The Optics of A Lie: Esquire Magazine and Osama bin Laden's 'Shooter'

The Optics of A Lie: Esquire Magazine and Osama bin Laden's 'Shooter'

It is late April of 2011. You're in a top-secret meeting discussing the infiltration of Osama bin Laden's (OBL's) compound. In a few short days, the administration's ignorant cult will hail the calls made in the this meeting as gutsy. In order to conjure this circle-jerk, an operation which will result in OBL's capture or death must be planned. After logistics and timing have been decided, the matter of personnel must be settled. You overhear the following exchange:

ARMY GENERAL: We'll need the finest operators we have. Experience, stealth, accuracy. Guts...living, breathing gutsiness. Ones that know what they're doing and what the hell they're talking about. Elite.

ADMIRAL: My finest team will lead. They're max-elite. We need another member, equally as elite. Rudimentary knowledge of firearms a plus.

MARINE GENERAL: I've got a spare for you, Admiral; a danger to mankind. He knows something of firearm accessories.

You surmise that the most elite force in the world has been assembled. Then they surmise that you know too much and plot to discredit you.

Because according to a report from Esquire, the 'Shooter' who killed OBL either doesn't know how to properly express his interaction with guns, is lying to Esquire, or is a fictional character made up by someone at Esquire who doesn't know anything about guns. Which would be consistent with Esquire already either lying about Shooter's health benefits or dutifully reporting Shooter's ignorance of his own damn future, which does not bode well for anyone's credibility as we look at this bizarre statement (h/t @alimhaider, as reported by @BillGertz):

"In that second, I shot him, two times in the forehead. Bap! Bap! The second time as he's going down. He crumpled onto the floor in front of his bed and I hit him again, Bap! same place. That time I used my EOTech red-dot holo sight. He was dead. Not moving. His tongue was out. I watched him take his last breaths, just a reflex breath."

Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Emphasis mine, but what precedes it is just as important. An "EOTech red-dot holo sight" sits on top of a rifle or pistol and is what you aim through. It's also a generic phrase; there are many different models for different uses, all of which are EOTech red-dot holo sights. 'Holo' is short for holographic. It has a very cool 'floating' reticle and it's an easy way to acquire your target while maintaining situational awareness (you can keep both eyes open). These sights are readily available for purchase and are widely used by our troops. Put another way, they are professional-grade optics of death that you can buy.

"That time I used my EOTech red-dot holo sight."

If Shooter was talking to other SEALs he would probably just call his sight his 'sight'. He's allegedly speaking to journalists so he may be dropping some knowledge on them; that makes a shred of sense. More than anything, it just seems frivolous and wreaks of sponsorship. It's just so weird. But once you put "EOTech red-dot holo sight" in context, it's more important how it was used than that it was used. The sight was used 'that time'. That Bap. Not for those first two Baps, those were 'those times' and they were in OBL's forehead. The third Bap, That Bap, was fired into a heap of scum on the floor. This is Shooter's version of events:

In a dark room, with an alert target using a hostage as a shield, Shooter manages two bullets into OBL's forehead.
Other Bap!
Other Bap!
With OBL on the floor like the stain he is, Shooter uses his state of the art precision aiming device for the first time.
That Bap!

You know how we humanize celebs and say 'they # like the rest of us'? Well, Navy SEALs aim like the rest of us. You don't use your "EOTech red-dot holo sight" for the first time on your third shot, especially when those first two were headshots.

So, if Shooter is pimping for a brand, what's their slogan?
When your target already has brain vents...trust us.

It doesn't make any sense. Not to mention this misstatement is part of a report which Esquire already corrected after they admittedly 'misstated' Shooter's health benefits. Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.

With all of this in mind, here are some possibilities:

#1) Shooter is real, he shot OBL, and he cheated on his aptitude battery because he is a moron. He's also probably why the stealth chopper crashed.
#2) Shooter is a real person and either duped Esquire by himself or is part of a government conspiracy (maybe with Esquire) to deepen intrigue surrounding the raid.
#3) Shooter is fake, created entirely by Esquire (maybe even with government help).

