Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Master Cheif attempts to emulate the events of Doom 3 and Ressurection of Evil.

Can he accomplish what Flint Taggart (Doomguy) acheived? Can he defeat the monsters of Doom?

Rule: MC Can carry all of his weapons from Halo, but cannot get any of the Doomguys weapons. And he must find them where logically they would be placed in relation to Doom 3 weapons layout.

The Cyber Demon is no longer completely invulnerable to everything but the Soul Cube, but he takes only half damage from weapons than normal, and with over 4,000 hp compared to Flint's.MC's max of 125... thats a frigging huge amount.

MC easily.

Without a plot device MC wins without too much effort.

Oh boyo... Looks like it's up to me to defend Doom....

But I'll get to that when I'm not at work

You have no chance. Make your time.

Cyberdemon. Dude has a friggin huge rocket launcher for an arm. He'll step on Chief.

cyberdemon is way too slow for MC
he could run circles around it no trouble..

Because the Chief has never fought beings witj rocket launchers attached to their arms before.

Oh wait!

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff84/AusQB/Panoramas/HunterPanorama.jpg

Yes he has!

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Master Cheif attempts to emulate the events of Doom 3 and Ressurection of Evil.

Can he accomplish what Flint Taggart (Doomguy) acheived? Can he defeat the monsters of Doom?

Rule: MC Can carry all of his weapons from Halo, but cannot get any of the Doomguys weapons. And he must find them where logically they would be placed in relation to Doom 3 weapons layout.

The Cyber Demon is no longer completely invulnerable to everything but the Soul Cube, but he takes only half damage from weapons than normal, and with over 4,000 hp compared to Flint's.MC's max of 125... thats a frigging huge amount.
You mentioned Ressurection of Evil, but didn't seem to include Maledict or the Soul Stone (the weapon needed to beat him).. so how does that work? The same as what you said for Cyberdemon and the Soul Cube? In that case, Chief still wins.

Doom would win, MC weapons do not seem half as effective and considering the statistics given at the end of your post DS, this is gameplay?

if so Chief is not some bullet dodging speedster and moves pretty much the same as most guys in FPS games. Add this to the fact he wont get his hand on the BFG9k or other super weapons from DOOM hes likely going to have difficulty.

If this is a strictly gameplay thread, it is a biased thread who made it strictly gameplay just because MC would wipe the floor with Doom any other way.

well no, Cyber demon would be invulerable if it was the real Doom, so MC would not be able to do anything when he comes across enemis who are immune to his weapons.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Because the Chief has never fought beings witj rocket launchers attached to their arms before.

Oh wait!

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff84/AusQB/Panoramas/HunterPanorama.jpg

Yes he has!

Last I checked the Hunters shot lasers, not rockets.

Originally posted by Burning thought
well no, Cyber demon would be invulerable if it was the real Doom, so MC would not be able to do anything when he comes across enemis who are immune to his weapons. No-Limits fallacy, he has never shown resistance on par with even a plasma rifle.

he is immune to all weapons in Doom, including the BFG9k which>>>>Plasma rifle.

Based on?

Plasma Rifle is a fully automatic weapon which fires blasts many times hotter than the core of the sun.

There is a Plasma Rifle in Doom which is a fully automatic weapon that fires blasts which are... hot, I guess.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Based on?

Plasma Rifle is a fully automatic weapon which fires blasts many times hotter than the core of the sun.

The BFG instantly disintegrates pretty much everything in the area, and having a blast hotter than the core of the sun means nothing without actual power to back it up, a lightning bolt is hotter than the surface of the sun yet cannot usually kill a man.

And ArtificalGlory is right, there is also a plasma rifle in Doom.

Originally posted by Burning thought
The BFG instantly disintegrates pretty much everything in the area, and having a blast hotter than the core of the sun means nothing without actual power to back it up, a lightning bolt is hotter than the surface of the sun yet cannot usually kill a man.

And ArtificalGlory is right, there is also a plasma rifle in Doom. And?

A lightning bolt strike as you yourself have said is too brief to cause that much damage, and the difference between the core and the surface is very noticeable, and I said many times. MC takes these regularly.

what damage has it done in canon to both MC and objects around him?

Damn, Halo fanboys.

Originally posted by Burning thought
what damage has it done in canon to both MC and objects around him? It's many times hotter than the core of the sun, you are dodging the point by making another. Prove anything in Doom is that powerful when concentrated.

And Gumachi, shut up if you can't debate your side of the argument.

Chief is fighting unlimted hordes of demons from Hell. He doesn't even know where they're all coming from. As long as Chief doesn't know about the portal, demons will be coming at him nonstop until there's nothing left of him.

Random Doom Marine did just fine.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
And Gumachi, shut up if you can't debate your side of the argument.

All I said was "Damn, Halo fanboys. " And I wasn't debating in the first place.

And I was arguing for Halo, you by extension were calling me a fanboy.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
It's many times hotter than the core of the sun, you are dodging the point by making another. Prove anything in Doom is that powerful when concentrated.

And Gumachi, shut up if you can't debate your side of the argument.

Ime not dodging anything, ive also terroriszed the point by the example of lightning, youve not got any real feat of its power, its prob not actually done anything at all.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
And I was arguing for Halo, you by extension were calling me a fanboy.

Did you not call me a DMC fanboy? I was arguing for Dante, but yet you called me a fanboy.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Ime not dodging anything, ive also terroriszed the point by the example of lightning, youve not got any real feat of its power, its prob not actually done anything at all. Other than be many times hotter than the core of the sun in concentrated blasts, not super quick jolts?

Oh, and i'm shure MC can kill the monsters in Doom. Isn't the character a human? If a human can do it, MC can as well.

Yeah, I'm not a fanboy either. I actually like Doom more than Halo. I just don't over-exaggerate Cyberdemon's or the Doom Marine's abilities like some do.

Originally posted by Burning thought
The BFG instantly disintegrates pretty much everything in the area,

So does the sun, which, interestingly enough, plasma weapons are much hotter than.



Lightning bolts also lose the majority of their heat before they hit their target, and last a fraction of a milisecond, whereas Covenent plasma technology is designed to retain it's heat completely and burns through objects until it goes all the way through or dissipates.



No proof they share any similarities outside of name.



It's burned through MJOLNIR armor in only one shot, said armor is completely resilient against all ballistic weaponry and resistant to thousands of degrees of heat.

One dhot tore through twelve inches of Titanium A armor, which in the Halo universe can tank nuclear strikes.

A couple of things to note here would be:

#1: Generally speaking, superheated plasma based weapons exist in both games, and both do the exact same thing, The plasma Gun in Doom does the exact same thing as the Halo Books described, based on a recording found in Doom of a guy vaporising his own head with a single shot, and which was described by the recorder as "Feeding himself enough plasma to power an office building". Now, by extension, the BFG is a massive AOE plasma based weapon, easily capable of destroying huge sections and hoards of enemies even at initial charge, at full charge it can send people flying hundreds of meters...

#2: The Hell energy effect on machines... Cheif's Armour and Cortana are running in there, the hell effect as a slagging huge chance of simply stopping cheif in his tracks...

#3: Unknown factors, such as luck. Taggart only got thru DOOM alive due to a raging PIS inducing Jobber aura that surpasses even Terry's. We cannot guestimate how Cheif would fare in this category. Anoother factor is Willpower, Tagart had enough to resist the burst of hell energy and not become a Zombie. Can we say the same for cheif?

#4: I dunno where everyone is getting that the Cyberdemon is weak/slow/innacturate or whatever... Babel literally can crush cheif right into the hellhole, and his missiles, since they are dumbfire and explode on impact, Cheif won't be deflecting that...

#5: Well, no, Cheif doesn't have the Hell Heart (2nd artifact from ROE) And this is a major reason that if he can get past Babel (Cyberdemon) he certainly will have alot more trouble fighting the Hellhunters, and especially the Maledict.

Fact of the matter is, I can see Cheif doing well against almost everything, right up until he fights something to the scale of a Hellknight, then he's screwed.. these guys can literally throw humans by the head like baseballs in a straight line for over 200 meters. (remembers a random human going splat against the monorail after getting thrown by a HK at high speed)

How many of the creatures in the game see and react to bullets as if they moved in slow motion?

So he's got quick reaction time, then again, so does the Hell Hunter of Time, and is actually much faster than Cheif... The dude can control the flow of time...

Then why bring up the Hellknight and say he's screwed?

LoL@Luck being a factor.

Master Chief is the luckiest mofo. He solos. superdur

The Chief's actually been stated to canonically be the luckiest of any SPARTAN.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
A couple of things to note here would be:

#1: Generally speaking, superheated plasma based weapons exist in both games, and both do the exact same thing, The plasma Gun in Doom does the exact same thing as the Halo Books described, based on a recording found in Doom of a guy vaporising his own head with a single shot, and which was described by the recorder as "Feeding himself enough plasma to power an office building". Now, by extension, the BFG is a massive AOE plasma based weapon, easily capable of destroying huge sections and hoards of enemies even at initial charge, at full charge it can send people flying hundreds of meters...

#2: The Hell energy effect on machines... Cheif's Armour and Cortana are running in there, the hell effect as a slagging huge chance of simply stopping cheif in his tracks...

#3: Unknown factors, such as luck. Taggart only got thru DOOM alive due to a raging PIS inducing Jobber aura that surpasses even Terry's. We cannot guestimate how Cheif would fare in this category. Anoother factor is Willpower, Tagart had enough to resist the burst of hell energy and not become a Zombie. Can we say the same for cheif?

#4: I dunno where everyone is getting that the Cyberdemon is weak/slow/innacturate or whatever... Babel literally can crush cheif right into the hellhole, and his missiles, since they are dumbfire and explode on impact, Cheif won't be deflecting that...

#5: Well, no, Cheif doesn't have the Hell Heart (2nd artifact from ROE) And this is a major reason that if he can get past Babel (Cyberdemon) he certainly will have alot more trouble fighting the Hellhunters, and especially the Maledict.

Fact of the matter is, I can see Cheif doing well against almost everything, right up until he fights something to the scale of a Hellknight, then he's screwed.. these guys can literally throw humans by the head like baseballs in a straight line for over 200 meters. (remembers a random human going splat against the monorail after getting thrown by a HK at high speed) 1. No evidence they do the same things. Laser weapons in Fallout 3 do the exact same thing, disintegrate you, does that mean they are the same potency as Plasma Rifles? No, they are not, and there is no proof the BFG can tear through Mjolnir Armor or Titanium A.

2. Make Chief's suit lock up you mean? I thought we were under the impression Chief gets all the same perks as random Doom guy?

3. The hell we can't, the majority of Doom creatures MC can kill with his bare hands.

4. Chief can easily flip 66 tons. I do not think the Cyberdemon weighs or can lift 66 tons.

5. ZOMG! NOT T3H 200 METERS! Human males are 200 pounds(being GENEROUS), which is not even 5% of 66 tons, which MC flips easily.

I love you.

I love you too, like a retarded, ugly, inbred brother.

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
1. No evidence they do the same things. Laser weapons in Fallout 3 do the exact same thing, disintegrate you, does that mean they are the same potency as Plasma Rifles? No, they are not, and there is no proof the BFG can tear through Mjolnir Armor or Titanium A.

2. Make Chief's suit lock up you mean? I thought we were under the impression Chief gets all the same perks as random Doom guy?

3. The hell we can't, the majority of Doom creatures MC can kill with his bare hands.

4. Chief can easily flip 66 tons. I do not think the Cyberdemon weighs or can lift 66 tons.

5. ZOMG! NOT T3H 200 METERS! Human males are 200 pounds(being GENEROUS), which is not even 5% of 66 tons, which MC flips easily.

#1: I just gave you an example... Reducing to vapour>reducing to ash pile/goo puddle

#2: Uh, Where was that impression from? I already gave Cheif some consession with the Cyberdemon thing.

#3: The majority, but certainly not all. Remember, most of the Doom enemies short of the Hellknight are supposed to be Canon Fodder

#4: I do beleive you are wrong on both counts, Babel reqyuires a constantly active jet engine on it's back to maintain the weight distribution of the weapin he carries and the exessive load of metal in it's cybernetics. Not to mntion it crashed thru a fortress wall with ease.

#5: Forgetting things like inertia and terminal velocity, 200 meters was only how far he went in a straight line, there's no way of telling how far he would have gone without an obstruction. Iwould pay to see Cheif do anything like this.

You would pay to see Chief throw a.. human, 200 meters?

