PDA

View Full Version : Why did they not use photoshop for a "photo op" over NYC?




JoshLowry
04-28-2009, 08:18 PM
Take this picture:

http://i41.tinypic.com/xbbqer.jpg

Edit it into this picture:

http://i41.tinypic.com/29qo6qq.jpg

And you get this picture:

http://i39.tinypic.com/1e9c2v.jpg

Did the government do this to distract everyone? What from? Swine flu, torture, something else?

This "photo op" could have easily been done with a lot less panic and fear.

I think there was a reason behind it.




Welcome to all the freedom-loving Americans visiting today! Our members have built a great place here - feel free to wander around and see what you think. We hope you'll stay a while and check back often and maybe join the discussion - it's a lot of fun!

Always love your country, but never trust your government.

Sandra
04-28-2009, 08:25 PM
Diversion, distraction,..... or make Obama look worse?

phill4paul
04-28-2009, 08:33 PM
Take this picture:

http://i41.tinypic.com/xbbqer.jpg

Edit it into this picture:

http://i41.tinypic.com/29qo6qq.jpg

And you get this picture:

http://i39.tinypic.com/1e9c2v.jpg

Did the government do this to distract everyone? What from? Swine flu, torture, something else?

This "photo op" could have easily been done with a lot less panic and fear.

I think there was a reason behind it.




.

Yes, yes and yes.

Roxi
04-28-2009, 08:40 PM
LOL this is exactly what my mom and I were talking about on the phone earlier!!!!!!!! she begged me to make that pic... thanks for doing it... mind if i share it with her? and is it okay to repost since you have the LF (TM) on it?

JoshLowry
04-28-2009, 08:46 PM
Repost away, once it's on the net, it's fair game imo.

Ninja Homer
04-28-2009, 08:51 PM
This "photo op" could have easily been done with a lot less panic and fear.

I think there was a reason behind it.

I agree... either they were testing something or they were doing something.

zach
04-28-2009, 08:53 PM
When you have technology to do something, and you do it the hard way, usually there's a reason.

satchelmcqueen
04-28-2009, 09:14 PM
yeah, i dont buy their story either. you did that pic in what 5 minutes and a few cents?

slacker921
04-28-2009, 09:23 PM
More than likely they shot video and the person who ordered it was too stupid to know that you can "photoshop" video as well. That would be perfectly inline with the ineptness that exists in government.

Or... I can put on my tinfoil hat and say.. maybe it's the same Air Force One that they used in Mexico and they needed to dump the waste tanks since somebody got sick during the return flight from Mexico and they were afraid of dumping the infected stuff over Washington. heh.

silverhawks
04-28-2009, 09:32 PM
No-one can be THAT inept. So let's take a look at the tinfoil explanation.

Obviously they did it because they needed a REAL reaction, as you do with most psy-ops.

The main reaction was to cause panic in New York, possibly to build on the fear of the swine flu outbreak there. Swine flu is the big media story at the moment, which has made people forget about torture memos and government corruption.

The only other wider reaction they could have expected would be to cause outrage nationwide at such a crass and irresponsible move.

Air Force One buzzing Ground Zero? Not going to impress anyone, especially when the cost of the flight went public.

That would create a media event to draw people's attention away from something else, and have both "sides" of the media and the House arguing away on national TV. Also to subconsciously drag people Bush-style back to the memory of a large scale terrorist attack.

And nice Photoshop work, phill4paul :)

Edit: this was re-capitalisation of fear. Never waste a good crisis - and a crisis like 9/11 can keep on giving, even years later...first anger and rage, then terror of further attacks, and then after the dust settles a bit, you can re-awaken those fears with a similar event; especially when your city is playing host to a possible pandemic outbreak.

Standing Like A Rock
04-28-2009, 09:36 PM
I have every reason to believe that this was an intentional attempt to scare people. I just don't know why yet. It could be covering something else up, it could be testing to see what kind of reaction they got, I really don't know.

LATruth
04-28-2009, 10:25 PM
Because .mil pictures are HUGE resolution for printing purposes?

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080820-F-5957S-887.jpg

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/081231-F-3188G-216.jpg

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/090309-F-6911G-407.jpg

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080528-F-2828D-985.jpg

some things you just don't want to photoshop?

brandon
04-28-2009, 10:33 PM
Because .mil pictures are HUGE resolution for printing purposes?


It would be just as easy to take separate high-res photos of the city and the plane and then splice then together, as Josh so beautifully did.

LATruth
04-28-2009, 10:35 PM
I agree, but there are some things you just can't fake. :/

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/080311-F-1001G-001.jpg

I also bet the 50+ megapixel pic they took with their camera will catch every detail of the plane and the city. It better be worth it. LOL

I'm not justifying it, it was in the excess to the extreme. I am just stating reasons why they might have done it.

Liberty Star
04-28-2009, 10:39 PM
About Half a million dollars for photo ops and widespread panic was worth it?

Obama and his handlers need to speak up. They lectured AIG executives on spending, what about their own wasting taxpyaers money in these tough economic times?

silverhawks
04-28-2009, 10:51 PM
I agree, but there are some things you just can't fake. :/


I can appreciate the spirit of that photo...but I disagree that there are things you can't fake. For example...


http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/images/Damen.jpg

...this is not a photo.

This digital painting of a Chicago scene was unveiled at Photoshop World in Miami on March 22, 2006. It is a panorama of the Damen Station on the Blue Line of the Chicago Transit Authority.

Adobe Illustrator was used for generating the majority of the basic shapes as well as all the buildings in the Chicago skyline. The rest was created in Photoshop.

• The image size is 40 inches by 120 inches.

• The flattened file weighs in at 1.7 Gigabytes.

• It took eleven months (close to 2,000 hours) to create.

• The painting is comprised of close to fifty individual Photoshop files.

• Taking a cumulative total of all the files, the overall image contains over 15,000 layers.

• Over 500 alpha channels were used for various effects.

• Over 250,000 paths make up the multitude of shapes throughout the scene.

The realism is astounding, even minute close-up details.


http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/images/Damen1.jpg

The front face of the train was created in its own file. The reflections in the windows were added once the train was placed in position within the overall image.

The side of the train car was created in a separate file. Duplicating that file made it easy to add additional cars.

The duplicates required changing the reflections in the windows, the accumulated grime and the car numbers to make each car appear different.

Every symbols, every piece of text and every logo you can see in this picture was created in Adobe Illustrator.


http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/images/Damen2.jpg

The grime was created with Spatter brushes, available within the Photoshop brushes palette, which were modified to randomize the effect.

The rust was created with the same Spatter brushes but with Color Dynamics applied. The rust was in a separate layer that was also given a layer style of Inner Shadow to add the dimensional effect of the rust appearing under peeled paint.


http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/images/Damen3.jpg

For comparison, here's the real thing.


http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/images/Ohare/damen-milwaukee11.jpg

This kind of artistry really makes you question what is real, and what is not.

