2aHawaii
General Topics => Strategies and Tactics => Topic started by: macsak on April 10, 2024, 01:23:03 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNQPn6XydjA
-
at least he isn't burning his hand on the FSP
-
at least he isn't burning his hand on the FSP
how do you know he didn't later on?
and no, you didn't say he didn't later on. . .
I have seen "instructors" teaching similar at KHSC, where "student" got scoped. . . but I digress. . .
-
https://nypost.com/2024/04/10/us-news/us-navy-warship-commander-mocked-after-being-photographed-holding-rifle-with-scope-mounted-backward/
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
Well at least the handguard is solid and looks like that Navy ship commander is not letting the heat of a barrel bother him or is it because the M4's rails have heat insulation? O0
-
The CO must be an asshole cause no one corrected him. But ill bet the guy who installed the lpvo is getting smoked right now.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Looking closely, it looks like the image has been doctored. It looks like someone copied the scope around and just pasted it on backwards.
Also the handguard seems a little off, like it isn't parallel to the barrel but maybe thats just the angle?
-
Looking closely, it looks like the image has been doctored. It looks like someone copied the scope around and just pasted it on backwards.
Also the handguard seems a little off, like it isn't parallel to the barrel but maybe thats just the angle?
Is it your belief the official US Navy Instagram account published a PhotoShopped image with a reversed optic which nobody noticed until the Internet brought it to their attention -- after which the photo was deleted from their IG account?
Not sure that's any better than the original problem.
-
#addingnuance
Is it your belief the official US Navy Instagram account published a PhotoShopped image with a reversed optic which nobody noticed until the Internet brought it to their attention -- after which the photo was deleted from their IG account?
Not sure that's any better than the original problem.
-
Is it your belief the official US Navy Instagram account published a PhotoShopped image with a reversed optic which nobody noticed until the Internet brought it to their attention -- after which the photo was deleted from their IG account?
Not sure that's any better than the original problem.
I know fitness influencers used photoshop often and there's pages dedicated to finding and calling these people out. They would make their muscles bigger, but by doing so, any lines in the background went from being straight to curved.
Even if an official government page used photoshop, someone getting smoked regardless.
-
Is it your belief the official US Navy Instagram account published a PhotoShopped image with a reversed optic which nobody noticed until the Internet brought it to their attention -- after which the photo was deleted from their IG account?
Not sure that's any better than the original problem.
Is it your belief this guy really didn't know a scope is supposed to magnify things instead of demagnify things?
I have no idea what is really going on, just making observations about the photo.
Notice how the lines on the handguard do not match up, these should be relatively parallel.
Also notice the two circled areas of the scope. It looks like the rear bell is under the image of the narrower front of the scope and the front has that protrusion which matches the front of the Trijicon the guy posts for comparison.
-
Could be camera distortion or perspective.
But the key thing indicating this is staged and sailors just screwing around is the backwards scope.
-
Is it your belief this guy really didn't know a scope is supposed to magnify things instead of demagnify things?
I have no idea what is really going on, just making observations about the photo.
Notice how the lines on the handguard do not match up, these should be relatively parallel.
Also notice the two circled areas of the scope. It looks like the rear bell is under the image of the narrower front of the scope and the front has that protrusion which matches the front of the Trijicon the guy posts for comparison.
Look closer. The lens cap is still on. How is he going to know what the scope is or isn't magnifying?
It's real. Just accept that it was a PR photo, and the guy in the photo has no clue what he was doing other than getting his picture taken.
Also, you don't know if he noticed the scope problem when he started, but neither he nor anyone at hand had the tools to fix it. So, they took the photos anyway. With the scope reversed, it's just a well he had the lens cap on anyway.
If the scope were the only ptoblem, maybe I could see your argument. But it wasn't. So you're wrong.
-
Look closer. The lens cap is still on. How is he going to know what the scope is or isn't magnifying?
It's real. Just accept that it was a PR photo, and the guy in the photo has no clue what he was doing other than getting his picture taken.
Also, you don't know if he noticed the scope problem when he started, but neither he nor anyone at hand had the tools to fix it. So, they took the photos anyway. With the scope reversed, it's just a well he had the lens cap on anyway.
If the scope were the only ptoblem, maybe I could see your argument. But it wasn't. So you're wrong.
Maybe the lens cap is on because it is photoshopped? Have you even given serious thought as to whether some military guy with either a grudge or a sense of humor may have photoshopped it?
I am not going to accept your stated "fact" because there appear to be inconsistencies which call into question the accuracy of the photo.
What is the other problem, that someone was holding his shoulder? That the hand grip is farther back than you like it to be?
-
Maybe the lens cap is on because it is photoshopped? Have you even given serious thought as to whether some military guy with either a grudge or a sense of humor may have photoshopped it?
I am not going to accept your stated "fact" because there appear to be inconsistencies which call into question the accuracy of the photo.
What is the other problem, that someone was holding his shoulder? That the hand grip is farther back than you like it to be?
if it were photoshopped, there would have been a post saying so. Instead, the official Navy IG account deleted it with no explanation, even though it was getting lots of attention. No "Oops!", no "This was a trainee who messed up," and no "It was a photoshopped pic that we failed to catch."
So, you can try and do your standard "Not necessarily" BS all day, but facts are facts. Nobody has offered definitive proof it was faked, so why are you so sure it was? Are you a photoshop expert?
