The ironic thing is the guy’s criminal record is probably as fake as his military record.
I had a major case of the stoopids. I think I glanced at the muzzle and noticed the 30 round magazine. Didn’t even notice the feed port was on the side or anything else.
I stand corrected!
I sent a message to the Guardians of Valor website to see if they had any information on this guy. No guarantee I’ll get an answer. They only a few volunteers and a ton of messages everyday.
Ya think?
Convicted of a major felony, he was in solitary confinement and hosed down, with a Bible as the only reading material. This eventually led to his religious conversion, getting the felony thrown out on a technicality (and not retried?) and the rest is history.
Would the Army have taken him back like that?
The thing about bull shit artists is that it’s not just one thing which is miraculous, it’s everything.
What’s the deal with the “Censored S-2” in that picture? I’m not a military man, but that just seems to be a very odd thing.
The Army wouldn’t have had any problems with “jurisdictional issues” as the story purportedly says the Army did. For one thing, the crime at issue is an offense under both civilian and military law. If the civilians didn’t try him, then the military would have.
Now, there are cases in civilian, and even military, convictions where the appellate courts return the case for re-trial. If that were the case here, again, the military would have been quite capable and willing to take jurisdiction if the civil authorities relinquished such.
Regarding the awards: I can’t make them out clearly but they do seem to not be the “rack” someone with what he says his experience in the military is would have.
p.s. The funny thing about that is now there are quite a few online sites that will create a graphic for you to show how the rack should look after you enter the awards you wish to have on said rack. Really, to get that wrong these days is just lazy.
Issue also discussed in link below. Based on forum name (ex-Mormon) I’m assuming this some kind of anti-Mormon site.
“Cover up” is perhaps overstating the case. Unaware might be more apt. After all, it’s not like during WW2 and Vietnam eras when so many people were in the military and would be more familiar with what the awards are, and are supposed to look like than today.
Assuming the picture is real, and assuming it was actually censored by S-2, the only thing that could possible have been there and be important enough to hide for operational security purposes would be a small bunker. The only other thing I’ve ever seen that close to a tent is a generator, but I can’t imagine why that would be censored.
To be honest, I think it is just more BS. If S2 was actually censoring portions of Soldiers’ personal photos, the only thing that should be covered up in that picture is the guard tower, and that is left untouched. One can look at that picture and see there is only one guard (a huge vulnerability), no overhead cover of any consequence–just about 2 inches of lumber, no reinforcement from sandbags…
There can’t possibly be anything of real value scribbled out. You can see where the tent guy lines pretty much prevent anything from being there. Not even a small bunker.
So. . . beats me.
On the note about high year tenure and his length of time in the military, broken service is not considered active time, so if he was separated really early in his career with other than an RE-4 code, and didn’t get back in until after 1984, he may have made it to 2003 without having to be higher than E-5, and easily as an E-6.
Also, I have a picture of myself “cleaning” a GAU-21, which is a 50 caliber helicopter door gun. The picture was taken a couple weeks before I retired. I had the picture taken just to have a cool shot to post on Facebook, but whenever anyone asks, I always tell them the picture was staged. Everyone has a “take a picture of me with this cool piece” moment, maybe Johnson staged the photo, even if he wouldn’t be caught dead actually carrying the SAW.
As for the uniform issues, I can’t say to be certain. I was Navy, not Army. I am just saying that he may be the type of person who embellishes his military service, while having actually served. I ask you Army guys out there, is it possible to have everything on that uniform, with nothing under the ribbons, and he decided to stick a CAB there to fill the space? Still stolen valor, but not as bad.
Thanks for the link. A lot of others had the same instant reaction to the picture. One of the posters says he sent the info to the This Ain’t Hell blog. The guys over there might work a lot faster than where I sent it. I like Guardians of Valor because they are over cautious about exposing people. They go down every avenue and also try to contact the individual to make doubly sure there is no mistake. This Ain’t Hell isn’t quite so methodical. If his FOIA comes back bogus they will publish. I’ve never seen either to make an erroneous Stolen Valor claim but Guardians will post more detailed articles about their investigation.