GunnyFreedom
04-28-2009, 10:58 PM
Take this picture:
...

And you get this picture:

http://i39.tinypic.com/1e9c2v.jpg

Did the government do this to distract everyone? What from? Swine flu, torture, something else?

This "photo op" could have easily been done with a lot less panic and fear.

I think there was a reason behind it.




.


LOL please understand no criticism behind it or intended - you tossed it together in just a few minutes only to demonstrate, and I know that

But the first time I saw the composite, my eyes tried to tear out the roots - the sun is dead opposite. :D

You'd have to chop all the text and vertical mirror the jet and replace/adjust the text, and it would work perfectly. Best thing would be to spend the hours and hours you DIDN'T have to find two images with the sun in the same place.

too much time spent in Photoshop...

LATruth
04-29-2009, 02:37 AM
I can appreciate the spirit of that photo...but I disagree that there are things you can't fake. For example...


http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/images/Damen.jpg

...this is not a photo.

This digital painting of a Chicago scene was unveiled at Photoshop World in Miami on March 22, 2006. It is a panorama of the Damen Station on the Blue Line of the Chicago Transit Authority.

Adobe Illustrator was used for generating the majority of the basic shapes as well as all the buildings in the Chicago skyline. The rest was created in Photoshop.

• The image size is 40 inches by 120 inches.

• The flattened file weighs in at 1.7 Gigabytes.

• It took eleven months (close to 2,000 hours) to create.

• The painting is comprised of close to fifty individual Photoshop files.

• Taking a cumulative total of all the files, the overall image contains over 15,000 layers.

• Over 500 alpha channels were used for various effects.

• Over 250,000 paths make up the multitude of shapes throughout the scene.

The realism is astounding, even minute close-up details.


http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/images/Damen1.jpg

The front face of the train was created in its own file. The reflections in the windows were added once the train was placed in position within the overall image.

The side of the train car was created in a separate file. Duplicating that file made it easy to add additional cars.

The duplicates required changing the reflections in the windows, the accumulated grime and the car numbers to make each car appear different.

Every symbols, every piece of text and every logo you can see in this picture was created in Adobe Illustrator.


http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/images/Damen2.jpg

The grime was created with Spatter brushes, available within the Photoshop brushes palette, which were modified to randomize the effect.

The rust was created with the same Spatter brushes but with Color Dynamics applied. The rust was in a separate layer that was also given a layer style of Inner Shadow to add the dimensional effect of the rust appearing under peeled paint.


http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/images/Damen3.jpg

For comparison, here's the real thing.


http://www.chicago-l.org/stations/images/Ohare/damen-milwaukee11.jpg

This kind of artistry really makes you question what is real, and what is not.

YOu gave the one example I can't dispute, it looks real, but I guarantee a team of experts worked on this for a LONG time using real texture maps to "make" a photo. A real photo will ALWAYS look better, and I love photoshop and respect great skills. But there is no substitute for reality, the resolution and graphics are better!

And there are plug ins for rust and such, xenophex and alienskin products are amazing.

phill4paul
04-29-2009, 04:14 AM
And nice Photoshop work, phill4paul :)

That would be Josh' photoshop handiwork.:) Credit where it's due. He's da man.;)

silverhawks
04-29-2009, 05:04 AM
My bad :) Nice 'shopping, Josh :)

acptulsa
04-29-2009, 07:11 AM
That Chicago simulation didn't fool me for a second. No graffiti.

Original_Intent
04-29-2009, 08:25 AM
If we had been a little faster we should have started an online competition to see who could do the best photoshop of AF1 and NYC.

Sent it to the White House:

1 copy of Photoshop: Free
Labor : Free (could be a condition of entry in the contest)
Not scaring the hell out of the inhabitants of NYC: Priceless

Agent CSL
04-29-2009, 08:28 AM
They could have used a myriad of tools. Photoshop, Poser, CAD, FireWorks... Sure it would have taken more time to create, but no one would be scared shitless or outraged.

A vector image can be created at a low resolution and then ballooned as big as they want. It's not difficult to do an image with nothing but vectors.

acptulsa
04-29-2009, 10:09 AM
Now, will someone tell me how either the VC-25 or the F-16 is the least bit suitable as a camera platform? There is no RF-16...

Bruno
04-29-2009, 10:21 AM
Now, will someone tell me how either the VC-25 or the F-16 is the least bit suitable as a camera platform? There is no RF-16...

Was there a helicopter flying behind the planes? I haven't that from any videos. Otherwise, where in the hell were they taking photos from?

They should have to provide the pictures to the public as proof that that is in fact what they were doing.


If we had been a little faster we should have started an online competition to see who could do the best photoshop of AF1 and NYC.

Sent it to the White House:

1 copy of Photoshop: Free
Labor : Free (could be a condition of entry in the contest)
Not scaring the hell out of the inhabitants of NYC: Priceless

Brilliant! :D

torchbearer
04-29-2009, 10:23 AM
Was there a helicopter flying behind the planes? I haven't that from any videos. Otherwise, where in the hell were they taking photos from?

They should have to provide the pictures to the public as proof that that is in fact what they were doing.

we paid for them.

phill4paul
04-29-2009, 10:24 AM
Was there a helicopter flying behind the planes? I haven't that from any videos. Otherwise, where in the hell were they taking photos from?

They should have to provide the pictures to the public as proof that that is in fact what they were doing.



Brilliant! :D

For what it cost us taxpayers we each should get a darned calender.

acptulsa
04-29-2009, 10:24 AM
Was there a helicopter flying behind the planes? I haven't that from any videos. Otherwise, where in the hell were they taking photos from?

Haven't seen any Cessnas, either. Those often have their doors removed for photography.

There is a recon pod available for the F-16, but I can't imaging a less efficient way to get photos--unless from a twin-engine fighter. Can't imagine that you'd get the prettiest shots from a remotely-controlled pod, either.

Makes no sense on so many levels.

JoshLowry
04-29-2009, 10:24 AM
Was there a helicopter flying behind the planes? I haven't that from any videos. Otherwise, where in the hell were they taking photos from?

They should have to provide the pictures to the public as proof that that is in fact what they were doing.



Brilliant! :D

FOIA Request (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29)

Would this work?

Ninja Homer
04-29-2009, 10:25 AM
They should have to provide the pictures to the public as proof that that is in fact what they were doing.

But then they'd just photoshop it. :D

LATruth
04-29-2009, 10:26 AM
I believe most fighters and modern planes have high res cameras on them. How else would they get a majority of the shots from af.mil ?

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
04-29-2009, 10:28 AM
Was there a helicopter flying behind the planes? I haven't that from any videos. Otherwise, where in the hell were they taking photos from?

