Political Picture thread. (humor/memes/etc)

Tisto

Tisto

.308 Win
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
6,501
Location
Tonawanda
DoOver said:
View attachment 153993
Click to expand...
Nope. This has already been debunked. Notice that only one bullet has rifling marks demonstrating that it was fired. The other has no such rifling marks indicating that it was not fired. Also, in a war, people shoot AT each other, which would cause a head-on collision, not at 90° angles from each other.
 
HIghlander

HIghlander

.223 Rem
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
1,322
Location
Broome
Tisto said:
Nope. This has already been debunked. Notice that only one bullet has rifling marks demonstrating that it was fired. The other has no such rifling marks indicating that it was not fired. Also, in a war, people shoot AT each other, which would cause a head-on collision, not at 90° angles from each other.
Click to expand...
May have hit a round that was in a bandoleer. (My wild ass guess)
 
Tisto

Tisto

.308 Win
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
6,501
Location
Tonawanda
HIghlander said:
May have hit a round that was in a bandoleer. (My wild ass guess)
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that one bullet didn't strike the other. What I'm saying is that the narrative of it all is bullshit. The odds of one bullet hitting another that was in a bandoleer or a magazine or in a big pile of ammo is nowhere near 1 in 300 Bazillion or whatever the claim was. The picture implies that the bullets struck each other in mid air and that the chances of that happening are so ridiculously high. Clearly, that narrative is false.

Actually, had the two bullets impacted in mid air, the odds of that happening would indeed be staggering. However, the odds of someone actually finding the two bullets would be even more staggering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top