That's pointless. Flipping 140 THOUSAND pound vehicles TEN feet into the air (with, canonically, not much effort) is >>> throwing a 180 pound human 200 meters. Even with inertia, even if the gravity was 2 times our own, that fact would not chace.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
You would pay to see Chief throw a.. human, 200 meters?

That's pointless. Flipping 140 THOUSAND pound vehicles TEN feet into the air (with, canonically, not much effort) is >>> throwing a 180 pound human 200 meters. Even with inertia, even if the gravity was 2 times our own, that fact would not chace.

Blaxian, you seriously overhyped that feat...

Where did it say not much effort, and where did it say he THREW it 10 feet in the air, all he did was pucj over a capsized scorpion, the average human can push over a multi tonne car. Don't overexagerate something thats not meant to be taken any more than at face value.

That and at least my listed feat occured in-game visibly and quantifiably

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Where did it say not much effort,

The Flood.



It leaves the ground entirely and rises above your head when it's flipped..



One regular human can not move even a car that is flipped upside down entirely.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
One regular human can not move even a car that is flipped upside down entirely.
not with one hand, and certainly not with ease

Originally posted by ThunderGodEneru
Other than be many times hotter than the core of the sun in concentrated blasts, not super quick jolts?


Youve made the diffrent into what form they take, well done, now prove that being a conentrated blast actually avails the plasma projectiles because frankly in a fictional unvierse I need proof of what the plasma projectiles can do.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
The Flood.



It leaves the ground entirely and rises above your head when it's flipped..



One regular human can not move even a car that is flipped upside down entirely.

Yeah its nice to know you only focused on one point in the entire debate...

Is that from the game? yeah... thats going to fly about as far as a pig will.

Uhuh...

Originally posted by Burning thought
what damage has it done in canon to both MC and objects around him?
Without shields it can cause first-degree burns.
Without shields and a breached suit, fatal 3rd degree burns.


Briefly after the discovery of the Covenant, a refractive outer layer was added to the MJOLNIR combat armor to disperse the plasma, but plasma otherwise melts through bulkhead and titanium-A like water.

A plasma pistol overcharged bolt was described by SPARTAN-104 as feeling as if struck by a "red hot sledgehammer".

so its still not teh super one shot disintegrate blast that Eneru seems to think it is

Originally posted by Burning thought
so its still not teh super one shot disintegrate blast that Eneru seems to think it is
How'd you get that out of what he said? He was trying to make the point that the plasma from Halo is powerful (which it is, as I have said) and that it is comparably different from plasma in other fictional worlds (which it is.).

At least, that's the impression that he was giving me.

For the record though, a Fuel Rod Cannon is more of a super one-charge disintegrating blast - and Kelly took two rounds in the chest at once and survived. Unconscious and with burns everywhere and hydrostatic gel boiling out of her armor, but she survived.

Also, Chief got hit by an anti-tank missile and blacked out for only a few seconds.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
The Flood.



It leaves the ground entirely and rises above your head when it's flipped..



One regular human can not move even a car that is flipped upside down entirely.
Gimme the page number where it actually says he flips a Scorpion without much effort. The most I remember him flipping in that novel was a Warthog. I don't even recall him driving the tank in that book.

I'm calling bullshit on this one otherwise.


As for Darkstorm - yes, the Chief can lift 66 tons. No, it's not as easy as Blaxican makes it out to be.

We went over this two or three years ago, remember?

Originally posted by DarkC
How'd you get that out of what he said? He was trying to make the point that the plasma from Halo is powerful (which it is, as I have said) and that it is comparably different from plasma in other fictional worlds (which it is.).

At least, that's the impression that he was giving me.

For the record though, a Fuel Rod Cannon is more of a super one-charge disintegrating blast - and Kelly took two rounds in the chest at once and survived. Unconscious and with burns everywhere and hydrostatic gel boiling out of her armor, but she survived.

Also, Chief got hit by an anti-tank missile and blacked out for only a few seconds.

I still see the BFG9k outdoing anything in Halo short of a Wraith's plasma mortar, and thats being generous.

Originally posted by DarkC
Gimme the page number where it actually says he flips a Scorpion without much effort. The most I remember him flipping in that novel was a Warthog. I don't even recall him driving the tank in that book.

I'm calling bullshit on this one otherwise.


As for Darkstorm - yes, the Chief can lift 66 tons. No, it's not as easy as Blaxican makes it out to be.

We went over this two or three years ago, remember?

I know he can push/topple it, but he certainly can't bench it...

Originally posted by DarkC
How'd you get that out of what he said? He was trying to make the point that the plasma from Halo is powerful (which it is, as I have said) and that it is comparably different from plasma in other fictional worlds (which it is.).

At least, that's the impression that he was giving me.

For the record though, a Fuel Rod Cannon is more of a super one-charge disintegrating blast - and Kelly took two rounds in the chest at once and survived. Unconscious and with burns everywhere and hydrostatic gel boiling out of her armor, but she survived.

Also, Chief got hit by an anti-tank missile and blacked out for only a few seconds.

hes constantly bitching about how its as hot as the core of the sun, as if it can disintegrate anything through that heat, but if all it can do is 1st and 3rd degree burns then......

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I still see the BFG9k outdoing anything in Halo short of a Wraith's plasma mortar, and thats being generous.
I see it as more of a Fuel Rod Cannon, as I mentioned earlier. And that's not being generous, it's being fair. The FR Cannon's destructive capabilities are quite respectable in that regard.


No, definitely not a plasma mortar. Not unless the BFG9K completely disintegrates everything within a twenty-meter radius on impact with one shot. Go read the passage from the Halo novel that I posted in the Halo vs Gears thread.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I know he can push/topple it, but he certainly can't bench it...
Obviously not, although I'm not entirely sure that Blaxican was giving that impression of benching.

It's still an essentially moot point IMO, if he can roll a tank weighing 66 tonnes that's pretty f***ing strong.

Originally posted by Burning thought
hes constantly bitching about how its as hot as the core of the sun, as if it can disintegrate anything through that heat, but if all it can do is 1st and 3rd degree burns then......

Master Chief's guns shoot projectiles hotter than the core of the sun and he can react faster than the speed of light! Don't you dare argue! droolio

Originally posted by Burning thought
hes constantly bitching about how its as hot as the core of the sun, as if it can disintegrate anything through that heat, but if all it can do is 1st and 3rd degree burns then......
It's actually several times as hot as the core of the sun.


However that's beside the point - what enables him to survive that is because of his armor and shields as I have mentioned.

Also the heat is near instantaneous as the plasma dissipates quickly when the magnetic bubble is shattered on impact, it's more like waving your hand through a fire real fast than dipping your fingers in molten iron.

I thot so

Originally posted by DarkC
I see it as more of a Fuel Rod Cannon, as I mentioned earlier. And that's not being generous, it's being fair. The FR Cannon's destructive capabilities are quite respectable in that regard.


No, definitely not a plasma mortar. Not unless the BFG9K completely disintegrates everything within a twenty-meter radius on impact with one shot. Go read the passage from the Halo novel that I posted in the Halo vs Gears thread.

Obviously not, although I'm not entirely sure that Blaxican was giving that impression of benching.

It's still an essentially moot point IMO, if he can roll a tank weighing 66 tonnes that's pretty f***ing strong.

Actually, the BFG disintegrates within 30 meters of the flash point, and is lethal in 50 meters. This was stated in the weapons holodisk. That easily puts it out of the Fuel rod launchers league.

DC...... Read what he said... He literally said Cheif one-handedly lifted the tank and actually threw it 10 ft

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Actually, the BFG disintegrates within 30 meters of the flash point, and is lethal in 50 meters. This was stated in the weapons holodisk. That easily puts it out of the Fuel rod launchers league.

DC...... Read what he said... He literally said Cheif one-handedly lifted the tank and actually threw it 10 ft
The actual quote itself 'The results of the explosion itself are devastating. Targets within 15 meters of the flashpoint are not likely to survive.'

Taken from the Doom 3 UAC briefing of the weapon. Which is being curiously generous, because the blast radius from the weapon seen in-game can't be more than 5.

Also it's inferior to an energy mortar, you can't stop a giant blob of plasma by shooting at it, but according to mentioned briefing you can destroy the BFG9000's projectiles (the microchip housed in the projectile specifically) before it initiates the miniature fusion reaction that causes the explosion itself.

I read that but I thought he was joking and not serious, because that's fairly obviously bullshit.

Originally posted by DarkC
The actual quote itself 'The results of the explosion itself are devastating. Targets within 15 meters of the flashpoint are not likely to survive.'

Taken from the Doom 3 UAC briefing of the weapon. Which is being curiously generous, because the blast radius from the weapon seen in-game can't be more than 5.

Also it's inferior to an energy mortar, you can't stop a giant blob of plasma by shooting at it, but according to mentioned briefing you can destroy the BFG9000's projectiles (the microchip housed in the projectile specifically) before it initiates the miniature fusion reaction that causes the explosion itself.

I read that but I thought he was joking and not serious, because that's fairly obviously bullshit.

#1: My bad, your right, I just had a run through of the game myself to confirm, and your right.

#2: Yeah, but on that same token, neither is the Wraith Blast, nor the FRG... And if you have a look at the BFG shot, it independently foires charged plasma particle streams at any hostile targets it goes near before impact.

#3: Yes, the breifing does say that, but let me mention that in all the years I've played Doom 3, I have never seen in any game single or multi player anyone shoot down a BFG shot. And nobody I know from anywhere has seen it either anywhere... I wonder if it can actually be done. I know that certain projectiles can be shot down (Intercepting Imp Plasma shots with a rifle is a favourite hobby of mine in single games.) But as I've said, even with an MG or Chaingun, Neither I nor anyone else I know has never seen anyone take down a BFG shot.

No, the Wraith mortar projectile itself can't be more than 5m in diameter, but the explosion pictured ingame is like 13-15.

They screwed up the visual physics of that game there, a giant blob of plasma the size of a small car is likely to cause much more damage real-time than just a medium-large patch of scorched ground IMO.


I suppose it is probably difficult or nigh-on-impossible in-game (wouldn't know myself so I will trust you on this one) to actually shoot down a BFG projectile, but as the briefing in Doom 3 did mention it of importance we do have to accept it as a very real possibility; otherwise the UAC wouldn't have bothered mentioning it.

I doubt its likely possible to shoot a tiny chip thats inside this ball of plasma coming towards you at fair speeds while its not only powerful itself in its blast but fireing out beams of energy while its going.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I doubt its likely possible to shoot a tiny chip thats inside this ball of plasma coming towards you at fair speeds while its not only powerful itself in its blast but fireing out beams of energy while its going.
Like I said above, it wouldn't be worth mentioning period if it were so ridiculously difficult to shoot said projectiles down.

ofc it would be worth mentioning, it just simply says it has a chip inside, but its never been done, and nobody has ever shot one down. Its likely not possible considering the ball of power would disiintegrate most shots fired at it anyway.

Originally posted by Burning thought
ofc it would be worth mentioning, it just simply says it has a chip inside, but its never been done, and nobody has ever shot one down. Its likely not possible considering the ball of power would disiintegrate most shots fired at it anyway.
What you're suggesting is that in spite of the likelihood of actually shooting one down, the UAC bothered to warn their soldiers about it anyway.

Considering the context that the other facts about the BFG9000 were put in, I would consider this note of significant mention.

"Yeah, just a note here guys...there's a little miniscule chance - almost an impossibility - that your shot projectile will be gunned down. Despite the actual chances of that occuring and that no harm actually comes to you anyway in the event of that happening, we've decided to give our troops a bit of a heads up."

Really.

I dont know why it would mention it, I mean what in Doom could possibly hit that chip? bullets would disitegrate, plasma is the only "possible" thing but its failed to do anything thus far.

Maybe its theoretically possible, just not practical.

It's a military briefing meant for grunt soldiers, not scientists - which means it's supposed to give the practical and up-front info regarding the weapon, not the insignificant background info.

well obviously it failed, not only is it logcially ridiculous that a tiny chip is going to be endanger but its never been shot.

No, that was the way the weapon was designed by id.

Take it or leave it, but don't deny it - you're denying in-game evidence as it is. Claiming it failed doesn't change that.

I dunno what they were thinking at the time they did this. Maybe the plasma isn't super-heated until the chip processes the final fusion reaction? Its the only way a bullet could get through to even hit it. And even then, it's still an incredibly difficult shot to make.

The chip is very small and hidden inside a massive ball of plasma.

That's what I assume happens.


