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.

 

Georgian Reporter shot on live TV (VIDEO)

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by cavscout
 


you were a SOLDIER. these are civilian journalists.
normal civilians run from gunfire.
that video is of journalists RUNNING FROM GEORGIAN ARMY GUNFIRE.

once again i dont know exactly what happend in this video but i am certain of several things.

1)russians didnt do it. that would be the stupidest thing they could do. and would hurt their image in the world horribly.

2)it was not a sniper a sniper would have killed her.

3)the angle is odd as JSO becky pointed out

4)the reactions of bystanders are not consistent with behaviour of people in warzones that hear gunfire.

5)earlier in the day reporters were shot at by GEORGIAN FORCES

6)the reporter seems not too intrested in getting out of the line of "fire" and more intrested in showing off her new scratch for over a minute.

this thing is definatly propaganda.




posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
lol, jeez this isn't a whose the best sniper competition.

I mean i can get headshots on halo all day. Ha! at the "sniper" saying riffle. funny.

Yeha my main concern was how calm everyone is. 5 shots fired and all they do is walk around the van. As if they know there won't be any more shots.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I dunno man, something just strike me as odd about a sniper missing that many times. Snipers arent trained to miss. Looks like propaganda.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Wow!

She wasn't meant to die that day that's for sure!

What an incredibly lucky woman!

I wonder what caliber bullet grazed her arm?

Wow!




posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Memysabu
 


Could be!

They could have been applying make-up on her arm as they scrambled toward the van.......

Interesting point....



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by IMAdamnALIEN
 


what caliber?
i reckon .117
good for non lethal flesh wounds used for propaganda purposes.
i have a .117 caliber embeded in my middle finger actually.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Also, you'd have to think someone as highly trained and as good a marksman as you claim to be would know that the word is "rifle", not "riffle".


Yes, I am wrong because I cant spell



Sometimes, a firearm's accuracy will be measured in MOA. This simply means that under ideal conditions, the gun is capable of repeatedly producing a group of shots whose center points (center-to-center) fit into a circle, the diameter of which can be subtended by that amount of arc. (E.g.: a "1 MOA rifle" should be capable, under ideal conditions, of shooting a 1-inch group at 100 yards, a "2 MOA rifle" .


en.wikipedia.org...

Show me a weapon that shoots 1/8th MOA or better.

Like I said, no rifle can make a grazing wound at any distance, it is physicaly impossible.


See, it's not a matter of misspelling. You have consistantly spelled the word "riffle". It wasnt a mistype. And again, if you are as trained as you say you are, and have been issued military firearms and rifles, which you would have to sign for, I would think you would have come across the word enough times in your life to know how to spell it.

You are floppin again here. First you said a rifle cant do it. then you said a rifle cant do it every time. Now you are saying a rifle cant do it. But, by your own admission, you think the video's authentic. So a rifle just did make a grazing wound, at some distance.

That no sniper would intend to graze is the true issue here. Theres absolutely no point in it.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Rockpunk, I can see that happening, BUT I dont think the speed of the shots fired would indicate a sniper with optical sights. It would very difficult to fire that quick looking through anything but iron sights or a reflex sight.

More likely a good marksman with iron sights shooting center of mass, maybe even aiming at the camera man or camera. I think if they were aiming at the microphone we would have seen slower aimed shots, but who knows?



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I don't care what the media wants to say...She was grazed on purpose.

The only way this would happen by accident is if a 5 year old was the one shooting.
The Sniper missed/grazed her on purpose. More than Likely he wanted to shoot her hand so she would drop the mic.

If they wanted her dead she would have been hit in the chest or head.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DalairTheGreat
 



Originally posted by DalairTheGreat
The Sniper missed/grazed her on purpose. More than Likely he wanted to shoot her hand so she would drop the mic.


Except she was holding the mic in her right hand and the hit was on her left forearm...



If they wanted her dead she would have been hit in the chest or head.


Agreed.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
And again, if you are as trained as you say you are, and have been issued military firearms and rifles, which you would have to sign for, I would think you would have come across the word enough times in your life to know how to spell it.


You don’t generally sign for weapons in the Army, but keep talking about things you know nothing about.

The fact that I am a horrible speller has nothing to do with this. I frequently misspell common words, my spellchecker just didn’t pick this up.


You are floppin again here. First you said a rifle cant do it. then you said a rifle cant do it every time. Now you are saying a rifle cant do it.


A riffle cant do it, and it cant do it every time. You can stand there and try to make that grazing wound blindfolded and eventually, given enough rounds fired, one of them will make it. HOWEVER, you don’t have to be a sniper to understand that it would be physically impossible for any weapon currently available to make that grazing wound on purpose other than be sheer chance.

If you point the sights at the EXACT same spot every time a bullet will hit different spots, no matter how cool you are. Why cant you understand that?

Maybe you do understand that and I am feeding a troll. If you don’t get it by now I am wasting my time. Go back to your Rambo movies and live in ignorance.


That no sniper would intend to graze is the true issue here. Theres absolutely no point in it.


The first page of this thread focused on the theory that a Georgian sniper may have intentionally grazed the woman for propaganda, that is why this discussion of the capability of weapons and marksmen is valid.

Were you so eager to argue against the laws of physics that you forgot that?

I am done arguing with you about this. You are wrong, there is no opinion involved here.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Absolutely disgusting. Taking potshots at an unarmed woman just because you got a gun and are itching to use it on someone. Whoever fired that shot is both incompetent and a pile of human waste.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
And again, if you are as trained as you say you are, and have been issued military firearms and rifles, which you would have to sign for, I would think you would have come across the word enough times in your life to know how to spell it.


