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.

 

Ballistics test suggests Cheney shooting incident cover-up

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   
www.infowars.com...

I just ran across this after hearing Alex say they would conduct a test on his radio show. I haven't watched all of the movie yet, but from what I have seen so far, it looks like something is fishy here. More after I watch the rest of this video.




posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
1st post here, long time lurker.

I have to call BS on this. I haven't watched their "ballistics test", but if the guy was hit as close as they are claiming his neck, upperchest and lower face would be hamburger meat. Probably dead before he hit the ground.

Now his wounds are consistant with the 30 yards that is being claimed. He might have been a little closer but that seems right. Maybe 30 feet instead of yards but even that seems to close considering his injuries.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Oh yes, I belive everything Alex Jones tells me. You think for one second there isnt an agenda behind his so called investigation, thats beyond naive. He's obviously after Cheney. A hunting accident turned into a criminal investigation is exactly what Jones wants, for no other reason than his dislike of the man. This attempt is lower than snake #.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Oh yes, I belive everything Alex Jones tells me. You think for one second there isnt an agenda behind his so called investigation, thats beyond naive. He's obviously after Cheney. A hunting accident turned into a criminal investigation is exactly what Jones wants, for no other reason than his dislike of the man. This attempt is lower than snake #.

So you're just going to ignore the evidence presented here, just because it's Alex Jones? Now that sir, is just friggin ignorant.
You do the test then, tell us your results when you're done. Good luck


Personally I'm going to stay a bit skeptic but concider the possibility, someone else should do the test and see what results they get.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Mr. Jones should have been using balistics gell for testing penetration.
Mr. Jones, Should have found out the exact brand of 28 gauge cheney was using, if he couldnt find this out, then he should have tested all brands, Different brands have slightly different loads, and different fps which can and do effect accuracy and spread... This wouldnt have been that hard as there are only half a dozen places who make it now...
Mr. Jones also needs to take into account wind..



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I would love to say Cheney tried to kill the old man- But he didnt. It was an accident.

I DO beleive, however, that this happened at much closer range, that Cheney was "impaired" by something, and they certainly arent going to tell us that.

I do have to talk about an observation i have made: If you put Bush and Cheney side by side, Bush looks much more likeable than Cheney. Cheney is sinister, and sinister looking. its very hard to tell when either one is saying anything close to the truth, but Cheney is not only sinister, he's arrogant. He is the picture of arrogancy.

Anyway, as someone put it the other day, Dick is nothing but a Richard head. I'd like to beleive the worse, but i do beleive it was just an accident, though slightly changed.


And where does he get off? He doesnt like the press...He should look at HIMSELF and the lies and the deceit he's concocted, being the brains of the outfit...Its not the press he hates. Its himself. And that little wife of his.....




posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Hi,

Not seeing this thread at first, I came up with a few ideas:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cheers.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   
SwearBear, During his test, he doesnt seem to account for the random scatter and for the fact that in his penetration test on the dummy, its not a real human being. While the watermelon test to me would be the most accurate because of its similiar tensil strenght to human skin, there are still unpredictabilities in scatter and penetration. Hes trying to say that they shot him intentionally if I gather correctly. I just dont buy that simply because I dont believe that Cheney is that kind of a person. From what I understand Mr. Whittington was a friend of his, and this is what throws the whole thing off for me personally. I will agree that someone else needs to do a test when all the details about the specific type of shot used are released.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
This so called ballistics test was just a sham. There are far too many variables involved.

1. He did not have the exact gun that Chaney used.

Variables just with the gun would be barrel length type and manufacture of the gun. Was a choke used, if so was it fixed, modified or variable? (all effect the pattern.)

2. He would have needed identical shells used by Chaney

Variables here are type/size of shot, type of powder used, type of wadding, Was the shell a custom load if so what type of powder was used? (there are several all that can change the pattern.

Those are just the ones that come to mind immediately. I am sure there are more and as Cole pointed out wind is also a factor and lastly the shooters angle to the target is also very important.

One last thing just came to mind, what if this test was done using one of the more powerful powders to make it look like it is possible. Hmm considering who allegedly performed this test I would say yes Jones sure would do just that alone to deceive the world.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
What an arrogant jerk, so he doesn't need the same years of training and experience as real forensic detectives?
And I guess it's alright to just bodge any old 'test' together as long as the result is what he wants.. What a dick.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
as for the 15 or 90 feet range - hard to say .

