Stolen Valor: The Truth Behind False Military Claims

[cronxeh]

It certainly is a valid form of testing it. My concern is not with your proposal, but with the follow-up discussion of it (which begins in post 32). It's fine discussion, but it does nothing for the OP except decrease the signal-to-noise ratio, which is nearing 50:50. And that is causing further discussion of the OP to get befuddled, as new contributors are not reading earlier posts before replying.

I'm sorry I was not aware we forced evolution upon our readers so they could cope with the multiple dimensions of thought in here.

just a quick 'aside' post---with the title, the subject, and bullet 'drop'--this reminded me of a visit to a guy's apt. in college where one of his roommates was in the basement throwing a 12 gauge shotgun shell against the wall trying to make it 'go off'--I picked it up and told him what level of intelligence he was.

I just remembered another 'person' in his mind, 'having fun' by throwing live .38 rounds into a bonfire---I didn't stay at that party.

Speaking of the Darwin award

 

[BobG]

A higher caliber bullet has a longer length, maybe that was the source of their misconception. To test their basic sniper knowledge you should ask them if you were to drop a bullet at the same time they shot it from a rifle - which bullet would hit the ground first

From same wiki you referred to: "The bore to barrel length ratio is called caliber in naval gunnery, but is called length in army artillery"

Yeah, I saw that, too, but there's no reason for them to know that system much less confuse it with bullet caliber.

Shooting is only part of their job.

Snipers are also used as forward air controllers (directing incoming bomb runs) and forward observers (directing incoming artillery). None the less, understanding other characteristics of different weapons would be more important than understanding what the unit of measure stood for.

The bullet drop test would be a better question (even if not quite perfect).

I have no idea what type of training snipers got in the Viet Nam War, but calculating how far a projectile will drop over a given range for a given weapon would be a very necessary skill for any era.

 

[MotoH]

WOW. Seriously, did you all look right past my post? Don't ask some random question that anyone may know. How about you do this:

Ask them what there MOS was, what unit they were in and what year. Division Snipers had Bolt guns. on a company end, a company sniper was not a trained or MOSed sniper, more in the the line of a Designated Marksman. He would have a M14 with iron sights. I run this pass another friend.

That is the ONLY way you will know if they were an actual sniper in Vietnam.

 

[ibnsos]

For the supposed Seal just find a forum run by Seals and ask if he is legit. Seals were the driving force behind the Stolen Valor Act and take false claims quite serious. For the Marine, ask what type of sniper he was. If he was Division then he should have an MOS designation if Company then he won't and probably was.

 

[MotoH]

This is how you verify SEALs
VeriSEAL | The Original SEAL Verification Project

 

[cristo]

Forks in post 9. (Actually, I guess the real fook occurs in post 32.) Continues in posts 35-42, 44-47, 49.

Huh? This is GD. I don't see how the posts about the "bullet drop" are offtopic and, besides, the second part of my post is directly related to the OP.

 

[ibnsos]

This is how you verify SEALs
VeriSEAL | The Original SEAL Verification Project

You could try that, but for random, non-critical confirmation I doubt they'd help. I'm pretty sure the Seal community has a forum much like the Special Forces, where, given a name and time of service they would be happy to verify.

 

[MotoH]

They had a forum, I can't remember the link, but I believe it is private now because of all the posers joining up.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

WOW. Seriously, did you all look right past my post? Don't ask some random question that anyone may know. How about you do this:

Ask them what there MOS was, what unit they were in and what year. Division Snipers had Bolt guns. on a company end, a company sniper was not a trained or MOSed sniper, more in the the line of a Designated Marksman. He would have a M14 with iron sights. I run this pass another friend.

That is the ONLY way you will know if they were an actual sniper in Vietnam.

I was just thinking about this too. Maybe they were marksmen but not snipers. The guy I knew who said he was a sniper in Vietnam was special forces, as opposed to a grunt, and from the way he talked about things sounded like he was usually alone or only had one or two people with him in the field.

 

[MotoH]

The sniper teams would only work in pairs, the sniper with a Remington 700 with a Winchester magazine. And the spotter with an M14. Chambered in 30./06 and 7.62 respectively. There were no M16a1 based DMR's in the Marine corps at the time considering the term DMR didn't come around until a far later period, and is still the M14. There are the MKII Mod.1 and Mod.2 DMR's, but these are mostly used by private contracting firms as the M14 is the mainstay for the DMR in the US Army and Marine Corps.