They should have to provide the pictures to the public as proof that that is in fact what they were doing.


Well... if they don't already have them, they'll just photoshop them. lol.

Bruno
04-29-2009, 10:28 AM
FOIA Request (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29)

Would this work?

Sure might! Can't exactly be a matter of national security, as they did it right in the open and Obama calls for an investigation and transparency.

mczerone
04-29-2009, 10:28 AM
Now, will someone tell me how either the VC-25 or the F-16 is the least bit suitable as a camera platform? There is no RF-16...

Holy inconsistent details, Batman!

The more this is fleshed out, the more it looks like a ploy.

What agency had control of the jet? Is it under White House command? Did the Air Force need to sign off on this photo-op? It seems that they would have a few people who are very wary of allowing fly-overs of civilian areas.

As in so many other areas, either they are corrupt or inept, but either way there is no excuse for allowing the power to remain where it is.

acptulsa
04-29-2009, 10:29 AM
I believe most fighters and modern planes have high res cameras on them. How else would they get a majority of the shots from af.mil ?

Those are generally 'gun cameras', and not trainable. If fixed forward, it would be very dangerous to try to photograph another airplane with them--especially a slower airplane. And, yes, there are recon versions of various fighters, but not the F-16 (that was my RF-16 reference earlier). No such thing.

Bruno
04-29-2009, 10:29 AM
For what it cost us taxpayers we each should get a darned calender.

+1 or a mousepad

Who was in the plane? Reporters need to be on this (but won't). There had to be dozens of people on that plane.

Anyone important?

Names, I want names, damn it! :D :cool:

KoldKut
04-29-2009, 10:44 AM
...

JoshLowry
04-29-2009, 10:48 AM
Isn't it possible that the "photo shoot" was actually a video or filming activity? Maybe even something in IMAX, with it's gigantic specialized film stock? Something not easily or cheaply duplicated on a laptop? Those long computer animated sequences in Hollywood movies are very expensive and time consuming to produce, and are invariably not as good as the "real" thing.

Possible.

I'm not saying that the government necessarily had "evil" plans.

Just asking why they decided to do it this way if it was simply a photo they wanted.

acptulsa
04-29-2009, 10:48 AM
Isn't it possible that the "photo shoot" was actually a video or filming activity? Maybe even something in IMAX, with it's gigantic specialized film stock? Something not easily or cheaply duplicated on a laptop? Those long computer animated sequences in Hollywood movies are very expensive and time consuming to produce, and are invariably not as good as the "real" thing.

But where was the camera? On the ground? Are you suggesting they buzzed the millions in Manhattan just so they could put the camera on the Empire State Building?

If someone has use of 28000 or 29000 for a couple of hours, they'll break out a dozen cameras and crews--and at least two or three will be in the air. And I don't for a second believe you can fit an IMAX camera on an F-16 underwing pylon.

Bruno
04-29-2009, 10:50 AM
Isn't it possible that the "photo shoot" was actually a video or filming activity? Maybe even something in IMAX, with it's gigantic specialized film stock? Something not easily or cheaply duplicated on a laptop? Those long computer animated sequences in Hollywood movies are very expensive and time consuming to produce, and are invariably not as good as the "real" thing.

Possible, but unlikely. They would have said that instead of stating it was a "photo op"?

Even so - purpose of said video or filming activity? Audience? Video/photographical proof?

JoshLowry
04-29-2009, 10:53 AM
And I don't for a second believe you can fit an IMAX camera on an F-16 underwing pylon.

I think if an F16 can carry multiple 500 pound bombs, they could rig an IMAX camera to one.

They aren't incredibly large. Hell of a waste of money though.

http://www.lastrefuge.co.uk/images/photo_articles/gorilla/IMAX_Gorilla16.jpg

acptulsa
04-29-2009, 10:59 AM
I think if an F16 can carry multiple 500 pound bombs, they could rig an IMAX camera to one.

They aren't incredibly large. Hell of a waste of money though.

Yeah, you're probably right--though I'm sure the normal recon pod for the aircraft isn't made to handle it. But it still makes no sense, when you can get the shot on a tiny fraction of the fuel using a Cessna--and the camera operator can actually be in physical contact with the camera! Whether or not it's made by Cessna specifically, I know there's something that can hold a camera and photographer and exceed the stall speed of a 747-200 without burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel in the process--and they'd have gotten better shots in the process. The F-16 just isn't that stable a platform.

I wish the government were a little more prone--make that a lot more prone--to giving us 'explanations' that make logical sense! Seems like every other time they announce something, I have to go nurse my insulted intelligence.

Elwar
04-29-2009, 11:52 AM
Ok, so this thread has had about 5,000 views in the last couple of hours...

where are all of you people coming from?

acptulsa
04-29-2009, 11:54 AM
Well, wherever it is, welcome!

JoshLowry
04-29-2009, 12:00 PM
Ok, so this thread has had about 5,000 views in the last couple of hours...

where are all of you people coming from?

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/8ggrx/take_this_picture_and_this_picture_and_you_get/

LATruth
04-29-2009, 12:15 PM
I'm going to play devils advocate here for a minute.

How do we know for sure the fighter did not have a camera? Reports? Reports by whom? Was this person an expert in aviation technology? Could you see a camera from the ground? Maybe the report given by the military was generic in its scope and just said "F-16" because they knew it's a term we would all identify with?

Planes not a stable platform to take pictures? I beg to differ. This has been one of my favorite sites to draw images from when I need military pictures:

http://www.af.mil/photos/

A majority of these shots are definately taken from fighters in formation and look VERY good. Even the photos from helicopters look amazing! I'm also pretty sure it would be very easy to fit a full motion hi definition camera on the underbelly as well, or in place of the standard recon setup.

Kinda funny how a site with members that won't call 9/11 with buildings exploding in front your face a conspiracy, but will label a possible photo-op one... It's astounding the sheer amount of irony in this thread

acptulsa
04-29-2009, 12:22 PM
A majority of these shots are definately taken from fighters in formation and look VERY good. Even the photos from helicopters look amazing! I'm also pretty sure it would be very easy to fit a full motion hi definition camera on the underbelly as well, or in place of the standard recon setup.

Why? Why would you go out of your way to set up an aircraft which was never produced in a recon version, isn't new enough that you're likely to get years of use out of the new tooling, and do it all at the military's usual cost-plus pricing just to get photos of that 747? Just so you can go through untold thousands of gallons of JP-4?

Or are you trying to save fuel because the fighter escort has to be there anyway? But the recon pod displaces weapons, so you're shooting yourself in the foot. Right?

Sorry, I can't make it work for me.


Kinda funny how a site with members that won't call 9/11 with buildings exploding in front your face a conspiracy, but will label a possible photo-op one... It's astounding the sheer amount of irony in this thread

Oh, put your soap-box away and stop trying to hijack this thread.

