The infamous 17yr old SF.........the real age confirmed

[Argyll]

Well to all who took part in this somewhat heated debate at times,I've just had an email from the BBC,who can CONFIRM he was not 17,but 19,and that info came from the team about being 17,but he was from Psy-ops attached to the SF team,hope this clears it all up.
Apologies to all concerned,even nice to have an apology from the BBC too,wonder if they'll let me away with my Licence fee?
as Tane says Have a good un!

here's the content of the email

Calum thanks for your comments. We have since discovered the lad was 19
>not 17. He was a psyops guy co-opted into the SF team. The info on his
>age came from one of the team, Paul, who provided some biographical
>details for us and he made a mistake. Still young though I think you'll
>agree.
>Sandy.

[WARPIG]

....working as an RTO or Driver or is in a Psy Ops unit.. etc. woot

I knew it. Psy ops/ada sometimes run with SF. Doesn't mean they are SF.

[budanski]

Thanks for clearing that up Argyll. :D

[He219]

Maybe Calum can become a 'handler' and infuence Sandy to be our 'mole'? :P

Nice going, Argyll; but why do you pay a license fee to the BBC - email access?

;)

[Argyll]

thats a bloody good question He 219,and almost all of the country ask the same!!!!
pretty expecsive too,just to watch **** telly ,and a dose of repeats!!!

The licence fee here has been on the go for long enough,and many want it scrapped,the BBC does not have advertising ,unlike cable and sattelite,or the Independant channels.

[Beowulf]

....working as an RTO or Driver or is in a Psy Ops unit.. etc. woot

I knew it. Psy ops/ada sometimes run with SF. Doesn't mean they are SF.

No, they are Special Operations.
SF refers to a specific US army unit.

[Deuterium]

The whole process once again confirms how frequently the press get THE DETAILS wrong. It's only in the stories that we are familiar with that we see the inaccuracies. It really makes you wonder how much is correct on all the other stories we read/watch/hear.

[Argyll]

very true,but it wasn't the press who gave the wrong info it was a member of the team called "Paul".
The media is a strange outlet,we only belive what we want to believe.....if that makes any kind of sense !!.

ie media group A reports =a massive explosion kills hundreds!!
media group B reports= small explosion fatalities unknown
media group C reports= an explosion kills scores
media group D reports=David and Victorai Beckham marraige crisis!!

3 attempts at making a story and the 4th if you live in Britain!!

[Deuterium]

No I understand about the age being wrong but wasn't it the reporter who said the guy was SF, yes no?

[Argyll]

the reporter was given the info from one of the team ;)

[Deuterium]

Okay got it, rats I though I had finally made a good point<g>.

[Argyll]

rofl nah mate it's alwys good to listen to the pro's!

[11F5S]

the reporter was given the info from one of the team ;)

That's the reporter's story! Who believes what reporters say? rofl

[Argyll]

rofl aye very funny you pair!!

[Chops]

From Sandy Smith @ the BBC in my Inbox tonight:

"Thanks for your comments. You are right he was a psyops guy co-opted. SF teams always take in specialists. We have since discovered he was 19 not 17. The info came from one of the team who provided us with biographies.
sandy"

Argyll- copy coming soon

rgds

C

[Sabre]

That explains it then. 19 is more plausible.

I was wondering how a 17 year old could get into the special forces.

Here was me begining to think that

"...all this is possible thanks to the unique way the Special Forces is funded..."

:D

[11F5S]

From Sandy Smith @ the BBC in my Inbox tonight:

"Thanks for your comments. You are right he was a psyops guy co-opted. SF teams always take in specialists. We have since discovered he was 19 not 17. The info came from one of the team who provided us with biographies.
sandy"

Argyll- copy coming soon

rgds

C

Another example of a media person talking out of their rear end.

What do you Brits mean by "co-opted"?

[Argyll]

attached!!


The info on his
age came from one of the team, Paul, who provided some biographical
details for us and he made a mistake

No mate this was a 19th SFG mistake :lol:

have a good one!

[11F5S]

Argyll,

I'm was referring to the statement "SF teams always take in specialists".

I believe that eminates from the rear end of the reporter.
:P

"Always" and "Never" are words that will more likely than not make a fool out of you.

Take care.

[IDFM203]

attached!!