And it's really less the size of the chip and more the size of the projectile that is fired at it that matters.

great, well if MC gets his hands on a tank, he can hit the chip if hes accurate enough....

although I think tihs has gone off-topic, that still doesnt help decide how MC is going to make up for not having the soul cube to defeat the Cyber demon with.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
The Cyber Demon is no longer completely invulnerable to everything but the Soul Cube

yeh weve gathered that, ime talking "real" Doom as i said before. Currently Chief dies easily, with only 100 hitpoints of his own and a weak shield combined with only a couple of heavy weapons, he will be crushed

Um.. last I checked, the Doomguy had only 100 hit points as well. Well, 200 if you pick up the "supercharge", but so would Master Chief if he got one of those. All and all though, it's already been established that Chief is not human and possesses abilities of that above one, so putting him in a league below one (the Doom Marine) is nonsensical. Only "a couple heavy weapons" was pretty much all the Doomguy needed to get through hell himself.

yeh AND the soul cube to defeat those beyond his firepower which is beyond chiefs anyway.

Whether hes human or not is besides the point, Darkstorm seems to have brought gameplay into this by bringing up values such as 100 and 4000 in the OP so what Chief is or is not is irrelvent. He has exactley the same basic capabilities as the Doom marine other than the fact he has a very weak shield (Doom guy has armour which by gameplay terms is debatably better)

Doomguy has better weapons AND can carry more, if we give chief the ability to carry more than one of his weapons then Doom guy still has the better mix, from the BFG to the mini gun, etc etc.

Doom guy prob couldnt take this thread either considering the variables.

So it is a spite thread to cripple the Chief.

I hope you pathetic bastards are happy with yourselves.

meh, Cyber Demon is cirppled as well by not being immune to anything other than the cube.

Master Chief is crippled to gameplay, meaning:

A. He does not get his super-speed.

B. He does not get his superhumane durability along with his shields and armor protection that he gets.

C. He cannot do his super duper fun-time feats of Spartan skillz.

superhuman lol, the only feat ive sene of him is falling a few KM from the sky which knocked him out for a long time....

Originally posted by Burning thought
superhuman lol, the only feat ive sene of him is falling a few KM from the sky which knocked him out for a long time.... It didn't knock him out, it locked his suit up.

He can flip a tank easily.

He has 20 millisecond reaction-speed and sees bullets in slow motion.

Hell, he fell from lower orbit, the very fact that his body inside the suit did not turn to goop proves he is superhuman, physically he was fine.

easily? thats already been debated in more depth in here and it doesnt sound like the conclusion that he actually flipped a tank "easily".

it proves nothing, simply that the suit is obviously very protective could be another reason, or the suit can take most impact damage, either way ive not seen any of these actual feats you claim suc has seeing bullets in slow motion and seeing something in slow mo, doesnt mean you can move at their speed or close.

Originally posted by Burning thought
easily? thats already been debated in more depth in here and it doesnt sound like the conclusion that he actually flipped a tank "easily".

it proves nothing, simply that the suit is obviously very protective could be another reason, or the suit can take most impact damage, either way ive not seen any of these actual feats you claim suc has seeing bullets in slow motion and seeing something in slow mo, doesnt mean you can move at their speed or close. The tank gets flipped with near no effort. How's about the opposition to MC prove it requires effort? And said tanks are 66 tons. Being able to push one would require tremendous physical strength beyond that of any human.

Which means nothing as he is wearing the suit.

Sees them in slow motion, and also has 20 millisecond reaction time. Though you did not mention that.

If you can't debate a point, then concede it.

Master Chief is superhuman, the fact that he can move when he weighs half a ton while wearing his armor proves it. Arguing against this fact is quite frankly idiotic.

Whats the point of conceding a point my opponent cannot debate either? lol.....

And I would never call someone greater than a human, super human. Simply enhanced, or beyond. but not a real Superhuman. Then again he is prob by definition super human.....

which isnt really impressive, most characters in fiction are by definition "super human"

Originally posted by Burning thought
Whats the point of conceding a point my opponent cannot debate either? lol.....

And I would never call someone greater than a human, super human. Simply enhanced, or beyond. but not a real Superhuman. Then again he is prob by definition super human.....

which isnt really impressive, most characters in fiction are by definition "super human" Good job. You just managed to make a post without addressing a single point.

By definition, Master Chief is superhuman.

Isn't really impressive? Random Doom Marine Guy is not superhuman at all.

yes he is, he is beyond the overall limit of the typical human, a human would not be able to mentally take a couple of hellknights coming after them, or the dead chasing them. Such trauma would terrify a normal human.

Asides from doing that consistently until the very end the very journey itself is damn impressive, he negotiates this place consistently, without rest, without food, without much of anything at all.

oh and you didnt have any points, you were simply making statements, I could see no real argument there.

Originally posted by Burning thought
yes he is, he is beyond the overall limit of the typical human, a human would not be able to mentally take a couple of hellknights coming after them, or the dead chasing them. Such trauma would terrify a normal human.

Asides from doing that consistently until the very end the very journey itself is damn impressive, he negotiates this place consistently, without rest, without food, without much of anything at all.

oh and you didnt have any points, you were simply making statements, I could see no real argument there. Okay. So he has a superhuman force of "will."

Gameplay mechanics.

You argued that Master Chief was not superhuman. I wrecked your pathetic shit argument. Deal with it.

Which makes him Super human.

No...its nothing to do with gameplay, not once in the game or otherwise, not once in a video, was it hinted he had any rest time or anything to eat, furthermore there is no food (if youve played the game) around at all.

I argued he did not survive falling because of being Superhuman you goof lmao.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Which makes him Super human.

No...its nothing to do with gameplay, not once in the game or otherwise, not once in a video, was it hinted he had any rest time or anything to eat, furthermore there is no food (if youve played the game) around at all.

I argued he did not survive falling because of being Superhuman you goof lmao. It means he has a strong mind.

So going by that, Link from Legend of Zelda can go day upon day upon day without eating, shitting, or drinking?

You laughed at me saying he was superhuman. Don't lie.

Who knows, is it true? ive not played the LOZ series so i cannot actually analyse whether he had any down time, any time he could have taken down time, whether there was food he could have eaten etc etc

My argument is the same as before.

Originally posted by Burning thought
it proves nothing, simply that the suit is obviously very protective could be another reason, or the suit can take most impact damage, either way ive not seen any of these actual feats you claim suc has seeing bullets in slow motion and seeing something in slow mo, doesnt mean you can move at their speed or close.
I'm afraid TGE is correct here.


The suit, while very durable, does NOT absorb impact well. Anyone who has been splattered in multiplayer Halo can attest to that game mechanic. Also, a passage in the First Strike novel contributes as well, during the part where they had to make a free fall jump from low orbit from a half-destroyed dropship:

"They had to overpressurize the cushioning gel in their armor just before impact, or their organs would be crushed against their impervious MJOLNIR armor."

He does not see bullets in slow motion, he can see them and dodge them however. Unless it's super rapid fire. During the first workout after the physical augmentations, where his adrenaline isn't pumping, everything in the gym seemed to be moving too slow. When the adrenaline kicks in, coupled with the power reactive circuits from the armor, he is actually fast enough to dodge bullets.

And when you see something in slow-mo, then yes that does mean you can move at their speed, at least. It's a matter of perspective.

Chief's mind isn't superhuman. It just has been through too much war and battling to feel trauma. Nothing in his augmentations gives him a steadier head.

Originally posted by DarkC
I'm afraid TGE is correct here.


The suit, while very durable, does NOT absorb impact well. Anyone who has been splattered in multiplayer Halo can attest to that game mechanic. Also, a passage in the First Strike novel contributes as well, during the part where they had to make a free fall jump from low orbit from a half-destroyed dropship:

"They had to overpressurize the cushioning gel in their armor just before impact, or their organs would be crushed against their impervious MJOLNIR armor."

He does not see bullets in slow motion, he can see them and dodge them however. Unless it's super rapid fire. During the first workout after the physical augmentations, where his adrenaline isn't pumping, everything in the gym seemed to be moving too slow. When the adrenaline kicks in, coupled with the power reactive circuits from the armor, he is actually fast enough to dodge bullets.

And when you see something in slow-mo, then yes that does mean you can move at their speed, at least. It's a matter of perspective.

Chief's mind isn't superhuman. It just has been through too much war and battling to feel trauma. Nothing in his augmentations gives him a steadier head.

gameplay however does not mean much in a canon situation.

Nothing of what you just said backs up TGE, you just backed me up as soon as you said overpressurize the cushioning gel in their armour

No it means you can react to that speed, theres a diffrence, if you see something moving extremely slowly it means your senses are massively heightened, if a person could run at the speed of sound, but had no enhancement to their senses at all, then they would not be able to react ot incoming objects so would likely end up dead in their first sonic boom.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Nothing of what you just said backs up TGE, you just backed me up as soon as you said overpressurize the cushioning gel in their armour
No, you simply took it the wrong way and placed it out of context.

If the armor were so protective as you have judged, melee attacks or vehicle impacts would not scale as near to damage as a freefall from low orbit (which by the way was about 500 metres/sec vertical). SPARTAN-104 walked away with 3 cracked ribs after impact and was only unconscious for a few seconds.


Their armor was not built to withstand that kind of impact. They forced themselves to pretty much be internally crushed by their own armor's cushioning gel, and such punishment a normal human could not take. See below.

A Spartan's muscular density is about 3x the normal in a human body and carbide grafting on their bones makes them incredibly hard to break. They had a surgical catalyst placed in their nervous system as to boost reaction time by 500%, increase significantly when adrenaline is pumping. The average Spartan runs about 35 km/h, with bursts up to 55 km/h.

Yeah. They're super-human.


Case closed.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No it means you can react to that speed, theres a diffrence, if you see something moving extremely slowly it means your senses are massively heightened, if a person could run at the speed of sound, but had no enhancement to their senses at all, then they would not be able to react ot incoming objects so would likely end up dead in their first sonic boom.
OK, you're comparing apples to bears.


Reflexes determine how fast you move reacting to something (not run, move). We're talking about bullet dodging, not how fast or far he can sprint. That's an entirely different thing altogether

Your point is moot, either way. With his physical augmentations, he possesses the capability to dodge bullets, which means he can see the bullet in motion, instantly pinpoint the trajectory in his head and move out of the way accordingly, something that no normal human is able to do.

Reaction is how fast you interparate something, you can either be fast or your not, having an infnite ability to react is worthless if your attacked by someone who is FTL if you cannot actually move that speed or more yourself, so although youll likely see them moving towards you, your body would not be as fast as your perception.

When has chief dodged bullets and weapons in canon easily, has he done it on a regulour basis?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Reaction is how fast you interparate something, you can either be fast or your not, having an infnite ability to react is worthless if your attacked by someone who is FTL if you cannot actually move that speed or more yourself, so although youll likely see them moving towards you, your body would not be as fast as your perception.

When has chief dodged bullets and weapons in canon easily, has he done it on a regulour basis?
You're still trying to grant sovereignty between the idea of reaction and perception, which is rather silly.

It's like saying, if a projectile was moving slower than it should and can be dodged, you'd stand still and take it anyway.



He can't do it with ease, but yes he can. Period.

Considering that he doesn't exactly fight opponents that use human weaponry, don't be surprised if there aren't many bullet-dodging sequences in canon. However, he avoids Covenant projectile weaponry on a regular basis - ducking and dodging plasma bolts, etc. They're actually supposed to be faster in canon - Banshees at a range of 100m were forcing the Spartans to dodge plasma.

reaction and perception are similiar in the fact you need to be able to percieve a threat, when actually reacting towards that thread is a portion of it. By the sounds of it, Chief can percieve the threat, but whether he can actually move out of the way with ease, or with the ability you seem to think ive not seen the evidence of.

I asked when? when did he dodge bullets? I mean technically you need to be clear for me, are you saying he can dodge bullets like Neo? or like James bond?

Originally posted by Burning thought
reaction and perception are similiar in the fact you need to be able to percieve a threat, when actually reacting towards that thread is a portion of it. By the sounds of it, Chief can percieve the threat, but whether he can actually move out of the way with ease, or with the ability you seem to think ive not seen the evidence of.

I asked when? when did he dodge bullets? I mean technically you need to be clear for me, are you saying he can dodge bullets like Neo? or like James bond?
Yes, he can move out of the way of a bullet. I'm going to go ahead and say more along the lines of Neo, since Bond is only human.


This was shown in the first Halo novel right after he recieved MJOLNIR armor for the first time and they were putting it through its paces.

