[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by NDhunter

I don't trust the Pres. for anything at all, and I am wondering about his choice in binoculars.

In many circles the Barska, is considered the very bottom, and so how did they reach his hands? That seems to fit quite well with the ability of his advisors, and handlers.

These do have the bright red objectives, and the last time I saw anything close to that color
was with the latest Zeiss ,the new Victory HT, where the recent ad had the bright red emphasis.
So that must mean they are very good !

Jerry

Ah, hum.... read post # 5, you were misled by the thread title.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by BruceH

One article on the visit stated he was behind a bullet proof glass plate. With all of that distortion, it probably did not make any difference what binocular he used.

IOW, it was a "photo op" like the others.

Even though Dubbya wasn't the brightest bulb in the White House, I have to wonder if his photo and Clinton's weren't both doctored. More than likely, both presidents were handed the binoculars for a photo op, they didn't just pick them up.

So unless somebody was playing a trick on Bush, he was probably handed a bin with the covers off and somebody later doctored the photo, and a copycat did the same with Clinton. If so, the originals should exist somewhere. Then again, with Photoshop, if such photos did emerge, someone could make the same argument about those photos being doctored to show the covers off!

What South Korea needs to do is build a nuke and test it, then they will get bribe money from the U.S. to dismantle their program, and every soldier will be carrying a Swaro 8x30 DF.

B'rock

[ceasar]

Neither Bush or Clinton (Bush flew Jets while in the National Guard and Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar) were dummies so either the photos were doctored or they did not expect to be photographed as soon as they were handed the binoculars.

[edwincjones]

much ado about nothing

he was handed a pair of binoculars and felt the need to look through them

edj

[mooreorless]

Ed I have to agree with you. I always liked the political caricatures of US Presidents, esp. Jimmy Carter.

[mooreorless]

Originally Posted by xu42

After seeing some of what went on in the news I think he was looking for his buddies Dmitry and Vladimir!!! Although not really funny
http://asiancorrespondent.com/wp-con...av-621x311.jpg

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment....2&d=1332734321

[CarlTN]

With our tax money he wasted on Solyndra alone, he could have bought each of us 20 pairs of Swarovisions, and had plenty left to waste on some other "green initiative". It would have been money better spent, that's for damn sure.

[Chosun Juan]

Originally Posted by xu42

http://www.birdforum.net/attachment....2&d=1332734321

Wonder if he can see Russia from there ??
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=bi...t:429,r:11,s:0
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=sa...:429,r:0,s:250




Chosun

[jaymoynihan]

It is near to certainty those are not "his" binoculars.
Serving presidents are nearly always empty handed and empty pocketed, so to speak. Other people hand them things when they need them.

[BrightIdea]

Originally Posted by jaymoynihan

It is near to certainty those are not "his" ...

...
Other people hand them things when they need them.

Well, with a smidge of editing THAT sure turned into a loaded statement!

;-)

[NWBirder]

I think I need a pair of Obarska binoculars.

[Nixterdemus]

I paid more for my Barska than I did for my 8x30 Conquest & would much prefer it were I gazing over the DMZ.

The kings of counterfeit do an admirable job for the price.

[NDhunter]

Originally Posted by Nixterdemus

I paid more for my Barska than I did for my 8x30 Conquest & would much prefer it were I gazing over the DMZ.

The kings of counterfeit do an admirable job for the price.

Nixter:

Now what Barska is that? I would like to know more.

For me, any Barfska would not be better than anything Zeiss.

Jerry

[Nixterdemus]

45* 20/40x100 Miyauchi clone that weighs in @ 16lbs. I only paid 400 clams for the little Conquest & not much more for these.

I have them on an old Samson tripod w/friction mount that's no match for a fluid head, but if you have the center of gravity tweaked correctly they behave close to zero gravity w/spring loaded head.

When I'm panning the sky there's no friction to speak of, as I've backed off the tension knob, & have my mitts on the turret housings moving them around. Naturally, if I'm eyeballin' a static target I'll use the handle to pinpoint & screw the friction knob down locking the vertical in place.

Right now it's on a shorty/non extention tripod on lockable wheels. No good for zenith unless your around 4' or sitting on a chair. However, I also have a good working tripod that is extendable.

It employes the same friction head and will go zenith w/me standing under straight through 25x100. The neato-dealio is that one screw secures the head & mount on top of the geared column. Allowing me to swap betwixt the twain at will rather quickly.

Parts are limited/expensive though, as I paid 90 bucks for the center mount w/o all the hardware, and there's no shortage of these that are worn smooth out. They're also a mite on the healthy size w/1.5" legs, but they're steady.

I think they're designed to support 25-30 lbs.

There's plenty of spotting scopes that are optically better, yet this shines in being a binocular. They could be better and others are available, but for the price I've no complaint.