The conspiracy theorists are at it again! Skeetergate!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.browning.com/products/catalo ... mid=013058

[Coito ergo sum]

Washington Post gives him a Gepetto on this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

Although, the President's statement that he skeet shoots "all the time" is an exaggeration, and it doesn't appear that he skeet shoots much at all -- it looks like he has shot skeet. So, whatever.

Brilliant journalism from WaPo -- especially at the end where they "respectively" disagree with those who say that the story did not warrant any investigation at all.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.browning.com/products/catalo ... mid=013058

Yep. As with most conspiracy theories, they fall apart upon rudimentary inquiry.

[FBM]

http://www.browning.com/products/catalo ... mid=013058

Yep. As with most conspiracy theories, they fall apart upon rudimentary inquiry.

Yeah, the barrel ports are in line with the photo and also minimize the barrel rise associated with recoil. I'm not seeing any red flags on this photo yet. Looks like he was just shooting a shotgun made for pussies.

[cronus]

The background appears to have undergone a uniform blur using photoediting software, notice the absence of bokeh, and there appears to have been some green shrubbery cloning with the exhaust vapors possibly to hide further image manipulation. There needs to be a examination of this by a expert at the pixel level but it does appear manipulated and manipulated rather crudely.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.browning.com/products/catalo ... mid=013058

Yep. As with most conspiracy theories, they fall apart upon rudimentary inquiry.

Yeah, the barrel ports are in line with the photo and also minimize the barrel rise associated with recoil. I'm not seeing any red flags on this photo yet. Looks like he was just shooting a shotgun made for pussies.

Well, the smoke looked possibly shopped to me. But, that's all. That would just mean that he stood there and got his picture taken holding the gun, without firing it (and thereby not risking recoil and any bruising or injury). They just shopped in the puffs of smoke. That wouldn't surprise me as it would be consistent with a photo op, which I have no doubt it is (designed to show him as someone who doesn't oppose guns...just the bad, evil guns). But, I don't know enough about it. Even assuming the puffs of smoke to be real, which they probably are, I still don't buy it that Obama "all the time" shoots skeet, and I don't buy that he is some sort of gun guy. It's a photo op. Not a fraud or a fake -- just a photo op.

[FBM]

The background appears to have undergone a uniform blur using photoediting software and there appears to have been some green shrubbery cloning with the exhaust vapors possibly to hide further image manipulation. There needs to be a examination of this by a expert at the pixel level but it does appear manipulated and manipulated rather crudely.

Not saying you're wrong, but are you familiar with the aperture:depth-of-field aspect of photography? If Obama is in sharp focus with a fast shutter speed required to catch the discharge of the shotgun, of course the background will be out of focus. That's just the physics of light.

[klr]

The background appears to have undergone a uniform blur using photoediting software and there appears to have been some green shrubbery cloning with the exhaust vapors possibly to hide further image manipulation. There needs to be a examination of this by a expert at the pixel level but it does appear manipulated and manipulated rather crudely.

Not saying you're wrong, but are you familiar with the aperture:depth-of-field aspect of photography? If Obama is in sharp focus with a fast shutter speed required to catch the discharge of the shotgun, of course the background will be out of focus. That's just the physics of light.

Beat me to it.

[FBM]

Well, the smoke looked possibly shopped to me. But, that's all. That would just mean that he stood there and got his picture taken holding the gun, without firing it (and thereby not risking recoil and any bruising or injury). They just shopped in the puffs of smoke. That wouldn't surprise me as it would be consistent with a photo op, which I have no doubt it is (designed to show him as someone who doesn't oppose guns...just the bad, evil guns). But, I don't know enough about it. Even assuming the puffs of smoke to be real, which they probably are, I still don't buy it that Obama "all the time" shoots skeet, and I don't buy that he is some sort of gun guy. It's a photo op. Not a fraud or a fake -- just a photo op.

The image that we're getting through the media is low-res. Not enough to analyze at pixel level. I find it hard to imagine that they would go to all the trouble of having him pose and then shopping in all the effects, knowing in advance that it would be a high-profile and therefore microscopically analyzed image. It'd be a helluva lot simpler to just have him fire a shotgun at nothing and pretend he was skeet shooting. Or just take a pic of him skeet shooting.

[FBM]

The background appears to have undergone a uniform blur using photoediting software and there appears to have been some green shrubbery cloning with the exhaust vapors possibly to hide further image manipulation. There needs to be a examination of this by a expert at the pixel level but it does appear manipulated and manipulated rather crudely.

Not saying you're wrong, but are you familiar with the aperture:depth-of-field aspect of photography? If Obama is in sharp focus with a fast shutter speed required to catch the discharge of the shotgun, of course the background will be out of focus. That's just the physics of light.

Beat me to it.

[Coito ergo sum]

The background appears to have undergone a uniform blur using photoediting software and there appears to have been some green shrubbery cloning with the exhaust vapors possibly to hide further image manipulation. There needs to be a examination of this by a expert at the pixel level but it does appear manipulated and manipulated rather crudely.

Not saying you're wrong, but are you familiar with the aperture:depth-of-field aspect of photography? If Obama is in sharp focus with a fast shutter speed required to catch the discharge of the shotgun, of course the background will be out of focus. That's just the physics of light.

Oh, yeah! Well... the shadows on the Moon pictures are going two different directions, and the flag is waving in the vacuum of space!

[FBM]

The background appears to have undergone a uniform blur using photoediting software and there appears to have been some green shrubbery cloning with the exhaust vapors possibly to hide further image manipulation. There needs to be a examination of this by a expert at the pixel level but it does appear manipulated and manipulated rather crudely.

Not saying you're wrong, but are you familiar with the aperture:depth-of-field aspect of photography? If Obama is in sharp focus with a fast shutter speed required to catch the discharge of the shotgun, of course the background will be out of focus. That's just the physics of light.

Oh, yeah! Well... the shadows on the Moon pictures are going two different directions, and the flag is waving in the vacuum of space!

Those pics of Obama on the moon...you mean they were FAKED???

[Coito ergo sum]

[cronus]

Modern cameras are multi-focus and produce a nuanced depth of field. Just saying that doesn't appear to be the case here and is reminiscent of a known journalistic technique for artificially rendering a depth of field effect in sporting events.

[Coito ergo sum]