The thread says it's in gameplay. Does Master Chief see bullets in slow motion during gameplay? No, just in the books.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
The thread says it's in gameplay. Does Master Chief see bullets in slow motion during gameplay? No, just in the books.
I don't understand that bit.


It seems stupid to limit characters and to restrict the use of plot devices. Maybe if it was Sephiroth, but this isn't a super godlike being, it's a bio-enhanced soldier wearing armor.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, he can move out of the way of a bullet. I'm going to go ahead and say more along the lines of Neo, since Bond is only human.


This was shown in the first Halo novel right after he recieved MJOLNIR armor for the first time and they were putting it through its paces.


Can you give me the book name, page number and a quote, preferably one continaing 4-5 lines maybe more so I can understand the barings and situation.

Then again, you cannot use anything in books, novels etc etc, so that info is worthless on these forums either way.

Yes you can.

Anything that's canon to the series itself can be used here...

Does anyone here even has the book?

Alright ALRIGHT!!!

Heed my announcement.

I never actually stated that it was just gameplay in the OP, I just used the numbers of the Cyberdemon as a guage. But, for the sake of argument, lets split the two quiffs into scenarions the,

Scenario #1: Game content only. MC can have any weapons found in the halo games, this includes covenant weaponry as well as gadgets.

Scenario #2: story canon is also applicable

Scenario #3: same as #1 exept limited to UNSC weapons and gadgets only.

Scenario #4: Same as #2, with the same limitation as #3.


There, that should split it pretty even now.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Yes you can.

Anything that's canon to the series itself can be used here...

Not true, only the games themselves are considered canon to the forum:

Originally posted by Burning thought
Can you give me the book name, page number and a quote, preferably one continaing 4-5 lines maybe more so I can understand the barings and situation.

Then again, you cannot use anything in books, novels etc etc, so that info is worthless on these forums either way.
The book is Halo: Fall of Reach, and this was the segment of field testing right after the Spartans first recieved their MJOLNIR armor (this was before it got power shields.). Having pretty much destroyed it to tatters from over-reading and lending to others, I can't give a page number.

"...he stood, and let the rounds deflect off his armor. To his amazement, he even dodged one or two of the rounds."

Originally posted by Burning thought
Not true, only the games themselves are considered canon to the forum:
Why is it that in almost every Master Chief vs other character, people hide behind this particular wall when they don't really have anything to add?

It's a wildly useless and counterproductive rule. I addressed this ages ago.



See, I knew this would happen in one of the MC vs threads sooner or later, which was why I brought it up.

If you're going to reply with "But the rule says it's non canon, so there", you may as well not reply at all, period.

No, I may as well reply because anyone who uses the novel is not following the KMC rules. Its a rule just like any other, or can we spam threads on non game characters!

Judging by the quote you gave its no more than James bond jodging....thats a pthetic shred of evidence on your part even if it is illegal on this forum.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No, I may as well reply because anyone who uses the novel is not following the KMC rules. Its a rule just like any other, or can we spam threads on non game characters!

Judging by the quote you gave its no more than James bond jodging....thats a pthetic shred of evidence on your part even if it is illegal on this forum.
Lol, as expected. Talk big when you have your wall to hide behind.

Unless you can give me a thoughtful and intelligent reason for the rule being in place - as in here - I'll continue to use it anyway. I've just PM'ed a mod about changing it. As I said, it's a rule that in this case is ridiculously counterproductive.

Go ahead and keep ploughing with the non-literature canon rule. All it is to me is peripheral noise. I've already given clear and concise reasons why it's useless and have brought the issue to a moderator.



Wrong. James Bond without technological assistance cannot see a bullet, react to it, and move aside.

He's a normal human being without physical augmentation, and even under adrenaline, humans do not possess the capability to have the reaction time to dodge a bullet fired directly at them and on target while standing still. The Master Chief did.

Why are you trying to insist the impossible?

Talk big? you young or what....as usual your arguments are weak, you have one line (you cant even read posts, I asked for a couple of lines to set the scene)

Yes well, it seems to you one line of poor evidence for what your saying contstitutes to a strong evidence for a failing argument lol

According to what you call evidence neither can chief, it just sounds like Bonde style dodging, he was "surprised" he dodged some, its not like he predicated it or watched the coming and moved out of their path. To his "surprise" just like Ime surprised James bond can escape machine gun fire so often or jump out of the way of a fireing weapon.

Yeah, considering that you can't really factually negate my use of it anyway besides the fact that it's apparently against the rules somehow. Besides, Blaxican and DJ know as well as I do that the books are considered canon by Bungie and I can provide proof. it's just that the forums somehow don't allow that.

And why would I post a few? That was the only relevant one.

You asked for the scene where he was bullet-dodging. I answered. Go ahead and complain about that if you really want.

No, it specifically said 'dodging'. Not the bullets missing by chance. By 'dodging' it means actually seeing the bullet coming towards you and moving to avoid it. James Bond just dives out of the way and hopes that a stray bullet doesn't hit him. That's different.

He was surprised at how much faster the armor made him, not that a few bullets missed him. Remember, this was the first field testing of Mark V MJOLNIR. He just stood up and let the rounds deflect briefly, presumably to test its durability. It makes no sense that he would be surprised at doing something an ordinary human can accomplish.

No they do not, just for the same reason I cannot use the starcraft or warcraft books to help any of my arguments.

You need to post perhaps the paragraph you took that from, otherwise it doesnt set the scene, i dont know what was fireing at him, who, from what distance, his actions beforehand etc etc

oh so you know what it means? dodging in the sense he was surprised he dodged a few is not simply seeing the bullet coming and moving to avoid it lol..... James bond dives out of the way and dodges the fire. MC isnt much diffrent, he was surprised he dodged some.

Well your quote doesnt tell me that does it....and why not? an ordinairy human would still be surprised he escaped from gun fire, I would be surprised if i somehow survived bullet fire by jumping out of the way. Id be surprised Ime not dead.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No they do not, just for the same reason I cannot use the starcraft or warcraft books to help any of my arguments.

You need to post perhaps the paragraph you took that from, otherwise it doesnt set the scene, i dont know what was fireing at him, who, from what distance, his actions beforehand etc etc

oh so you know what it means? dodging in the sense he was surprised he dodged a few is not simply seeing the bullet coming and moving to avoid it lol..... James bond dives out of the way and dodges the fire. MC isnt much diffrent, he was surprised he dodged some.

Well your quote doesnt tell me that does it....and why not? an ordinairy human would still be surprised he escaped from gun fire, I would be surprised if i somehow survived bullet fire by jumping out of the way. Id be surprised Ime not dead.
Exactly. Precisely why that rule is nonsense, wouldn't you agree? I actually told them that it also hampered any threads involving characters from Blizzard Entertainment. Like Halo, a lot of the story - Diablo, StarCraft, or Warcraft - comes from books. Anyways...




The paragraph involves him doing several different things to test the capabilities of the armor - involving jumping, running speed, physical strength, durability; and in the final case, reaction speed. That's why I chose to cut it out. And the bullets were from wall mounted chainguns in the obstacle course he was due to run through.

James Bond diving to avoid bullets - not dodge - is just what Max Payne does in his games. He doesn't actually possess the capability to see the bullet in motion and shift aside, he just is in motion before the bullet leaves the gun and is praying that, like I said, a bullet doesn't hit him. That ain't a bullet dodge, that's just diving out of the way.

Yeah, but Chief isn't a normal human. He's a biogenetically enhanced, battle-hardened soldier wearing more than a half tonne of combat armor.

Also as I mentioned he was field training the capabilities of the armor. That means he doesn't know what it can do or enable him to do - hence, a good reason to be surprised that it makes him fast enough to actually percieve and dodge bullets.

That's moot, he can take more than a few rounds of fire. If he just dove out of the way like any other human would, why the hell would he be taken by surprise that he avoided it, like some green recruit on his first time in a gunfight?


"Omigosh, I rolled out of the way and a few bullets didn't hit me! Isn't that amazing?! Did you see that?!"


You're cherry picking, seriously.

Master Chief's reaction speed is 20 milliseconds apparently.

That is fast enough to dodge the average bullet.

Originally posted by DarkC
Exactly. Precisely why that rule is nonsense, wouldn't you agree? I actually told them that it also hampered any threads involving characters from Blizzard Entertainment. Like Halo, a lot of the story - Diablo, StarCraft, or Warcraft - comes from books. Anyways...




The paragraph involves him doing several different things to test the capabilities of the armor - involving jumping, running speed, physical strength, durability; and in the final case, reaction speed. That's why I chose to cut it out. And the bullets were from wall mounted chainguns in the obstacle course he was due to run through.

James Bond diving to avoid bullets - not dodge - is just what Max Payne does in his games. He doesn't actually possess the capability to see the bullet in motion and shift aside, he just is in motion before the bullet leaves the gun and is praying that, like I said, a bullet doesn't hit him. That ain't a bullet dodge, that's just diving out of the way.

Yeah, but Chief isn't a normal human. He's a biogenetically enhanced, battle-hardened soldier wearing more than a half tonne of combat armor.

Also as I mentioned he was field training the capabilities of the armor. That means he doesn't know what it can do or enable him to do - hence, a good reason to be surprised that it makes him fast enough to actually percieve and dodge bullets.

That's moot, he can take more than a few rounds of fire. If he just dove out of the way like any other human would, why the hell would he be taken by surprise that he avoided it, like some green recruit on his first time in a gunfight?


"Omigosh, I rolled out of the way and a few bullets didn't hit me! Isn't that amazing?! Did you see that?!"


You're cherry picking, seriously.

indeed its a crap rule, I dont like a lot of KMC rules, but I dont care for breaking any of them either.

Oh so he was running?

diving its a form of dodging something, if a large plane was about to fall on top of you and at the last minute you jumped out of the way, your dodging it. Definition from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dodge :



Does it actually say he dodged them the way your implying he did? judging by what you said a few lines up, it was a course he was supposedly running through.

Being able to take gunfire doesnt take away from the fact surprise at being able to escape the fire.

Your ignoring important information and seem to lack understanding of the definition of a dodge, if you want to prove Chief can percieve bullets coming at him and indeed move accordingly thats not going to help you because every post you make seems to hint that your not telling me the whole story. E.g. he was supposedly running through the course.

Originally posted by Burning thought
indeed its a crap rule, I dont like a lot of KMC rules, but I dont care for breaking any of them either.

Oh so he was running?

E.g. he was supposedly running through the course.

It says that he "stood and let the bullets deflect off his armor"....read properly.
Originally posted by Burning thought
diving its a form of dodging something, if a large plane was about to fall on top of you and at the last minute you jumped out of the way, your dodging it. Definition from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dodge :

Does it actually say he dodged them the way your implying he did? judging by what you said a few lines up, it was a course he was supposedly running through.

Being able to take gunfire doesnt take away from the fact surprise at being able to escape the fire.

Your ignoring important information and seem to lack understanding of the definition of a dodge, if you want to prove Chief can percieve bullets coming at him and indeed move accordingly thats not going to help you because every post you make seems to hint that your not telling me the whole story.
Awesome, dictionary definitions. I was wondering when you were going to bring that up.


What you're doing is separating one word from the rest of its context massively in order to make your point, so all this you just said is total noise. You're not considering what was happening before and after.

You are implying that the Chief stood and let bullets deflect off of him, and then dove/rolled to the side totally randomly and then acted surprised when the bullets missed him like he hasn't ever done it in his life. The very idea of that is just silly. He's been in and out of combat situations for decades, why would he act surprised that he dove and gunfire missed him?


No, I'm not telling you the whole story, I just said that earlier. Thanks for paying attention. What I do is give you the relevant parts - and then the irrelevant parts when you complain, but that aside, you still form wild conjecture. See above.

You assumed that because he was in an obstacle course he was running simply because it suited your argument; despite the fact that I clearly stated that it was designed to test much more than just running speed, also the one-line-passage that I included that said clearly that he stood still and took it.

You also totally missed the point, from what I can see in this statement:

That was meant to indicate that he was testing the armor, not having been used to it.

Escaping gunfire, he's been doing that for decades. Still no explanation as to why he'd be still surprised.

I don't think I really need to say any more here.

Now, if you want to reply with anything, I suggest first explaining to me as to why a battle hardened soldier with 30+ years of combat experience encased in armor would act surprised if he rolled or dove and a few bullets missed him that wouldn't have harmed him anyway even if they had hit.

Originally posted by DarkC
It says that he "stood and let the bullets deflect off his armor"....read properly.

Awesome, dictionary definitions. I was wondering when you were going to bring that up.