Nope, it’s a legitimate charge. Initially the reporter and editors took the Johnson at his word, but after he was exposed MAJ John T. Distelhorst wrote an email to the Deseret News asking for an investigation, the newspaper responded not by investigating, pulling the article and issuing a correction, but simply by pulling the picture which proved the man was bullshitting.
This is despicable behavior not only by the imposter and the newspaper, which ultimately cheapens the honor of those who actually put their lives on the line for all of us.
Emphasis mine.
I sort of understand the sentiment behind this assertion, but i’ve always found it unconvincing. Knowing that a few self-serving jackasses, for whatever reason, choose to misrepresent themselves as military veterans, in no way diminishes or cheapens the honor of those who do put their lives on the line.
I don’t know about you, but i don’t see their honor as some sort of finite resource. A few frauds and fakes doesn’t mean that less honor is available for the true heroes. My respect for those who actually serve is not reduced in some mathematical amount by the existence of each fraudster. Nor does my respect for their courage diminish in proportion to their numbers; whether it’s 50 people or 50,000 people facing facing life-threatening situations, i can still find the same amount of admiration for each of them.
I teach at a university in San Diego County, and the large military presence in this region means that we have quite a lot of veterans on our campus taking advantage of the GI Bill to attend college. I act as a faculty mentor to a student who is a veteran, and i’ve taught quite a lot of vets over the past five years. Last semester, one of the students in my class had lost three of his limbs to an IED, and every time i saw him walk into class on his prosthetic legs, and pull his books out with his one good hand, i was reminded again of the very real consequences of military service, and i’m continually amazed that people are brave enough to actually volunteer for that sort of danger.
And you know what? A few frauds doesn’t change how i feel about that. I’m happy enough for the frauds to be exposed, although my overall feelings about them lean more towards pity than anger; they’re sort of pathetic. But they don’t detract at all from the efforts or the honor of the genuine article. This doesn’t seem very complex to me, and if you expand your mind a little bit, you too might be able to encompass the concept. Give it a shot.
It’s covering up the sign that says “Fort Bliss”.
It does tend to change the way I feel. Most vets remain relatively quiet about their service. Way to many who openly express their pride in their service have been proven to be fake. It’s gotten to the point where my default position is to meet such claims with skepticism. It doesn’t detract from what I feel about actual veterans but it does change the way I feel about people before I verify.
Where should it be worn?
1/4" above the ribbons, either centered or justified to the wearer’s left and in line with the edge of the ribbons. Or 1/2" above any other badge above the ribbons. Nothing is worn above that badge.
This, I disagree with completely, especially when those jackasses are looking to profit somehow, mostly with attention, are much more rarely money.
Certainly, honor, like love for children is not a finite resource. Having only one child does not mean that one is going to receive multiples of the devotion a parent of more than one child would have.
But, this is not an apt comparison. As Loach argues, by falsely claiming bravery which should rightfully belong to others, it places doubts when we hear stories of those who do actually face real dangers.
My BIL always said that he had served Vietnam in a hospital ship, and never really discussed it or his bum knee. Then one day, we were driving back from my mother’s cabin where some young men had attempted to gain entry, and he had cocked his 9 mm to let them know that he really didn’t want them on the premise.
It had rattled him, and he told me the story of the only other time he had pulled out a pistol. The helicopter he was riding as a corpmen was shot down and the enemy was coming in quickly. Even with his now messed up leg, he was able to get the wounded off and got into position to put up a bit of a fight. Fortunately, help did come.
I think that if those guys hadn’t tried to gain access, I would never have heard why his knee still bothers him now. I grew up in an era where there were many vets of both WWII and the Korean War, and they just didn’t discuss it.
The reason that it’s called “stolen valor” is that those jackasses who claim it, are thieves. The are seeking some sort of profit, usually attention, and are peddling tales of bravery which others earned, often at great sacrifice, and which they paid for in blood, sweat, tears and nightmares.
It is despicable and loathsome. What is particularly egregious here is that a religion would cash in on the fictitious claims in order to capitalize on the emotions of the readers and to utilize that in an attempt to persuade others of that religion’s “truths.”
That, despite having clear evidence to the lies, the paper choices to respond simply by removing the most damning evidence (which the church’s website didn’t even do) without an attempt to set the record straight speaks volumes concerning its priorities.
Is there any new news on this particular case?