The info on his
age came from one of the team, Paul, who provided some biographical
details for us and he made a mistake

No mate this was a 19th SFG mistake :lol:

have a good one!Well perhaps but a good reporter would ask the same questions we were asking here.

Its the reporters fault for not fact checking and double checking any abnormalities.

Its his job to ask them what?? A 17 year old?? How is that possible??

shalom :D

[Argyll]

I got ya 11F5S.......................very true!!

idf,
the reporter did ask the questions,they went on the info provided by the rest of the team! The guy who provided the info"Paul" was mistaken,not the reporter ;)

[IDFM203]

I got ya 11F5S.......................very true!!

idf,
the reporter did ask the questions,they went on the info provided by the rest of the team! The guy who provided the info"Paul" was mistaken,not the reporter ;)Your not understanding me here mate

I know this. Listen reporters get wrong information all the time. their job is to double check and ask the right questions. When this "paul" gave this reporter this info, he’s supposed to read it and think for a second and then ask how is that possible for that is certainly not normal.

It’s the reporters job to double check and point out any abnormalities as this information appeared to have.
I would hope that the bbc is not reporting issues and news simply on everyone’s say so. I would hope that they are fact checking and double-checking what people are saying.
.

[Argyll]

Yes but it's not always possible to do that.
irrespective of the networks,many report the 1st hand reports,only to change them later

[IDFM203]

Yes but it's not always possible to do that.
irrespective of the networks,many report the 1st hand reports,only to change them later Whether it is possible to do that or not, the fact is that it should have and that the 19th SFG wasn’t totally at fault here for the reporter has blame for going on air and reporting something which he did not do a fact check on ( simple basics of reporting)

Second of all, while I understand its not always possible to do that, this case doesn’t seem like one of those. All the reporter had to do was ask "paul" how that was so (17 year old??), as any good reporter would do.
He did not and I think putting all the blame on the 19th SFG and not at the reporter is wrong.


btw, did the bbc change thier mistake on air yet???

Shalom.:D

[Argyll]

Considering this guy was from a different unit(Psy Ops)than from the 19thSF,then again how can this be a media error,if you re read what was said,the guy called "Paul(SF) gave all the profiles and Biographies of the team to the reporter,it was therfore "Pauls" fault for not checking Travis's age!!
I'm not defending the reporter or the media here in any way,but look throughout this forum and there are Thousands of interpretations on the stories the media ,official or unnoficial have aired and reported,which one is correct?

It is upto the viewer/reader to decided himself whether this is fact or fiction!!

Want me to post something from the Israeli "Closed Case " to prove it?

During that interval, the ship's original flag, having been shredded during the attack, was replaced by a larger (7-by-13-foot) holiday ensign. As the crew labored to tend to the wounded, extinguish the fire, and burn classified papers, contact was finally made with the Sixth Fleet. "Help is on the way," replied the carrier America, which quickly unleashed eight of its most readily available warplanes - F-104s armed with nuclear weapons. Before they reached their objective, however, the jets were recalled by Vice-Adm. Martin. If Rabin feared that the ship was Russian, Martin suspected that its attackers were Russian, and without authorization from the highest level, he did not want to risk starting a nuclear war.27



This is from an official Israeli document yes?

The F104 was NEVER a carrier borne aircraft!!!The person who wrote that document has provided FALSE and completley INNACURATE reporting,further investigation would reveal that this information is WRONG,and that they were more likely F4 Phantoms!!
As for stating they were armed with Nuclear Weapons again is stating a falsehood.

[NcDeuce]

You can always count on the media to screw the pooch. They always get the UH-60 and MH-60 mixed up. This mistake can reveal a lot about the mission, units involved and such.

[He219]

The F104 was NEVER a carrier borne aircraft!!!The person who wrote that document has provided FALSE and completley INNACURATE reporting,further investigation would reveal that this information is WRONG,and that they were more likely F4 Phantoms!!


http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles03/images03/LWF01.jpg

From 1965 to 1967, VA-64 deployed twice to the Mediterranean with Carrier Air Wing 6 on board the USS America (CVA-66). During the second deployment, VA-64 launched A-4Cs to respond to the Israeli attack on the U.S. Navy intelligence-gathering ship USS Liberty (AGTR-5) in June 1967. The Skyhawks were recalled before they could engage the attackers.
http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles03/PROlwf01.htm

Argyll wrote:

This is from an official Israeli document yes?
The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise is a US based PR group in Maryland.