I've seen one semi-plausible explanation that suggested the Navy actually edited the scope digitally after the photo was taken for some reason -- maybe to make it look cooler? Maybe because there's no rear sight? Maybe because it was supposed to be there but wasn't?
if anyone did edit it, it had to be the Navy. So, I reiterate my earlier question. is it really any better that they photoshopped the pic to add a backward scope with the lens cap on, and nobody noticed before publishing? The reason I find it semi-plausible is because, if the Navy did alter the image, that in itself is worthy of ridicule, both from an incompetence standpoint and an integrity standpoint by failing to own up to their mistake. it might explain why they haven't offered an explanation one way or the other.
Maybe the Navy hired this photographer ...
(https://i.imgur.com/JF5dzCl.png)
-
Correction:
I found where the Navy did actually post a follow-up to the pic and attention it received, but no explanation other than a vague version of "mistakes were made:"
“Thank you for pointing out our rifle scope error in the previous post,” the Navy
later wrote on various social media accounts. “Picture has been removed until
EMI [extra military instruction] is completed.”
The Navy defines EMI as “instruction in a phase of military duty in which an
individual is deficient, and is intended for and directed towards the correction of
that deficiency.”
https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2024-04-11/navy-backwards-scope-photo-13528758.html
Sounds like an admission that the scope was mounted backward at the time the photo was taken.
#Deficiency
(https://i.imgur.com/17hDHpH.png)
-
#addingnuance
if it were photoshopped, there would have been a post saying so. Instead, the official Navy IG account deleted it with no explanation, even though it was getting lots of attention. No "Oops!", no "This was a trainee who messed up," and no "It was a photoshopped pic that we failed to catch."
So, you can try and do your standard "Not necessarily" BS all day, but facts are facts. Nobody has offered definitive proof it was faked, so why are you so sure it was? Are you a photoshop expert?
I've seen one semi-plausible explanation that suggested the Navy actually edited the scope digitally after the photo was taken for some reason -- maybe to make it look cooler? Maybe because there's no rear sight? Maybe because it was supposed to be there but wasn't?
if anyone did edit it, it had to be the Navy. So, I reiterate my earlier question. is it really any better that they photoshopped the pic to add a backward scope with the lens cap on, and nobody noticed before publishing? The reason I find it semi-plausible is because, if the Navy did alter the image, that in itself is worthy of ridicule, both from an incompetence standpoint and an integrity standpoint by failing to own up to their mistake. it might explain why they haven't offered an explanation one way or the other.
-
Is it your belief this guy really didn't know a scope is supposed to magnify things instead of demagnify things?
I have no idea what is really going on, just making observations about the photo.
Notice how the lines on the handguard do not match up, these should be relatively parallel.
Also notice the two circled areas of the scope. It looks like the rear bell is under the image of the narrower front of the scope and the front has that protrusion which matches the front of the Trijicon the guy posts for comparison.
someone installed the RAS wrong. Obviously you are not familiar with the RAS/RIS but instead focused on spurring an argument of "what ifs" with no rationale. There is a pivoting tab that goes under the gas tube. It's common to have the tab not engaged UNDER the gas tube which results in the upper rail misaligned with the receiver.
The VCOG's objective is backwards. The ocular is in the front. The VCOG in the image is a 1-8 with a Larue mount. The mount's levers are on the right side if mounted correctly. The image shows that the mount's levers are on the left.
-
Correction:
I found where the Navy did actually post a follow-up to the pic and attention it received, but no explanation other than a vague version of "mistakes were made:"
https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2024-04-11/navy-backwards-scope-photo-13528758.html
Sounds like an admission that the scope was mounted backward at the time the photo was taken.
#Deficiency
(https://i.imgur.com/17hDHpH.png)
Could also mean “Extra Military Instruction” for a public affairs sailor who, with the best of good intentions, did an unfortunate Photoshop job.
-
Could also mean “Extra Military Instruction” for a public affairs sailor who, with the best of good intentions, did an unfortunate Photoshop job.
"The Navy defines EMI as “instruction in a phase of military duty in which an
individual is deficient, and is intended for and directed towards the correction of
that deficiency.”"
Since when is public affairs considered "a phase of military duty?" In the military, you have at least 2 jobs -- your primary skill (in this case, according to you, public affairs) and your military training (in this case, proper use of a firearm).
I don't think EMI would be warranted for a non-military related screw-up -- i.e. Photoshop errors. The skipper in the photo at the very least needs EMI.
-
"The Navy defines EMI as “instruction in a phase of military duty in which an
individual is deficient, and is intended for and directed towards the correction of
that deficiency.”"
Since when is public affairs considered "a phase of military duty?" In the military, you have at least 2 jobs -- your primary skill (in this case, according to you, public affairs) and your military training (in this case, proper use of a firearm).
I don't think EMI would be warranted for a non-military related screw-up -- i.e. Photoshop errors. The skipper in the photo at the very least needs EMI.
You don’t consider mass communications (the Navy rate for what other services call public affairs) to be military duty? I know some mass communication specialists that might disagree.
I would certainly expect that a mass communications specialist who was found to be deficient in their mass communications duties would be assigned EMI.
-
You don’t consider mass communications (the Navy rate for what other services call public affairs) to be military duty? I know some mass communication specialists that might disagree.
I would certainly expect that a mass communications specialist who was found to be deficient in their mass communications duties would be assigned EMI.
