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.

 

Charlie Hebdo Shooting - A perception I can't get out of my head

page: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

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.
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.

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.




posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

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.
There's never any blood now, is there.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
David Icke mentioned the same thing - how is it possible to shoot someone in the head and not have any blood at the scene?

Of course, immediately following this the American Government issues a terror alert to all citizens, with INCREDIBLY vague language.

They've literally issued an alert with the language "A WORLDWIDE increase in chances of a terror attack on an American at some monument sometime in the future" is hardly solid intelligence to form a terror attack warning.

It WILL however keep Americans in a constant state of fear, and allow the US Govt to implement all sorts of anti terror laws against their own citizens.

It's classic NWO conspiracy theory stuff. The agenda, the ridiculous warnings, the fear mongering. All designed to get Americans to agree to whatever step they want to implement next.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Amen to that Babybunnies but guess what we are just the nut jobs sitting in the corner with no friends according to the general public. Speaking out has become pretty futile its a complex system hrmmm



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
It WILL however keep Americans in a constant state of fear


Not me.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   

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?


Who said he got shot in the head?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Dude if you're going to ask such a question please at least read the thread.

EVERY MSM I watched claimed he got shot in the head.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
I watched two different videos of the action.

In my opinion this is not a simulation and I have been making simulations for forty years.

Listen to the doomed man's plea for mercy.

That is definitely not acting.

Not even close.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 02:09 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 04:40 AM
link   
I have watched this video over and over to see how the gunman behaves. You are looking at a very highly trained person. He didnt even look where he was aiming when he shot that poor police officer. Even his brother carried the gun across his chest like a professional.

This was simply an execution because he was a police officer.

You don't see any blood because the bullet passes through the officer at extremely high speeds. If the camera man was to stay on the officer you would have seen some blood somewhere.

Why do you need to see the blood?
What does that prove or dis-prove?

The officer was shot multiple times before the final tap to the head. Look at the officers arm actions, one second he has it raised then when he is shot he goes completely limp. This is 100% proof of death.

I think we should move this on from this officer now, let the guy rest in piece.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I agree Im all for free speech and all that but it seem were being desenceified lol ...spelling
But we are we are being trained to see things like people getting brains blown out and without any warning
I dont need to see things like that to know its wrong were is this countries morals and values at.
Im 35 i miss the 80s i miss being a kid.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: sg1642

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.
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.

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.
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.
edit on 5371642 by sg1642 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Whassamater , audience left you?


No, it's called having a life on a Friday night.


It is impossible to achieve a muzzle (end) contact gunshot wound with a muzzle brake.


Is that so? You mean you cannot put this...



...on someone's skin?

You and your vast knowledge of firearms.

Herp, derp.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

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.
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.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: sg1642


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.
I know that. Tell it to "herpaderp" poster above you.

His argument that bullets cauterize wounds led to the expanding gasses cauterization theory of contact wound or not which eventually led to the "stuck on compensator" responses.

Its really an old bicker. Began when I trolled a mason thread…

so you understand…



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptrthe only rounds that are really going to cause noticeable cauterisation are higher calibre or tracer/incendiary ammunition.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Small calibre… Yah, kinetic energy of ball ammunition is far more destructive than any heat transfer. Ball ammo tends to penetrate through and through at close range as well, so there isn't enough time to heat the wound to any degree.

Hydrostatic shock from hi velocity projectiles also lends to driving moisture (blood) from tissue adjacent to the path of the bullet. I was trying to explain that as a partial explanation for why the bleeding might not have been apparent on the ground right after the officer in France received his head wound.

Blood from wounds many also pool inside body cavities before overflowing. It depends on a lot of factors.



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anneke
educateinspirechange.org...



See, THIS is the video EVERYONE needs to watch, but they act as if it is taboo to even view even though there is NO BLOOD or gore whatsoever. Kudos to you for posting this mate, but I assure you the mods will be here soon enough to take it down and or close the thread. ABSOLUTE PROOF IN THIS VIDEO PEOPLE!!!!!! WATCH IT!!!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 10 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesmokingman

ABSOLUTE PROOF IN THIS VIDEO PEOPLE!!!!!! WATCH IT!!!!!!!!


Proof the MSM got it wrong about him being shot in the head?




top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join