Great pic of M4 in action

[m14nut]

God protect this man while we sit safe in our homes dicussing what we think happened.

 

[Destructo6]

The press has a history of taking fake photos after the actual action is over, I'm seen it myself. You can even look into the Mount Suribachi incident where they staged a second flag raising.

They raised a second, larger, flag, in part because an officer wanted to keep the first flag. That is hardly staged.

I simply have the mind of a skeptic along with the wisdom to spot inconsistencies, just because you lack those qualities you call it being an armchair quarterback.

You made the initial assertions, which were based on very little. I believe that generally qualifies you for the title. And picking apart your assertions in no way makes one gullible. Or should we just take your word as fact?

 

[RED-DOG 40]

Irregardless what anyone "Thinks" went on in the picture, just remember he is there making it possible for us all to be safe and able to guess.
May the" Big Guy in the Sky" watch over and keep y'all safe....

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Firstly, would you want to be the Marine who faked an injury in order to get on the news? Your reputation with your men would be ruined. Also, I am sure there would be some Marines who actually were wounded in combat that would be quite upset at him.

The photo may be staged, but not necessarily faked. Photographers ask soldiers to repeat what they just did so that they can get "action" shots, only the action isn't while under real fire anymore. The injury is real, no doubt, and occurred via the enemy, but the returned fire part of the image may be re-enacted. After all, it is a very powerful image to see an injured soldier engaged in battle, no?

Would his reputation with his men be ruined if the image were faked? Probably not. Just how many of the folks in combat get to see the pictures taken of them? Besides, his injuries look superficial, minor lacerations.

As for the lean of the soldiers in the background as indicators of their speed, supposedly jogging or running, at just what speed would you estimate

Secondly, the soldier is firing his weapon. I would think that discharging your weapon when not in combat would be a big no-no. I know that it is probably pretty easy to away with it in Iraq, but when there is a photo of you doing it you might get some questions from higher up.

Iraq is a combat zone. Weapon discharges, especially close in time to fighting or events such as roadside bombs would not be unexpected. So, it probably isn't much of a NO-NO.

Thirdly, in the second picture you will see two soldiers in a defensive position in the background of SSgt. Kay.

How are they in a defensive position? Their backs are turned away from him. Debate has already raged on whether they are walking or running away.

As for the helmet, there is nothing in the image that sheds definitive light on why it is off. Blown off, set down, dropped, left in the vehicle, etc. are all possibilities. He may not have had his helmet on when the attack started and hence did not have it on for the battle.

In regard to the lean of the soldiers being indicative of their speed, running or jogging, at just what speed is the leaning vehicle in th upper left going? As noted, the image has a definite fisheye effect.

And, the flag raising at Suribachi while maybe not staged, certainly is not as billed by many writers. It is supposed to symbolize the strength and determination of the soldiers in battle, working very hard to raise the symbol of America, etc etc etc. The flag was NOT raised during battle. The great show of determination supposedly represented was not nearly as exciting as the symbol has come to represent. If you have seen the actual movie footage of the raising of the flag. It goes up and they men meander and disperse, no big deal. It is a great and powerful image, but with more greatness and power than the actual event.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

He may not have had his helmet on when the attack started and hence did not have it on for the battle.

The above picture is closer to the time when he was first wounded and his helmet is on with chin strap in place.

Or should we just take your word as fact?

Nope, people are free to decide on their own. Of course they shouldn't see a pic with a caption and take that as fact either. The media is far from consistant when it comes to honesty and accuracy.

 

[feedthehogs]

Hey, can I play?

I was good at finding, Where's Waldo and doing word jumbles.

Its just a friggin picture, holy crap...................

 

[m14nut]

Its just a friggin picture, holy crap...................

exactly. I posted it just cause the flash looked badass, and I thought I'd add the quote so people would know the story...

