Debunked: Government Stockpiling Unusual Amounts of Ammo [by Tom Coburn's GAO Report]

RealTruth

Member
Okay, not sure why you ignored my very specific request for "the ACTUAL document" you claimed was so important
(it's obviously not in the HuffPo story as you're now implying)…
so I'll ask one more time: Do you have the document you say verifies your claims?

p.s. This site focuses on one topic per thread, so you can address all your issues…just not in this thread…but since you mentioned the Iranian Gov's ("PressTv")
slant of the Wood/Douglas study, I feel compelled to ask if you actually read the real study yourself, or only the Iranian government's take on it?
What are We debating? Quantity ordered, or reason for quantity? Like I said, I thought the amount was already established... This article states 1.6 billion (USNews)
Here again is the link _ http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa.../03/22/dhs-denies-massive-ammunition-purchase
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
What are We debating? Quantity ordered, or reason for quantity? Like I said, I thought the amount was already established... This article states 1.6 billion (USNews)
Here again is the link _ http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa.../03/22/dhs-denies-massive-ammunition-purchase
That's a blog. And even the blog says "allegedly." How does this possibly qualify as proof of anything?
You stressed reliance on facts and a now-mysterious "ACTUAL document" but haven't delivered anything. Many here are eternally patient…not me. 3 strikes, you're out.
 

RealTruth

Member
Quantity actually purchased.

Did you read the report in the OP?
Not concerned about how much they ACTUALLY purchase. The point is this order is extremely large. They would do this every year (order a max number they may not actually buy) but this year it was noticeably higher. Again, only reason We are talking about it is BECAUSE the amount raised eyebrows. If this was not unusual, We would not be 'debunking' it.
 

RealTruth

Member
That's a blog. And even the blog says "allegedly." How does this possibly qualify as proof of anything?
You stressed reliance on facts and a now-mysterious "ACTUAL document" but haven't delivered anything. Many here are eternally patient…not me. 3 strikes, you're out.
And again, I can link You to a video from a credible scientist who was part of the environmental program for geoengineering in the US. It is a video talking primarily about chemtrails, but he briefly shows the document on an overhead to his audience. I think it would be a great educational experience for You. (that was where I first heard about the amount ordered)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Not concerned about how much they ACTUALLY purchase. The point is this order is extremely large. They would do this every year (order a max number they may not actually buy) but this year it was noticeably higher. Again, only reason We are talking about it is BECAUSE the amount raised eyebrows. If this was not unusual, We would not be 'debunking' it.

It has been debunked. Read the first post in this thread. These numbers do not represent purchases.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...ounts-of-ammo-by-tom-coburns-gao-report.3100/
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And again, I can link You to a video from a credible scientist who was part of the environmental program for geoengineering in the US. It is a video talking primarily about chemtrails, but he briefly shows the document on an overhead to his audience. I think it would be a great educational experience for You.
What does the document say exactly?
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Not concerned about how much they ACTUALLY purchase. The point is this order is extremely large. They would do this every year (order a max number they may not actually buy) but this year it was noticeably higher. Again, only reason We are talking about it is BECAUSE the amount raised eyebrows. If this was not unusual, We would not be 'debunking' it.
Sorry dude, you haven't earned any more time.
You start with this alarmist: "The US bought 2.2 BILLION rounds of hollow tipped bullets less that two weeks ago"
Minutes later you say "Not concerned about how much they ACTUALLY purchase."
I can't really argue with someone who says I should be alarmed about a big purchase, then, after no evidence, says, essentially "No, I didn't mean what I said a few minutes ago."
 

RealTruth

Member
What does the document say exactly?
to be honest, just looks like a boring piece of paper with HS logo on it. Shows two large orders, one in the billions (I thought was 2.2 but not sure now) and another for another kind of bullet for around 200 million or something. He shows it briefly and moves on. But like I said, I don't think the purchase 'request' (to respect that they did not actually buy) or quantity is in question. Only if that quantity is 'normal' business as usual. I'm saying only good argument suggests bulk buying power which sounds like an easy explanation to Me.
 

RealTruth

Member
Sorry dude, you haven't earned any more time.
You start with this alarmist: "The US bought 2.2 BILLION rounds of hollow tipped bullets less that two weeks ago"
Minutes later you say "Not concerned about how much they ACTUALLY purchase."
I can't really argue with someone who says I should be alarmed about a big purchase, then, after no evidence, says, essentially "No, I didn't mean what I said a few minutes ago."
You take words out of context. I admitted to misquoting and corrected to 1.6 billion because that's what two articles that discuss this article quote as an amount. One of the people speaking is a senator who does not contest the amount, only states that it is normal. I am not concerned with how much they have actually purchase, should have included, I am concerned with how much they are intending to purchase and/or have the potential to purchase. What they have purchased so far this year is not the concern, it's the potential quantity they can buy that is a concern.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
to be honest, just looks like a boring piece of paper with HS logo on it. Shows two large orders, one in the billions (I thought was 2.2 but not sure now) and another for another kind of bullet for around 200 million or something. He shows it briefly and moves on. But like I said, I don't think the purchase 'request' (to respect that they did not actually buy) or quantity is in question. Only if that quantity is 'normal' business as usual. I'm saying only good argument suggests bulk buying power which sounds like an easy explanation to Me.