JoshLowry
04-29-2009, 12:27 PM
I'm going to play devils advocate here for a minute.

How do we know for sure the fighter did not have a camera? Reports? Reports by whom? Was this person an expert in aviation technology? Could you see a camera from the ground? Maybe the report given by the military was generic in its scope and just said "F-16" because they knew it's a term we would all identify with?

Planes not a stable platform to take pictures? I beg to differ. This has been one of my favorite sites to draw images from when I need military pictures:

[/URL]http://www.af.mil/photos/ (http://www.af.mil/photos/)

A majority of these shots are definately taken from fighters in formation and look VERY good. Even the photos from helicopters look amazing! I'm also pretty sure it would be very easy to fit a full motion hi definition camera on the underbelly as well, or in place of the standard recon setup.

Kinda funny how a site with members that won't call 9/11 with buildings exploding in front your face a conspiracy, but will label a possible photo-op one... It's astounding the sheer amount of irony in this thread

I'm mainly asking why they didn't use photoshop. I'm not necessarily saying there was no "photo op."

If they knew about photoshop, which I assume they do, then I question their motive for scaring the shit out of thousands of New Yorkers. Although, government can be pretty inept, I think that they did know ahead of time that it would probably scare people. The feds told everyone to keep it under wraps.
[url]http://wcbstv.com/topstories/air.force.one.2.996457.html (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/air.force.one.2.996457.html)



You can't really paint the whole forum one way or another. There is a large mix of different opinions about what happened on 911.


In the end, I think questioning government is always a good thing.

"Love your country, but never trust its government."

LATruth
04-29-2009, 12:32 PM
Why? Why would you go out of your way to set up an aircraft which was never produced in a recon version, isn't new enough that you're likely to get years of use out of the new tooling, and do it all at the military's usual cost-plus pricing just to get photos of that 747? Just so you can go through untold thousands of gallons of JP-4?

Or are you trying to save fuel because the fighter escort has to be there anyway? But the recon pod displaces weapons, so you're shooting yourself in the foot. Right?

Sorry, I can't make it work for me.

Oh, put your soap-box away and stop trying to hijack this thread.

Don't quote snippets and assume it works, what about how I said it could have been a recon jet just not reported as one? Using a generic term for an f-16 to the public seems highly likely. Do you always call a green apple a green apple, or do you sometimes just call it an apple? You omit that from your post because it doesn't fit your theory. I understand. Also, calling this a conspiracy is lunacy. It was an eventless event. They took some pictures, caused a scare (which may or MAY NOT have been intentional) But this is getting attention like it caused mass casualties and even being called a conspiracy. Yeah, IRONY. 911 tons of it.

acptulsa
04-29-2009, 12:36 PM
Don't quote snippets and assume it works, what about how I said it could have been a recon jet just not reported as one? Using a generic term for an f-16 to the public seems highly likely. You omit that from your post because it doesn't fit your theory. I understand. Also, calling this a conspiracy is lunacy. It was an eventless event. They took some pictures, caused a scare (which may or MAY NOT have been intentional) But this is getting attention like it caused mass casualties and even being called a conspiracy. Yeah, IRONY. 911 tons of it.

1. There is no recon version of the F-16. The Air Force, logically enough, preferred to use the twin engine F-15 platform for the purpose.

2. Who said this must be a conspiracy? Not I. I merely said it makes no sense, and I stand by that.

3. There you go again.

LATruth
04-29-2009, 12:40 PM
3/28/2006 - BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq (AFPN) -- A little-known capability here is paying big dividends for warfighters on the ground. Air National Guard F-16 Fighting Falcons from the 332nd Expeditionary Fighter Squadron are using the Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System, or TARS pod, to provide high-quality still imagery to ground commanders to help them achieve their tactical objectives.

The TARS pod, mounted on the centerline of the F-16, contains a sophisticated photographic system that records high-resolution images which can be exploited by users on the ground within hours of landing. Because the pod is mounted on the centerline, the aircraft can still carry a variety of munitions under the wings to perform close air support for ground forces and air-to-air missions if necessary.

Just how good is the resolution? The TARS pod is the equivalent of a 36-megapixel camera, said Staff Sgt. Jeremy Fisher, 332nd Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Squadron and a guardsman from the 122nd Fighter Wing in Fort Wayne, Ind.


ouch

and link...

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123018070

acptulsa
04-29-2009, 12:48 PM
ouch

So, you're contending that they did this to save fuel? And that this allows the aircraft to carry a full defensive fit?

All review. Still illogical. Still doesn't produce photography as good as a camera operator in direct physical control of the apparatus. And still doesn't explain why they didn't warn anyone.

Thanks for confirming everything I said, though.

Bruno
04-29-2009, 12:48 PM
I'm going to play devils advocate here for a minute.

How do we know for sure the fighter did not have a camera? Reports? Reports by whom? Was this person an expert in aviation technology? Could you see a camera from the ground? Maybe the report given by the military was generic in its scope and just said "F-16" because they knew it's a term we would all identify with?

Planes not a stable platform to take pictures? I beg to differ. This has been one of my favorite sites to draw images from when I need military pictures:

http://www.af.mil/photos/

A majority of these shots are definately taken from fighters in formation and look VERY good. Even the photos from helicopters look amazing! I'm also pretty sure it would be very easy to fit a full motion hi definition camera on the underbelly as well, or in place of the standard recon setup.

Kinda funny how a site with members that won't call 9/11 with buildings exploding in front your face a conspiracy, but will label a possible photo-op one... It's astounding the sheer amount of irony in this thread

Playing the devil's advocate would be to not believe the official story on this one, not to question those who don't, imo.

LATruth
04-29-2009, 12:55 PM
So, you're contending that they did this to save fuel? And that this allows the aircraft to carry a full defensive fit?

All review. Still illogical. Still doesn't produce photography as good as a camera operator in direct physical control of the apparatus. And still doesn't explain why they didn't warn anyone.

Thanks for confirming everything I said, though.

If your questions were asked in court they would be thrown out. They are so leading...

I never once said ANYTHING about fuel, or tried to justify any premise. I am only bringing up the fact that it could be a photo-op and nothing more. All the while pointing out the IRONY of calling this a "conspiracy" and buildings blowing up can't be without ridicule. If thats not irony, I don't know what is.

Maybe I would answer your questions with a little less sarcasm and spite if they weren't asked in the manner that provokes it.

And your thoughts on the clarity of the pictures the f-16 cameras can take is all heresay and OPINIONATED. Have you used one? Have you seen the images? It a 35 megapixel camera! And that was 3 years ago, I'm sure its better now.

JoshLowry
04-29-2009, 01:06 PM
I am only bringing up the fact that it could be a photo-op and nothing more.