Jeez guys, just accept the pic for it's face value :banghead:

 

[Ed]

To the more important part, Someone needs to send this pic to all those Pro Ban Congresspeople and let them know that They must have kept the ban in the US military. Because everyone knows that a flash suppressor hides the flash from onlookers, and I see a flash in the daytime in this pic. So Our troops must have been issued these rifles before Sept....


That was said with sarcasm.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The above picture is closer to the time when he was first wounded and his helmet is on with chin strap in place.

On what do you base the sequence of events? Would it be because there is less blood on him in the picture where he is wearing his helmet? My guess would be that he got a quick swabbing by a medic, determined there was no real damage, put on his helmet and went back to work taking care of his people.

---------------

As for the notion of taking the image at face value, why? I have no reason to trust the media.

 

[Lonestar.45]

It's all second guessing because none of us where there.

My guess? You wouldn't see a bloodied Marine firing his weapon in order to "pose" for a photograph in a battlezone.

 

[El Rojo]

Well it is obvious now that I have no credibility with the beer drinking crowd. Sorry about the beer screw up!

The other picture of him shows the helmet still on and a facial wound. He must have a dedicated deity if there was an explosion near enough to him to blow his helmet off and reak his chinstrap without seriously injuring him.

How convienent of you to try and support your baseless assumptions by looking at pictures that were posted long after your initial assumptions and then taking my satirical assumptions and portraying them as fact since you have new knowledge that was not present when I first challenged your theories. You mistake my challenges to your assumptions as the real story. I made no real claims on what really happened. I only point out that you don't know what happened and yet you offer statements that suggest you know exactly what happened. Not only that, you are critisizing SSGT Kay for what he does and doesn't do with his helmet when you yourself don't have the frist clue what really happened there. That is armchair quaterbacking, not being skeptical. Being skeptical is saying, "Hey, that looks inconsistent, do you think it is a staged picture?" You stated is a staged picture and you stated that the guys in the background are walking, and that the absense of a helmet makes it staged.

Well there is that other picture which shows another APC with the gun being manned.

Again, taking my points as my explination of the events and trying to prove me wrong based on new information you didn't have at the time. Anything I have stated has nothing to do with what really happened, it only offers a counter assumption to your same assumptions that are based on limited information and not really knowing what happened. I never stated I knew more than you, I only state that you probably don't know as much as you think you know. I don't know what happened to SSGT Kay. I am not going to pretend like I do either and pass it off as some superior ability to be "skeptical". I call that a superior ability to jump to conclusions based off of limited information and assumptions.

 

[444]

" You wouldn't see a bloodied Marine firing his weapon in order to "pose" for a photograph in a battlezone."
In this particular instance, you are looking at a bloodied soldier from the Army. I am not sure whether Marines do this also or not.


I have always wondered why certain people (many of whom are on this board) delight in trying to prove every picture ever posted is a fake. There are people who live for this and make endless posts about photoshop, shadows, people's feet etc.
If you are right, do you get a gold star or does the teacher write your name on the blackboard ?

 

[CannibalCrowley]

It seems to me that some people just don't want to admit that some "combat pictures" are staged. It's often impossible to determine whether or not an event is staged just by the picture itself; however, the pictures often have evidence that lead one to believe that the picture may be staged. So should we question the ones that have such evidence, or accept them all as fact? Sometimes the serviceman is at fault, but most of the time I blame the press for making the pictures public while providing the wrong info. For instance, a while back a then local newspaper reporter showed pictures of a training accident and tried to caption it as being taken while we were deployed.

How convienent of you to try and support your baseless assumptions by looking at pictures that were posted long after your initial assumptions and then taking my satirical assumptions and portraying them as fact since you have new knowledge that was not present when I first challenged your theories.

Incorrect. Unlike you I don't take things at face value. A simple Google News search turned up quite a bit of info, including the second pic that was posted. The one I found was smaller so didn't bother posting it, besides it's always interesting to argue a point when one holds more information than the other party.

