Wasn’t the photo shoot of AF1 supposed to be of Barack by extension?

Annuit Coeptis ^ | 5/9/09 | Blaine Fallis

[TWP guy]

Oh yes - there is a report released Friday afternoon to avoid further embarrassment, that misdirects the public by focusing on who knew of the photo shoot and when. Not once does the report explore in the slightest WHY they would be wanting to do a photo shoot of AF1 in the first place. No no, that’s not important, right? But the report does confirm several times over that this was in fact a photo shoot that had been in the planning since early March, or before.

That’s when it dawned on me: this President is the most photographed man in America. Image really is everything not only to him, but to many of his supporters (I’m thinking, for example, Hollywood), and taking an AF1 lookalike up over NYC with an F-16 fighter jet for the purposes of a photo shoot should not surprise anyone. The White House should spare no expense to capture history unfolding, as we witness this monumental period together. We need more photographs! These could’ve been so great for the gallery.

...We now have a celebrity in the Oval Office, backed by many other celebs, and supported by a celeb-loving culture. And in order to capture car scenes that ring true, we have a movie crew in New York crashing into actual citizens by accident last week. In order to capture the AF1 in a fresh new way (it all has to be new now, doesn’t it?) we have 9/11 accidentally re-enacted.

[Texas resident]

Fits the pattern. This whole obama world is fishy.

[Royal Wulff]

Here is a link to the photo actually released by the White House.

It's important to use the actual file if you want to look for metadata.

In that file you will find the EXIF header has been removed, so we don't know what type of camera was used. My guess is it was the pilot's personal $150 point-and shoot and he took this picture as a souvenir. There was no professional photographer on the F-16, as the intention was to film the two planes together from a thrid platform.

Also, you can tell the file as been photoshopped (maybe just to remove the EXIF data) by the distinctive presence of tags "JFIF", "Ducky", and "Adobe" in the header. Google those tags to see why that is a signature of Photoshop.

[Royal Wulff]

The original White House photo, as released, was run through Photoshop for some reason. See my post above.

[PowderMonkey]

Very telling. Those shots reveal something the WH released photo lacks: visual distortion/bluring caused by exhaust heat in the visual field immediately aft of the engines.

[Clive]

This deserves a thread of its own to explicitly discuss evidence that this was a photoshopped picture.

[visualops]

It doesn't really matter if it was run through photoshop. The EXIF data however was purposefully removed. As you can see, the other AF1 stock photos have EXIF data albeit limited. What it says though is that the photo was either run through a filter or just the EXIF data removed. It doesn't look like it was run through a filter or enhanced which is actually odd because it is a lousy shot. Now the photo up at the defense link somebody did enhance that copy.
About the exhaust it's hard to tell because they are over water but I do not see any noticeable distortion or blurring of the water surface wave pattern.

The big problem with this image is that it is terrible!! You don't take AF1 glamour shots through a window! This is an amateur photo!!
The flight was so obviously not for the stated purpose and they think we are all idiots!

[Steve Van Doorn]