Skeeter Fake?….. Looks like it.


This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, A New America, Dear Leader - Creepy POTUS Worship, Dem Hypocrisy, media bias, Obama Research/Discovery, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Potus Gun Ban, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Skeeter Fake?….. Looks like it.

  1. I guess we have to add bilocation to his never-ending list of talents and abilities.


  2. lovemygirl says:

    Dang the low flying skeet, so hard to shoot when they ar 5 feet off the ground. Obama couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn.


  3. CrankyinAZ says:

    I’ve been looking and looking at the original image. I would bet good money that it was a cut, copy and paste job. Obama looks like he’s shooting inside a firing range (by the angle of the gun).

    The lighting on him is all from above (gun, shirt, ear-protection) – yet this picture was supposed to be taken late in the afternoon if I remember correctly, not at high noon! And note, that there are no other shadows in the picture. In addition there is a yellowish cast to Obama, which will happen when someone is in a room with incandescent lighting. This does not happen when you are outside, as sunlight is pure white light.

    Also, there is a distinct fine edge all around Obama. This can be caused by over sharpening in Photoshop (as appears to be done by his shirt) – but along his arms, it appears the edge was even cut off. If the extraction doesn’t work perfectly, or the person who does it, doesn’t know what they are doing, sometimes fuzzy edges come out really bad. You need to go back in and cut away more of the background to make the extraction look good, which is why Obama’s right wrist looks just a bit too thin, IMHO.

    Don’t mean to be too long winded… but considering the other bad Photoshopping jobs this WH has done… I honestly think their fakery has improved! LOL


  4. dizzymissl says:

    Look at the belly on the guy they say is Obama.


  5. myopiafree says:

    Can anyone (including Obama) explain that “puff” of smoke out of the side of the barrel? Was the barrel exploding? This is indeed a fake.


    • Sal Paradise says:

      The gun barrel is ported (holes drilled into the barrel to release the gases and prevent muzzle flip). It’s common on alot of guns. It’s usually done on the top of the barrel but the smoke looks like it’s comming out of the right hand side of the gun and not the left. I’ve never seen a gun that was ported only on one side and would think it would push the gun to the non ported side. Plus way too much smoke, almost black powder smoke.


      • retire2005 says:

        There is so much wrong with that photo that it is hard to know where to start.
        To begin with, if it was loaded with skeet shot, since he was holding it so high on his shoulder, he should have wound up with one hellofa sore shoulder and a nasty, sore bruise. His feet are too close together, and he is leaning away, not toward, the shot. If that was a .12 gauge, it should have knocked him on his butt because he was not in a position to absorb the recoil. Also, his right hand is too far up the forestock (or forearm) to properly balance the shotgun and could (I say could) cause the stock of the gun to rise, due to the position on his shoulder, and smack him right in the left cheek.

        The shot is almost perfectly level, not in a firing position once the pigeon was released. So if he shot anything, it was the guy pulling the pigeon release. Or maybe the clay pigeon was set on top of a post, T-ball style, so he would at least know where it was (snark).

        Now, even in the early morning hours where the humidity was high, the gun would not have released that amount of smoke. That is the purpose of a ported barrel. That part really looks photoshopped to me.

        But here is the $1 million question: what are ther chances that a photographer could catch the very exact second that gun was fired? Unless it was a video, and that particular frame was pulled, it would be impossible to click the shutter at that very EXACT moment.

        That photo is SOOOOOOOO fake.

        The shotgun Obama’s using is a Browning, cost around $5,000.00


  6. mung says:

    Is it me or is that a rifle and not a shotgun? If it is a rifle, who shoots skeet with a rifle?


  7. Sal Paradise says:

    Skeet is a two shot discipline except on the last station where the bird flies quickly almost over your head, so your pointing high towards the sky to hit the last bird. The gun only has a choke in the upper barrel, and the gun is level, so I have a hard time believing he actually is shoot skeet in this picture. The picture would be somewhat more believable if they said he was shooting trap but would still be a stretch with the angle of the gun. In addition, way too much smoke. I shoot alot and I’ve never seen anyone’s gun smoke like that, with commerical or hand loads. Plus you don’t “do skeet shooting” as he stated. You shoot skeet. You don’t “do skeet shooting” Would you say you “do golf”?


  8. kinthenorthwest says:

    To me the story was way too convenient…


  9. CrankyinAZ says:

    Smoke is soooo easy to make in Photoshop… Like I said, I really think they took a pic of Obama in a firing range and plopped it onto a pic of a generic outside scene.

    The other thing I noticed is how nice and sharp he is in the picture and how blurry the background is. This is done with lens focus… but it usually looks different than this. I can’t quite say what is wrong… it just is.

    And yes… there is the “convenience” factor of having a photo of the President shooting “skeet” with smoke coming out of the barrel of the gun. Mighty lucky. 😉


    • myopiafree says:

      Hi Crank – You are correct. Cameras do have “depth-of-field” but on a bright day, you would never have that effect. The trees should be in focus. The picture is, in some way, a fake.


  10. mcfyre2012 says:

    The left goes such distances to lie…

    Rather than answer the question on if he had ever shot a gun, Barry/Barrack could have said, “Sure, I tried out a shotgun at the camp David skeet range.” … a perfectly acceptable answer.