That is armchair quaterbacking, not being skeptical. Being skeptical is saying, "Hey, that looks inconsistent, do you think it is a staged picture?" You stated is a staged picture and you stated that the guys in the background are walking, and that the absense of a helmet makes it staged.

First off, I'm not sure what you mean by, "you stated is a staged picture". But the rest of the sentence makes it look like you're saying that I stated the picture was staged. Go back and read, you'll see that I wrote, "It's likely a posed pic."

Not only that, you are critisizing SSGT Kay for what he does and doesn't do with his helmet when you yourself don't have the frist clue what really happened there.

Hmm, don't remember that part, but it isn't the first time you've made something up in an attempt to paint someone in a bad light. I pointed out the missing helmet because no sane person takes his helmet off during a firefight, thus he likely waited until it was over.

I don't know what happened to SSGT Kay. I am not going to pretend like I do either and pass it off as some superior ability to be "skeptical". I call that a superior ability to jump to conclusions based off of limited information and assumptions.

Yet here you are trying to say that I'm wrong for pointing some things which make it seem like the pic had been staged. Smell that folks, it's the sweet smell of hypocrisy.

In this particular instance, you are looking at a bloodied soldier from the Army. I am not sure whether Marines do this also or not.

Yes they do. Usually it's just for their own jollies, but sometimes the press is there as well. Remember this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=113912&highlight=ppsh ?

There are people who live for this and make endless posts about photoshop, shadows, people's feet etc.
If you are right, do you get a gold star or does the teacher write your name on the blackboard ?

In that case, nobody should have challenged the documents that Rather brought out concerning Bush's military service. If one takes everything as fact without question, how would you separate truth from the lies?

 

[Litlman]

How about that M-4 in action????? To the rest of the paranoid negative crap, a big BLAHHHHHHHHH!!!

 

[buzz_knox]

So the "it was staged" argument goes something along the lines of immediately following an IED attack (as evidenced by the blood), a reporter gets some Marines to do what they did mere moments before, including discharging a weapon.

Sorry, but I think a Marine would say 1) "I'm getting this head wound checked first, thank you very much"; and 2) "I'm not popping off rounds given that everyone is naturally a wee bit nervous about the attack we just had."

If we're going to argue that the photo is staged, isn't it equally plausible under the circumstances that the blood is ketchup, and this took place on the same sound stage that the moon landings were faked?

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

just for the record, strykers have a remote weapons station. this means the guy manning the weapon is out of sight and inside the vehicle.

 

[444]

Canibal, you and Buzz both missed my point. This guy is in the US ARMY. He is not a Marine.

 

[RED-DOG 40]

Who CARES about, posed-staged-faked...
The original post was about the flash....and that's all folks..... ....

 

[Destructo6]

It seems to me that some people just don't want to admit that some "combat pictures" are staged.

Red herring. Your assertion wasn't "some are staged", it was "this one was staged". Stick to the argument you have, not the one you want.

 

[fistful]

Rojo & Cannibal:

You two bicker like an old married couple.

 

[El Rojo]

Unlike you I don't take things at face value.

So you assume because I dispute you, I take things for face value? That is a brilliant assumption.

The one I found was smaller so didn't bother posting it, besides it's always interesting to argue a point when one holds more information than the other party.

Number 6 posted the new information, not you. This isn't a real time discussion board. I would venture so far to say you did no Google search and you simply followed the link in his post. Oh yeah, the skeptic gets skepticed (I am following you lead and making stuff up, like skepticed ). Now you are claiming you found some smaller picture? Right. Try and prove that one. Why don't you tell us what Google words you used to find that article? I know you aren't going to tell us "Staff Sergeant Shannon Kay" because it would be obvious that you are just copying what I just posted. Again, you act is if this is real time posting and you "hold more information" when in fact, you just posted before me because I work long days. Your "claiming" to have done a "Google Search" after you saw Number 6's post to the new article is laughable at best.

Hmm, don't remember that part, but it isn't the first time you've made something up in an attempt to paint someone in a bad light.