One of AICE's principal objectives is to enhance Israel's image by publicizing novel Israeli approaches to problems common to both our nations and illustrating how Americans can learn from these innovations. AICE also works with individual states that are establishing and expanding their ties with Israel. In particular, we produce reports documenting how these states can and do benefit from cooperation, trade and academic and cultural exchanges with Israel.

[IDFM203]

Considering this guy was from a different unit(Psy Ops)than from the 19thSF,then again how can this be a media error,if you re read what was said,the guy called "Paul(SF) gave all the profiles and Biographies of the team to the reporter,it was therfore "Pauls" fault for not checking Travis's age!! . listen I never said it wasn’t “pauls” fault as well. I am just saying that the reporter shares blame for he went on air without fact checking (in this case simply asking Paul what’s up (17 year old?) would have been sufficient.



I'm not defending the reporter or the media here in any way, .well it seems that way, especially from you initial postings for you seem to put all the blame on the U.S. and none on the reporter (or the bbc) for not doing any simple fact checking (simple basics of reporting) like simply asking that a 17 year old seems strange perhaps explain that??


but look throughout this forum and there are Thousands of interpretations on the stories the media ,official or unnoficial have aired and reported,which one is correct? .yes I understand that. But a reporter is supposed to do simple fact checking.

Yes its up to the viewer as well but the reporter needs to do his job properly as well.

Listen all I am saying is that the reporter is at fault as well. Whereas you don’t seem to find any fault in him and that’s wrong.



It is upto the viewer/reader to decided himself whether this is fact or fiction!! .yeah but its up to the reporter as well to present a story after some basic fact checking was done.


Want me to post something from the Israeli "Closed Case " to prove it? . I knew something like this was coming.

It was so predictable that I would offer an opinion and someone would bring Israel into this (I must admit though I was surprised it was you).

I only hope that this thread now doesn’t turn into another Israel topic. :roll:


During that interval, the ship's original flag, having been shredded during the attack, was replaced by a larger (7-by-13-foot) holiday ensign. As the crew labored to tend to the wounded, extinguish the fire, and burn classified papers, contact was finally made with the Sixth Fleet. "Help is on the way," replied the carrier America, which quickly unleashed eight of its most readily available warplanes - F-104s armed with nuclear weapons. Before they reached their objective, however, the jets were recalled by Vice-Adm. Martin. If Rabin feared that the ship was Russian, Martin suspected that its attackers were Russian, and without authorization from the highest level, he did not want to risk starting a nuclear war.27



This is from an official Israeli document yes? no that link is from outside investigations. It is not from a official link.

Now parts of that article are taken from official documents but it is not clear as to which.

But this is off topic in this thread……




The F104 was NEVER a carrier borne aircraft!!!The person who wrote that document has provided FALSE and completley INNACURATE reporting,further investigation would reveal that this information is WRONG,and that they were more likely F4 Phantoms!!
As for stating they were armed with Nuclear Weapons again is stating a falsehood. that’s all debatable!!! Second of all if that reporter got it wrong then its worng. Just like if Israel’s version of the liberty is wrong then its wrong (which is very debatable but I suggest for further comment please do so in the other thread).

The point is that the reporter did not do simple fact checks and yet you see no fault in him

Secondly this specific case that we are talking about wasn’t too difficult to find out. Just like you asked and the bbc promptly responded with their mistake (you see how easy it was) the reporter himself should have done this before he went on air.

Btw again, did the bbc air a retraction??

Shalom :D

[Argyll]

Thats a roger on that TF!
I'm really surprised that the US/UK allowed such reporting during the War in Stan and Iraq,it ,felt to me that they were opening themselves up for criticism at times,by having inbedded reports.!!

[Argyll]

the BBC didn't promptly reply,it wasn't until 5 days after the airing,as for them going on air to correct this,they may well do so through other programmes such as watchdog etc

you seem to have a real problem here with reporters,and getting facts right!!

the reporter did correct his error by emailing the guys who brought this up,have you actually considered that if A) is the liason between media and unit,that because of the nature of the programme (SF) then double checking on his part is also relevant?
But maybe they did check this up,remeber this was all happening in the field,so it may not have been possible to double check,only the reporters themselves can answer this as to why they didn't do this,perhaps an OPSEC/PERSEC reason....like I said only they know!
I can gaurantee you that no 2 newspapers will have the same identical stories,that's what sellthem is the difference in contents and context!