That was the official story and we are wondering why they decided to have a photo op in this manner. I think we understand that they were taking photos.

There are other options that they could have used. Why did they not use those options was the intent of this thread.

acptulsa
04-29-2009, 01:27 PM
On top of the fuel concerns and noise concerns (the escort fighters could have done that job from much higher altitude), the recon pods (if I remember correctly, unlike an RF-15) can only look down. The only way around that is to bank the aircraft, which is a fairly safe maneuver but a little reckless over multiple millions of people nonetheless. Now, perhaps that was all they needed. But the dedicated photography aircraft is certainly more flexible, not just quieter and more efficient.

Well, you can sure tell that the Air Force is not only exempt from noise regulations, but carbon taxes as well...

LATruth
04-29-2009, 01:45 PM
"The camera in the TARS pod has the ability to rotate in order to shoot at angles you can't get any other way from the air -- doorways, windows, sides of buildings," said Tech. Sgt. Stephen Holt, noncommissioned officer in charge of imagery operations with the 332nd EFS. "This type of imagery of entry and exit points can be invaluable to a ground commander planning a raid on a house or other building."

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123018070

Ninja Homer
04-29-2009, 01:48 PM
And your thoughts on the clarity of the pictures the f-16 cameras can take is all heresay and OPINIONATED. Have you used one? Have you seen the images? It a 35 megapixel camera! And that was 3 years ago, I'm sure its better now.

You probably think 35 megapixels is a lot bigger than it actually is... it's only about 6500 x 5500. It really isn't that hard to work with a file that size in photoshop. It just takes a little more time to go over the details, and a little more time to render (but not much with today's computers). I could certainly do it in a week for $328,835, and it wouldn't cause a panic. 5 years ago or so, I did some work in photoshop on 80 megapixel photos (high quality fully immersive 360 degree x 360 degree panoramas). They were a bitch to work on because they were all skewed for the 360 effect rather than rectangular, but it was doable even 5 years ago.

What it comes down to is either they REALLY screwed up and made a horrible decision, or they were doing something other than a photo shoot. If it was just a horrible decision, then somebody better get fired for it. If nobody gets fired for it (and I mean at least one person with enough power to order Air Force One and an F-16 to do a fly-by of New York, clear the air space, and keep the whole maneuver secret) then I think it's obvious that they did exactly what they meant to do, and the "photo shoot" is just an excuse to hide their real intent.

Reason
04-29-2009, 02:07 PM
I think anyone wondering if there was a "hidden reason" for why the flyover was done does not realize the level of epic fail planning and total disregard for consequences that permeates through politicians like the guy who took responsibility for this.

Liberty Star
04-29-2009, 02:30 PM
I thought sudden spike in guest visitors was due to rumors about upcoming Hannity pics in nude stress positions or being waterboarded in enhanced interro from that thread in this section but it is due to this thread actually?

itshappening
04-29-2009, 03:05 PM
I thought sudden spike in guest visitors was due to rumors about upcoming Hannity pics in nude stress positions or being waterboarded in enhanced interro from that thread in this section but it is due to this thread actually?

300+ guests? maybe we've been linked by something..

LATruth
04-29-2009, 04:44 PM
No one is saying photoshop isn't doable, it most certainly is. But in the time it would take to make one masterpiece they could snap 5000 photos and have maybe 3000 masterpieces. Is it a grievous misuse of resources? Sure. But hey, that's how we do things here in America. Just because we have to tighten our belts does not mean Washington will tighten theirs.

GunnyFreedom
04-29-2009, 09:09 PM
my personal impression?

Someone in the middle of the food chain wanted to get some 'really cool looking' personal pictures; asked the fighter jock to pack a digital camera in his flightsuit and take some pictures of the jet over New York. Said person then asks the pilot if he could just fly low around the city a couple times so he can take a look; and then the 747 pilot thought "hell yeah, I'm under orders and this idiot wants to get a "look" at New York? 'I sure can, sir.' I get to show off how good I am, without getting fired!" The escort probably chuckled as he followed them in, thinking, "Someones getting fired for this!" click snap click snap

So madness ensues; and then when someone of note learns what happens and why; it was called a "photo op," and now they are trying to understand how to respond internally.

My guess anywhoo

ShowMeLiberty
04-29-2009, 09:32 PM
my personal impression?

Someone in the middle of the food chain wanted to get some 'really cool looking' personal pictures; asked the fighter jock to pack a digital camera in his flightsuit and take some pictures of the jet over New York. Said person then asks the pilot if he could just fly low around the city a couple times so he can take a look; and then the 747 pilot thought "hell yeah, I'm under orders and this idiot wants to get a "look" at New York? 'I sure can, sir.' I get to show off how good I am, without getting fired!" The escort probably chuckled as he followed them in, thinking, "Someones getting fired for this!" click snap click snap

So madness ensues; and then when someone of note learns what happens and why; it was called a "photo op," and now they are trying to understand how to respond internally.

My guess anywhoo

This is pretty much what I've been thinking. It was indeed a photo-op, but not to get photos of the plane. It was a photo-op for whoever was inside the plane to get personal close-up pics of the Statue of Liberty and New York from the air.

So who was in the plane? Friends/relatives of Obama? Biden? Emmanuel?

This whole incident is the most EPIC fail ever.

revolutionary8
04-29-2009, 09:56 PM
No one is saying photoshop isn't doable, it most certainly is. But in the time it would take to make one masterpiece they could snap 5000 photos and have maybe 3000 masterpieces. Is it a grievous misuse of resources? Sure. But hey, that's how we do things here in America. Just because we have to tighten our belts does not mean Washington will tighten theirs.

What in the world is this? I am no photo shop expert, but I DO know how much plane fuel and pilots/ vs. Techies and printer ink cost.

"LA Truth" (yeah right) do the math.
(how long were they in the air, how long did it take to set up the shoot, etc?)
By my account, and taking in to consideration- the state of the nation- it seems that they should have hired Josh Lowry.;)
(unless of course they wanted a shot of a bunch of already traumatized New Yorkers fleeing and screaming bloody murder like their lives depended upon it, and FOR GOOD REASON)
Let me guess, next thing you know, you will belt out the ol', "Obama was out of the loop"
What's new?

GunnyFreedom
04-29-2009, 10:06 PM
This is pretty much what I've been thinking. It was indeed a photo-op, but not to get photos of the plane. It was a photo-op for whoever was inside the plane to get personal close-up pics of the Statue of Liberty and New York from the air.

So who was in the plane? Friends/relatives of Obama? Biden? Emmanuel?

This whole incident is the most EPIC fail ever.

Yeah, photos of New York is even more plausible; especially thinking of family and celebratory flights for the first 100 days, etc.