Give me an example of where I made something up. Oh wait, you don't have one. Again another assumption of yours stated as fact.

I pointed out the missing helmet because no sane person takes his helmet off during a firefight, thus he likely waited until it was over.

You just said you aren't armchair quarterbacking, but you just said SSgt Kay wouldn't be a sane person because he removed his helmet during combat. I think we can take a poll and most people are going to agree you just contradicted yourself and armchair quarterbacked. You just painted yourself as a combat veteran and you stated that he obviously doesn't know what he is doing because no one would do what he did because you "took cover once". Yeah I take cover all the time too in Halo and Rainbow Six, but I don't count it as combat experience.

It's likely a posed pic.

So now you are unsure of yourself? Either it is a staged photo or it isn't. One second you are a skeptical genius and the next you aren't sure about your skeptical powers? So is it a staged photo or isn't it? You had enough statements earlier that you seemed awfully sure you knew what was happening; now it is only "likely"? Some confidence in your superhuman analytical ability you have there. Having a hard time justifying your comments as we offer counter assumptions?

Yet here you are trying to say that I'm wrong for pointing some things which make it seem like the pic had been staged.

Go ahead and quote me where I said it was wrong for you to be an armchair quarterback. In fact, I congratulated you numerous times on your armchair quarterback of the year award and your uncanny ability of skepticality as compared to us mere, sheeple mortals. You can make up things about staged pictures all you want. People can refute your assumptions and you can refuse to listen and properly justify your statements in the face of adversity. That is your God given right.

In that case, nobody should have challenged the documents that Rather brought out concerning Bush's military service. If one takes everything as fact without question, how would you separate truth from the lies?

Don't try and change the subject your way out of this. You are obviously trying to compare your ultra-skepticality to this Bush situation. I just can't figure out if you want us to compare you to the people who were skeptical about Bush's guard service and made up the fake document, who were skeptical first. Or are you trying to say you are like the people who were skeptical about the fake document and came second. You are cutting edge skepticality so I am going to assume (lots of that going on here) that you helped draft the Rather letter in order to help gather movement for the "Bush is a bad soldier" skeptical movement as only us mere mortals would be so slow as to only become skeptical after the first set of pure skepticals. I guess that makes you OG skeptical. Again mad props to you OG-S.

 

[buzz_knox]

444, the worst part is I knew he was Army. I have no idea why I typed Marine.

 

[armedcitizen]

I think the only appropriate response to the original post is "cool pic, thanks for sharing".

A lot of the rest of you have way too much time on your hands.

 

[m14nut]

your welcome citizen, glad you appreciate the pic.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

Red herring. Your assertion wasn't "some are staged", it was "this one was staged". Stick to the argument you have, not the one you want.

There's a little thing called comprehension, get back to me after you've attained it.

You just painted yourself as a combat veteran and you stated that he obviously doesn't know what he is doing because no one would do what he did because you "took cover once". Yeah I take cover all the time too in Halo and Rainbow Six, but I don't count it as combat experience.

I was an infantry Marine for four years (started out as 0311 and then became an 0351), and also participated in Operation Enduring Freedom. How about you?

Give me an example of where I made something up. Oh wait, you don't have one. Again another assumption of yours stated as fact.

Sure thing, in fact I don't have to go any further than your most recent post. RIght there:

You had enough statements earlier that you seemed awfully sure you knew what was happening; now it is only "likely"?

You see, I've stated that it was only "likely" since my first post in this thread.

So now you are unsure of yourself? Either it is a staged photo or it isn't. One second you are a skeptical genius and the next you aren't sure about your skeptical powers? So is it a staged photo or isn't it? You had enough statements earlier that you seemed awfully sure you knew what was happening; now it is only "likely"? Some confidence in your superhuman analytical ability you have there. Having a hard time justifying your comments as we offer counter assumptions?

Wow, you've made it readily apparent that you didn't even read my post. It's really pointless for me to continue with you since you've already shown that you lack the ability to properly read the words on your screen.