A friend served in N/75 LRRP with the 173rd at English in 1969. He was sent to in-country sniper school at (?Vung Tau?) for a week or so. Said the school was great and the training and shoots were excellent. Sent him back to the unit with a M-14 all tricked out. Says the last he saw of it was the day he got back and someone took it and put it in a conex for storage. He said he was never on a sniper mission, but believes the other teams pulled some. Says "I thought" they used bolt action rifles.

taken from militaryphotos.net

So basically.
M16 never used as a DMR in Vietnam, still not used as an official DMR on the Marines or the US Army.
***It is possible that the man in question who said it was an M16 could have just gotten a number wrong***
Actual snipers used a Bolt action rifle chambered in 30./06
Marksmen and spotters used the M14 chambered in 7.62

Just thought this might help clarify anything misconceptions

 

[zoobyshoe]

I had some important zoobie stuff to do yesterday and couldn't attend to this thread.

I have now read all the posts and found the discussion to be extremely interesting with everything right on topic. (I am confused as to why it was moved from S & D, though.)

For the supposed Seal just find a forum run by Seals and ask if he is legit. Seals were the driving force behind the Stolen Valor Act and take false claims quite serious. For the Marine, ask what type of sniper he was. If he was Division then he should have an MOS designation if Company then he won't and probably was.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, both guys are pretty nice guys and I would like to continue to get along with them. Any obvious signs I was trying to check out their stories would create unnecessary friction.

This "Stolen Valor Act" has to do with squelching people who claim to have been something more glamorous than what they actually were while in the military?

 

[dotman]

If you have a good relationship with them, and you like them, why are you going out of your way to prove whether or not they were exactly what they said they were in a war 40 years ago?

Trust them, if they haven't given you any reason not to. Not quite knowing the exact technical definition of caliber is not good reason to not trust someone. People are practical. This has little practical use to helping them stay alive.

Also, I've seen a number of people chime in in this thread stating supposed facts, and obvious ways you could absoutely verify, when its clear that these people a) weren't around when this war took place, and b) obviously just looked these things up on some website somewhere, probably wiki, and reposted the rehashed information as fact.

If you weren't around when this happened and weren't there, or didn't spend a lot of time talking with folks who were, you really don't know. Don't think that whatever you spent five minutes reading on wikipedia is gospel.

 

[Sorry!]

If you have a good relationship with them, and you like them, why are you going out of your way to prove whether or not they were exactly what they said they were in a war 40 years ago?

Trust them, if they haven't given you any reason not to. Not quite knowing the exact technical definition of caliber is not good reason to not trust someone. People are practical. This has little practical use to helping them stay alive.

Also, I've seen a number of people chime in in this thread stating supposed facts, and obvious ways you could absoutely verify, when its clear that these people a) weren't around when this war took place, and b) obviously just looked these things up on some website somewhere, probably wiki, and reposted the rehashed information as fact.

If you weren't around when this happened and weren't there, or didn't spend a lot of time talking with folks who were, you really don't know. Don't think that whatever you spent five minutes reading on wikipedia is gospel.

Or MAYBE you take an interest in history? Maybe you just look up whatever you talk about for 5 minutes on wikipedia but some people have actually STUDIED these things (who the heck do you think WRITES all this stuff on the internet anyways, you think war vets come together and write up all the facts they have about the war?)

I wasn't alive during the vietnam war, does that mean I can't have knowledge on what occured? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I guess next time I take a history course and the teacher is going on about one of the World Wars that I can just say 'shut up, you weren't there you spent 5 minutes wikiing that information! You can't talk about ANYTHING'

 

[zoobyshoe]

If you have a good relationship with them, and you like them, why are you going out of your way to prove whether or not they were exactly what they said they were in a war 40 years ago?

I am assessing whether or not I should believe them. This is simply part of making friends: getting to know how much you can trust what someone else says. Liking someone and trusting their reports about their past aren't necessarily linked in lockstep.

The alleged ex-seal is the most problematic. He comes to the Cafe (which is open 24 hours) and stays for 16 and 24 hour stretches "working" on a laptop. He claims to be doing some kind of work online: sales of advertizing which pays by commission. Once and a while he boasts he'll soon be making large sums from this even though now his income is modest, and he won't need to stay online so much. However, very often I'd see a game of solitaire or chess on his screen when passing his table, and the large sums never seem to materialize given his continued need to work 24 hour stretches. I also often seen him drop his head and doze while "working".

About a year ago I started to suspect he was homeless and stayed in the cafe because he had nowhere else to go. Recently I had that suspicion confirmed by another guy there who has been letting the "ex-seal" sleep in his truck, which is where he goes when he is not at the cafe.

The owners of the cafe do not care how long any given customer stays as long as they continue to buy stuff periodically, but they do not want homeless people taking up residence there. It's clear that the "ex-seal"'s claims to be working online for massive stretches of time are a cover for the fact he's homeless and pretty much has no-where else to go.

