jeeves,re that blood in the barrel.pro has given me a page reference,but as I said earlier my page numbers do not line up with his.But I could not find anything that suggests Ross looked in the barrel of that rifle.All I could find is this from Ross.
"So the immediate effect is to suck back ,and you do see,in not all cases,but in quite a lot,blood that has been sucked back into the barrel."
pro quoted pages 3653/4.Others will be able to check those pages.
Now if this is the only reference that Ross makes to "blood in the barrel",then there is no doubt in my mind that to say there was blood in the barrel of David Bain's rifle is a myth perpetrated by myth perpetrators.
I was interested to come across this from Professor Ferris when searching for that blood in the barrel reference.
He suggested that that the hole in Laniet's head was enlarged by a back blast.[which may have well caused blood to go into the barrel].
However,there is no need to debate that,as it does appear to me that there was no blood found in the barrel of Bain's rifle.
Edited by supersleuth at 10:49 am, Fri 5 Nov
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 10:47 am, Fri 5 Nov #29258
If you had read all my posts you would have known that I have tracked down that reference to blood in the barrel.It was nothing to do with blood in the barrel of Bain's rifle.Go take a look.Another myth.
And yes,binned does mean canned ,and stalled means held up,that's is why I said take your pick.It is either stalled/not going anywhere at the moment,or it has been binned/canned,comprende?.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:27 pm, Fri 5 Nov
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 1:27 pm, Fri 5 Nov #29274
ash204 wrote:
BINNED OR STALLED, ACCORDING TO WHOM?
IS THIS A FACT OR JUST ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR DELUSIONS THAT WITHIN 24 HRS BECOMES A REALITY TO YOU?
YOU ARE SO VERY HUMOROUS TO WATCH
I have a very good scource,but I certainly am not telling you who she/he is.
There was no blood in the barrel ,read the transcript.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:36 pm, Fri 5 Nov
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 1:33 pm, Fri 5 Nov #29279
project_hr wrote:
You have to love Nos persistence.
Despite already proving Supersleuth incorrect twice this week, he's offering yet another chance for him to prove he actually knows what he's talking about and isn't a liar. Personally I think that was proven way back, but I guess nos has more paitence than me.
I guess in the same mouse like manner, Supersleuth will run from this wager as well. This time I believe its about the blood on the socks or shoes or something like that. Time to prove your words again Sleuth, but you won't, because you can't, but it's such fun watching from the sidelines.
Off to watch the fireworks. I guess they'll be going off in here as well.
Gee,pro what a bulls*** artist you are.I have not looked at no's ravings for sometime,nor do I intend to again.He is a complete nutter.If you think that I would ever make a wager with him,then you're sillier than I thought you were.He would never accept that he was wrong,just like you.I have already pointed out to no's the errors he has made,but he still argues the toss.He doesn't even accept that David Bain was wearing his mother's glasses.So it is useless trying to get through to him.
There was no blood in the barrel,I don't know what you mean by the socks and shoes.And nobody ever said those marks on Robin Bain's hands were only 12 hours old.All myths,perpetrated by myth perpetrators.
I am watching the fireworks too,from my study window.
Edited by supersleuth at 9:01 pm, Fri 5 Nov
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 8:49 pm, Fri 5 Nov #29298 ---------------
All those denials from this lying scumbag, then to this....
----------------
And as I have already explained ,cyber,another of my messages you must have missed,the fact there was blood in the barrel proves absolutely nothing more than that the last shot was a close contact shot.And we dont know how close close contact is.
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 6:30 pm, Thu 11 Nov #29473
Well Stockdale, that is why you have no credibility. You are a blatant lying arsew.pe off the same roll as lucklesstrevor. You lie for years then you suddenly change your position and quote your most recent position as if to prove you hadn't lied earlier. In your arrogance you seem unable to comprehend that your posts are recorded here and elsewhere and simply because you come along and 'change' your story doesn't effect the record. And the record Stockdale is that you are lying, persecuting, pedo-apologist who thinks it's fine for a father to describe to a young daughter, or any daughter, or child, how to put her fingers inside herself. You are a truly sick pedophile Stockdale, and if you don't like the statement try suing me. There's a challenge for you dogdayafternoon, sue me.
No comments:
Post a Comment