|
|
|
Discussion Forums
Forum Index
> Precision long range hunting and shooting
> A new article for anyone interested
A new article for anyone interested
@ 10:34 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterHi guys, have just uploaded a fresh article. All the best.https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/tacticaltomfoolery.html |
Replies
@ 02:04 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: A new article for anyone interestedAt his rally yesterday, the first since the assassination attempt, Trump’s supporters vowed to “stand behind him.” They are too dense to appreciate the irony of their vow, i.e., irony of allowing an audience assemble behind him. |
@ 10:49 pm (GMT) |
Kevin JensenRe: A new article for anyone interestedHi Nathan,Always enjoy reading your work & always get something out of it. Your no nonsense & common sense really resonates with me. |
@ 11:49 pm (GMT) |
Ben LawRe: A new article for anyone interestedIt's a good read and makes a lot of sense. |
|
@ 10:59 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: A new article for anyone interestedThe head of the Secret Service has resigned, an admission that the incident resulted from her malfeasance. She refused to answer questions about the incident, due to an ongoing investigation, which will take 60 days to complete. Bystanders told reporters that the snipers did not position themselves on the roof until bystanders informed Secret Service they saw the assassin on another roof. The only possible explanation for using a tripod from a standing position would be to direct the flight trajectory of the bullet down. The rally was held in an urban area. A bullet from a 300 WM fired parallel to the ground from a height of 35 feet would travel a long way before touching down. The investigation will ignore the obvious Keystone Cops way the incident played out. The snipers will be lionized as the heroes who took out the bad guy. There will be no discussion of why they were positioned on the ground as the event got underway. What were they doing? Reconnaissance? Hiding in the shrubbery? We’ll never know. Nor will Nathan’s questions be addressed: Why are two snipers with the exact same gear kit on that roof together? Why did they position themselves where, if one couldn’t get a shot, neither could the other? Why are snipers, who may be called upon to climb onto roofs, negotiate steep terrain, etc., issued heavy, bench rest rifles and cumbersome tripods? In the picture, you can see the huge gear bags they carried all that crap to the roof in. Did they bring their own 30 foot ladder? I doubt they scaled up a drain pipe with that much gear. Nor will my question be answered: Why do they allow crowds of people to stand behind Trump? It’s not the Secret Services’s mission to protect the public. The people who choose to “stand behind him” at subsequent rallies are idiots. |
|
@ 09:49 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: A new article for anyone interestedA Sky News report, published 7 hours ago, contains a video containing arial shots of the grounds and surrounding area, plus body-cam footage. The area behind the stage is flanked by 2, tall, identical buildings, the roof of one being shown in Nathan’s picture of the 2 snipers on a roof. The story now is they’d been there for an hour before the rally started. The 2 buildings were the highest points at the event venue, conveniently flanking, yet also well behind, Trump’s position on the stage. There was a third, shorter building located directly behind the stage, filling almost the entire space between the pair of taller buildings. The 2 tall buildings were the perfect places for 2 snipers to spread out and have a commanding view of the entire event grounds.So why were they both on one roof? As Nathan pointed out, they had the same kit. They were not there to operate as a spotter-shooter team, but as independent snipers. Or, perhaps we’re wrong about that. Maybe they had only a single pair of binoculars between them, and thus were acting as a team, but their rules of engagement say the more lead downrange the better, once the target is acquired and ranged. Analysis of audio files captured during the firefight suggest the snipers fired 4 shots to take out the assassin. The assassin was 148 yards away, after all. Prone, his head would have presented a target about the size of a paper plate. That’s a tough shot standing from a tripod. |
|
@ 06:14 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: A new article for anyone interestedFBI Director, Christopher Wray, said there were 8 spent cartridge cases found at the assassin’s location. He said they have advised Trump not to hold rallies outdoors.Some think the degree to which protection was botched by LE indicates the incident was a false flag operation orchestrated by the Trump campaign. This would sounds preposterous, were it not for Christopher Wray’s’ insistence that there’s no evidence a bullet struck Trumps’ ear. He said it could have been shrapnel. |
|
@ 06:44 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: A new article for anyone interestedHi Scott, regarding your last post, I have been contacted by the UK Daily Mail to comment on this. My reply as follows:Hi Stacy, thank you for your inquiry. In order for there to have been shrapnel, the FBI would need to prove: 1. That the bullet hit a hard medium between the shooter and Trump, causing the bullet to break up. 2. That the wound through Trumps ear was jagged, tearing an irregular shaped wound through his ear rather than punching a hole though it. 3. That the photo taken by Doug Mills showing the straight path of the bullet, was somehow doctored. |
|
@ 11:00 am (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: A new article for anyone interestedStacey must be a good reporter. She figured out she needed to find an expert on terminal ballistics. Several articles have been published today about Christopher Wray’s statement that it’s unknown whether an intact bullet struck Trump’s ear. The wound would have been seen by the ER doctor, and the on-call plastic surgeon. It would have been stitched that day. But both doctors would have described it in their notes. Most hospital descriptions of lacerations are accurate. Either doctor might have noted a “.5 cm diameter wound on the outer ear, consistent with a gunshot.”Today’s New Republic article says Trump is furious that Wray is questioning whether a bullet struck his ear. He’s not mad that the Secret Service couldn’t protect him, let alone attendees, at his rally. His concern is that he already said, “I took a bullet for democracy.” If it turned out he took a shard of something instead, it would be difficult to come up with a catchy phrase. |
|
@ 12:34 pm (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: A new article for anyone interestedhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13677237/Trump-shot-bullet-shrapnel-glass-wray-FBI-Crooks.html |
|
@ 02:06 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: A new article for anyone interestedThe DailyMail article is good, but their arial imagery is missing the bleachers flanking the stage, which is where the stray bullets killed and injured people. Here’s an article containing better aerial imagery.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-rally-shooting-pennsylvania-gunman-snipers-location-maps/ |
Please wait
ABOUT USWe are a small, family run business, based out of Taranaki, New Zealand, who specialize in cartridge research and testing, and rifle accurizing.
|
KNOWLEDGEBASE |
KNOWLEDGEBASE |