You don’t generally sign for weapons in the Army, but keep talking about things you know nothing about.

The fact that I am a horrible speller has nothing to do with this. I frequently misspell common words, my spellchecker just didn’t pick this up.


You are floppin again here. First you said a rifle cant do it. then you said a rifle cant do it every time. Now you are saying a rifle cant do it.


A riffle cant do it, and it cant do it every time. You can stand there and try to make that grazing wound blindfolded and eventually, given enough rounds fired, one of them will make it. HOWEVER, you don’t have to be a sniper to understand that it would be physically impossible for any weapon currently available to make that grazing wound on purpose other than be sheer chance.

If you point the sights at the EXACT same spot every time a bullet will hit different spots, no matter how cool you are. Why cant you understand that?

Maybe you do understand that and I am feeding a troll. If you don’t get it by now I am wasting my time. Go back to your Rambo movies and live in ignorance.


That no sniper would intend to graze is the true issue here. Theres absolutely no point in it.


The first page of this thread focused on the theory that a Georgian sniper may have intentionally grazed the woman for propaganda, that is why this discussion of the capability of weapons and marksmen is valid.

Were you so eager to argue against the laws of physics that you forgot that?

I am done arguing with you about this. You are wrong, there is no opinion involved here.


You just keep on going.

You DO have to sign for weapons issued in ANY branch of the military. Not every day, but any weapon issued HAS TO HAVE A PAPER TRAIL, by law. If you were operating an unregistered peice of military weaponary, you should have been dishonorably discharged.

A rifle absolutely can do it, and there is no better evidence than what I stated before. Go to Youtube. watch some videos of these things you consider physically impossible.

Any spellchecker picks up riffle as a misspelled word. You arent using a spellcheck. You didnt know the word.

I'm not sure why you keep asking me why I dont understand that no two shots are the same, when i pointed that out before you did. I have not argued, once, in this thread that a sniper could do it every time. I am simply rebutting your argument from earlier, which you have backed off of, that a sniper couldnt do it once.

There is question that it may have been a propaganda event, in fact, I WAS THE ONE ON THE FIRST PAGE THAT MADE THAT ASSERTION. But again, I state, no sniper would take a grazing shot. No point to it.

Since you are obviously too busy trying to pass off your lie as fact as opposed to looking at what you are saying and realizing that you are arguing most of my point for me, I'm afraid thismay have to be the end of our debate.






posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

That sniper fired 6 rounds at the reporter. What was he or she thinking? Aren't there supposed to be standing orders to cease fire?

So much for the Russian end of the deal.

Will the Georgian's take the bait?

Or - for those more conspiracy minded - how long before we hear claims the Georgians themselves did it to create sympathy for their 'cause.'?


Just catching up.

So thus far we have established that someone may have fired a series (5) or so rounds which we are generally in agreement targeting the reporter on screen?

Now, we are told in the piece that 'a sniper has fired upon us'. Also that 'I was grazed by a bullet.'

The shots were fired off camera and as the reporter steps of camera she is wounded and proceed to do what is presumably her job and report the event.

As a Georgian journalist, one might infer that whoever they are fighting is the culprit. A Russian.

A set up? Not an inconceivable possibility, as the scenario is a skeptics dream. A legitimate attempt at perpetrating violence on another human being seems a more likely scenario thus far.

RockPuck, I think you got it. The typical soldier mentality applies here. This was a prevalent occurrence in the old days in Korea and elsewhere. Soldiers get antsy, bored, and do stupid things. I would hesitate to assign a political purpose to this event.


[edit on 14-8-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 





As a Georgian journalist, one might infer that whoever they are fighting is the culprit. A Russian.


you could infer that but you would be wrong.
history shows earlier in the day georgian troops fired on journalists in cold blood, not russian troops. once again go watch min 1:08 and see for yourself.




the russians have nothing to gain by shooting journalists. if the georgians set this up they have a ton to gain as far as public relations goes.
use logic.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRepublic
 



He said Georgian 'obviously irregulars' fired missiles at them.

Right?

[by the way, have you ever fired a missile?]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

I thought he said "pistols."



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


at min 1:48 he says that they were waving and firing pistols at them.
they were georgian irregulars but they were on the side of the georgian government not russisas.

notice how he describes them as "angry" and "wanting to take out their humiliating defeat on someone and that someone is the journalists."

russia had nothing to do with them they are on the georgian governents side, and they fired on civilian journalists.

EDIT: no i havnt ever fired a missle, though if given the chance i would probably take it.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by TheRepublic]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 




Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Any spellchecker picks up riffle as a misspelled word. You arent using a spellcheck. You didnt know the word.





2 results for: riffle

Roget's II: The New Thesaurus
Main Entry: browse
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: To look through reading matter casually.
Synonyms: dip into, flip through, glance at, leaf, run through, scan, skim, thumb


Roget's II: The New Thesaurus
Main Entry: shuffle
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: To mix together so as to change the order of arrangement.
Synonyms: jumble, scramble


thesaurus.reference.com...

Btw, the ATS spellchecker didn't pick up riffle as a misspelled word.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRepublic
 


The Russians have irregulars there too; 'volunteers' they call them. But I would agree that they are unlikely to waste a good missile on reporters, especially given what the press would say.

That being the case, why would the Georgians.

Don't you think it's just possible that we don't KNOW if anything either reporter said is true?




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join