Not a bad new show. The host Richard definitely is not the correct host of this show. His voice has no inflection and almost a single key, that carries through and his demeanor is that of a schoolboy on holiday.

Sorry but I could not disagree more. This is a GREAT show and Mack is the right man for the job. Tracerman give me a break the guy was Seal. Discovery - do more this is good stuff.

If he was a Seal, then he should know his weapons. At the very least someone behind the scenes should be checking accuracy of the statements he makes about weapons. This isn't a daytime drama, it is supposed to be a documentary on weapons and new weapons technology. I can deal with his giddy schoolboy demeanor, but I can't deal with the misinformation. The most obvious error was discussed in another thread. Good concept; bad research.

Good catch, tc_in_gj. I have already sicced the search dogs on checking up to see if he was a SEAL. There are too many wannabes and fakes out there. I wasn't a SEAL (didn't want it enough to volunteer. I was "just a regular squid"), but it offends me deeply when someone pretends an honor they never earned, even more so when their choir sings on when there is reasonable doubt. A real SEAL would've checked the facts, and NEVER would have confused the 7.62x39 with the 7.62x51, nor suggested they were the same thing.

arizony_ames, go to navyseals.com they'll check it for you quickly. He's also got a website just google it. I thought after your "don't bash vets comment", you were a stand up guy and that we just got off on the wrong foot. Turns out you're just another non fact checking vet bashing assumer that spouts off without checking reality.

As a retired vet I'm just disappointed in your nonsense.

texans3, I have already started the vetting process. As to jumping to support someone who claims to be a vet, I have seen far too many who claimed to be a vet, especially Spec Ops, who turned out to have been a cook assigned to a support detachment, for example. As to your assumption, all I am doing is pointing out that there is reasonable doubt and that gushing over this isn't necessarily the thing to do until the jury is in. As to being disappointed, I would think that if there is a possibility that someone is not who he claims to be, that you would be there, too, demanding proof. That is all I am doing. As to the name calling, I am sorry if I offended you, but I feel very strongly about the idea of someone claiming an honor that is NOT theirs. Once the jury is in, if it turns out that he is what he says he was, well, I will apologize and say my mea culpas. However, if he turns out to have, at the least, embellished his record, I would expect you to be there demanding his resignation or public acknowledgement of it. We vets have to stand together on such things. Some people think that they can cash in (and many have) by assuming the identity which they have not earned. I tend to jump in whole hog on something I feel passionately about, and this is something I feel very passionately about.
By the way, was yours a training accident or action connected?

Arizony_ames, I get what you’re saying but a very experienced vet like yourself has an incredible responsibility to distrust privately, check the facts and respond appropriately publicly. You’re a senior enlisted man and a natural leader. I know that you know this; I’m just a little surprised by your approach.

As for me, to keep it simple: I was fast roping and a buddy lost his grip and landed on me at the bottom. My knee and ankle got trashed. Sometimes I wish I could have gotten out of the way but then again we both lived... As for when and where I’d rather not discuss it in a public forum. I hope you understand.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: texans3,