What you're doing is separating one word from the rest of its context massively in order to make your point, so all this you just said is total noise. You're not considering what was happening before and after.

You are implying that the Chief stood and let bullets deflect off of him, and then dove/rolled to the side totally randomly and then acted surprised when the bullets missed him like he hasn't ever done it in his life. The very idea of that is just silly. He's been in and out of combat situations for decades, why would he act surprised that he dove and gunfire missed him?


No, I'm not telling you the whole story, I just said that earlier. Thanks for paying attention. What I do is give you the relevant parts - and then the irrelevant parts when you complain, but that aside, you still form wild conjecture. See above.

You assumed that because he was in an obstacle course he was running simply because it suited your argument; despite the fact that I clearly stated that it was designed to test much more than just running speed, also the one-line-passage that I included that said clearly that he stood still and took it.

You also totally missed the point, from what I can see in this statement:

That was meant to indicate that he was testing the armor, not having been used to it.

Escaping gunfire, he's been doing that for decades. Still no explanation as to why he'd be still surprised.

I don't think I really need to say any more here, you just totally owned yourself with that reply.

Now, if you want to reply with anything, I suggest first explaining to me as to why a battle hardened soldier with 30+ years of combat experience encased in armor would act surprised if he rolled or dove and a few bullets missed him that wouldn't have harmed him anyway even if they had hit.

So wtf are you saying? by standing still he also somehow percieving and dodging bullets at the same time? its obvious that he is going to move to escape those bullets in the first place, I knew youd slip up on that one

No ime reading what the definition says, evading and moving out of the way of an object is dodging, simple as, if its in teh form of a dive then so be it, take the definition or invent your own, but if you choose the later, ime not following.

well he hardly dodged anything by standing still did he.....well as you said, hes wearing heavy armour, its likey he was surprised he was so agile in the suit...

No you give me little bits that are fairly worthless on their own in a hope to think its enough, it displays nothing of how Chief reacts to bullets at all.

i assumed nothing, you said it:

Originally posted by DarkC
And the bullets were from wall mounted chainguns in the obstacle course he was due to run through.

As I said, he was prob impressed at how agile he still is in the armour that looks heavier than full steel plate worn in medieval periods. It says quite clearly hes surprised about something, there is likely 100 reasonos someone can give to explain why he was surprised, weve gone through a few, thing is just because YOU assume he percivied each bullet and dodged according doesnt make it the right one and your argument falls flat right off the bat until you have a better quote.

Originally posted by Burning thought
So wtf are you saying? by standing still he also somehow percieving and dodging bullets at the same time? its obvious that he is going to move to escape those bullets in the first place, I knew youd slip up on that one
I said that he stood and let the bullets hit him. Not that he stood still while trying to dodge a bullet.

Anyways, having your feet planted doesn't mean you can't shift your body to dodge something, as Agent Smith so aptly demonstrated in the first Matrix movie.

Again, pay attention.
Originally posted by Burning thought
No ime reading what the definition says, evading and moving out of the way of an object is dodging, simple as, if its in teh form of a dive then so be it, take the definition or invent your own, but if you choose the later, ime not following.
Yes, the definition of it is all nice and well - it just doesn't match the context of the quote in any way whatsoever, as I have explained.

That's precisely why I said you were separating that one word totally out of context simply to wave a Webster definition in my face as thought it actually meant something. You're still doing it.
Originally posted by Burning thought
well he hardly dodged anything by standing still did he.....well as you said, hes wearing heavy armour, its likey he was surprised he was so agile in the suit...
See above.
Originally posted by Burning thought
No you give me little bits that are fairly worthless on their own in a hope to think its enough, it displays nothing of how Chief reacts to bullets at all.
Originally posted by Burning thought
i assumed nothing, you said it:
No, you assumed and misinterpreted. It's quite funny how you completely disregard past evidence when you sense that I've made the slightest mistake.


Might you recall that I mentioned that the other tests included, in the rest of the paragraph that you yourself demanded to know, that there were more tests than just running speed? It's an obstacle course, Burning, not a race track. A drill instructor isn't going to go up to his recruits and describe every last task in the obstacle course.

You're taking definitions a little too seriously.
Originally posted by Burning thought
As I said, he was prob impressed at how agile he still is in the armour that looks heavier than full steel plate worn in medieval periods.
Considering that the bullet dodging was the last thing he did in that obstacle course, he had ample time to get used to the suit. He did express pleasure at how the combat suit fit him like a second skin, but right when he was first outfitted - which was some time before. After that, he could move normally.
Originally posted by Burning thought
It says quite clearly hes surprised about something, there is likely 100 reasonos someone can give to explain why he was surprised, weve gone through a few, thing is just because YOU assume he percivied each bullet and dodged according doesnt make it the right one and your argument falls flat right off the bat until you have a better quote.
I gave you a proper and relevant quote, you just refuse to analyze it properly. Or aren't accepting it because it goes against your argument. Otherwise, don't insult my quotes simply because you can't find anything of use in them.

He's not surprised about "something", that's what you're just trying to make up. It specifies.

"To his amazement, he even dodged one or two of the rounds."

How the hell did you miss this? Where did you get this "there's like 100 reasons someone can give to explain why hes surprised" nonsense? It couldn't be clearer, he was amazed because he dodged bullets.




If you're going to ignore my point, ignore my post. Don't bother replying with petulant ignorance or weaselling.

Originally posted by DarkC
I said that he stood and let the bullets hit him. Not that he stood still while trying to dodge a bullet.

Anyways, having your feet planted doesn't mean you can't shift your body to dodge something, as Agent Smith so aptly demonstrated in the first Matrix movie.

Again, pay attention.

Yes, the definition of it is all nice and well - it just doesn't match the context of the quote in any way whatsoever, as I have explained.

That's precisely why I said you were separating that one word totally out of context simply to wave a Webster definition in my face as thought it actually meant something. You're still doing it.

See above.

No, you assumed and misinterpreted. It's quite funny how you completely disregard past evidence when you sense that I've made the slightest mistake.


Might you recall that I mentioned that the other tests included, in the rest of the paragraph that you yourself demanded to know, that there were more tests than just running speed? It's an obstacle course, Burning, not a race track. A drill instructor isn't going to go up to his recruits and describe every last task in the obstacle course.

You're taking definitions a little too seriously.

Considering that the bullet dodging was the last thing he did in that obstacle course, he had ample time to get used to the suit. He did express pleasure at how the combat suit fit him like a second skin, but right when he was first outfitted - which was some time before. After that, he could move normally.

I gave you a proper and relevant quote, you just refuse to analyze it properly. Or aren't accepting it because it goes against your argument. Otherwise, don't insult my quotes simply because you can't find anything of use in them.

He's not surprised about "something", that's what you're just trying to make up. It specifies.

"To his amazement, he even dodged one or two of the rounds."

How the hell did you miss this? Where did you get this "there's like 100 reasons someone can give to explain why hes surprised" nonsense? It couldn't be clearer, he was amazed because he dodged bullets.




If you're going to ignore my point, ignore my post. Don't bother replying with petulant ignorance or weaselling.

No you just tried to point out that he wasnt necesserily running through the obstacle course by saying he stood and took fire, then i made a mockery of that weak argument by pointing out its obvious he wasnt standing still to be dodging bullets so a period of time came between the instance of him taking bullets to his armour and dodging the bullet in which he moved, its not explained if he dodged, jumped, ran, or swerved in agent smith fashion.

As i said, your quote says otherwise, you said the course was meant for running...

As I said before, another assumption that we could continue to make all day long, it doesnt defeat any of my own assumptions of what could have happened at all, he could still be surprised that can dive or roll out of the fire of bullets in the same agile way a man without such a suit can.

Or i refuse to just agree with YOUR assumption, and as i said, dodged can be a dive, roll etc etc, the quote is worthless, it doesnt say how he dodged them, whether it was this super perception you think he has, or whethe its just a typical "James bond dodges the bullet fire" kind of thing, your still just pulling assumptions out of your ass to help your argument and failing at it.

and if your going to post worthless quotes from a book that doesnt support your ridiculous assumptions or views dont bother "trying" to debate, your merely making a fool of yourself.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No you just tried to point out that he wasnt necesserily running through the obstacle course by saying he stood and took fire
Yeah, he did. I told you that was a quick durability test on his behalf.

Problems?
Originally posted by Burning thought
then i made a mockery of that weak argument by pointing out its obvious he wasnt standing still to be dodging bullets
Once again, you misunderstand me. You also are horribly twisting the context and sequential order of the quote I have provided.

I think it was quite obvious that the 'dodging' would not have been the word used if this was the case.. I have listed the various field tests in chronological order that the Chief put the armor through - did you pay that any attention? Apparently not.


"...he stood, and let the bullets deflect off his armor."

He let it happen, he wasn't even trying to dodge it at that instant, he did after his little 'durability test' was over. Yet again, keep up.

It's absurb to even consider that you would go to this length to pursue a dead point.

Originally posted by Burning thought
so a period of time came between the instance of him taking bullets to his armour and dodging the bullet in which he moved, its not explained if he dodged, jumped, ran, or swerved in agent smith fashion.
Yes, he dodged it, from what I can piece together from what happened before or after.

He's never actually 'dodged' a bullet before he was outfitted with the armor, which would be why he was surprised that the suit lets him react that quickly. You're still making it sound like he dived out of the way, and acted like a fresh green recruit in his first firefight by being surprised.

Which, by the way, I asked you to explain. In reply, you set up a strawman fallacy.

Absurd.

Originally posted by Burning thought
As i said, your quote says otherwise, you said the course was meant for running...
Running something, in other slang, means going through something. Like a trial, or a gauntlet, or in this case, an obstacle course. I am sure you're familiar with all three concepts.


I simply don't understand why I have to explain such a ridiculously simple concept to this extent. I hopefully won't address this again.
Originally posted by Burning thought
As I said before, another assumption that we could continue to make all day long
One that makes sense, if you consider the evidence I have piled under your nose. See below
Originally posted by Burning thought
it doesnt defeat any of my own assumptions of what could have happened at all
Yes, it does actually.

The thing with your 'versions' is, they all lack logical and sequential order. They only make sense or might be true if you remove one or more circumstances from the situation, something which would be logical fallacy.


Originally posted by Burning thought
he could still be surprised that can dive or roll out of the fire of bullets in the same agile way a man without such a suit can.
No, I addressed that earlier. Pay attention.

He first expressed his comfort and ease with how the suit fit him and how he could move, some time before the actual obstacle course. The Master Chief was the first Spartan to be outfitted with the armor and to move in it - Dr. Halsey was demonstrating to the other Spartans and coaching Chief through basic movements like walking and jogging.

Besides, it would be common sense to actually let the Spartans get used to basic movement in the armor before throwing them in the midst of a combat obstacle course, which they did.


Originally posted by Burning thought
Or i refuse to just agree with YOUR assumption, and as i said, dodged can be a dive, roll etc etc, the quote is worthless, it doesnt say how he dodged them, whether it was this super perception you think he has, or whethe its just a typical "James bond dodges the bullet fire" kind of thing, your still just pulling assumptions out of your ass to help your argument and failing at it.
And here the hammer falls hardest.

While it doesn't describe how he actually dodges it, you can still peer at the circumstances surrounding the actual event and put the pieces together.


Why your theory doesn't make sense, I'll explain right here.


You attempt to pass off the vision that the Master Chief - right after standing still briefly to absorb some bullets to see the stopping power of the armor, for some reason dove unnecessarily to the side on a obstacle training course for the sake of avoiding a few bullets.

Let's go over the facts:



1.) He didn't need to avoid the bullets.

The MJOLNIR combat armor is quite capable of taking human-based weaponry. As attested to in the intro of First Strike, taking a full clip of assault rifle fire point blank feels like absorbing "a series of rapid lower body impacts".

This is an obstacle training course, not a life or death combat zone. It would be completely unnecessary to have to do a tuck and roll or a straight dive out of the way as you have suggested, considering that he just tested the durability of the armor by standing and taking a few hits successfully. It would make sense for him to test his reflexes at some point, especially since none of the other parts of the obstacle course put it to a trial or was mentioned to do such.


2.) He was surprised that he dodged said bullets. Not by something else.

Considering all the operations and things he's been through, the new capabilities of the armor, and the context of the quote I provided, it stands to reason that he did indeed dodge the rounds, as the author clearly wrote.

If he meant diving, or rolling out of the way, he would have said such.

You're resorting to putting words in an author's mouth, twisting it, and claiming that it has a different meaning than face value.

Not buying, sorry.