He is additionally problematic in that he claims all his sniper missions were top secret, and there is no official record of any of them. He says after Viet Nam he was periodically sent to Latin America to participate in actions that were essentially illegal. It's not like that couldn't happen, as the kind of illegal activities that came out during the Iran/Contra hearings demonstrates, but it sounds extravagant, and perhaps designed to be uncheckable.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm sorry I was not aware we forced evolution upon our readers so they could cope with the multiple dimensions of thought in here.

There is no need for sarcasm. I have no issue with your post - it is perfectly fine. But in post 32, someone asked for an explanation, and that has lead to a whole side-thread.

It is quite common to split threads if there are two independent conversations going. It helps both.

Anyway, it's no biggie.

 

[dotman]

A bunch more background...

Yeah, I definitely see what you mean. I've met folks like that before as well. With all of that going on as well, I also think you definitely have reason to be suspicious. I especially agree with the part about being designed to be uncheckable, that is a red flag.

 

[DaveC426913]

I especially agree with the part about being designed to be uncheckable, that is a red flag.

And the fact that he so freely talks about it to strangers in public.


Zoob: you could lay traps. Make up some fact that sounds juicy, offer it, and see if he takes the bait.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The sniper teams would only work in pairs, the sniper with a Remington 700 with a Winchester magazine. And the spotter with an M14. Chambered in 30./06 and 7.62 respectively. There were no M16a1 based DMR's in the Marine corps at the time considering the term DMR didn't come around until a far later period, and is still the M14. There are the MKII Mod.1 and Mod.2 DMR's, but these are mostly used by private contracting firms as the M14 is the mainstay for the DMR in the US Army and Marine Corps.


taken from militaryphotos.net

So basically.
M16 never used as a DMR in Vietnam, still not used as an official DMR on the Marines or the US Army.
***It is possible that the man in question who said it was an M16 could have just gotten a number wrong***
Actual snipers used a Bolt action rifle chambered in 30./06
Marksmen and spotters used the M14 chambered in 7.62

Just thought this might help clarify anything misconceptions

The M-14 round converts to .299999, which is probably indistinguishable in diameter in any practical measurement from a .30 round. This makes so much more sense as a long distance, accuracy bullet than a .223 round, as the M-16 takes (.30=greater mass, more inertia, less responsive to light crosswinds, etc). It could well be he simply mis-spoke saying M-16 instead of 14. I suppose if I delved into it he might have a good explanation for why he was using a spotter's rifle instead of the sniper issue.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There is no need for sarcasm. I have no issue with your post - it is perfectly fine. But in post 32, someone asked for an explanation, and that has lead to a whole side-thread.

It is quite common to split threads if there are two independent conversations going. It helps both.

There is no side thread. Everything I found posted in my absence was perfectly on topic.

 

[turbo]

Zoob, if it helps, I had a co-worker who had been a SEAL and who had been frequently deployed in enemy-controlled territory in VietNam as a forward observer, calling in naval artillery strikes. I had known him for over a year and shared dozens of lunch-breaks with him (especially on night shifts) before he told me that. He was very quiet and unflappable, lean, fit, and strong. I can't imagine him sitting all day in a cafe, telling absolute strangers about his "top-secret" missions. It just wouldn't fit.

Edit: Also the notion that he could be confused over what caliber weapons he used would be laughable. The Special Ops guys from any branch of the service are quite highly trained and knowledgeable.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zoob, if it helps, I had a co-worker who had been a SEAL and who had been frequently deployed in enemy-controlled territory in VietNam as a forward observer, calling in naval artillery strikes. I had known him for over a year and shared dozens of lunch-breaks with him (especially on night shifts) before he told me that. He was very quiet and unflappable, lean, fit, and strong. I can't imagine him sitting all day in a cafe, telling absolute strangers about his "top-secret" missions. It just wouldn't fit.

The Seal did not raise the subject with me. I heard he was a sniper from a third party and I am the one who approached him to ask about bullet caliber. At some later point when we were both outside having a cigarette, I mentioned to him that by coincidence I had also met a Marine sniper at a different cafe. That's when he sketched out his SEAL history. At that point I'd known him over a year. So, he doesn't exactly sit and offer war tales to strangers, but once he got going he jumped straight to some extravagant claims.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Edit: Also the notion that he could be confused over what caliber weapons he used would be laughable.

The suggestion was that he mis-spoke, said M-16, when he meant M-14.

 

[turbo]

The suggestion was that he mis-spoke, said M-16, when he meant M-14.

