Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Gina,Originally posted by Gina L:
But Poncho, I'm not seeing where it says that the bit that lodged in his heart went through three layers of clothing and landed in his chest.
The accounts I've read say "in his body". That could mean his face or neck.
I may have missed the article that says this, but the majority of the ones I've seen never claim that it happened from a fragment that originally lodged in his chest.
I thought this was fishy, myself. Either that, or whomever filled out the report was dyslexic or something.In this report the wounds are drawn on the wrong side, they show them on the left side of his face neck and chest actually they were on his right side.
To me it looks like the reporting officer handed the report and a black crayon to his three-year-old daughter and had her fill out the picture!Originally posted by poncho:
In the Wildlife report there are pictures of the wounds Mr. Whittington sustained. You've probably seen the same type on autopsy reports. Full front back and side profiles of the human body. Where they draw or mark where wounds are located.
In this report the wounds are drawn on the wrong side, they show them on the left side of his face neck and chest actually they were on his right side but no matter it shows up as a black spot about 12 to 15 inches. He was reported as wearing three layers of clothing. All I'm saying based on what I personally know about shotguns together with the ballistics tests done by Alex Jones that you can watch for yourself (the URL is posted in this thread) and the math. There is no way that his wounds were inflicted at 30 yards like Mr. Cheney and Ms. Armstrong claim. It could have only been inflicted at a much shorter range. 15 to 20 feet. That alone makes the whole story suspect imo.
The info presented in the site you posted seems to be consistent with the info I presented earlier in the following:Originally posted by Petrel:
Here's an alternate take on it, saying that the story is consistent with the facts.
The info presented in the site you posted seems to be consistent with the info I presented earlier in the following:Originally posted by OldRegular:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Petrel:
Here's an alternate take on it, saying that the story is consistent with the facts.
Our first test was to build an insert tube to shoot a 28 gauge shell thru a 12 gauge gun.
Rocko9, I've never hunted quail here in the northeast like they do in Texas so correct me if I'm wrong okay?Each hunter's range of gun swing should be from the mid-point between him and his partner and out to his side. He should never cross the mid-point to shoot at a quail flying on his partner's side. Not only is this poor shotgunning etiquette, it is dangerous.
Alex Jones did not ever say 90 yards. He most plainly said 90 feet. Big difference. Whole lot of difference. World of difference. This dude is spinning a yarn on unsuspecting folks that 1, know nothing about hunting and shotguns and 2 that never actually watched Alex's video.As Alex Jones says and illustrates in the video, most of the bbs go around the victim at 90 yards(sic).
This one small statement is a good example of multi layered propaganda BTW. It fixes a much longer distance as well as a much bigger projectile in the readers mind. Very good propagandist tactics. But it isn't working on me. Sorry.As Alex Jones says and illustrates in the video, most of the bbs go around the victim at 90 yards(sic).