3.) He wouldn't have been surprised by the fact that the bullets missed him if he had committed to a plain roll or dive.

At that point in time, Master Chief was likely in his mid thirties when he donned his first suit of MJOLNIR. He first became classified as a professional soldier at the age of 6, and started running major operations at around 14, right after they got their surgical augmentations.

He's been in and out of major combat situations for close to two decades and is mentally toughened more than any other soldier in the UNSC. Point being - he's an extremely hard person to surprise.

If you're suggesting that the simple act of tucking and rolling to avoid a burst of machine gun fire will, in the words of the quote, arouse his "amazement", then that's being stupid on multiple levels.





There you go. There are the solid facts, plain and simple; undeniable.

And you have none - just conjecture and wild theories.

Game over.

Originally posted by Burning thought
and if your going to post worthless quotes from a book that doesnt support your ridiculous assumptions or views dont bother "trying" to debate, your merely making a fool of yourself.
Oh, quit acting up.

You're insulting the quote itself now and calling it worthless when curiously, you were analyzing it earlier and using your misinterpretation in an attempt to topple mine, when you quite literally have no valid theory, not even so much as a whim of supporting evidence. Since you can't use it, you dismiss it right after and claim it as 'worthless'.

Hypocrite.

I challenged you to make sense of why a battle hardened soldier would behave like a wet-behind-the-ears recruit. You still have not given a straight and concise answer, despite me pressing you to. Instead, you've set up the fabled 'strawman fallacy' in an attempt to divert attention away from it, in a rather poor attempt to pass my theory off as apparently 'one of hundreds of possible ones'. Possible =/= likely.

I shouldn't need to remind you of all this, but you go ahead and do it anyway. So....where does that leave us now, Burning? What have you left to do or say that you haven't done already? You've gone so far past the line you probably don't even remember when you've crossed it. Right now you have dodged and avoided, finger-pointed and acting generally ignorant, whether on purpose or not. You've even recklessly ploughed on by insulting the actual quote - the one you requested yourself - simply because you either cannot make sense of it, or that it doesn't suit your needs. Why is my view ridiculous? How doesn't it support it? Give me facts. Give me solid evidence or a refutation, not some silly generalization or more random stabs in the dark. You say all these things and do positively nothing to back it up properly, and then come out of expecting to look squeaky clean? Silly.


Lol, you make all these silly desperate claims that I'm making a fool of myself. How?

I have provided clear evidence and facts, you have not. You only have conjecture to back you up, and half-baked theories that don't make sense when you look at the general picture - judging from this, how in the hell can you make these claims when you are so clearly wrong?




With all that being said, I fully expect your next reply to be filled to the brim with petulant excuses, insults, nonsense, and logical fallacy.


Touche.

Originally posted by DarkC
Yeah, he did. I told you that was a quick durability test on his behalf.

Problems?

Once again, you misunderstand me. You also are horribly twisting the context and sequential order of the quote I have provided.

I think it was quite obvious that the 'dodging' would not have been the word used if this was the case.. I have listed the various field tests in chronological order that the Chief put the armor through - did you pay that any attention? Apparently not.


"...he stood, and let the bullets deflect off his armor."

He let it happen, he wasn't even trying to dodge it at that instant, he did after his little 'durability test' was over. Yet again, keep up.

It's absurb to even consider that you would go to this length to pursue a dead point.


Yes, he dodged it, from what I can piece together from what happened before or after.

He's never actually 'dodged' a bullet before he was outfitted with the armor, which would be why he was surprised that the suit lets him react that quickly. You're still making it sound like he dived out of the way, and acted like a fresh green recruit in his first firefight by being surprised.

Which, by the way, I asked you to explain. In reply, you set up a strawman fallacy.

Absurd.


Running something, in other slang, means going through something. Like a trial, or a gauntlet, or in this case, an obstacle course. I am sure you're familiar with all three concepts.


I simply don't understand why I have to explain such a ridiculously simple concept to this extent. I hopefully won't address this again.

One that makes sense, if you consider the evidence I have piled under your nose. See below

Yes, it does actually.

The thing with your 'versions' is, they all lack logical and sequential order. They only make sense or might be true if you remove one or more circumstances from the situation, something which would be logical fallacy.



No, I addressed that earlier. Pay attention.

He first expressed his comfort and ease with how the suit fit him and how he could move, some time before the actual obstacle course. The Master Chief was the first Spartan to be outfitted with the armor and to move in it - Dr. Halsey was demonstrating to the other Spartans and coaching Chief through basic movements like walking and jogging.

Besides, it would be common sense to actually let the Spartans get used to basic movement in the armor before throwing them in the midst of a combat obstacle course, which they did.





Then why did you bring it up, a durability test when my point before was that he had to move to dodge the bullets, then you say "he was standing!"....

No youve provided one quote, so theres no order in a single quote, he stands there as the bullets deflect off the armour then he jumps, dives or dodges in some other fashion, thats as simple as that really, theres no assumption that holds any real weight whatsoever that he did a Neo on those bullets.

Thus why your argument is weak and will remain so.

Diving out of the way is not a fresh green recruit, anyone who dives out of the way of bullets from chain guns is certainly going to be surprised to say the least and my point si the same as before and as youve just confirmed, hes not dodged/dived in the suit before, therefore he was prob surprised at its agility. And dont bring up tis crap about "hes worn the suit before and noted on its fitting him!" because that squashes your argument of him being surprised in general with his super bullet time mode youve given him.

In other slang? lol, stfu dude, thats a load of crap, you said he was running through it, either make yourself more clear in the future or dont try and cover up your nonsense. If thats the case then you were unclear completly. Either way you fail.

I simply dont understand why you are stupid enough to try and pretend your using some sort of slang, rather than what the term actually means, which fits perfectly with "running" through an obstacle course.

One that makes just as much sense as all of mine, i use all the evidence youve given so far for all of my assumptions, your sitll just pretending yours are better, youve still got no real shred of evidence which in the end, no matter how "super logical" you think your assumptions are, do not add up to real proof.

yes so if he understands how the suit works and moves he should technically still have the senses of bullet time youve given him then as well as when actual bullets appear, why didnt he note it earlier? why wasnt he surprised people around him seemed to go in slow motion or that their movements seemed sluggish compared to his senses or some other crap? obviously because ime correct and he does indeed have no super bullet speed mode.

Originally posted by DarkC
And here the hammer falls hardest.

While it doesn't describe how he actually dodges it, you can still peer at the circumstances surrounding the actual event and put the pieces together.


Why your theory doesn't make sense, I'll explain right here.


You attempt to pass off the vision that the Master Chief - right after standing still briefly to absorb some bullets to see the stopping power of the armor, for some reason dove unnecessarily to the side on a obstacle training course for the sake of avoiding a few bullets.

Let's go over the facts:



1.) He didn't need to avoid the bullets.

The MJOLNIR combat armor is quite capable of taking human-based weaponry. As attested to in the intro of First Strike, taking a full clip of assault rifle fire point blank feels like absorbing "a series of rapid lower body impacts".

This is an obstacle training course, not a life or death combat zone. It would be completely unnecessary to have to do a tuck and roll or a straight dive out of the way as you have suggested, considering that he just tested the durability of the armor by standing and taking a few hits successfully. It would make sense for him to test his reflexes at some point, especially since none of the other parts of the obstacle course put it to a trial or was mentioned to do such.


2.) He was surprised that he dodged said bullets. Not by something else.

Considering all the operations and things he's been through, the new capabilities of the armor, and the context of the quote I provided, it stands to reason that he did indeed dodge the rounds, as the author clearly wrote.

If he meant diving, or rolling out of the way, he would have said such.

You're resorting to putting words in an author's mouth, twisting it, and claiming that it has a different meaning than face value.

Not buying, sorry.


3.) He wouldn't have been surprised by the fact that the bullets missed him if he had committed to a plain roll or dive.

At that point in time, Master Chief was likely in his mid thirties when he donned his first suit of MJOLNIR. He first became classified as a professional soldier at the age of 6, and started running major operations at around 14, right after they got their surgical augmentations.

He's been in and out of major combat situations for close to two decades and is mentally toughened more than any other soldier in the UNSC. Point being - he's an extremely hard person to surprise.

If you're suggesting that the simple act of tucking and rolling to avoid a burst of machine gun fire will, in the words of the quote, arouse his "amazement", then that's being stupid on multiple levels.





There you go. There are the solid facts, plain and simple; undeniable.

And you have none - just conjecture and wild theories.

Game over.


Oh, quit acting up.

You're insulting the quote itself now and calling it worthless when curiously, you were analyzing it earlier and using your misinterpretation in an attempt to topple mine, when you quite literally have no valid theory, not even so much as a whim of supporting evidence. Since you can't use it, you dismiss it right after and claim it as 'worthless'.

Hypocrite.

I challenged you to make sense of why a battle hardened soldier would behave like a wet-behind-the-ears recruit. You still have not given a straight and concise answer, despite me pressing you to. Instead, you've set up the fabled 'strawman fallacy' in an attempt to divert attention away from it, in a rather poor attempt to pass my theory off as apparently 'one of hundreds of possible ones'. Possible =/= likely.

I shouldn't need to remind you of all this, but you go ahead and do it anyway. So....where does that leave us now, Burning? What have you left to do or say that you haven't done already? You've gone so far past the line you probably don't even remember when you've crossed it. Right now you have dodged and avoided, finger-pointed and acting generally ignorant, whether on purpose or not. You've even recklessly ploughed on by insulting the actual quote - the one you requested yourself - simply because you either cannot make sense of it, or that it doesn't suit your needs. Why is my view ridiculous? How doesn't it support it? Give me facts. Give me solid evidence or a refutation, not some silly generalization or more random stabs in the dark. You say all these things and do positively nothing to back it up properly, and then come out of expecting to look squeaky clean? Silly.


Lol, you make all these silly desperate claims that I'm making a fool of myself. How?

I have provided clear evidence and facts, you have not. You only have conjecture to back you up, and half-baked theories that don't make sense when you look at the general picture - judging from this, how in the hell can you make these claims when you are so clearly wrong?




With all that being said, I fully expect your next reply to be filled to the brim with petulant excuses, insults, nonsense, and logical fallacy.


Touche.

So far ive seen no quote of the actual event, i asked for it but as you fail with most things in this debate, youve failed there as well, not even trying to give more evidence, likely because it will prove me right to a degree even you cannot squirm your way out of by saying "my assumptions are better and more logical!"

1) all of this is completly trashed by the fact he actually did dodge and it says so, so stop making up BS to cover up your nonsense your trying to give Chief these super powers of bullet time, when all he did was dodge. Whether Chief "needs" to dodge or not is irrelvent, he did, and it says he did. Why, we will never know, my guess would be hes just testing it out, just like the obstacle course was build for.

2) Diving and rolling is dodging, go and read a dictionary, ive already given you definitions but you still seem to like your own definitions because it doesnt topple your argument.

3) You would know all about being stupid on multiple levels but more importantly, as ive said in 1), the guy did indeed dodge. That doesnt immediatley mean bullet time Neo esque swerves.

lol yes its over for you, youve got little to no evidence for any of your claims and nothing but your own statements of "mine are logical, your assumptions are not!" and to increase your failure and foolery to higher levels you are ignoring what the quote actually says "dodging" and what the definition ive been kind enough to give you means.

Your the one saying diving/moving to the side is being wet behind the ears, first explain why James bond, a trained and skilled MI agent is wet behind the ears for diving out of the way from bullet fire? anyone would be surprised they survived ridiculous odds.

No you see, youve got almost this entire paragraph wrong, your the one who didnt give me the quote I asked for in the first place, your the one who is assuming, then saying yours is simply more logical, your the one ignoring dictionary definitions and simply labelling MC acts that you dont like as "wet behind the ears" then saying its unlikely just because it crushes your argument (not that you have one, the fact you have only assumptions makes anything you say worthless in this debate, since at the end of the day,its an assumption). And I find your "give evidence" request hilarious to say the least....youve given nothing more than a weak quote and some assumptions on what it means, then say yours are better....

No youve provided no clear evidence apart from that MC deflected bullets off his armour then dodged bullets....then you come to the conclusion he saw them in slow motion and expertly moved his body position with ease to escape them all....that laddie, is stupidity on a high level, and its assumption.

With all that being said, your going to go through all your nonsense again, make some more assumptions which you say are "far more logical" that my own, which ime sure they are! with your incredible undeniable evidence, but ime not quite convinced yet

OR more likely your just pretty much going to repeat assumptions ive trodden on and then invent some more definitions. Maybe "dodge" in your dictionary will relate to MC moving at lightspeed in your next post!