It's not about how anyone, including me, considers the importance of any particular job skill in a military career.
Facts are facts. I was a Command-Control-Communications-Computer-Intel (C4I) officer. My missions were directly related to the warfighters doing their jobs -- i.e. military duty. But, my job could have also been contracted out to a civilian company with the same skillset and capabilities that, when I became a civilian contractor, I was doing the same type of job with the same types of operational units for twice as long as i was on active duty -- including deploying for exercises overseas.
The difference is, as active military, I could be ordered into a combat zone, made to work 24/7/365 without any overtime pay or compensatory time off, and i'd also still have to train for NBC (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) weapon survival, firearms proficiency, vehicle operation (I had a military license for up to 2-ton trucks), and so on.
So, you can debate the necessity or benefits of public affairs training as it relates to military missions, but there's simpler way to look at it. Not all Navy are trained in mass communications, but they are all trained in basic weapons handling, UCMJ, gas masks, and other duties that are exclusively military in nature. The line between the two is what you're debating. That line is fixed and not up for debate.
-
It's not about how anyone, including me, considers the importance of any particular job skill in a military career.
Facts are facts. I was a Command-Control-Communications-Computer-Intel (C4I) officer. My missions were directly related to the warfighters doing their jobs -- i.e. military duty. But, my job could have also been contracted out to a civilian company with the same skillset and capabilities that, when I became a civilian contractor, I was doing the same type of job with the same types of operational units for twice as long as i was on active duty -- including deploying for exercises overseas.
The difference is, as active military, I could be ordered into a combat zone, made to work 24/7/365 without any overtime pay or compensatory time off, and i'd also still have to train for NBC (Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) weapon survival, firearms proficiency, vehicle operation (I had a military license for up to 2-ton trucks), and so on.
So, you can debate the necessity or benefits of public affairs training as it relates to military missions, but there's simpler way to look at it. Not all Navy are trained in mass communications, but they are all trained in basic weapons handling, UCMJ, gas masks, and other duties that are exclusively military in nature. The line between the two is what you're debating. That line is fixed and not up for debate.
I'm not debating the line between common military tasks and knowledge such as small arms marksmanship, drill and ceremonies, customs and courtesies, etc., and specialized duties like mass communications or C4I.
You said "Since when is public affairs considered 'a phase of military duty?'' which led me to believe that you did not consider public affairs to be a military duty. I pointed out that public affairs (or mass communication) specialists would likely disagree with you about that, and that mass communication is an area where a sailor might be assigned EMI. I didn't say a single word about the relative importance of Photoshop proficiency vs. small arms proficiency or CBRN or anything else... you brought that up as a straw man.
My point, in case you missed it: Public affairs is a military duty; it's not exclusively a military duty, but neither is shooting or wearing a gas mask. As a military duty, public affairs is an area within which a sailor may be assigned EMI if they are found to be deficient in their proficiency/duty performance.
Thank you for your service, sincerely.
-
I'm not debating the line between common military tasks and knowledge such as small arms marksmanship, drill and ceremonies, customs and courtesies, etc., and specialized duties like mass communications or C4I.
You said "Since when is public affairs considered 'a phase of military duty?'' which led me to believe that you did not consider public affairs to be a military duty. I pointed out that public affairs (or mass communication) specialists would likely disagree with you about that, and that mass communication is an area where a sailor might be assigned EMI. I didn't say a single word about the relative importance of Photoshop proficiency vs. small arms proficiency or CBRN or anything else... you brought that up as a straw man.
My point, in case you missed it: Public affairs is a military duty; it's not exclusively a military duty, but neither is shooting or wearing a gas mask. As a military duty, public affairs is an area within which a sailor may be assigned EMI if they are found to be deficient in their proficiency/duty performance.
Thank you for your service, sincerely.
i never said shooting and wearing a gas mask is exclusive of military training. I said those are areas that all members in the military learn regardless of their specialty skill set.
Public affairs can be a person's job in the military, but that doesn't make it a "phase of military duty." in the Air Force, enlisted are trained in "ancillary duties," meaning that regardless of whether they are programmers, comm techs, intel analysts, cooks or mechanics, they may also be assigned to guard duty, duty drivers, ...
Note: AFSC means Air Force Specially Code, similar to the Navy MOS code (Military Occupation Specialty).
7.1. Program Description. Ancillary Training is universal training, guidance or instruction,
regardless of AFSC, that contributes to mission accomplishment. It does not include functional,
occupational or additional duty training.
This includes more than war fighting training. It also includes physical fitness, operational security, ... pretty much every mandatory training require for every member is ancillary to their primary function.
In fact, many primary jobs in the military, including the Navy, has their training performed by private contractors or SPAWAR civilians -- both ashore and afloat. I've attended and presented training classes for lots of sailors while working at CINCPACFLT for 10 years as a contractor.
Yes, their jobs are the duties needed to perform their military missions. No, I don't consider that "military" training.
Maybe I lived it for so long on both sides of the active duty/military contractor sides, I have a more definitive understanding of the differences. If I haven't conveyed my understanding in the right words, it's because the line is ambiguous at the treetop level. It's hard to explain how someone like that Navy Commander who might have been a pilot (I didn't research him, but so many in command are former pilots in all branches), doesn't have the basic training to know what he's doing for an M4 demonstration. That's not something he would have been taught in flight school. It would have been a separate day of training and qualifying unrelated to his flying duties.