ShowMeLiberty
04-29-2009, 10:09 PM
Yeah, photos of New York is even more plausible; especially thinking of family and celebratory flights for the first 100 days, etc.

Exactly! Being right at the first 100 days mark makes this scenario at least plausible, if not probable.

BeFranklin
04-29-2009, 10:27 PM
Take this picture:

http://i41.tinypic.com/xbbqer.jpg

Edit it into this picture:

http://i41.tinypic.com/29qo6qq.jpg

And you get this picture:

http://i39.tinypic.com/1e9c2v.jpg

Did the government do this to distract everyone? What from? Swine flu, torture, something else?

This "photo op" could have easily been done with a lot less panic and fear.

I think there was a reason behind it.

It has a sense of a kind of threat, actually, and yes the excuse doesn't make sense.


It be nice to see this on some ridiculious photo, like diving down on Independence Hall like its about to fire machine guns, with appropiate words.
maybe "Only a live Photo Op can capture Air Force One" snicker.

BeFranklin
04-29-2009, 10:30 PM
Here's my theory. Obama went insane (maybe the swine flu was an assination attempt) and started to dive onto New York, ala 911. Please note I'm only letting my imagination soar.

revolutionary8
04-29-2009, 11:07 PM
Here's my theory. Obama went insane (maybe the swine flu was an assination attempt) and started to dive onto New York, ala 911. Please note I'm only letting my imagination soar.

:confused::confused::confused:
"I am letting my imagination soar".

ya think?

nayjevin
04-30-2009, 02:01 AM
An official government story might not be true? NAWWWWWW

Name an official government story that is true.

Reminds me of Wag the Dog.

acptulsa
04-30-2009, 05:53 AM
Here's my theory. Obama went insane (maybe the swine flu was an assination attempt) and started to dive onto New York, ala 911. Please note I'm only letting my imagination soar.

I think your imagination went into a tailspin. It just crashed and burned. ;)

Ninja Homer
04-30-2009, 08:00 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/tech_guide/2009/04/30/2009-04-30_we_asked_for_photoshopped_air_force_one_photos_ _and_you_delivered.html

"We asked readers to dream up doctored landscapes for the President's Air Force One – and wow, did they ever deliver!

On Monday, the Presidential jet and an F-16 fighter plane buzzed over lower Manhattan for a photo-op of the First Plane with New York City landmarks.

The stunt sparked fears of terror attacks and cost hundred of thousands of dollars.

We suggested the White House staffers could've gotten better results – for a lot less money – from the comforts of their own D.C. offices using a program like Photoshop.

And YOU proved us right. "

more (http://www.nydailynews.com/tech_guide/2009/04/30/2009-04-30_we_asked_for_photoshopped_air_force_one_photos_ _and_you_delivered.html)

Ninja Homer
04-30-2009, 08:07 AM
my personal impression?

Someone in the middle of the food chain wanted to get some 'really cool looking' personal pictures; asked the fighter jock to pack a digital camera in his flightsuit and take some pictures of the jet over New York. Said person then asks the pilot if he could just fly low around the city a couple times so he can take a look; and then the 747 pilot thought "hell yeah, I'm under orders and this idiot wants to get a "look" at New York? 'I sure can, sir.' I get to show off how good I am, without getting fired!" The escort probably chuckled as he followed them in, thinking, "Someones getting fired for this!" click snap click snap

So madness ensues; and then when someone of note learns what happens and why; it was called a "photo op," and now they are trying to understand how to respond internally.

My guess anywhoo

Good guess, but that's not quite it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/29/obama-air-force-one-new-york

"It now transpires that the Federal Aviation Administration, in charge of the project, did inform key agencies ahead of the flyover, in full awareness of the possibility that low-flying planes could provoke unease among New Yorkers in the wake of 9/11. The New York police, the FBI and the Secret Service that protects the president were all told, but were ordered to keep the event secret even to the extent of federal sanctions being imposed if the news leaked.

The mayor's office was also informed, though in that case there were blushes for other reasons. The manager who was informed by the aviation administration forgot to pass it up the line to Mayor Bloomberg, and was reprimanded."

acptulsa
04-30-2009, 08:11 AM
"It now transpires that the Federal Aviation Administration, in charge of the project, did inform key agencies ahead of the flyover, in full awareness of the possibility that low-flying planes could provoke unease among New Yorkers in the wake of 9/11. The New York police, the FBI and the Secret Service that protects the president were all told, but were ordered to keep the event secret even to the extent of federal sanctions being imposed if the news leaked."

Huh? So, they were warned to be prepared for the 'unease' but were prevented from forestalling it? Why?

GunnyFreedom
04-30-2009, 08:41 AM
Huh? So, they were warned to be prepared for the 'unease' but were prevented from forestalling it? Why?

Yeah, that makes less than no sense; unless they were making some kind of distraction. what else happened that day we ordinarily would have noticed?

JoshLowry
04-30-2009, 09:01 AM
Yeah, that makes less than no sense; unless they were making some kind of distraction. what else happened that day we ordinarily would have noticed?

One of the most important magician secrets is all about the art of distraction and misdirection.

Anybody check to see if the gold is still in Fort Knox. :eek::eek::eek:




;)

Ninja Homer
04-30-2009, 09:19 AM
Huh? So, they were warned to be prepared for the 'unease' but were prevented from forestalling it? Why?

Exactly. They wanted the people to panic and run out into the street, but not the authorities. Was it to test people's responses? Was it to test if anybody would leak the info? Was it just a distraction... if so, what did it distract from? Did it help anybody make some big money on Wall Street, or could it have?

acptulsa
04-30-2009, 11:25 AM
The most rational explanation I can come up with is insanity. Somebody went nuts. Not very reassuring...

LATruth
04-30-2009, 11:48 AM
What in the world is this? I am no photo shop expert, but I DO know how much plane fuel and pilots/ vs. Techies and printer ink cost.

"LA Truth" (yeah right) do the math.
(how long were they in the air, how long did it take to set up the shoot, etc?)
By my account, and taking in to consideration- the state of the nation- it seems that they should have hired Josh Lowry.;)
(unless of course they wanted a shot of a bunch of already traumatized New Yorkers fleeing and screaming bloody murder like their lives depended upon it, and FOR GOOD REASON)
Let me guess, next thing you know, you will belt out the ol', "Obama was out of the loop"
What's new?

What and the world are you rambling about? I never defended, or claimed and cost on any matter. I also said it was a grievous misuse of resources. What do your questions have to do with ANYTHING I posted?

1. I think it was a misuse of resources for an ill-conceived photo-op. (not a conspiracy)
2. Never once debated the cost factor of photoshop vs the incident, so your opening statement is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Appreciate that a lot.
3. Your closing statement, another baseless ad hominem. Do you read prior to posting shit like this?

