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?

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 ...

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

#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

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.