That's just an example of how I see the division. Not saying he's a pilot. He could just be some admiral's son who worked in public affairs. :shaka:
-
I think Diddy had 2pac murdered
-
I think Diddy had 2pac murdered
I heard 2PAC is alive. He's living in Vegas with Elvis and Howard Hughes.
-
if it were photoshopped, there would have been a post saying so. Instead, the official Navy IG account deleted it with no explanation, even though it was getting lots of attention. No "Oops!", no "This was a trainee who messed up," and no "It was a photoshopped pic that we failed to catch."
That's your assumption.
So, you can try and do your standard "Not necessarily" BS all day, but facts are facts. Nobody has offered definitive proof it was faked, so why are you so sure it was? Are you a photoshop expert?
I didn't say it was definitively fake but you haven't shown it is definitively real either. The only "fact" is that it was posted and got taken down. I don't need to be a photoshop expert to see irregularities and use common sense to understand there is reason to believe the photo may have been altered.
I've seen one semi-plausible explanation that suggested the Navy actually edited the scope digitally after the photo was taken for some reason -- maybe to make it look cooler? Maybe because there's no rear sight? Maybe because it was supposed to be there but wasn't?
Thats possible.
if anyone did edit it, it had to be the Navy. So, I reiterate my earlier question. is it really any better that they photoshopped the pic to add a backward scope with the lens cap on, and nobody noticed before publishing? The reason I find it semi-plausible is because, if the Navy did alter the image, that in itself is worthy of ridicule, both from an incompetence standpoint and an integrity standpoint by failing to own up to their mistake. it might explain why they haven't offered an explanation one way or the other.
Do you not think it possible someone did it to prank their commander?
-
That's your assumption.
I didn't say it was definitively fake but you haven't shown it is definitively real either. The only "fact" is that it was posted and got taken down. I don't need to be a photoshop expert to see irregularities and use common sense to understand there is reason to believe the photo may have been altered.
Thats possible.
Do you not think it possible someone did it to prank their commander?
Guess it would be too easy for the Navy to say that there was unauthorized use of photoshop by the individual. And instead go into what Flapp posted above. #nuance #obejctive #whataboutism.
-
Guess it would be too easy for the Navy to say that there was unauthorized use of photoshop by the individual. And instead go into what Flapp posted above. #nuance #obejctive #whataboutism.
I must have missed the memo that made it okay for Navy PR personnel to publicly prank their commander.
Only someone with no military experience would think that's likely. Any pranking is done in-house, not for all the Global Internet to see.
-
I must have missed the memo that made it okay for Navy PR personnel to publicly prank their commander.
Only someone with no military experience would think that's likely. Any pranking is done in-house, not for all the Global Internet to see.
Yes, that's another layer to add to the easy "it was unauthorized photoshop usage" excuse. Which is why I find EEF's objective hypothetical unlikely. So unlikely, that to even suggest it would be a waste of time.
Plus, said excuse would also be a good cover for the Captain as he knows how a scope works and if 1 is installed backwards. "It's on BACKWARDS" ~ Spaceballs reference.
Here's a plausible hypothetical:
PR person: "Captain, can you shoot this rifle because we need an action shot for the Navy's IG page"
The sight thru the scope doesn't matter as he's just shooting at the ocean and needs a pic of doing so.
Another plausible hypothetical:
The armorer is fucking with his buddy's rifle and luck of the draw, it was used. No way the armorer would have known this.
Another one:
Sailor/Marine just installed the optic, but didn't zero it yet. PR photo op was needed and he was standing closest to the captain.
-
inB4 "i never said it was likely or plausible, i just saying it's *possible*"
Yes, that's another layer to add to the easy "it was unauthorized photoshop usage" excuse. Which is why I find EEF's objective hypothetical unlikely. So unlikely, that to even suggest it would be a waste of time.
Plus, said excuse would also be a good cover for the Captain as he knows how a scope works and if 1 is installed backwards. "It's on BACKWARDS" ~ Spaceballs reference.
Here's a plausible hypothetical:
PR person: "Captain, can you shoot this rifle because we need an action shot for the Navy's IG page"
The sight thru the scope doesn't matter as he's just shooting at the ocean and needs a pic of doing so.
Another plausible hypothetical:
The armorer is fucking with his buddy's rifle and luck of the draw, it was used. No way the armorer would have known this.
Another one:
Sailor/Marine just installed the optic, but didn't zero it yet. PR photo op was needed and he was standing closest to the captain.
-
inB4 "i never said it was likely or plausible, i just saying it's *possible*"
It's possible that scope was the only one that bypassed QA inspection at the plant and had the lenses installed on the wrong ends.
It's possible that the Navy purposefully installs their scopes backwards. They are such good shots, they do that to make seeing the target more challenging.
It's possible the Navy trains shooters the "chicken wing" stance, instructs placing the butt stock way above the shoulder, and setting fore grips close to the mag well for extreme close quarters use (not much room to maneuver below deck). Therefore, there MUST be a logical explanation for intentionally mounting the scope wrong. No way they are doing all of those things wrong.
-
I must have missed the memo that made it okay for Navy PR personnel to publicly prank their commander.
Only someone with no military experience would think that's likely. Any pranking is done in-house, not for all the Global Internet to see.
Hence the EMI. Could be that a Mass Communications sailor f-ed around with Photoshop, and found out with some corrective extra duty.
