It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: sg1642
like I already said a stab proof vest could allow blood to pool under clothing before it finds an exit. Holding his hands up has nothing to do with it. He could easily have been shot through a vital organ and had enough fight in him to put his hands up. You can't see underneath him. I haven't looked to see if there is blood spatter on the wall and to be honest I don't really want to. I don't think that final shot hit his head and at most I think it grazed him. But then again the video isn't very clear.
originally posted by: thesmokingman
originally posted by: sg1642
I counted nine shots possibly ten before they ran over to him. Any one of them could have been the one that eventually killed him and the tenth/eleventh shot to the head may well have missed him. That should pretty much be the end of the argument.
So then to all the people saying that a close range shot would not cause a bloody mess, what about the fact that multiple shots WERE fired before they ran up on him, those were from enough distance away that the bullet would have surely ripped right through the guy. Yet he was still holding his hands up until the last shot we see, the shot that did not appear to me to hit him in the head. Then, when the camera shows them running by his body AFTER the shooting, there is STILL NO POOL of blood. Nothing! Please explain that firearms experts.
There's never any blood now, is there.
originally posted by: SSFFlood
I may be missing the point here, Just because there was not a visible expelling of blood, (that was seen) youre indicating that it did not happen? i've seen people get shot and not expel blood instantly.
originally posted by: babybunnies
It WILL however keep Americans in a constant state of fear
originally posted by: babybunnies
David Icke mentioned the same thing - how is it possible to shoot someone in the head and not have any blood at the scene?
You most certainly can place a rifle equipped with a muzzle break in contact with anything,
I never said it was a bullet proof vest mate. And I'm not kidding myself because I've seen it with my own eyes. I'm not trying to argue with you on this I don't think he was struck on the ground with that last shot but it's perfectly reasonable that there wasn't a lot of blood. I can tell you that for a certain fact because I have seen it several times before. The combat medic who posted earlier can testify to the fact that you physically check a casualty for exit wounds at the back because they aren't always visible and the expected pool of blood isn't always there straight away. That isn't theory. That is fact.
originally posted by: thesmokingman
originally posted by: sg1642
like I already said a stab proof vest could allow blood to pool under clothing before it finds an exit. Holding his hands up has nothing to do with it. He could easily have been shot through a vital organ and had enough fight in him to put his hands up. You can't see underneath him. I haven't looked to see if there is blood spatter on the wall and to be honest I don't really want to. I don't think that final shot hit his head and at most I think it grazed him. But then again the video isn't very clear.
originally posted by: thesmokingman
originally posted by: sg1642
I counted nine shots possibly ten before they ran over to him. Any one of them could have been the one that eventually killed him and the tenth/eleventh shot to the head may well have missed him. That should pretty much be the end of the argument.
So then to all the people saying that a close range shot would not cause a bloody mess, what about the fact that multiple shots WERE fired before they ran up on him, those were from enough distance away that the bullet would have surely ripped right through the guy. Yet he was still holding his hands up until the last shot we see, the shot that did not appear to me to hit him in the head. Then, when the camera shows them running by his body AFTER the shooting, there is STILL NO POOL of blood. Nothing! Please explain that firearms experts.
There were many shots fired, by guys that apparently were well trained. One shot from 30 ft. would put a hole in the guy, yes, even with a stab proof vest. It is not an assault rifle proof vest. You are kidding yourself to think that there would not be an ounce of visible blood after at LEAST 3 shots including one at point blank range that apparently missed.
originally posted by: intrptr
Whassamater , audience left you?
It is impossible to achieve a muzzle (end) contact gunshot wound with a muzzle brake.
that is completely wrong I'm afraid. All a muzzle break would do is leave an unnatural wound rather than the typical outline of the tip of the weapon or barrel. There would still be a contact wound and there would still be material from the discharge of the weapon forced under the tissue of the victim., just not in as neat or typical a manner as a normal barrel would.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Whassamater , audience left you?
You most certainly can place a rifle equipped with a muzzle break in contact with anything,
But not the muzzle end itself, dinkums.
It is impossible to achieve a muzzle (end) contact gunshot wound with a muzzle brake. That was my point.
bullets cauterize wounds, lol.
I know that. Tell it to "herpaderp" poster above you.
There would still be a contact wound and there would still be material from the discharge of the weapon forced under the tissue of the victim., just not in as neat or typical a manner as a normal barrel would.
originally posted by: Anneke
educateinspirechange.org...
originally posted by: thesmokingman
ABSOLUTE PROOF IN THIS VIDEO PEOPLE!!!!!! WATCH IT!!!!!!!!