Theory #3 explains these misstatements as the flaws of a lie. Esquire would be doing this for the power that goes along with the perception of having access to OBL's shooter. It would be hard for them to do this very long without official rebuttals so political involvement would be helpful. Flattering facts of the raid could be 'corroborated' by Shooter. They can shame Veterans Affairs in the public eye by misstating benefits. They can use generic phrases like "EOTech red-dot holo sight" to raise awareness while their political allies seek to criminalize such things. They can probably pull a few moves we haven't seen yet. What Theory #3 predicts we will see, though, is a politician citing OBL's shooter as having used an EOTech and that such advanced technology does not belong on our streets.

(Editor's note: I am not suggesting that OBL is still alive or that his death was a hoax. I question Shooter's reliability as a source and, given Esquire's health benefit hairsplitting, even Shooter's existence. I am also not suggesting that Esquire or Shooter may have created this character specifically to target EOTech sights; it's a perk.)

reply to post by obamuh


#4 Operator is real, tells his story truthfully to Esquire writer. Esquire writer and/or editor decide to write story how they like it and just use said Operator's story as a rough guide.

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by obamuh

 

#4 Operator is real, tells his story truthfully to Esquire writer. Esquire writer and/or editor decide to write story how they like it and just use said Operator's story as a rough guide.

That's consistent with #1.

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by obamuh

 

#4 Operator is real, tells his story truthfully to Esquire writer. Esquire writer and/or editor decide to write story how they like it and just use said Operator's story as a rough guide.

How about #5 OBL was dead for 10 years + and the whole thing is a charade? Or #6 The guy they shot was one of the many known doubles of OBL, but Obama needed a movie, I mean something to get himself re-elected, so they set up a fake kill? (well not for that poor slob that took the "baps" to the head) You know the ATS motto - pics or it didn't happen LOL

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by obamuh

 

#4 Operator is real, tells his story truthfully to Esquire writer. Esquire writer and/or editor decide to write story how they like it and just use said Operator's story as a rough guide.

How about #5 OBL was dead for 10 years + and the whole thing is a charade? Or #6 The guy they shot was one of the many known doubles of OBL, but Obama needed a movie, I mean something to get himself re-elected, so they set up a fake kill? (well not for that poor slob that took the "baps" to the head) You know the ATS motto - pics or it didn't happen LOL

And that would be consistent with #3.

edit: #3 does not require OBL to have been dead this whole time, though.

This isn't very well known even in firearm savvy circles, but it is a fact that Tom Knapp the legendary exhibition point shooter has been contracted by .gov to train many of the high speed operators in military and LE. I have no doubt that Shooter has the skill to make an over the sights point shoot double tap head shot at CQB distance. Now, why he didn't have the Eotech at eye level when entering is another question.

reply to post by obamuh


Its called snap shooting, shot a hammer pair and then for the third shot he sighted down. These are SEALs, they shoot reflexively, they train so much CQB/MOUT # that they dont always need to be looking through the sights, you can still be looking down the sights. There are tricks of the trade.

And calling it his "EOTech holo" or what not, why wouldnt he call it what it was? When I was in the marines we had ACOGs or RCOs, I didn't say "yeah and I was looking down my scope" I would say my RCO or Acog, your reaching here bro.

reply to post by obamuh


Hey. Honest question for you. Have you ever shot a gun? How much do you know about shooting? I ask because from your OP it appears that you don't know anything about shooting. What the "shooter" in the article describes makes total sense to people who have actually shot guns.

It's not just SEALs that reflexively fire with high accuracy with out completely looking down their sights or scope. It's a common technique taught to civilians and military alike. Heck I even know how to do it with a moderate degree of accuracy. There is nothing inconsistent with what the "shooter" describes in his narrative.

FInally there is nothing unusual about calling your sight what it's actually called. In this instance the EO Tech. I don't tell my buddy "I was looking down my scope" when I'm at the range I say "so I was glassing with my Leupold" or something similar. It's normal lingo in the gun crowd.

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by obamuh

 

#4 Operator is real, tells his story truthfully to Esquire writer. Esquire writer and/or editor decide to write story how they like it and just use said Operator's story as a rough guide.

How about #5 OBL was dead for 10 years + and the whole thing is a charade? Or #6 The guy they shot was one of the many known doubles of OBL, but Obama needed a movie, I mean something to get himself re-elected, so they set up a fake kill? (well not for that poor slob that took the "baps" to the head) You know the ATS motto - pics or it didn't happen LOL

Bilk, I'm with you on this, bro. I'll take #5 for a $1000, Alex.