-
inB4 "i never said it was likely or plausible, i just saying it's *possible*"
I know he will say that, which is why I said it's a stupid hypothetical.
-
Guess it would be too easy for the Navy to say that there was unauthorized use of photoshop by the individual. And instead go into what Flapp posted above. #nuance #obejctive #whataboutism.
If you want to believe that it is more likely this commander is an idiot who doesn't know how scopes work than the more likely scenario that someone modified the photo then be my guest.
-
I must have missed the memo that made it okay for Navy PR personnel to publicly prank their commander.
Only someone with no military experience would think that's likely. Any pranking is done in-house, not for all the Global Internet to see.
I think you just can't admit the photo looks altered because that would mean admitting you were wrong and I was right.
Not sure why you are so threatened by me pointing out the photo looks altered that you won't even admit is possible.
-
I think you just can't admit the photo looks altered because that would mean admitting you were wrong and I was right.
Not sure why you are so threatened by me pointing out the photo looks altered that you won't even admit is possible.
You have no evidence the photo was altered like the embedded metadata or a file checksum from the original.
You have your layman's opinion, which is supported by no actual reports.
Go argue with a brick wall. Then you'll see how it feels trying to talk sense to you.
-
You have no evidence the photo was altered like the embedded metadata or a file checksum from the original.
You have your layman's opinion, which is supported by no actual reports.
Go argue with a brick wall. Then you'll see how it feels trying to talk sense to you.
I have no more data to show it was modified than you have data to show it was not modified. We are equally at a loss to be able to prove anything.
All I did was provide my observations and my suspicions. I didn't say it was fact, I didn't say you have to agree with my suspicion either. The problem here is with you because you can't help but pick fights. You could have easily ignored my post or replied saying that you didn't arrive at the same conclusion but thats not what you did is it? You have to get on a high horse and start a fight, you just want to argue. Every regular on this forum knows that is what you do
-
I have no more data to show it was modified than you have data to show it was not modified. We are equally at a loss to be able to prove anything.
All I did was provide my observations and my suspicions. I didn't say it was fact, I didn't say you have to agree with my suspicion either. The problem here is with you because you can't help but pick fights. You could have easily ignored my post or replied saying that you didn't arrive at the same conclusion but thats not what you did is it? You have to get on a high horse and start a fight, you just want to argue. Every regular on this forum knows that is what you do
I don't have to prove a negative.
The fact you think that's a realistic and fair comparison for your failure to prove the opposite is not surprising.
-
If you want to believe that it is more likely this commander is an idiot who doesn't know how scopes work than the more likely scenario that someone modified the photo then be my guest.
You've obviously never seen commanders type have to qual for their weapons.
-
I don't have to prove a negative.
The fact you think that's a realistic and fair comparison for your failure to prove the opposite is not surprising.
Maybe the entire rifle was photoshopped and the commander was holding a broom to see if the wood is straight. See, I can make stuff up too. It's plausible as no denial of holding a broom was given.
-
You've obviously never seen commanders type have to qual for their weapons.
Have you?
-
Have you?
A few.
-
A few.
Not on COD :facepalm:
-
Not on COD :facepalm:
Bruh, don't get me started on COD. SBMM/EOMM fucked up the game.
-
You've obviously never seen commanders type have to qual for their weapons.
If the Navy training is anything close to Air Force training, then only the enlisted are required to qualify on the M4/M16 platform. Officers only qualify using a pistol (in my case, revolver -- 1980s).
The exception was if the officer was in a job that required rifle proficiency, such as MP/SP.
Air Force and Navy are not normally on the front lines, so officers aren't usually carrying long guns.
I have a feeling this plays into the commander's lack of familiarity with the weapon.
-
If the Navy training is anything close to Air Force training, then only the enlisted are required to qualify on the M4/M16 platform. Officers only qualify using a pistol (in my case, revolver -- 1980s).
The exception was if the officer was in a job that required rifle proficiency, such as MP/SP.
Air Force and Navy are not normally on the front lines, so officers aren't usually carrying long guns.
I have a feeling this plays into the commander's lack of familiarity with the weapon.
Many people think that all members of the military are the SF/SFDDS they see on TV and movies. There are many MOS's that aren't required to shoot, which means they aren't familiar or very proficient with a weapon after leaving basic. Same goes with being in physical shape and other stuff. Which is why I replied the way I did to EEF. In this case, the commander is the leader and shouldn't be handling a weapon at all, due to him leading. Jocko Wilink (ret SEAL) has a story (O4), if he's holding security at a corner, within seconds, one of his guys will take over so he can do leadership stuff. The point is that his guys know he's the leader and shouldn't be holding security.
Another running joke is: How often do you see an O6 doing PT? No one questions him about it either. WO's are on a diff level though.
This brings me to a speculation that this ships captain isn't well liked. Because no one corrected him prior to the photo. "Screw him, let him look stupid".
-
...
Another running joke is: How often do you see an O6 doing PT? No one questions him about it either. WO's are on a diff level though.
...
Are you insinuating high ranking officers don't do PT?
i lived on-base in Oklahoma in formerly designated field grade officer housing. i lived one block from my AWACS Squadron Commander (O-6). i was 2 blocks from the Air Logistics Center Commander, a Brigadier General (O-7).