    But no, Mr. Braggadocius had to say that he “shoots skeet all the time.” Really? It sure seemed like news to his own press secretary. And if he “shoots all the time,” why did it take five days to produce a photo? … A photo that looks ridiculous to anyone who shoots. And the smoke just looks silly, especially the tea kettle smoke above the gun. It’s hard to believe with all their Hollywood friends, the White House can’t hire a person to do believable photo-shop work. (I wonder if it was the same crew that photo-shopped the birth certificate?)


  11. ed357 says:

    Bambi lie………..?????????????

    Who would have thought that?


  12. Chip Bennett says:

    So, you be the judge. Here’s the Error-Level Analysis of the original image from Flickr.

    Are those normal contrast lines around Skeeter’s body?

    For more fine-grained control over the ELA, upload the original image here. Drop the compression quality to 75%, and increase the error scale to about 30.

    The hair and jeans look manipulated (a little touch-up, perhaps?), and something about the contrast line around the body just doesn’t look right. It’s just too pronounced. And compare the right hip to the left hip: the error level appears different, even though the background is consistent (road behind jeans). The error level is clearly higher on the left hip (right side of the picture) than on the right hip.

    Also notice the dark area in the crook of the left arm and the stock: pronounced error level between the arm and the dark spot, and almost NO error level between the gun stock and the dark area – even though it is almost as high-contrast as the arm.

    And one more: notice the difference in contrast on the front and back of the right arm. The background is consistent behind the arm, meaning the contrast level should be consistent as well. Yet, the error level is clearly higher on the inside of the arm than it is on the outside.

    I welcome being proven wrong, but there is strong evidence that Skeeter was photoshopped onto the Camp David background.


  13. ftsk420 says:

    Now if this photo is legit there shouldn’t be anything in it that says photoshop but there is. I have a program that shows all the hidden things in a photo like if photoshop was used.

    Start Offset: 0x00000000
    *** Marker: SOI (xFFD8) ***
    OFFSET: 0x00000000

    *** Marker: APP0 (xFFE0) ***
    OFFSET: 0x00000002
    length = 16
    identifier = [JFIF]
    version = [1.2]
    density = 100 x 100 (aspect ratio)
    thumbnail = 0 x 0

    *** Marker: APP1 (xFFE1) ***
    OFFSET: 0x00000014
    length = 360
    Identifier = [Exif]
    Identifier TIFF = 0x[4D4D002A 00000008]
    Endian = Motorola (big)
    TAG Mark x002A = 0x002A

    EXIF IFD0 @ Absolute 0x00000026
    Dir Length = 0x0007
    [Make ] = “Canon”
    [Model ] = “Canon EOS 5D Mark III”
    [XResolution ] = 100/1
    [YResolution ] = 100/1
    [ResolutionUnit ] = None
    [YCbCrPositioning ] = Centered
    [ExifOffset ] = @ 0x008E
    Offset to Next IFD = 0x00000000

    EXIF SubIFD @ Absolute 0x000000AC
    Dir Length = 0x000D
    [ExposureTime ] = 1/320 s
    [FNumber ] = F4.0
    [ExposureProgram ] = Manual
    [ISOSpeedRatings ] = 400
    [ExifVersion ] = 02.20
    [ComponentsConfiguration ] = [Y Cb Cr .]
    [ShutterSpeedValue ] = 33321/4004
    [ApertureValue ] = 4/1
    [ExposureBiasValue ] = 0.00 eV
    [MeteringMode ] = CenterWeightedAverage
    [FocalLength ] = 170 mm
    [FlashPixVersion ] = 01.00
    [ColorSpace ] = Uncalibrated

    *** Marker: APP13 (xFFED) ***
    OFFSET: 0x0000017E
    length = 220
    Identifier = [Photoshop 3.0]
    8BIM: [0x0404] Name=[] Len=[0x00BF]
    IPTC [0x1C02:065] OriginatingProgram = [GNM Image Uploader]
    IPTC [0x1C02:080] By-line = [The White House]
    IPTC [0x1C02:103] OriginalTransmissionRef = [158900070]
    IPTC [0x1C02:105] Headline = [Barack Obama shooting at Camp David]
    IPTC [0x1C02:110] Credit = [Photograph: The White House/Gett]
    IPTC [0x1C02:115] Source = [Getty Images]
    IPTC [0x1C02:116] CopyrightNotice = [Getty Images]
    IPTC [0x1C02:187] ? size=11
    IPTC [0x1C02:000] Record Version = [0x0004]

    *** Marker: APP12 (xFFEC) ***
    OFFSET: 0x0000025C
    length = 17
    Identifier = [Ducky]
    Photoshop Save For Web Quality = [60]

    *** Marker: APP1 (xFFE1) ***
    OFFSET: 0x0000026F
    length = 2735
    Identifier = []
    XMP =
    | 2013 The White House
    If you scroll through it you will also see a date attached to it being Feb 19 2007.


  14. CrankyinAZ says:

    Thanks for those links!! Lots of good information there. I knew someone had talked about the EXIF data somewhere, but I couldn’t find it! Thanks also for all the additional info on the … er… discrepancies! 🙂

    I have a similar (cheaper version of that camera) and the exact same lens… So I know how images come out with those settings. And it is NOT like that! There is no way on God’s Green Earth that anyone captured a shotgun blast manually at 1/320 of a second…

    ftsk420 – Wasn’t that “Identifier = [Ducky]” on the Birth Certificate somewhere too? Or something else Obama released?? That name seems familiar to me… Or am I just losing it?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s