Ahh, and it turns out I was right....you're getting quite predictable.

Originally posted by Burning thought
So far ive seen no quote of the actual event, i asked for it but as you fail with most things in this debate, youve failed there as well, not even trying to give more evidence, likely because it will prove me right to a degree even you cannot squirm your way out of by saying "my assumptions are better and more logical!"
Yep, I know I've touched a nerve with people when they start casting the word 'fail' out without any real backup other than more insults...like globs of mashed potato in a food fight, lol.

That quote was the event itself. It addressed it directly, remember? Try not to be so shortsighted. It focused and described the passage solely, if briefly.

Not trying to give more evidence? Yeah, I'm not. I'll tell you that right because I don't need to - you still haven't proven me wrong. From even a passing glance at your so-called counter argument below, it mostly consists of just insulting and false generalization. I'm happy where I stand with my arguments, because I have irrefutable facts backing them up.

What about you? You can't prove me wrong, I've taken care of that much at least. Why bother?

Originally posted by Burning thought
1) all of this is completly trashed by the fact he actually did dodge and it says so, so stop making up BS to cover up your nonsense your trying to give Chief these super powers of bullet time, when all he did was dodge.
Yeaaaaaah, he did....why did you bring that up?


Lol I'm not 'giving' him super powers of bullet time, he's not Neo or Agent Smith and we're not in the Matrix. What a terrible comparison. It simply means that Chief has just barely enough reflexes to percieve a speeding bullet and get out of its way, not by throwing himself out of the way like some juggernaut.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Whether Chief "needs" to dodge or not is irrelvent, he did, and it says he did. Why, we will never know, my guess would be hes just testing it out, just like the obstacle course was build for.
Yes, he was testing his reflexes by attempting to dodge a bullet - not by diving or rolling away, which would be unnecessary...as I have already addressed.
Originally posted by Burning thought
2) Diving and rolling is dodging, go and read a dictionary, ive already given you definitions but you still seem to like your own definitions because it doesnt topple your argument.
Yeah, this is what I am talking about by you separating one word massively out of context, taking it to a dictionary and attempting to somehow miraculously theorize that despite the mounds of situational evidence stacking against you, that it was a particular action when the facts suggest otherwise.

You take the word 'dodge' and pretty much make the most inane, ridiculous deal over it by dragging it into the depths.
Originally posted by Burning thought
3) You would know all about being stupid on multiple levels
Oh, settle down.
Originally posted by Burning thought
but more importantly, as ive said in 1), the guy did indeed dodge. That doesnt immediatley mean bullet time Neo esque swerves.

and to increase your failure and foolery to higher levels you are ignoring what the quote actually says "dodging" and what the definition ive been kind enough to give you means
I don't understand how you think you have the grounds to tell me that I immediately ruled out something when you just did it too. Once again, don't be such a hypocrite.

It doesn't mean that it isn't Neo-esque swirly motions, either. They dressed it up too much anyways in that movie.

Lol, if you've resorted back to calling me out Webster definition, go ahead. That's pretty much all you have left at the moment. No, I'm not ignorant of the other definitions. I take them all in, unlike you. However, judging from the 3 major facts and concluding backup in my previous post I can form an accurate conclusion.

I don't immediately rule out all the possibilities. As I said you have to actually look at the situation and its circumstances - in this case, the training, Chief's expertise and experience, the objectives and aims of that training course, etc. You have to look at all that and then form a conclusion; you don't - you simply leap straight to one without regard for whether it's factually correct or not.


Originally posted by Burning thought
lol yes its over for you, youve got little to no evidence for any of your claims and nothing but your own statements of "mine are logical, your assumptions are not!"
Lol, what do you call this post of yours above then, do you really consider that "evidence" for you? What have you done to contribute? What constructive points have you made, other than repeated generalization?

I have given you just given you undeniable facts and logic, that again you have ignored their meaning and relevancy to the point I was making. Why is that so difficult? You tell me that I'm the one making claims without proof, when strangely enough, you've been doing it more frequently than I. Once again, more hypocrisy.

Keep blustering if that keeps your morale up, but I actually have proof and explanation -that you still have avoided answering directly, instead just choosing to insist that I am somehow a failure (??), - whereas you do not have a solid fact to back you up, other than the Webster definition of the word 'dodge'. Which, I may add, is quite generalized.


If you don't answer to these two points of yours that I have addressed directly below, then this debate is pretty much over. Don't give me silly guesses or half-thought-out theories. Give me facts to support your theories that I have listed here, solid facts, as I have done. That's your homework, get to it. I've already presented my evidence, now it's your turn.

A.) Explain to me why the Chief would randomly dive/roll to the side during a training exercise when the bullets couldn't hurt him, and he had already tested movement and agility before the obstacle course started.

B.) Explain to me why the Chief would act surprised by the sole fact that he was able to avoid a few bullets by diving/rolling to the side, when he is not easily spooked at all, having been in combat situations for about two decades.


As it stands, you're already resorting to tertiary evidence, fallacy, and just plain insulting in substitution for an actual reply. Don't.


Originally posted by Burning thought
Your the one saying diving/moving to the side is being wet behind the ears, first explain why James bond, a trained and skilled MI agent is wet behind the ears for diving out of the way from bullet fire? anyone would be surprised they survived ridiculous odds.
Once again you did not understand what I was saying. Do me the courtesy of at least reading my posts properly, line for line.

I said it's not the actual diving out of the way that makes them look rookie - it's acting, as the book said, 'amazed' that the bullets actually missed them. Do you see Bond go nuts every time a bullet comes close to hitting him? He's too experienced for that, like Chief, he keeps a level head when the gunfire starts.

Answer my challenges above. Go on, do it.
Originally posted by Burning thought
No you see, youve got almost this entire paragraph wrong, your the one who didnt give me the quote I asked for in the first place
You asked for the quote that included him dodging bullets, word for word.

I have given it to you, plus briefly described the rest of the paragraph. Stop whining about it.
Originally posted by Burning thought
your the one who is assuming
Yep, and you are too.

The difference is....I have evidence and fact to back my theories up. You do not.

I have challenged you to provide irrefutable support for your theories. You have not.
Originally posted by Burning thought
then saying yours is simply more logical
Which it is.

I have openly invited you to prove otherwise. Use facts. Not guessing or generalization. Facts.
Originally posted by Burning thought
your the one ignoring dictionary definitions
Nope, I'm just picking the one that is more likely. See above.
Originally posted by Burning thought
and simply labelling MC acts that you dont like as "wet behind the ears" then saying its unlikely just because it crushes your argument
Yeah, because a 20-year combat veteran soldier acting like a recruit all of a sudden totally is logical, lol. It's not that I don't want it to happen, it's because it makes no sense at all.

Yes, it would crush my argument....if it made logical sense, that is. A pity that it doesn't.

Originally posted by Burning thought
(not that you have one, the fact you have only assumptions makes anything you say worthless in this debate, since at the end of the day,its an assumption).
An assumption with basis in fact, as I have stated.


You factually have nothing valid to back your own theories up. I do.

Passing it off as 'just another assumption' isn't going to work, because we've well established by now that it isn't. Did you even read my last post?

Originally posted by Burning thought
And I find your "give evidence" request hilarious to say the least....youve given nothing more than a weak quote and some assumptions on what it means, then say yours are better....
And what have you contributed? What evidence have you given? What facts have you laid out?

Really, the hypocrisy here is astronomical.
Originally posted by Burning thought
No youve provided no clear evidence apart from that MC deflected bullets off his armour then dodged bullets....then you come to the conclusion he saw them in slow motion and expertly moved his body position with ease to escape them all....that laddie, is stupidity on a high level, and its assumption.
Yep, you didn't read a single piece of evidence that I listed earlier.

I will go through them again. If you continue to blindly deny them and insult them without actually proving that they're incorrect or at least giving me a viable explanation other than 'it's an assumption', based on fact, I will report you for trolling.


It would be nice for you to actually reply properly and with logical reasoning and factual backup. But if you're going to continue with this unpurposeful ranting of yours, then that's just trolling. I've honestly had enough of this nonsense from you.

Reply properly or don't at all.
Originally posted by Burning thought
With all that being said, your going to go through all your nonsense again, make some more assumptions which you say are "far more logical" that my own, which ime sure they are! with your incredible undeniable evidence, but ime not quite convinced yet

OR more likely your just pretty much going to repeat assumptions ive trodden on and then invent some more definitions. Maybe "dodge" in your dictionary will relate to MC moving at lightspeed in your next post!
Why do you think I go through my 'nonsense'?

It's because you force me to. You somehow think you have the grounds to say that you've apparently "trodden" on them? You haven't even addressed them properly, so that's a no-go. That's why I was just forced to repeat myself needlessly.

Don't bother replying if you're going to ignore my point and plough on and insult. Don't reply with petty insults or blustering, just don't reply at all. For some reason you're still insistent despite the evidence that I have presented before you. You're being purposefully unproductive.



And next time, try to refrain from making some lame attempt to mimic what I said.

Originally posted by DarkC
Ahh, and it turns out I was right....you're getting quite predictable.


Yep, I know I've touched a nerve with people when they start casting the word 'fail' out without any real backup other than more insults...like globs of mashed potato in a food fight, lol.

That quote was the event itself. It addressed it directly, remember? Try not to be so shortsighted. It focused and described the passage solely, if briefly.

Not trying to give more evidence? Yeah, I'm not. I'll tell you that right because I don't need to - you still haven't proven me wrong. From even a passing glance at your so-called counter argument below, it mostly consists of just insulting and false generalization. I'm happy where I stand with my arguments, because I have irrefutable facts backing them up.

What about you? You can't prove me wrong, I've taken care of that much at least. Why bother?


Yeaaaaaah, he did....why did you bring that up?


Lol I'm not 'giving' him super powers of bullet time, he's not Neo or Agent Smith and we're not in the Matrix. What a terrible comparison. It simply means that Chief has just barely enough reflexes to percieve a speeding bullet and get out of its way, not by throwing himself out of the way like some juggernaut.

Yes, he was testing his reflexes by attempting to dodge a bullet - not by diving or rolling away, which would be unnecessary...as I have already addressed.

Yeah, this is what I am talking about by you separating one word massively out of context, taking it to a dictionary and attempting to somehow miraculously theorize that despite the mounds of situational evidence stacking against you, that it was a particular action when the facts suggest otherwise.

You take the word 'dodge' and pretty much make the most inane, ridiculous deal over it by dragging it into the depths.

Oh, settle down.

I don't understand how you think you have the grounds to tell me that I immediately ruled out something when you just did it too. Once again, don't be such a hypocrite.

It doesn't mean that it isn't Neo-esque swirly motions, either. They dressed it up too much anyways in that movie.

Lol, if you've resorted back to calling me out Webster definition, go ahead. That's pretty much all you have left at the moment. No, I'm not ignorant of the other definitions. I take them all in, unlike you. However, judging from the 3 major facts and concluding backup in my previous post I can form an accurate conclusion.

I don't immediately rule out all the possibilities. As I said you have to actually look at the situation and its circumstances - in this case, the training, Chief's expertise and experience, the objectives and aims of that training course, etc. You have to look at all that and then form a conclusion; you don't - you simply leap straight to one without regard for whether it's factually correct or not.



Lol, what do you call this post of yours above then, do you really consider that "evidence" for you? What have you done to contribute? What constructive points have you made, other than repeated generalization?

I have given you just given you undeniable facts and logic, that again you have ignored their meaning and relevancy to the point I was making. Why is that so difficult? You tell me that I'm the one making claims without proof, when strangely enough, you've been doing it more frequently than I. Once again, more hypocrisy.

Keep blustering if that keeps your morale up, but I actually have proof and explanation -that you still have avoided answering directly, instead just choosing to insist that I am somehow a failure (??), - whereas you do not have a solid fact to back you up, other than the Webster definition of the word 'dodge'. Which, I may add, is quite generalized.


If you don't answer to these two points of yours that I have addressed directly below, then this debate is pretty much over. Don't give me silly guesses or half-thought-out theories. Give me facts to support your theories that I have listed here, solid facts, as I have done. That's your homework, get to it. I've already presented my evidence, now it's your turn.

A.) Explain to me why the Chief would randomly dive/roll to the side during a training exercise when the bullets couldn't hurt him, and he had already tested movement and agility before the obstacle course started.

B.) Explain to me why the Chief would act surprised by the sole fact that he was able to avoid a few bullets by diving/rolling to the side, when he is not easily spooked at all, having been in combat situations for about two decades.