One day I'm doing a 5:30AM run to prepare for my upcoming annual 1.5 mile test. This old geezer in a floppy brim hat ran toward me and said good morning as we passed. I thought he must be a retiree staying at the VOQ right next to where we met.
It wasn't until the second time I saw him running that I recognized him. It was the general. This is him after being promoted to Major General (O-8, 2 Stars):
(https://i.imgur.com/7aBkpaM.jpeg)
One reason you don't see O-6 and up at PT is they either have exclusive workout facilities, or they exercise early in the morning before most people are awake and crowding the gym. They usually have more control over their schedules, so they can pick times when fewer people are doing PT.
The O-6 i mentioned played racquetball where I played during lunch. He had a standing reservation daily where the rest of us had to start dialing the phones at exactly 2PM to snag a reservation the next day. He normally played at 10am if I recall -- just before the lunch crowd showed up.
:geekdanc:
-
Are you insinuating high ranking officers don't do PT?
i lived on-base in Oklahoma in formerly designated field grade officer housing. i lived one block from my AWACS Squadron Commander (O-6). i was 2 blocks from the Air Logistics Center Commander, a Brigadier General (O-7).
One day I'm doing a 5:30AM run to prepare for my upcoming annual 1.5 mile test. This old geezer in a floppy brim hat ran toward me and said good morning as we passed. I thought he must be a retiree staying at the VOQ right next to where we met.
It wasn't until the second time I saw him running that I recognized him. It was the general. This is him after being promoted to Major General (O-8, 2 Stars):
(https://i.imgur.com/7aBkpaM.jpeg)
One reason you don't see O-6 and up at PT is they either have exclusive workout facilities, or they exercise early in the morning before most people are awake and crowding the gym. They usually have more control over their schedules, so they can pick times when fewer people are doing PT.
The O-6 i mentioned played racquetball where I played during lunch. He had a standing reservation daily where the rest of us had to start dialing the phones at exactly 2PM to snag a reservation the next day. He normally played at 10am if I recall -- just before the lunch crowd showed up.
:geekdanc:
It's a joke. Hence the "no one questions whether the O6 doesn't do PT". I know there are some that still do it and even do it with their soldiers.
-
It's a joke. Hence the "no one questions whether the O6 doesn't do PT". I know there are some that still do it and even do it with their soldiers.
I read that it was a joke, which is why I asked "are you insinuating..."
Yanking your chain while taking an opportunity to participate in Pau Hana story time!
:shaka: :geekdanc:
-
I read that it was a joke, which is why I asked "are you insinuating..."
Yanking your chain while taking an opportunity to participate in Pau Hana story time!
:shaka: :geekdanc:
Shaka
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I don't have to prove a negative.
Wrong, that's not how things work. It isn't about proving a negative because the image was never proven to be real in the first place. The neutral position is just that there is an image, proving it is accurate is no different than proving it is inaccurate. I can't prove its fake and you can't prove it is real. You just assume it is real while I looked and observed things that lead me to believe it was fake.
You have zero evidence to support your belief that the image is accurate and questioning my ability to recognize a photoshop job isn't evidence to support your opinion.
I circled the protrusion below the eyepiece/power ring of the supposedly backwards mounted optic (towards the front on the image) but the trijicon VCOG doesn't have a protrusion under that portion of the optic. The other portion I circled towards the read of the gun has a taper that is consistent with the taper power right of the VCOG.
If you want to say you don't find that convincing then fine, you are free to disagree, but that's not your style is it? You can't let someone stand who suggested you might be wrong, you have to turn it into a big, personal, nasty argument.
-
Wrong, that's not how things work. It isn't about proving a negative because the image was never proven to be real in the first place. The neutral position is just that there is an image, proving it is accurate is no different than proving it is inaccurate. I can't prove its fake and you can't prove it is real. You just assume it is real while I looked and observed things that lead me to believe it was fake.
You have zero evidence to support your belief that the image is accurate and questioning my ability to recognize a photoshop job isn't evidence to support your opinion.
You obviously can't tell the objective from the ocular of a scope but you are here to argue and you haven't installed a RIS on an M4 before so you can't explain the obvious cant on the upper rail.
I can bring my M5 RAS to the range tomorrow to show you how it works.
-
I circled the protrusion below the eyepiece/power ring of the supposedly backwards mounted optic (towards the front on the image) but the trijicon VCOG doesn't have a protrusion under that portion of the optic. The other portion I circled towards the read of the gun has a taper that is consistent with the taper power right of the VCOG.
The battery compartment where you labeled as a "protrusion" are on different locations on the 1-8 and 1-6 models.
-
You obviously can't tell the objective from the ocular of a scope but you are here to argue and you haven't installed a RIS on an M4 before so you can't explain the obvious cant on the upper rail.
I can bring my M5 RAS to the range tomorrow to show you how it works.
I didn't say that can't on the front handguard means the photo was edited, I just pointed it out. I don't think that part is photo shopped because he is clearly holding a vertical handguard so it wouldn't make sense to photoshop a crooked handguard on top of a straight handguard. I do believe your suspicions of an improperly mounted handguard to be the most likely explanation.
But feel free to offer your explanation of why the power ring portion has a protrusion in the image which does not exist on that scope. To me it looks like someone pasted an image of a scope over the old scope without erasing the scope from the original image and thus the old scope protrudes from behind the top layer of the image.
-
The battery compartment where you labeled as a "protrusion" are on different locations on the 1-8 and 1-6 models.