Now onto the Israel thing,the only reason I brought this up is I happened to read it before I made the reply,and that the page was still open,it has nothing to do with the incident,it was all about a reported innacuracy,the fact that the author/reporter provided wrong information,regarding the aircraft type and it's armaments....it was showing that there are discrepeancies in a Factual document,that were infact wrong,and have not been corrected,it had nothing to do with an Anti Israeli thing.
You were correct to say that the reporters from the BBC were at fault for providing us with wrong facts,when that very statement from an Israeli document ,is also at fault by providing the reader with wrong information!!

To try and insinuate as to some other motive would be almost bordering on Paranoia,and this was never the intention,but rather your interpretation,there was nothing malicious in using that statement!!

Stay sfae and Shalom too :hug:

[IDFM203]

the BBC didn't promptly reply,it wasn't until 5 days after the airing,as for them going on air to correct this,they may well do so through other programmes such as watchdog etc:ok but the point is that the reporter should have asked the questions and not just the viewers.
As quickly as you asked that question, that reporter should of as well.

(just curious, whats watchdog??)


you seem to have a real problem here with reporters,and getting facts right!! : no I know that reporters all the time do this. It still doesn’t make it right,

No, my “problem” or concern is you totally blaming the U.S. here and not at all the bbc or the reporter (who are most defiantly at fault here as well).



the reporter did correct his error by emailing the guys who brought this up, :yes but he should have asked the same question YOU and others have asked before airing the show. (thats pretty simple thing to do)


have you actually considered that if A) is the liason between media and unit,that because of the nature of the programme (SF) then double checking on his part is also relevant? : yes I have. I guess my problem here is that the bbc was in contact with someone (“Paul” and maybe others) and yet never asked that individual to clear it up.


But maybe they did check this up,remeber this was all happening in the field,so it may not have been possible to double check,only the reporters themselves can answer this as to why they didn't do this, : but they were in contact with someone who gave them this information right? Then why didn’t they ask him that?


I can gaurantee you that no 2 newspapers will have the same identical stories,that's what sellthem is the difference in contents and context! : yes true but it doesn’t make it right.

You see the problem here is that you don’t seem to find any fault in the reporter and I think that’s wrong.

All he had to do was ask that person he was getting that information from what’s up??(17 year old huh??)


Now onto the Israel thing,the only reason I brought this up is I happened to read it before I made the reply,and that the page was still open,it has nothing to do with the incident,it was all about a reported innacuracy,the fact that the author/reporter provided wrong information,regarding the aircraft type and it's armaments....it was showing that there are discrepeancies in a Factual document,that were infact wrong,and have not been corrected,it had nothing to do with an Anti Israeli thing. :
I never said it was an anti Israel thing. It just comes across to me as an attempt in trying to shift topics and subject’s as the mere mention of Israel normally does.

Secondly I didnt say that what those reports from Israel were wrong. It’s just debatable. (Now again if you want to bring this up further then please do so in the other thread)

But again if their wrong then its wrong I admit that.



You were correct to say that the reporters from the BBC were at fault for providing us with wrong facts, : well its not so much as bad facts (but that’s wrong too) but more of not doing a simple fact check.


Secondly that’s the first time I hear you say this (now if I am wrong then I apologise but I don’t think you have said that before)



when that very statement from an Israeli document ,is also at fault by providing the reader with wrong information!! : first of all again its debatable but anyways like I said in my last post to you, if its false information then its wrong, I admit that.


To try and insinuate as to some other motive would be almost bordering on Paranoia, :this is not about any motive with the bbc here. Perhaps it was indeed an accident.

The point is that you came off as solely blaming the U.S. and seemingly giving the bbc and that reporter a complete pass. That is wrong

They made a mistake and while it might not been intentional, it is nonetheless THEIR mistake (as well as perhaps the U.S.).


and this was never the intention,but rather your interpretation,there was nothing malicious in using that statement!! : please stop with these paranoia’s here. if you read my statements carefully you will see that I have none. I think the paranoia is what you think I am thinking.



Stay sfae and Shalom too :hug: yes you too mate.:hug:

shalom :D