Could be, I guess, but you should know that those are VERY different animals. The M-14 is a heavy-wood-stocked automatic rifle chambered for .308, and the M-16 is a small and very lightweight automatic rifle chambered for the tiny .223 rounds. With their light plastic stocks, fore-grips, etc, there were jokes about Mattel having produced them.

 

[MotoH]

You should be hard pressed to get any information out of any former or current person who served. Any vet that I have talked to has been extremely humble and would only talk about something if you pried it out of him.

If this "SEAL" is running around telling people all about his experiences and the like then he is most likely a faker.

If you want to understanding war in Vietnam. Go to this site, page down a bit and read the daily action reports of an AO and units of the 4th Infantry in May-June 1968 near Dak To - Ben Het. The 4th infantry units listed were heavily involved in the fight for Ben Het, rocket ridge, clearing the tri-border, and the heavy combat that came with the "second phase" of the Tet offensive.
http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/imag...8300010327.pdf

From what I have heard, a lot of the sniper teams would be sent out, they would walk 500m from the Fire base, set up their hide and snooze for a week and trudge back.

For whoever was doing the calculations on bullet weight between .308 and .223.

The military designates the calibres as 7.62mm and the 5.56mm

The stolen valor act is basically when anyone takes benefits from a Veterans organization that are undeserved. It mainly applies to civilians claiming benefits, It has been going on for a long time supposedly. A lot of people have claimed benefits from the VN war who didn't even get drafted.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Could be, I guess, but you should know that those are VERY different animals. The M-14 is a heavy-wood-stocked automatic rifle chambered for .308, and the M-16 is a small and very lightweight automatic rifle chambered for the tiny .223 rounds. With their light plastic stocks, fore-grips, etc, there were jokes about Mattel having produced them.

Yeah, but the words "M-14" and "M-16" are exactly the same in two out of three syllables.

 

[turbo]

Yeah, but the words "M-14" and "M-16" are exactly the same in two out of three syllables.

My point is that the guns themselves are VERY different and if you have been "married" to one or the other through a couple of tours of duty, there is very little likelihood that you would mis-speak that way. One of my buddies who served in Viet Nam wanted an M-14 badly because he felt that the M-16 was 'way underpowered and prone to jamming and he felt kind of "naked" carrying one.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You should be hard pressed to get any information out of any former or current person who served. Any vet that I have talked to has been extremely humble and would only talk about something if you pried it out of him.

If this "SEAL" is running around telling people all about his experiences and the like then he is most likely a faker.

This is the same for WWII veterans as well, my parent's generation. I was once told my uncle had landed at Normandy and fought through Europe. I asked him about it and he just stood up and walked out of the room as if he hadn't heard me. My aunt then said: "He saw people get killed. He doesn't like to talk about it." I also recall two or three of my mother's friends relating how their husbands sometimes thrashed in their sleep having war nightmares.

So, I think you're right that the seal's willingness to relate such things is probably not a good sign.

The stolen valor act is basically when anyone takes benefits from a Veterans organization that are undeserved. It mainly applies to civilians claiming benefits, It has been going on for a long time supposedly. A lot of people have claimed benefits from the VN war who didn't even get drafted.

You're saying people are applying for VA benefits who were never even in the military?

 

[zoobyshoe]

My point is that the guns themselves are VERY different and if you have been "married" to one or the other through a couple of tours of duty, there is very little likelihood that you would mis-speak that way. One of my buddies who served in Viet Nam wanted an M-14 badly because he felt that the M-16 was 'way underpowered and prone to jamming and he felt kind of "naked" carrying one.

True, but I'm "married" to my arms, so to speak, and I sometimes say "left" when I mean "right".

 

[dotman]

True, but I'm "married" to my arms, so to speak, and I sometimes say "left" when I mean "right".

So, have you, erm... consummated that marriage yet?

 

[turbo]

Regarding the reticence of some vets, my father never speaks of his duty in Europe in WWII. My wife's uncle never told me of his service, though he was decorated and lost a lot of buddies at Anzio. I found out about that through one of his kids when he took the family on a trip to Italy to "bury some old ghosts" a couple of years before he died.

The father of one of my closest friends growing up had been a sniper in France in WWII. He was never right in the head, afterward and was in and out of the VA hospital for years. The meds bothered him so badly that he refused to take them, and suffered some psychotic episodes. The police got a call that he had brandished a rifle at a passing truck, so they congregated on his house with a SWAT team and hemmed him in, and refused to let his friend (a deputy sheriff) go to him and talk him down. There he was, trapped in his house by a large group of armed men surrounding him. After they shot a cannister of tear gas into the house he shot his deer-rifle though an open window and a SWAT sniper killed him. Eddie was one hell of a shot, and had he really intended to hurt somebody, he could have. A very sad end to a troubled life.