Originally posted by Skagnetty
reply to post by obamuh

 

Its called snap shooting, shot a hammer pair and then for the third shot he sighted down. These are SEALs, they shoot reflexively, they train so much CQB/MOUT # that they dont always need to be looking through the sights, you can still be looking down the sights. There are tricks of the trade.

And calling it his "EOTech holo" or what not, why wouldnt he call it what it was? When I was in the marines we had ACOGs or RCOs, I didn't say "yeah and I was looking down my scope" I would say my RCO or Acog, your reaching here bro.

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
reply to post by obamuh

 

Hey. Honest question for you. Have you ever shot a gun? How much do you know about shooting? I ask because from your OP it appears that you don't know anything about shooting. What the "shooter" in the article describes makes total sense to people who have actually shot guns.

It's not just SEALs that reflexively fire with high accuracy with out completely looking down their sights or scope. It's a common technique taught to civilians and military alike. Heck I even know how to do it with a moderate degree of accuracy. There is nothing inconsistent with what the "shooter" describes in his narrative.

FInally there is nothing unusual about calling your sight what it's actually called. In this instance the EO Tech. I don't tell my buddy "I was looking down my scope" when I'm at the range I say "so I was glassing with my Leupold" or something similar. It's normal lingo in the gun crowd.

You both raise a couple of the same points:

1) You are hung up on how he described his sight. Sure, he might call his sight his EOTech his Leupold, or his ACOG instead of just his sight. But would you say you used your "ACOG's internally-adjustable compact telescopic sight"? Maybe if you were talking to a journalist, like I said. Maybe. And I would look at you just as strangely. But that was really beside the point of what was curious about the remark...also like I said.

2) You both seem to have missed the relevance of the prologue in the situation room. This mission was critical. There was little room for error. I think it insults SEALs to suggest that Shooter would have hotdogged by snap shooting in such a critical situation [and then (sadistically?) firing up his EOTech for a point-blank cherry on top]. Not to mention it being more difficult in darkness to acquire iron sights or pull off a trick shot. Not to mention snap shooting is generally useful as a defensive tactic in order to gain an offensive position on a target. You may not intend to, but frankly I think you besmirch how seriously our special forces operate.

Based on what we know, one has to stretch a little far to make the case that Shooter is a real person. When people start suggesting trick shooting you know something stinks. (bump)

Not to toot my horn or anything but damn it feels good to be a gangsta:

sofrep.com...

Wow I'm actually shocked you came back to your completely wrong thread. And to post a link confirming you were wrong and still claim to be right shows an incredible detachment from reality.

So the person that was interviewed by esquire magazine was not the point man but the second operator up the stairs and was the second person to shoot obl, and turned out to be a braggart. You now claim this revelation confirms your op? I'm searching everywhere in this thread from your posts and can't find anything remotely close to this in anything you wrote.

#1) Shooter is real, he shot OBL, and he cheated on his aptitude battery because he is a moron. He's also probably why the stealth chopper crashed.

That was my personal favorite, because cheating on an asvab wouldn't come out in the years of training after enlisting and up until that point in their career during the raid. Obviously you've never worked with or trained with jsoc. I've never met a "moron" in jsoc but have seen several on ats.

But hey you get on with your bad self mr. delusional gansta

reply to post by obamuh


I have to say I would question the credibility of “the shooter” as esquire call him.

I have read his account and throughout it struck me as strange that he would use his amazing story as a opportunity to discuss his views on military benefits.

I mean if you read it, it just sounds wrong doesn’t quite ring true with me there is just something about it that I don’t buy.

I say this as someone who does believe that members of DEVGRU did kill Bin Laden during Operation Neptune Spear. That said there is just something about the Esquire story that makes me think that this “shooter” is either exaggerating his role in events or is a flat out liar.

I really dont know if what you are saying about the gun sight is right or worng because i really dont know that very much about guns but i do know alot aobut Neptune Spear and the Esquire story just doesnt sound right to me

S&F OP

Originally posted by Carreau
You now claim this revelation confirms your op? I'm searching everywhere in this thread from your posts and can't find anything remotely close to this in anything you wrote.

You must have missed theory #2 which claims Shooter duped Esquire. Which would not only be consistent with that sofrep link, but sofrep even uses the word 'duped'! lol

Like I said: gangsta.

Don't worry, maybe one of your theories will be accurate someday...