So? Are easy explanations automatically wrong?

Have you read this?
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/660143-pdf.6032/
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You take words out of context. I admitted to misquoting and corrected to 1.6 billion because that's what two articles that discuss this article quote as an amount. One of the people speaking is a senator who does not contest the amount, only states that it is normal. I am not concerned with how much they have actually purchase, should have included, I am concerned with how much they are intending to purchase and/or have the potential to purchase. What they have purchased so far this year is not the concern, it's the potential quantity they can buy that is a concern.

But you actually claimed they had bought those bullets.
 

RealTruth

Member
Sorry dude, you haven't earned any more time.
You start with this alarmist: "The US bought 2.2 BILLION rounds of hollow tipped bullets less that two weeks ago"
Minutes later you say "Not concerned about how much they ACTUALLY purchase."
I can't really argue with someone who says I should be alarmed about a big purchase, then, after no evidence, says, essentially "No, I didn't mean what I said a few minutes ago."
Fair enough. But You have not offered anything tangible either. Evidence clearly demonstrates the amount 'requested' this year is substantially more than usual and the best answer You have so far is to say it's normal and Your own graph shows it's not. That's all I'm saying.
 

RealTruth

Member
So? Are easy explanations automatically wrong?

Have you read this?
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/660143-pdf.6032/
I just think they are too convenient and evidence of 'trust' on the part of government does not lend much credibility. Would be great if We could actually believe what they tell Us. I'm not even saying it's a conspiracy, I'm just saying it's a convenient and easy truth and doesn't make a lot of sense to Me when financially this is not America's strongest moment, 1.6 billion on bullets is an unusual budget policy. I just don't like anyone on either side to stop asking questions so easily. The truth is usually somewhere in between.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Fair enough. But You have not offered anything tangible either. Evidence clearly demonstrates the amount 'requested' this year is substantially more than usual and the best answer You have so far is to say it's normal and Your own graph shows it's not. That's all I'm saying.

They are basically just locking in a price. The upper limits they put on the contracts are pretty arbitrary - they just need to be more than they could possibly need.
 

RealTruth

Member
I just think they are too convenient and evidence of 'trust' on the part of government does not lend much credibility. Would be great if We could actually believe what they tell Us. I'm not even saying it's a conspiracy, I'm just saying it's a convenient and easy truth and doesn't make a lot of sense to Me when financially this is not America's strongest moment, 1.6 billion on bullets is an unusual budget policy. I just don't like anyone on either side to stop asking questions so easily. The truth is usually somewhere in between.
And not yet, the pdf You linked will take some time to get through, but I'll start working on it. Thanks
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I just think they are too convenient and evidence of 'trust' on the part of government does not lend much credibility. Would be great if We could actually believe what they tell Us. I'm not even saying it's a conspiracy, I'm just saying it's a convenient and easy truth and doesn't make a lot of sense to Me when financially this is not America's strongest moment, 1.6 billion on bullets is an unusual budget policy. I just don't like anyone on either side to stop asking questions so easily. The truth is usually somewhere in between.

I'm sorry, but you keep saying 1.6 Billion, can you quote the ACTUAL DOCUMENT that you get this number from, and explain exactly what it is referring to?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Also we need to understand what an IDIQ contract is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDIQ

IDIQ is a U.S. federal government contracting acronym meaning indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity. This is a type of contract that provides for an indefinite quantity of supplies or services during a fixed period of time. The legal origin of IDIQ contracts is the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), section 16.501(a).

IDIQ contracts are most often used for service contracts and Architect-Engineering (A-E) services. Awards are usually for base years as well as option years. The government places delivery orders (for supplies) or task orders (for services) against a basic contract for individual requirements. Minimum and maximum quantity limits are specified in the basic contract as either number of units (for supplies) or as dollar values (for services). The government uses an IDIQ contract when it cannot predetermine, above a specified minimum, the precise quantities of supplies or services that it will require during the contract period.[1][2]
Content from External Source
Indefinite quantity, over an indefinite delivery period, with some overly high upper limits.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
The economy has not been steadily rising. Another lie. It is in it's most dire state ever and will probably crash within the next couple of weeks. US economy will not see the summer. I'm guessing March 4-22, somewhere in there.
Be back on March 23rd to label this claim debunked!
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
Be back on March 23rd to label this claim debunked!
I agree, but he later states that it could take weeks or months instead ...

Getting a litle OT, but I read IW daily for a little more than 1y now, and they always claim that the economy is about to collapse in a couple of months. It's always very convincing and with lots of data, but it gets old. The last mass riot was supposed to take place last november because of food stamps cuts. When it didn't happen, no one questioned IW. :-/ Unfortunately they actually close comments section at older news so you can never publicly debate errors.

For example:
http://www.infowars.com/food-banks-panicking-over-demand-following-welfare-cut/

There are several like this one on the same subject, and they keep predicting the collapse on a weekly basis.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
The economy has not been steadily rising. Another lie. It is in it's most dire state ever and will probably crash within the next couple of weeks. US economy will not see the summer. I'm guessing March 4-22, somewhere in there.


hullo truthy,,, 30th March today, i sold all my stock & shares bought prepper gear and been in the bunker last 3 weeks,,, is it safe to come out yet ?
 
Top