exercise.

Comment from sherlock on 2009-05-11

Mon, 11 May 2009 23:46:15 -0600

"That is an outtake at best, it is not the final shot."

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?

Comment from ExurbanKevin on 2009-05-11

Mon, 11 May 2009 12:58:36 -0600

All I'll add to the conspiracy theories is this: I was a professional commercial photog for 15 years, with local and national clients o'plenty, and shots like that end up being left on the light table. That is an outtake at best, it is not the final shot. The composition is horrid, the lighting awful, the exposure dark and muddy. They may have better shots, they may not. However, if I turned those in to the client as final work, I would lose the account the next day.

Comment from Casey on 2009-05-11

Mon, 11 May 2009 12:52:59 -0600

Just to keep the ball rolling, how about the one Jimbo likes: "This was really an excuse to let George Lucas shoot AF1 along side a Red-Tail F-16 for th end of his new movie."

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. :)

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-11

Mon, 11 May 2009 10:21:42 -0600

They're hourly? No *wonder* I'm so far behind! I thought they were *weekly!*

D-oh!

Comment from Cricket on 2009-05-11

Mon, 11 May 2009 09:41:31 -0600

John, at my hourly conspiracy theory meetings, we all decided that there is no such thing as a 'cigar is just a cigar.' That is why we read blogs instead of the MSM, because the bloggers tell us what to think...

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.

Comment from FbL on 2009-05-11

Mon, 11 May 2009 08:05:44 -0600

Oops! I thought I replied to Chris earlier, but apparently my comment got eaten.

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. :)

Comment from FbL on 2009-05-11

Mon, 11 May 2009 08:00:47 -0600

Chris, thanks for the second comment, too. I do admit it seems unlikely, but the sheer incompetence of it all (and so many different points of incompetence) if we accept it at face value is really startling. Then again, there's the old saw about attributing to malice what is merely incompetence...

Frankly, the idea that there was some conspiracy is more comforting on some levels--implies at least some competence... :P

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-11

Mon, 11 May 2009 06:25:11 -0600

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.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-11

Mon, 11 May 2009 06:06:25 -0600

Oooo!~ Sekrit hidden themes in comments! And only the Illuminati know what it means! Awp! Izzat Tom Hanks over there in the corner?

;^ )

Comment from FbL on 2009-05-10

Sun, 10 May 2009 22:30:14 -0600

You're probably right, John. Like I said, I wasn't following it too closely until I realized the pic was so unprofessional and started to wonder why it was all such a big secret.

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

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-05-10

Sun, 10 May 2009 17:04:20 -0600

Personally, I think waaay too much intellectual effort is being put into the whole thing, not to mention the shameless Photoshopping.

Comment from FbL on 2009-05-10

Sun, 10 May 2009 14:00:33 -0600

Yes, it's strange that they were so secretive about it. I understand the need for security, but the request was made NOT go public with it. But couldn't you just let residents know, "At some point in the next X number of days there will be lowflying aircraft over the city, for the purpose of photography/videography. No need to be alarmed if you notice it."

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.

Comment from Cricket on 2009-05-10

Sun, 10 May 2009 13:44:28 -0600

But, but, but...this begs the question; since everyone was wondering about the buzzing of NooYorkCity, and no one seemed to 'know' about it, why not say 'this is a photo op?' Curiouser and curiouser.

Comment from Chris Taylor on 2009-05-10

Sun, 10 May 2009 13:35:57 -0600

Obviously they didn't release the best-quality photograph, but for other pics which are most certainly taken from another pointy-nosed jet and not a helicopter (or tanker), consider:

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.

Comment from Chris Taylor on 2009-05-10

Sun, 10 May 2009 13:17:03 -0600

The Althouse commenter is mistaken. There are several models of two-seater Falcon. The B, D, and F models are all two-seater trainers. 187FW (AL ANG) has at least one D-mod Viper with the vermillion Tuskegee tail (see here: http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/General-Dynamics-F-16D/1310179/&sid=58a08c608c94ce08d490b137ff0bc425)

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.

Comment from FbL on 2009-05-10

Sun, 10 May 2009 12:33:14 -0600

I have no idea if they know their business, but another commenter at Althouse's claims that the Alabama ANG (which is established to have been the source for at least one of the F-16s) has no two-seater F-16s (only the "C" models). That means it would have been impossible for a professional photographer to have been there to take pics of the president's plane in flight. And as I said, that means the shot the WH released is just a pilot's souvenir.

It's not the crime, it's the coverup...