All That For This: Flyover Photo Released (Pic)

wcbstv.com ^ | 5/8/2009 | Marcia Kramer

[UB355]

The shadows on the engine mounts and beneath the back control wing don't match the shadows on the ground

[PhiKapMom]

That makes two of us on who want to know who paid to fly on this plane because that photo-op is a very bad picture.

[buccaneer81]

plus you can see the edge of the cockpit and the reflection off the inside of the canopy.

You're right. I see it.

[ZX12R]

FReepers did a much better job with their photoshop skills.

I never laughed so hard in my life.

[LucyJo]

Same here. There are a lot of talented, and imaginative, folks around here.

[Recovering_Democrat]

[El Gato]

Though not even a 400.

Both VC-25As are modified 747-200s. They first flew in 1990 (28000) and 1991 (29000).

According to Wikipedia, the RFP for the replacements has already gone out, with only Boeing responding. A 747-8 is currently envisioned as the replacement,

but a 787 Dreamliner is also possible.

[El Gato]

Looks to me as if it *was* taken from the F-16 in formation with AF-1. Canopy glare is showing (right above and in front of the 28000, and the out of focus top of the cockpit at the bottom of the picture, gives some idea of the "downlook" angle.

That conclusion makes me really wonder about the "photo op" nature of the mission. If you were doing a real photo shoot, you'd lay on a "chase"/photo aircraft that was equiped for air to air photography, without such artifacts.

[skikvt]

Brothers an' Ho's. This hyar is yer Cappain speakin'. We haf retched cruisin' altitude. Yer now free t'toke up! Fry mah hide!!

[razorback-bert]

All the reports were the plane was much lower, than the plane in that picture is.

[El Gato]

With a "professional" photo outfit/plane, you'd get something more like this:

That's the same aircraft, 28000.

"Original" Air Force high res version

[arthurus]

That could have been done much more cheaply on PhotoShop and, I suspect, it was done on PhotoShop. I doubt any such picture was taken during the flight. One was created after the fact to give a rationale for the flight after it got so much static.

[RobinOfKingston]

The b@st@rds are still lying. It is a pathology.

If you ask him how his waffles taste, he will tell you he is eating fried eggs. It is a pathology.

[Amanda King]

Does anyone think it’s interesting that almost no sky is included in this photo? Cropped out maybe? Thus, making comparisons about time of day, weather, cloud cover, etc. very difficult at best.

[Mad Dawgg]

That is a terrible picture, and on many levels. The worst of which is the reflection off what I suppose is the canopy of the plane the photographer is in and the black area at the bottom which is the inside of the cockpit.

When you would go to crop this photo it would be tough to get the composition to look good because one would need to crop part of the island off to eliminate the black area.

I have a hard time believing this was a professional who shot the photo.

I think the photo op. story is crumbling fast.

[GOPJ]

Passenger manifest please....

Ditto.

[tioga]

astute observation.

[humblegunner]

WHO WAS ON THE PLANE?

Why is that so vital?

[capydick]

When President Bush famously landed on the CVN he did so on board “Navy One”.

That thought just brought a smile - thanks! As an aside - that event turned out to be so positive for President Bush that I said to myself at the time "the media will never let up on him after this". The images were just so postive they wouldnt be able to just let them go down in history as it happened.

[KarenMarie]

I posted in another thread that i was really pissed off that it took a suit under the FOI Act to get this released.

and the ONE pic they released is soooo out of perspective!!!