Why did they not use photoshop for a "photo op" over NYC?

[JoshLowry]

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.

 

[acptulsa]

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]

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]

Well, wherever it is, welcome!

 

[JoshLowry]

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]

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]

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]

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/[url]http://www.af.mil/photos/[/URL]

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.
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/air.force.one.2.996457.html[url]http://wcbstv.com/topstories/air.force.one.2.996457.html[/URL]



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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?