Obama skeet-shooting photo has a BIG problem…

that is a browning citori 725. an over and under 12 gauge. for those of you who have never had the pleasure of firing a
12ga there is a significant amount of recoil even when using lighting loads. although the 725 does have a recoil reducing pad on the butt of the gun there should still be a noticeable amount of recoil. another off thing is the article this picture is from states that he was shooting skeet. now when i shoot skeet and, im quite confident i've been doing it right, the clay discs are launched into the air.... to shoot into the air you must aim the shotgun up.. haha just sayin. i dont think it was photoshopped for reasons other than to adjust the brightness and cropping, ect. why would they pretend to get a picture of him shooting a gun? seems a little pointless and we all know our government doesnt do anything without a reason. But this picture doesnt seem like he goes out every other weekend to camp david to "do skeet shooting" as obama stated.

reply to post by SBMcG


too much smoke for any modern smokless powder skeet load.. also the extra smoke that is meant to look like porting...I have shot many with magna porting/ ports/ vents..and I have never seen it on just one side??

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by SBMcG

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
This is a non thread.

I have done a LOT of digital photography, and there is NEVER a photo that I used that I have not dome something to in Photoshop. At the very least, I shoot in RAW format and then use Photoshop to export it to JPG or whatever the spec is for whatever I am working on.

You never shoot a picture to an SD card, then send THAT file off for publication.

OK.

Are you a skeet shooter?

Oh, I see. On page one it was all about the metadata, but now it's all about whether I am a skeet shooter.

How does that happen?

edit on 3-2-2013 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

The photo itself is part of the equation, and if one has never participated in skeet shooting, one would be unaware of several anomalies -- primarily the motion of the recoil of the shotgun and lack thereof to Obama's shoulder, which could suggest the photo was altered as indicated by the metadata.

It certainly wasn't meant as an insult.

Originally posted by SBMcG
My friends, again, I would ask you to look at the photo, examine the metadata, and consider the current political narrative.

Again -- this may be nothing. But something doesn't smell right here to me.

I did, and I didn't see anything suspect about the picture. Read my other posts on other threads - I love to rip Obama, but I just don't see it here.

reply to post by okiecowboy


I took my Ithaca double out this afternoon in the 45 degree damp air of western Washington and popped off a dozen shells or so.

No smoke. None.

And what is with the extra port on that o/u?

reply to post by SBMcG


That's your response as a shooter. My response as a different kind of shooter is that the photograph is taken with 1/320 shutter speed. If there would be any motion of his shoulder it would dislodge itself and fly off. That is a very short shutter speed.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by SBMcG
My friends, again, I would ask you to look at the photo, examine the metadata, and consider the current political narrative.

Again -- this may be nothing. But something doesn't smell right here to me.

I did, and I didn't see anything suspect about the picture. Read my other posts on other threads - I love to rip Obama, but I just don't see it here.

OK my man! Fair enough.

We all come at different angles on these things. I appreciate your input.

Originally posted by SBMcG

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by SBMcG

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
This is a non thread.

I have done a LOT of digital photography, and there is NEVER a photo that I used that I have not dome something to in Photoshop. At the very least, I shoot in RAW format and then use Photoshop to export it to JPG or whatever the spec is for whatever I am working on.

You never shoot a picture to an SD card, then send THAT file off for publication.

OK.

Are you a skeet shooter?

Oh, I see. On page one it was all about the metadata, but now it's all about whether I am a skeet shooter.

How does that happen?

edit on 3-2-2013 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

The photo itself is part of the equation, and if one has never participated in skeet shooting, one would be unaware of several anomalies -- primarily the motion of the recoil of the shotgun and lack thereof to Obama's shoulder, which could suggest the photo was altered as indicated by the metadata.

It certainly wasn't meant as an insult.