I did notice that when looking for more images of the scope. However, none of them have a protrusion under the power ring portion of the scope to explain the protrusion under the power ring seen in the image. Thats the observation I made which led me to believe the most likely explanation was that the image was photoshopped. If you don't consider that the most plausible explanation thats fine.
-
I didn't say that can't on the front handguard means the photo was edited, I just pointed it out. I don't think that part is photo shopped because he is clearly holding a vertical handguard so it wouldn't make sense to photoshop a crooked handguard on top of a straight handguard. I do believe your suspicions of an improperly mounted handguard to be the most likely explanation.
But feel free to offer your explanation of why the power ring portion has a protrusion in the image which does not exist on that scope. To me it looks like someone pasted an image of a scope over the old scope without erasing the scope from the original image and thus the old scope protrudes from behind the top layer of the image.
Our next shoot is on May 18th. You are more than welcome to come out.
-
Makes sense, cause some job industries dont like to admit theyre wrong on a higher % than others.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Our next shoot is on May 18th. You are more than welcome to come out.
Maybe we can have a backwards scope day
-
Maybe we can have a backwards scope day
Who is we?
-
Who is we?
Me and Ren, duh. See where it says "Quote from ren..."? That indicates I am replying to him, thus together it becomes "we".
-
Makes sense, cause some job industries dont like to admit theyre wrong on a higher % than others.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
What job industries like to admit mistakes? What you are talking about is human nature.
-
Me and Ren, duh. See where it says "Quote from ren..."? That indicates I am replying to him, thus together it becomes "we".
you train? range not too far for you? Looking at a 1-6 VCOG to replace my Vortex 1-6. Perhaps you can mount your scopes backwards and see how it does at each yardline.
-
Me and Ren, duh. See where it says "Quote from ren..."? That indicates I am replying to him, thus together it becomes "we".
Ren didn't state that he would be there. He could just be an organizer, hence the "our next shoot". You're assuming what Ren meant and not factoring objectivity.
Your reply also didn't state that the backwards scope day will be together at the location of the open shoot. You could have a backwards scope at home or work and as long as it's the same day as the open shoot, it's "backward scope day". I'm being objective and don't want to assume that you and Ren will be at the open shoot at the same time and do a backwards scope day.
-
What job industries like to admit mistakes? What you are talking about is human nature.
You are right. But, from my experience in life with various employees in various industries, I can say that I have a higher percentage of negative interactions with HPD being upset because I knew the law and they didn't. And witnessing interactions. Compare this with going to eat and informing the worker that the food is out of temp, or a food/safety violation.
-
You are right. But, from my experience in life with various employees in various industries, I can say that I have a higher percentage of negative interactions with HPD being upset because I knew the law and they didn't. And witnessing interactions. Compare this with going to eat and informing the worker that the food is out of temp, or a food/safety violation.
A person might not like to admit their failures, but a company or government organization has an ethical duty to admit when they do.
Ethics -- something nobody seems to care about.
The DoD contracting company I worked for had a very strong ethics program. Training, advertisement of our ethics creed, and a huge network all the way up to the CEO for reporting even the suspicion or appearance of unethical or illegal behavior. All it took was one employee to anonymously report that division chief joe was behaving unethically, and an audit team would be sent to investigate. It could be as small as fudging on timesheets or charging hours to the wrong contract to taking huge kickbacks from customers.
Pretending there's not one individual in a "job industry" (whatever that is) who will admit when they aren't living up to the performance or ethics standards they teach is naive. It's why whistle blower laws exist.
And "like" is the wrong word. They don't have to like admitting mistakes, but they do have a duty to identify and correct them. I might not like to eat carrots, but it doesn't mean I'ne never done it.
-
Ren didn't state that he would be there. He could just be an organizer, hence the "our next shoot". You're assuming what Ren meant and not factoring objectivity.
Your reply also didn't state that the backwards scope day will be together at the location of the open shoot. You could have a backwards scope at home or work and as long as it's the same day as the open shoot, it's "backward scope day". I'm being objective and don't want to assume that you and Ren will be at the open shoot at the same time and do a backwards scope day.
A range day with him would just be a lot of debates and arguing anyways. Junk.
-
A range day with him would just be a lot of debates and arguing anyways. Junk.
Ren: THe scope is on backwards.
EEF: Or is the scope fine, and it's the rifle that's backwards? You also left out that the scope mount may be backwards as well. Or, do I have a vision where everything is zoomed in, so I need a backwards scope to zoom me out?
-
Ren: THe scope is on backwards.
EEF: Or is the scope fine, and it's the rifle that's backwards? You also left out that the scope mount may be backwards as well. Or, do I have a vision where everything is zoomed in, so I need a backwards scope to zoom me out?
Maybe he's used to shooting at a 50 yd range, and he always mounts it this way to give that 200 yd experience?
-
Maybe he's used to shooting at a 50 yd range, and he always mounts it this way to give that 200 yd experience?
Could be, this is another objective hypothetical.
-
you train? range not too far for you? Looking at a 1-6 VCOG to replace my Vortex 1-6. Perhaps you can mount your scopes backwards and see how it does at each yardline.
I do, range is close enough but I haven't gotten back into it since the range closed. Might try to take my kids saturday and sight in my new glock.
