Debunked: Virginia Shooting Hoax Claims - Lack of visible shell casings mean fake gun

[Eric Ford]

[Admin: Thread split from https://www.metabunk.org/virginia-shooting-hoax-claims-can-people-run-after-being-shot-yes.t6749/ due to topic drift, Wikipedia link and summary added]

This is regarding the shooting of two WDBJ reporters on August 26, 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Alison_Parker_and_Adam_Ward

On August 26, 2015, news reporter Alison Parker and photojournalist Adam Ward, employees of CBSaffiliateWDBJ in Roanoke, Virginia, United States, were shot to death while conducting a live television interview nearSmith Mountain Lake in Moneta. The news team was interviewing Vicki Gardner, executive director of the local chamber of commerce, when all three were attacked by a gunman. Parker, age 24, and Ward, age 27, died at the scene while Gardner survived.

Content from external source

After watching the video from his phone or camera several times, the only thing that bothers me, because I have shot my own 9mm several times, is that there are no shell casings popping out after each shot... Can't hear them hitting the wood after all 15 or so shots or even in slow motion on the first two or three shots no casing pops out of the gun. I would really like anyones explanation of this, would really help.

 

[Mick West]

After watching the video from his phone or camera several times, the only thing that bothers me, because I have shot my own 9mm several times, is that there are no shell casings popping out after each shot... Can't hear them hitting the wood after all 15 or so shots or even in slow motion on the first two or three shots no casing pops out of the gun. I would really like anyones explanation of this, would really help.

It's because you can't see shell casings being ejected when the camera is close to the gun (especially with a cell-phone camera with the rolling shutter), because they move too fast (you can't see the bullets either), and you can't hear them land unless it's very quiet, and they land on a hard surface.

See at 8:31 here:

Blanks eject shell casings just the same as live rounds.

 

[John West]

After watching the video from his phone or camera several times, the only thing that bothers me, because I have shot my own 9mm several times, is that there are no shell casings popping out after each shot... Can't hear them hitting the wood after all 15 or so shots or even in slow motion on the first two or three shots no casing pops out of the gun. I would really like anyones explanation of this, would really help.

On the film crew video i seen a shell being ejected when he shoots at cameraman. I had to slow the video down to see it.

 

[BZNCrew]

How do you respond when someone claimed the gun was not real? A prop gun?

 

[occams rusty scissor]

How do you respond when someone claimed the gun was not real? A prop gun?

Really the same as any other claim - request evidence which fulfills the burden of proof. If they are presenting an alternate claim as true then they need to be able to support that.

 

[NoParty]

How do you respond when someone claimed the gun was not real? A prop gun?

I would just ask "Do you have even a shred of credible evidence to back up your new claim?"
since the creative new claim does not fit with all that we do know
(Adam Ward's funeral in Virginia today, and everything else)
it would need to be pretty damned impressive new info to overturn
the mountain of evidence that a disturbed individual killed two former co-workers...
a proposition which is hardly unique or unprecedented. Sad, but not hard to believe.

 

[BZNCrew]

It would seem the definition of "prop guns" destroys the argument.

They are electronically-operated and discharge small explosive squibs that make a flash and produce smoke, but they do not eject shell casings or have any moving parts besides the trigger. The discharge of the squib can be loud or quiet depending on set noise regulations. This makes Non Guns safer and quieter than real weapons firing blanks, which means that they can be used on filming locations with noise ordinances or up close to other actors (which is a real concern with actual blank firing live guns).

While they have many advantages for film crews, most Non Guns bear only a loose resemblance to their live-firing counterparts, and thus stand out as fake to audiences who know what to look for. However, some film directors evidently do not take this in mind, and thus, it is plainly obvious in some movies or TV shows when Non Guns are being used.

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Non_Guns

 

[Mick West]

It would seem the definition of "prop guns" destroys the argument.

What argument?

 

[BZNCrew]

What argument?

The argument that a prop gun was used in the shooters video. That they were blanks.

The definition of a non-gun is that it looks fake.

 

[Mick West]

The argument that a prop gun was used in the shooters video. That they were blanks.

The definition of a non-gun is that it looks fake.

That makes no sense. Perhaps you need to quote the exact "argument" that was used.

 

[Pete Tar]

I think it means prop-guns are made to be identifiably different to real guns, not indistinguishable to them. But yes, reference to an exact claim and reasoning used for it is needed.

 

[BZNCrew]

Sorry, my bad.

I answered my own question from previous post. Should be in it's own thread as not pertaining to this one.

eg:

How do you respond when someone claimed the gun was not real? A prop gun?

 

[NoParty]

"...Perhaps you need to quote the exact "argument" that was used."

Sorry, my bad. I answered my own question from previous post.

Yeah...your post in #38 referred, presumably, to some other person claiming it was a "prop gun."

So, if anyone actually was making a serious attempt to advance such a theory,
it makes sense to address THEIR exact, specific claim (as opposed to your brief, general summary in #38).

Can you post their precise assertion? (a question which does not mean that I have faith that it merits a debunk)

 

[BZNCrew]

"
Can you post their precise assertion? (a question which does not mean that I have faith that it merits a debunk)

Claim:
"I still say it's some sort of a prop gun, maybe not a non gun......but a customized prop gun. Google recoil, muzzle flashes, slide for prop guns. Yes, it can be done. Lots of gun enthusiasts have how tos all over the place."

 

[NoParty]

Claim:
"I still say it's some sort of a prop gun, maybe not a non gun......but a customized prop gun. Google recoil, muzzle flashes, slide for prop guns. Yes, it can be done. Lots of gun enthusiasts have how tos all over the place."