90ft would give a wide pattern of course .

[edit on 18-2-2006 by Briggs]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Here is the specs for just one mfg of gun powder for skeet shooting kindly note the differences between each load. I also note they included the primer type which I forgot about.



recipes.alliantpowder.com...

click on 28 gauge then all recipes you will get a chart showing the variables and there are plenty.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
How can you do 'ballistics' tests on birdshot?
How could he test without the gun?
How could he test without the shot?
Can you even test birdshot pellets?

Cheney already said the birdshot came out of his gun,
so even if you could test, why would you? It would
just show it came from Cheney's gun as he said.

The only 'tests' that would need to be done are blood
work on Cheney to see blood alcohol levels. It's too
late for that. They would have had to have been
done out in the field immediately. They weren't.

There is no need for any tests and I don't think
they could be done on bird shot pellets anyways.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
The test would be to determine how far away he was when he shot. However, the tests that he did are some of the most unscientific tests I've seen. Cardboard is NOT a good way to find "proof" that they were closer.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
There's nothing scientific about it. Maybe if the idiots that conducted the test would have proper materials...like say a silicone dummy, an axact make and model of the gun and if they could replicate the conditions of the gun (choke, type and make of the ammo) then the test might have some credibility to it.

Cheney was hunting with a 28-guage shotgun that has a very small barrell (not much spread). The idiots used an 18 inch barrell Remington 870 shotgun, not a hunting shotgun. They could have atleast used the same type of gun in the test. (information from the source in the first post)

Also, any hunter can tell you that the pellets from a shotgun can penetrate a bird at 30 meters (90 feet), so it's probably likely that the pellets could do some damage to a man at the same distance.



[edit on 18/2/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
This is crap. Sheer, unadulterated bias.

I don't like Cheney or any of his cronies, but he's not a murderer-- I'm shocked at how quickly some people are willing to believe that a white-collar criminal like Cheney is in fact a gun-toting psychopath... like trying to say Martha Stewart had murderous intent with her insider trading.

There is more than one kind of evil, people.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
If Cheney really wanted tokill him, there would've been nothing stopping him from using a "REAL" shotgun shell instead of bird shot pellets, and just having secret service dump the body somewhere in a lake.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Not to mention the guy gets out of the hospital and says it was an accident too. Furthermore there wasn't an investigation because their stories worked out. Within minutes of the incident the police were alerted. The local sheriff got there, interviewed them all and the stories checked out. I'm sure He'll loose his hunting license, had his shotgun confiscated, and will be fined. The reason it's such a big story when there's so much else going on in the world is that the Press's feelings got hurt because they weren't told right away. The local paper was informed and got the full story from a witness and it was on the wire. But big press likes to know everything BEFORE it happens lol. I agree newsworthy but 3 days top story?
IF he would have killed the guy that would have been something totally different.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I would love to say Cheney tried to kill the old man- But he didnt. It was an accident.

I DO beleive, however, that this happened at much closer range, that Cheney was "impaired" by something, and they certainly arent going to tell us that.

I do have to talk about an observation i have made: If you put Bush and Cheney side by side, Bush looks much more likeable than Cheney. Cheney is sinister, and sinister looking. its very hard to tell when either one is saying anything close to the truth, but Cheney is not only sinister, he's arrogant. He is the picture of arrogancy.

Anyway, as someone put it the other day, Dick is nothing but a Richard head. I'd like to beleive the worse, but i do beleive it was just an accident, though slightly changed.


And where does he get off? He doesnt like the press...He should look at HIMSELF and the lies and the deceit he's concocted, being the brains of the outfit...Its not the press he hates. Its himself. And that little wife of his.....



Yeah. If you were going to kill some one, you wouldn't use bird shot.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
I do have to talk about an observation i have made: If you put Bush and Cheney side by side, Bush looks much more likeable than Cheney. Cheney is sinister, and sinister looking.


Here ya go....






Ugly commit more crimes.

Not only are physically unattractive teenagers likely to be stay-at-homes on prom night, they're also more likely to grow up to be criminals, say two economists who tracked the life course of young people from high school through early adulthood...



'nough said.



[edit on 18-2-2006 by loam]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join