-
You are right. But, from my experience in life with various employees in various industries, I can say that I have a higher percentage of negative interactions with HPD being upset because I knew the law and they didn't. And witnessing interactions. Compare this with going to eat and informing the worker that the food is out of temp, or a food/safety violation.
I have met rude cops and super friendly cops, ones who get annoyed when you challenge them doesn't surprise me.
Do they resent being challenged or shown wrong at a higher percentage than other professions? I don't know, that would be an interesting thing to study. Given they tend to be more of a type A personality (a necessity of the job) it might make sense if there are elevated rates compared to many other professions but certainly not unique to cops.
-
how do you do the job if you are not type A?
I have met rude cops and super friendly cops, ones who get annoyed when you challenge them doesn't surprise me.
Do they resent being challenged or shown wrong at a higher percentage than other professions? I don't know, that would be an interesting thing to study. Given they tend to be more of a type A personality (a necessity of the job) it might make sense if there are elevated rates compared to many other professions but certainly not unique to cops.
-
I have met rude cops and super friendly cops, ones who get annoyed when you challenge them doesn't surprise me.
Do they resent being challenged or shown wrong at a higher percentage than other professions? I don't know, that would be an interesting thing to study. Given they tend to be more of a type A personality (a necessity of the job) it might make sense if there are elevated rates compared to many other professions but certainly not unique to cops.
It's not about just them getting "upset." it's about them having the authority to arrest you and use force on you -- up to and including lethal force.
But, hey. all things being equal, right?
I had a friend talk to to Cops outside in his yard after a woman filed a false harassment complaint simply because he followed her after she dinged his LEASED BMW 6. If you know about leases, he gets charged for any damage.
Caught up to her when she parked at her home. He told her he would be glad to get her insurance info and leave, but she started yelling at him -- trying to intimidate him. When he said he was going to file a police report and left, she dialed the Cops and reported him harassing her.
The Cops lied to him saying she had witnesses to the harassment and him threatening her. He laughed and said that was a lie. How can there be a witness to something that never happened? At that point the cops got angry that their ruse failed, and they threatened to arrest him. He told them to get a warrant. He also said if they don't leave his property, he'll file a trespassing complaint.
That really pissed off one Cop. He started saying things like, "We can go anywhere we f-ing want, and if you don't like it, you can f- yourself!" With that, he started to open the front gate, and the other Cop grabbed the gate and stopped him.
A badge and a gun -- it's a helluva drug.
-
I have met rude cops and super friendly cops, ones who get annoyed when you challenge them doesn't surprise me.
Do they resent being challenged or shown wrong at a higher percentage than other professions? I don't know, that would be an interesting thing to study. Given they tend to be more of a type A personality (a necessity of the job) it might make sense if there are elevated rates compared to many other professions but certainly not unique to cops.
This is why I said in my XP, because IDK nor took the time to see if there is a study. Audit videos can be 1 sided as no one post every good interaction they have with cops vs bad ones. But there is a common theme to them. Some audit YTers that I watch don't just post the ones that cops violate peoples rights/law, they even post when the cops were right and the filmer was wrong. Some even go as far to rate the demeanor of the cop. As in "Although the cop was legally right, his hostile demeanor escalated the situation that the outcome could have been much better". And the same goes with the filmers. "Their hostile attitude toward the police officer from the begining..."
-
This is why I said in my XP, because IDK nor took the time to see if there is a study. Audit videos can be 1 sided as no one post every good interaction they have with cops vs bad ones. But there is a common theme to them. Some audit YTers that I watch don't just post the ones that cops violate peoples rights/law, they even post when the cops were right and the filmer was wrong. Some even go as far to rate the demeanor of the cop. As in "Although the cop was legally right, his hostile demeanor escalated the situation that the outcome could have been much better". And the same goes with the filmers. "Their hostile attitude toward the police officer from the begining..."
Quite often the difference between a friendly cop and a mean one is circumstance. Big difference between getting stopped on the roadside for excessive speed and having a social conversation at a picnic.
Just saying.
-
Always the village idiot derailing threads nothing to do with a backwards mounted scope and incorrectly installed handguard.
-
Always the village idiot detailing threads.nothing to do with a backwards mounted scope and incorrectly installed handguard.
Or the rifle is installed backwards.
-
how do you do the job if you are not type A?
Are you saying I dont seem type A?
-
This is why I said in my XP, because IDK nor took the time to see if there is a study. Audit videos can be 1 sided as no one post every good interaction they have with cops vs bad ones. But there is a common theme to them. Some audit YTers that I watch don't just post the ones that cops violate peoples rights/law, they even post when the cops were right and the filmer was wrong. Some even go as far to rate the demeanor of the cop. As in "Although the cop was legally right, his hostile demeanor escalated the situation that the outcome could have been much better". And the same goes with the filmers. "Their hostile attitude toward the police officer from the begining..."
I think many cops are their own worst enemies. The vast majority of people can be talked down and into compliance given a skillful communicator but it seems less common among type A personalities. Optimal police personalities seem to have to walk a fine balance of certain traits.
-
yes
Are you saying I dont seem type A?
-
that's why you always try to be #objective?
I think many cops are their own worst enemies. The vast majority of people can be talked down and into compliance given a skillful communicator but it seems less common among type A personalities. Optimal police personalities seem to have to walk a fine balance of certain traits.
-
not a police officer. The ones I know travel to ranges on the mainland and compete / train.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDfe0dBUEMY