Re: British sniper breaks Rob Furlong's record
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lonewolf‏</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JL</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lonewolf,
Must say I find you rather aggressive attitude towards NachtKracht exceptionally silly -since he seems to agree with you! LOL!
</div></div>
Huh? I think I missed something lol. I don't remember going against anything he said. I agree w/ about 95% of what he says.
</div></div>
If you look your message, last one in page 4, it says in header:
<span style="font-weight: bold">Re: British sniper breaks Rob Furlong's record [Re: NachtKracht]</span>
So, You must have hitted "reply" button on NK:s mail.
No big deal, but thats why I thought so.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Suffice it to say you don't believe the story. Even though more information has come out that makes it more credible.
Yelling/arguing on the internet at people isn't going to change what the London Times printed or the British Army is backing up.[/color]
As I've said before, if you want to call bullshit, that's who you need to tell it to. None of us are going to change the story for you.
</div></div>
More credible? Hmmm.
Firstly, I wouldn't count on newspapers <span style="font-style: italic">at all</span>.
For example,
articles I have seen mentioned "almost 3 sec flight time".
Now, that is a plain bullshit, and there is no way around it. True 1,54 miles flight time would be around 6,4 seconds.
So- how can anyone tell for sure that rest of the "facts" are correct then?
Secondly,
In this thread, some guy apparently serving there at this very moment, claimed that he has seen/talked with guy who saw report of that incident.
If I recall correctly, he mentioned few pages ago that there wasn't mention about sniper hitting MG in that same report.
What I have said from "day one" is that I´m not buying that story.<span style="font-weight: bold">As it was told in newspapers</span>.
2 first round hits in moving targets with 6,4 sec flight time? With fairly unstable, improvised support under rifle?
And on top of that, third shot aimed on MG receiver- and hit at first? 1,54 miles? Yeah, sure.
Instead, what I´m guessing is that miles/kilometers got mixed up at some point.
If range would have been 1,54 kilometers instead of 1,54 miles, bullet flight time mentioned in newspaper would be correct- a tad under 3 seconds.
Also, 2 shots/2 torso size tgts at that range would be "only" excellent marksmanship with std 338 Lapua close to its limits instead of astronomically improbable 2 local raffles, and one national lottery wins <span style="font-style: italic">IN ROW, with first try</span>.
</div></div>
Because this was a press release with the full knowledge of the British Army...
I'll take it you think the whole thing is bullshit too. So tell them. Not me.
:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Emouse</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hear u Dave,..I have measured my intelligence and it is 7 inches.
</div></div>
...cause I ain't as smart as I thought I once was either.
....