Okay (and thanks)

I'm probably not going to personally bother with this one, since the premise seems so weak to
begin with (and the "gun enthusiasts have how tos all over the place" part seems to be a half-assed attempt to get
the reader to do the work, instead of the person tossing the assertion out there, who should be supporting their claim)

But at least now there's something to work with, if some other clever Metabunker feels like taking it up...


(p.s. Where exactly is the claim? Link? It might help to see the context)

 

[deirdre]

But at least now there's something to work with

i couldnt find anything to support the claim. No non guns or props at all can make a muzzle flash. Although some movie guns (prop guns) can eject a cartridge type thing the muzzles are solid ie no muzzle flash.

If the guy(s) doesnt provide evidence of his claim, it can be dismissed out of hand.

 

[NoParty]

i couldnt find anything to support the claim. No non guns or props at all can make a muzzle flash. Although some movie guns (prop guns) can eject a cartridge type thing the muzzles are solid ie no muzzle flash.

If the guy(s) doesnt provide evidence of his claim, it can be dismissed out of hand.

But deirdre, there's "how tos all over the place," get back to work proving this unsupported assertion for the lazy asserter!"

 

[John Galt]

What a joke. Just for the record for all of you who don't know any better, REAL semi-automatic handguns eject shell casings when firing. Not sometimes, not occasionally...ALWAYS. There are CLEARLY no casings being ejected from that "firearm". So, one of the problems is that these kinds of "events" are made for shock value and emotional response, not actually people who would KNOW such a simple fact that CLEARLY shows NO shell casings being ejected from the "gun". Go ahead and debunk THAT.

Oh...and even if that's not so...entertain the idea that non-guns are used as props ALL THE TIME, and they are used when the use of blanks is UNSAFE. Read all about it! http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Non_Guns

"Non Guns" are a brand name of prop weapons that are manufactured and rented by Independent Studio Services (ISS) and frequently used for scenes in movies or television shows in which the use of real weapons firing blanks is deemed unsafe for the actors or stuntmen. They are electronically-operated and discharge small explosive squibs that make a flash and produce smoke, but they do not eject shell casings or have any moving parts besides the trigger."

 

[Mick West]

What a joke. Just for the record for all of you who don't know any better, REAL semi-automatic handguns eject shell casings when firing. Not sometimes, not occasionally...ALWAYS. There are CLEARLY no casings being ejected from that "firearm". So, one of the problems is that these kinds of "events" are made for shock value and emotional response, not actually people who would KNOW such a simple fact that CLEARLY shows NO shell casings being ejected from the "gun". Go ahead and debunk THAT. That's what I thought...you CAN'T debunk it because it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a semi-auto firearm fire a round and NOT eject an empty...unless it jams, and that one clearly did not. So, take your mountain of evidence and make that gun eject a shell casing...(chances are this will never be seen as it awaits "moderator approval")

This was already explained in post #39.

It's because you can't see shell casings being ejected when the camera is close to the gun (especially with a cell-phone camera with the rolling shutter), because they move too fast (you can't see the bullets either), and you can't hear them land unless it's very quiet, and they land on a hard surface.

See at 8:31 here:

Blanks eject shell casings just the same as live rounds.

 

[John Galt]

Read above...re: non-guns. So, I suppose no such thing exists? So there you go...you CAN have a replica that does not eject any casing and is commonly used. "Which means that they can be used on filming locations with noise ordinances or up close to other actors (which is a real concern with actual blank firing live guns." Yeah...like 6 inches away from a camera man's ear. Again...if you actually believe that there are no scripted events happening in the world, you need to get out more. See "Smith/Mundt act"...allowing the use of propaganda within the US. And ask yourself, what would that propaganda look like? "We need to brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way..." said by none other than the criminal Eric Holder, Mr Fast and Furious.

 

[deirdre]

Read above...re: non-guns. So, I suppose no such thing exists? So there you go...you CAN have a replica that does not eject any casing and is commonly used.

except there is so far no evidence that is the case here.

If you quote other posts please link to the post or at least mark the post number you are referring to (if you are on a phone and cant link things)

 

[BombDr]

What a joke. Just for the record for all of you who don't know any better, REAL semi-automatic handguns eject shell casings when firing.

Just for the record, some of us are veterans of four tours of Afghanistan, two of Iraq, Northern Ireland and Lebanon, and understand weapons very well. Some of us even have a gunshot wound or two.

So, one of the problems is that these kinds of "events" are made for shock value and emotional response, not actually people who would KNOW such a simple fact that CLEARLY shows NO shell casings being ejected from the "gun". Go ahead and debunk THAT.

These 'events' being made for shock value is correct, but by the people pulling the triggers. As Mick has already stated, different cell phones do not have hi-def cameras and that one is to close for a good shot of the ejected case. You are correct that non-guns are available for the movie business, but as dead people are involved here, it does not look like that in this case.

So, here is Dugan Ashley and his comical review of a Sigg P320, in his own unique style, and tell you you counted every single shell casing ejected from that weapon, please:


Here is World Champion Jerry Miculek shooting, and again, do you count every single ejection?


And again here - can you see every single ejected case?


If not, it that due to the standard of the camera and shot position, or are Dugan Ashley and Jerry Miculek in on a government conspiracy to bring is gun control, which is contrary to their interests....?

 

[JRBids]

Clearly, people are aware prop guns exist, why would "they" make such a blatant error?