You're talking about motion, which can not necessarily be calculated in a still photo. From the looks of the smoke, that picture was taken milliseconds after he fired the gun. The recoil may not even be acting on him yet. As corroboration, I offer this video:

reply to post by SBMcG


I'm really not trying to bust your balls, but I often do digital photography for weeks on end, and everything that gets used goes through Photoshop, no exceptions. There is nothing fake-looking about the pic. While it could be argued that Obama isn't necessarily a habitual skeet shooter, heads of state will often engage in activities that are of interest to visiting dignitaries.

reply to post by PsykoOps


I will defer to your photographic expertise. But my concerns come from three elements of this photo:

1) It was taken 6 months ago and opened and/or altered in Photoshop yesterday. Yes, I have heard the arguments that this in and of itself might be SOP.

2) To an experienced skeet shooter, there are several problematic elements to the photo itself specific to recoil, muzzle smoke, and the angle of the shotgun.

3) Political convenience. Obviously...

Everything might be copacetic here. It just doesn't feel that way to me.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Well said and I agree.

I still find too many suspicious elements to this to simply dismiss it as business-as-usual.

There is a thought on the smoke..and it comes with a short story so bear with me because it bears directly on this.

My grandfather had never fired a gun (One of them...the other was retired military..very different sides of the family). He always wanted to though and pestered my father incessantly about it. My father, being a cop and an avid reloader, came up with a solution that was rather clever. Since my grandfather had NEVER fired a gun, he had no clue what it should and shouldn't feel like. He had no clue what it should or shouldn't DO. He just wanted the experience of shooting a real gun with real bullets. Okay......it's important to note here, my father didn't feel real comfy about handing a loaded gun over in this situation to start with.

So... He went and loaded some blanks. A number of them. My grandfather didn't want any part of the work of it...like loading his own bolt action rile from the top down. So he never saw what was ...or wasn't loaded. It made a HUGE bang, or so I was told (all a bit before I was old enough to know anything). Since it was bolt action, there was no issue with blanks not cycling a semi-auto action (the only real dead giveaway for someone who wouldn't know better) ....in the end and to the day he died, my Grandfather had real fond memories of that experience and bragged to people how he got to shoot a 30-06 and had no problem! (Yeah... Umm... well... you see Grandpa... err...) No one ever told him the truth.


I've wondered what in God's name the SS would be doing allowing a President to fire a live weapon. 1:100,000 odds of an accident or mechanical failure are 1 chance too many on most things ....unless it never was a danger to anyone ...and that IS a lot of smoke, isn't it?

reply to post by AwakeinNM


if you say there is nothing wrong with that picture, then you must not have ever shot skeet.. that is not normal..

Originally posted by SBMcG
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

Well said and I agree.

I still find too many suspicious elements to this to simply dismiss it as business-as-usual.

I think we can agree that the man probably handles a gun as much as he handles his veto stamp.

Originally posted by okiecowboy
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

if you say there is nothing wrong with that picture, then you must not have ever shot skeet.. that is not normal..

Not even close. Angle of shotgun, lack of recoil, stance, and that's not even taking into account any technical issues (Photoshop) of the photo itself.

Originally posted by okiecowboy
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

if you say there is nothing wrong with that picture, then you must not have ever shot skeet.. that is not normal..

Did the White House claim that he was good at it? The man knows nothing about much of anything except what Bill Ayers taught him.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


not to mention where the smoke is coming out at?

that and the bird he is shooting at...must still be in the box

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by okiecowboy
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

if you say there is nothing wrong with that picture, then you must not have ever shot skeet.. that is not normal..

Did the White House claim that he was good at it? The man knows nothing about much of anything except what Bill Ayers taught him.

edit on 3-2-2013 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

LMMFAO! Well, we certainly agree on that!

reply to post by SBMcG


1) Yes, so what? What difference does it make what day it was edited on?

2) You cant say anything about recoil from a single picture. It's a still photograph. Embhasis on still. Muzzle smoke looks exactly like what I've witnessed myself. Shotgun is in motion.

3) Yes because there has been a ton of crying to see this magical event.