Zolah
05-08-2009, 06:28 PM
Uh, bump: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8041257.stm


A senior White House aide has quit over his role in a presidential plane's low-level fly-past that caused panic among New York office workers.

The White House said President Barack Obama had accepted the resignation of military office director Louis Caldera.

...

'Distraction'

The US Air Force has estimated that it cost $328,835 (£215,900) to stage, the Associated Press news agency reported.

Mr Caldera said in his resignation letter that the controversy over the flight had made it impossible for him to continue in his job, and had become a "distraction" for the president.

Dr.3D
05-08-2009, 06:47 PM
One of the most important magician secrets is all about the art of distraction and misdirection.

Anybody check to see if the gold is still in Fort Knox. :eek::eek::eek:




;)

You mean, they may have put it back? :eek:

Dieseler
05-08-2009, 07:34 PM
Ha Ha.
Looks like they finally did just use PhotoShop.

GunnyFreedom
05-08-2009, 07:58 PM
Ha Ha.
Looks like they finally did just use PhotoShop.

link?

Dieseler
05-08-2009, 07:58 PM
My bad, huntin it up, thought it had been posted by now.

http://adjix.com/x56x

http://www.bnonews.com/news/306.jpg

GunnyFreedom
05-08-2009, 08:02 PM
no worries, really; I just have no knowledge of any PR photos being released behind AF-1 and NYC.

Dr.3D
05-08-2009, 08:03 PM
link?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/img/050809_flyover.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/white-house-release-new-york-flyover-photo-friday/

Dieseler
05-08-2009, 08:04 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/img/050809_flyover.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/white-house-release-new-york-flyover-photo-friday/

Lmfao.
Those people up there think we're all idiots don't they?
:rolleyes:
I seen Godzilla movies that look more realistic than that when I was but a tot.

GunnyFreedom
05-08-2009, 08:05 PM
looks kosher to me. what am I missing?

ETA - I can see at least one antenna that was 'brushed' out. the normal jpg artifact halo. no halo of disorg pixels. suns in the exact right place ??

LATruth
05-08-2009, 08:07 PM
I hope they got more than that shot... window glare and shadow all over the place...

epic fail

Dieseler
05-08-2009, 08:09 PM
looks kosher to me. what am I missing?

Its all good man.

LATruth
05-08-2009, 08:09 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/img/050809_flyover.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/white-house-release-new-york-flyover-photo-friday/

The photo is real, although the white balance is fucked, the window glare is laughable... only thing we're missing here is a naked guy in the reflection taking the pic...

GunnyFreedom
05-08-2009, 08:19 PM
The photo is real, although the white balance is fucked, the window glare is laughable... only thing we're missing here is a naked guy in the reflection taking the pic...

right right and right. Like I said somewhere up above; some hot shot handed the pilot a digital handheld camera and said, "Watch this bubba! and hey, take pit'chers!"

Dieseler
05-08-2009, 08:23 PM
Aight then.
If you guys say its real, who am I to argue?
Looks a bit model like to me though.

GunnyFreedom
05-08-2009, 08:35 PM
Aight then.
If you guys say its real, who am I to argue?
Looks a bit model like to me though.

that's plausible, but impossible to say at this resolution.

Bruno
05-08-2009, 08:54 PM
Josh - Can you photoshop one just like that?

It'd be cool to see a side-by-side comparison.

GunnyFreedom
05-08-2009, 09:25 PM
the sun would pop even worse with this new jet over Josh's original background source; BUT take Josh's original jet source and put it into this statue of liberty shot, and the sun would match pretty close, I think. The jet's sun would be a little higher and a spot more right than the statue's sun I think, but not enough to notice. You could even adjust that in PS with lighting effects.

yoshimaroka
05-08-2009, 09:40 PM
Apparently the "photo op" isn't even being released?

samiam5211
05-08-2009, 10:52 PM
Sorry in advance....one thing led to another which led to rambleness...


It's just another sign of just how arrogant Obama is. I think it's probably even a subconscious arrogance. I wasn't sure if he was just very confident or arrogant during the campaign (not that it mattered, i disagreed with him on far too much to support him), but since he's taken office, there can be no doubt he's looking to be the most arrogant President in recent history. Probably in our entire history, but to be fair, there wasn't the amount of access or the media in place to shine a bright enough spotlight on most presidents to nourish this level of narcissism.

He's got more important things to do than waste time and money posing for a photo op and potentially causing widespread panic in NYC by creating dejavu of one of the worst days in the history of our nation.

He's got much more important things to do.

You know what?

So do we.

I am not suggesting that he be given a pass on this expolit that was crafted by a mind that has been so overcome with ego that it cannot see outside it's own skull. We shouldn't just forget this.

But we shouldn't dwell on it either.

How much attention will we focus on this, that should be focused on crafting a way to first prevent any more government expansion, and then work on trying to eliminate much of what's already here.

They government is spending money we don't have at a record pace, and as long as they economy is a mess government and media will just point to the failing economy and act like spending even more money is the only option.

Funny enough, IMO at least, while the spending may slightly lessen the pace of the crash and mitigate the shock of the landing sorta like a half-sized parachute, it also prolongs the fall like a parachute. Only in this case the level of the easing of the crash prolongs the pain for an amount of time that doesn't that isn't enough to make it justified.

We also will soon have a new Supreme Court Justice appointed. Even though there probably isn't much than can be done to influence Obama's selection given the make up of congress, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to spread the truth should he nominate someone who's record indicates they would rule in favor of government expansion.

Things like the first lady's shoes, her personal staff, her dress, the president's basketball games, the NCAA championship, the Air Force One v/s Statue of Liberty debacle, the president picking a dog, the list goes on and on....are not worth our time to even think about, much less include in any discussions about our views on government.

I realize it was a disrespectful waste of the taxpayer's money, and shows just how out of touch he is with what happened in NY on 911, but we shouldn't waste any time on such puny topics. We need to be focused on the fact that it wasn't the taxpayer's money at all he was wasting, it was the government's money. Taxes stop being our money the second they become taxed.

We need to come as close as possible to eliminating taxes as we can. I know that some would point out that if government saved more we wouldn't have such high taxes...i disagree. They have showed time and again that they aren't going to let something as silly as revenue stop them from spending, so why try to limit spending in hopes that they will lower taxes? Let's just work for lower taxes, then demand that they lower spending. Government spends and then puts pressure on us to pay more, when what should be happening is us paying less and pressuring government to spend less.

I know it seems like a futile effort, but we need to start trying to get more people actively involved in our movement, not through protests, and publicity stunts, but through talking with the people we know. If we can do it without getting emotional with our argument I believe that relevance for libertarians could come surprisingly fast.

It actually shouldn't be as hard as it has seemed to be. The two major parties aren't guided by any fundamental philosophy, at least not one related to the only real difference between one government to another....Liberty.

Democrats: In favor of less regulation of personal activity (less than Republicans anyway) not related to economics, and more regulation of economics.

Republicans: In favor of less regulation of the economy (but too much), and more concerned with certain things we do in the privacy of our own home.

Neither is consistent with their view on liberty. You should either hold liberty as the paramount concept or you do not. Neither of the current parties do.

GunnyFreedom
05-08-2009, 11:00 PM
I know it seems like a futile effort, but we need to start trying to get more people actively involved in our movement, not through protests, and publicity stunts, but through talking with the people we know. If we can do it without getting emotional with our argument I believe that relevance for libertarians could come surprisingly fast.

It actually shouldn't be as hard as it has seemed to be. The two major parties aren't guided by any fundamental philosophy, at least not one related to the only real difference between one government to another....Liberty.

Democrats: In favor of less regulation of personal activity (less than Republicans anyway) not related to economics, and more regulation of economics.

Republicans: In favor of less regulation of the economy (but too much), and more concerned with certain things we do in the privacy of our own home.

Neither is consistent with their view on liberty. You should either hold liberty as the paramount concept or you do not. Neither of the current parties do.

welcome to the red pill. and to the forums too. :D

Dieseler
05-13-2009, 02:21 PM
Can anyone with photoshop verify this info?

http://www.repubx.com/post/TD-EXCLUSIVE-Air-Force-One-Flyover-Pic-Photoshopped-UPDATE-x-2.aspx


We do know without a doubt the image was in Photoshop, because it has the official Photoshop Metatag in the HEX version of the image. An image like this can be done in 45 minutes or less with pictures from around the Internet. You bascially have two images merged together. One of Air Force One from some government stock photo, and another from an image likely found on the Web (or provided some other way).

moostraks
05-13-2009, 03:35 PM
But we shouldn't dwell on it either.

How much attention will we focus on this, that should be focused on crafting a way to first prevent any more government expansion, and then work on trying to eliminate much of what's already here...

Things like the first lady's shoes, her personal staff, her dress, the president's basketball games, the NCAA championship, the Air Force One v/s Statue of Liberty debacle, the president picking a dog, the list goes on and on....are not worth our time to even think about, much less include in any discussions about our views on government.

I realize it was a disrespectful waste of the taxpayer's money, and shows just how out of touch he is with what happened in NY on 911, but we shouldn't waste any time on such puny topics. We need to be focused on the fact that it wasn't the taxpayer's money at all he was wasting, it was the government's money. Taxes stop being our money the second they become taxed.

We need to come as close as possible to eliminating taxes as we can. I know that some would point out that if government saved more we wouldn't have such high taxes...i disagree. They have showed time and again that they aren't going to let something as silly as revenue stop them from spending, so why try to limit spending in hopes that they will lower taxes? Let's just work for lower taxes, then demand that they lower spending. Government spends and then puts pressure on us to pay more, when what should be happening is us paying less and pressuring government to spend less.

I know it seems like a futile effort, but we need to start trying to get more people actively involved in our movement, not through protests, and publicity stunts, but through talking with the people we know. If we can do it without getting emotional with our argument I believe that relevance for libertarians could come surprisingly fast.

It actually shouldn't be as hard as it has seemed to be. The two major parties aren't guided by any fundamental philosophy, at least not one related to the only real difference between one government to another....Liberty.

Democrats: In favor of less regulation of personal activity (less than Republicans anyway) not related to economics, and more regulation of economics.

Republicans: In favor of less regulation of the economy (but too much), and more concerned with certain things we do in the privacy of our own home.

Neither is consistent with their view on liberty. You should either hold liberty as the paramount concept or you do not. Neither of the current parties do.

Welcome to the fun! Well you sound passionate. However, many of these diversions are ways to let off steam and also serve as validation of just how disfunctional our government and its participants are compared to your average Joe. If we sit in our own little corner of the world pondering whether we are certifiably insane (no comments needed here folks) or whether someone else has wondered the same thing regarding a seemingly inane issue, it helps to sound off especially to strangers you may never have to face irl. It can also serve to drum up righteous indignation when our own personnal motivation is dwindling.

As for getting people involved in government: good luck!Many are too broke to do much, and it takes a special sense of motivation to get people fired up enough to face the level of ridicule you expose yourself to when you get involved. So while I admire your passion, realize most folks here don't need someone to jump in and badger them about getting out and being the change. We have been doing what we can to the best of our ability.

This battle is more corrupt then you are apparently aware of and if we keep ignoring the extreme amount of misinformation that is going on, then it may never reach the light of day. Misinformation and disinformation is a huge part of the problem regarding government corruption. It has cost many good people their livelihoods. This battle will not be won solely by encouraging our neighbors to go join the local government. Some of us due to various reasons are also not called to that battle currently.

Good luck to you, and hope you don't get offended easily but most of us have heard some version of your speech already and it is becoming a bit trite and incredibly offensive to those who have been here awhile to be ridiculed by someone new...

John of Des Moines
05-13-2009, 03:42 PM
http://www.dmsarch.com/posting/af1-10.jpg


Now this thread can be closed.

Dieseler
05-13-2009, 04:07 PM
http://www.dmsarch.com/posting/af1-10.jpg


Now this thread can be closed.

Yes... Now this looks much more real.
I mean no.
No.
Not yet.
Maybe later...
Make another one please.
Can you do one with the cast of Firefly in it?

Objectivist
05-13-2009, 04:11 PM
Did you really need to ask this question or were you looking for the standard answers as to why the government does any of what it does?
Because asking a ten year old with a laptop to do it would violate child labor laws. Then I know many that would do it for free.
Think of all the jobs that Obama kept or created by flying a jet that cost $70,000 per hour to fly.:rolleyes:

acptulsa
07-05-2015, 09:21 PM
Anyone remember this incident? This thread got a little attention.


Maybe the report given by the military was generic in its scope and just said "F-16" because they knew it's a term we would all identify with?

How did I not notice at the time that I got accused of not being able to tell an F-16 from an F-15?

What a laugh. My dad used to design parts of the F-15 series.

Let's see. Two tails. One tail! Doesn't take a lot of resolution...

Zippyjuan
07-05-2015, 09:42 PM
Six year bump?

acptulsa
08-27-2017, 10:14 AM
The woman had a 747 flown over Manhattan on the taxpayer dime, terrorizing the population with flashbacks of 9/11, so her relatives could take crappy cell phone pics of the island, just for the bling factor--who else but a relation of the First Lady could take an aerial photo of New York City without getting blasted out of the sky?

And the only criticism of the woman we can come up with is a lumpy scrotum?

acptulsa
04-29-2019, 07:30 AM
Did I just hear Biden say the Obama Administration had zero scandals?

oyarde
04-29-2019, 08:33 AM
Any word on the OP of this thread ? Rumors are he was last seen in ..........