As it stands, you're already resorting to tertiary evidence, fallacy, and just plain insulting in substitution for an actual reply. Don't.








I gave the backup so your just spitting out the same old crap as usual. Re-read my post, maybe you wont miss details like you did with your own evidence.

No that passage was a single line, giving info on a few actions he did, there was no detail, there was no setting which I asked for. all ive got is your word that it was a training exercises, I asked for a paragraph, you gave a useless quote.

I dont have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, your trying to debate negatives, Its not my role to prove you wrong.....considering all you have is assumptions your argument is dead from the start. You have the fact that he dodged, my facts are just as irrefutable because ime using the same evidence, ime using evidence from the very quote you are using.

As i said, I dont have to prove you wrong, negtivo oh short sighted one...I dont have to prove your negatives.

Yes you are, your using a simple world such as "dodge" to create your sad little assumption not fact, based around that word that he saw bullets coming and moved accordingly, dodged, as ive already said 100 times and as the English language agrees with me, Dodge which is what it says, can mean many many different things, least of all perceiving and moving out of the way of bullets.


Thats simply your explanation of what he was doing, using the same quote my idea of him diving or rolling to test his speed against bullet fire is just as legit, in fact more so due to the real definition ime following, not your invented assumption.

No I take the word dodge and use it for what its supposed to be used for, which includes diving, rolling and other types of evading, it doesn't mean perceiving bullets coming at you and moving accordingly.

Accurate to whom? out of two people actually debating (there is only 2), only 1 of them (you) thinks your right, which is funny because its you who thinks so, and ime saying exactly the same, ime using actual definition to point out it doesn't say in that quote anything to do with what your saying and that all you are doing is blabbering out worthless assumptions such as "he perceived each bullet and moved accordingly"

There is no factually correct statement until you actuall accept all Chief did was dodge without going blundering your way into assumptions and trying to make it more than what it says. Which is why your argument fails no matter what you assume.

All my points are based around facts, I dont need evidence do I since ime not actually making any claims, ime simply saying what the quote youve given shows, and your assuming that hes got this super reflexes from that quote lol....

No youve given me assumptions, then calling them undeniable facts....

Ive not got a solid fact apparently yet ime using the single piece of evidence youve given against you, ive got the fact your simply assuming, ive got the fact your simply over hyping to the max something that could be a simple dive or roll, ive got the fact the official quote itself AND definitions do not back up your crude view of him doing something irregular and simply not stated in your single shred of a quote.

Silly guesses? all youve done is guessed throughout the entire debate lmao....theres no fact behind your words of saying hes doing something where the quote is concerned which is the only actual evidence you have.

A) this is worthless, since why would he dodge in the first place if this was even an important point? its not is it, straw man...

B) The same as above, he was surprised, if his decades of training and experience were so effective in this situation he wouldn't have been surprised at all, but he was.

Two straw mans......all you seem to do is assume, then claim your assumptions are better logic when I assume, then you ask irrelevant questions lol

As it stands, your simply assuming, youve given one real piece of evidence, a quote which does not back up what your assuming out of it, then your over hyping and committing various fallacies.

Originally posted by DarkC
And what have you contributed? What evidence have you given? What facts have you laid out?

Really, the hypocrisy here is astronomical.

Yep, you didn't read a single piece of evidence that I listed earlier.

I will go through them again. If you continue to blindly deny them and insult them without actually proving that they're incorrect or at least giving me a viable explanation other than 'it's an assumption', based on fact, I will report you for trolling.


It would be nice for you to actually reply properly and with logical reasoning and factual backup. But if you're going to continue with this unpurposeful ranting of yours, then that's just trolling. I've honestly had enough of this nonsense from you.

Reply properly or don't at all.

Why do you think I go through my 'nonsense'?

It's because you force me to. You somehow think you have the grounds to say that you've apparently "trodden" on them? You haven't even addressed them properly, so that's a no-go. That's why I was just forced to repeat myself needlessly.

Don't bother replying if you're going to ignore my point and plough on and insult. Don't reply with petty insults or blustering, just don't reply at all. For some reason you're still insistent despite the evidence that I have presented before you. You're being purposefully unproductive.



And next time, try to refrain from making some lame attempt to mimic what I said.

ive cleared up your own quote for you by making you realise theres more than one definition and thats an official definition is worth more than your invented ones of "dodge means MC did super neo!"

Report me for trolling, ill report you for using novels, that you cannot deny because its throughout, also your trolling me if ime trolling you by spamming your worthless stories.

None of that is evidence, ime sorry but youve simply written up a story, thats not evidence at all. It seems you need someone to teach you what evidence is, lesson numero 1: evidence is not you simply typing out events, real evidence is a quote or video, something worth using, please try again .

Funnily enough, I was going to say the same to you about replying with logical reasoning and facts, but as always youll cop a deafen (or in this case a blinden) to any advice I try and help you with.

I can say the same, you saying "ime having to repeat myself!" and crying over it is just as worthless as me saying you are doing the same, youve got no evidence at all that actually backs you unfortunately.

mimic is important, ime mocking your posts because their laughable, its like your a toddler having a tantrum, and whether you know it or not, if an adult tantrums when a toddler does, they stand and stare and often realise how ridiculous they seem. Now its obvious that you seem to be younger than I am since your insecurity runs deep with the constant use of "blundering", "blustering" to put my points down with antagonistic wording, while idolising yourself by saying "please keep up", its like youve run out of argument and are trying to convince even yourself that youve actually posted something worth reading.

Please before you post again, try and act your age (ime simply assuming your at least at/over the age limit of KMC forums) and conduct your posts with a little more professionalism rather than trying to rise yourself up over your insecurities. This debate is nothing personal and ime not destroying you as a person, simply your weak arguments.

The Doom marine using the Artifact could kick Chief's ass with his bare hands.

Thats a good point actually, the Artifact! thats a weapon the marine gets that would make him superior to chief.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I gave the backup so your just spitting out the same old crap as usual. Re-read my post, maybe you wont miss details like you did with your own evidence.
You have factually given me nothing more to work with than before.

For example, look at your response to point A.

"He didn't need to dodge the bullets. Why then would he do an illogical random tuck and roll out of the way?"
Your response: "He did it anyway, this negates your entire point"


No, that doesn't change anything, Burning. Why? Why would he do something random and unexpected like that? Where is your explanation? Where is your logic? Surely you have to have a reasonable explanation as to why he would commit to such a randomized action. But no, thus far you've attempted to try and divert by offering excuses. This is a debate thread, so debate.

Not buying. You gotta do better than a lame pass-off, you have literally provided nothing that reinforces your point, nor refutes mine.

The point still stands.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No that passage was a single line, giving info on a few actions he did, there was no detail, there was no setting which I asked for. all ive got is your word that it was a training exercises, I asked for a paragraph, you gave a useless quote.
That single quote was the only relevant line that included the passage with him bullet-dodging. It wasn't meant to be drawn out, he was simply putting tests through the armor, not saving the world. I have provided the necessary quote/reference. Where's yours?

Complaining about it or calling it worthless isn't going to change it. Go figure.


If you really expected the author to stamp out an entire paragraph dedicated to Chief dodging a bullet or two, you are sadly mistaken.
Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, your trying to debate negatives, Its not my role to prove you wrong.....
Actually yes it is. The burden of proof has been on you from the get-go.

You were the one attempting to create the impression that Chief did no more than do a typical roll or dive out of the way from automated gunfire. To this point, I have more factual evidence than you do. All you really have to throw back at me is the fact that it's not 100% clear - but seeing how as you don't really have facts or reasoning to back your claims up, that holds no ground whatsoever.

A summary: the book states that he actually "dodged one or two of the rounds". To me, I am taking the words to face value. It doesn't say "he dove under the gunfire and avoided a few bullets", or anything similar to that, it simply says "dodge". Which leaves room open for quite a few possibilities.

Your desperate claim that the word 'dodge' used in that sentence was specifying a roll or dive out of the way is what you're trying to prove, remember? Right now all you've been doing is attempts to dismean my theory, when you have no solid factual or circumstantial backup.

You were the one with the outlandish claim that Master Chief dove/rolled out of the way. I have answered for my conclusions, if anybody has the burden of proof it's now you.
Originally posted by Burning thought
considering all you have is assumptions your argument is dead from the start.
Assumptions with basis in fact and backed up by logical reasoning and explanation.

There's a difference. Thus far you have done nothing to disprove my theory, or prove yours. All you have is "No he could have done this instead" or "no this world could possibly mean this too". That's it, you just speculate, period - you don't do anything to really give me a solid theory.

Originally posted by Burning thought
You have the fact that he dodged, my facts are just as irrefutable because ime using the same evidence, ime using evidence from the very quote you are using.
Yes, and what action does 'dodged' mean? To you, for some reason you instantly take that as a roll or a dive simply because you can't admit that you really have nothing else working.

It's really quite ridiculous to just throw a Webster definition at me because it actually has no solidity in terms of factual backup. Dodging just means 'moving to avoid an incoming projectile'. It doesn't specify action, which is where your instant assumption that it specified rolling or diving crumbles.

There is not a shred of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he has been doing such, so why would you make that claim?

For me, I've presented my evidence. You have still not offered a viable counter argument.
Originally posted by Burning thought
As i said, I dont have to prove you wrong, negtivo oh short sighted one...I dont have to prove your negatives.
You're trying to excuse your lack of supporting evidence by attempting to shift the burden of proof on me....typing debate weasel.

I make my claim, I back it up.
You make yours, you don't back it up.

That shouldn't be hard to understand.

Even if you're really trying to 'dismean' my theory, what have you done to disprove it, other than use a Webster's definition? It's far too general to count as actual backup. It just means 'getting out of the way' of something, whether you're just twisting your body to the side or doing spectacular backflips or somersaults.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Yes you are, your using a simple world such as "dodge" to create your sad little assumption
Lol, and haven't you been doing that either, only without real support or backup?

You took one word and separated it from its entire context, attempting to somehow specify the action when there's really no evidence to suggest your side was correct - good job.
Originally posted by Burning thought
not fact, based around that word that he saw bullets coming and moved accordingly, dodged, as ive already said 100 times and as the English language agrees with me, Dodge which is what it says, can mean many many different things, least of all perceiving and moving out of the way of bullets.
Cut out the last two words and yeah, that would be more correct.

To me 'dodge' doesn't instantly translate to 'percieve and move out of the way of bullets', as I have said in the last post (Once again, if you had been paying attention you would have not made this mistake.)

However - the circumstantial evidence and background information supports my theory that the Chief did manage to do it, that's why I just keep using the word instead of typing 'percieve and move out of the way of bullets', each time. Because I am under the theory that he did manage to do it and do a simple twist or duck out of the way, a la the Matrix analogy.

Precisely. The word 'dodge' can mean any action undertaken to avoid incoming objects.

So why then do you assume that it was a dive or roll out of the way? You still have not explained yourself on this one properly yet.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Thats simply your explanation of what he was doing, using the same quote my idea of him diving or rolling to test his speed against bullet fire is just as legit, in fact more so due to the real definition ime following, not your invented assumption.
The real definition you're following includes mine, Burning - it's any action that's used to avoid something, remember? In this case, he can just shift out of the way instead of diving and hoping that he doesn't get hit.
Originally posted by Burning thought
No I take the word dodge and use it for what its supposed to be used for, which includes diving, rolling and other types of evading, it doesn't mean perceiving bullets coming at you and moving accordingly.
It can mean twisting the body or simply ducking lightning fast, to avoid each bullet - which was what Chief did. That is my theory, and the Webster's definition you have given me does nothing to actually disprove it.

My point is that the Chief can simply duck or shift his upper body to one side to avoid each bullet, instead of diving or rolling to avoid it; this is because he has the reflexes to do so, and every other factor in the circumstances strongly suggests such. The latter action simply is a test of luck, not skill or reflexes. That means simply hoping not to get hit while in motion.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Accurate to whom? out of two people actually debating (there is only 2), only 1 of them (you) thinks your right, which is funny because its you who thinks so, and ime saying exactly the same, ime using actual definition to point out it doesn't say in that quote anything to do with what your saying and that all you are doing is blabbering out worthless assumptions such as "he perceived each bullet and moved accordingly"
Oh, stop ranting.
Originally posted by Burning thought
There is no factually correct statement until you actuall accept all Chief did was dodge without going blundering your way into assumptions and trying to make it more than what it says. Which is why your argument fails no matter what you assume.
Is this supposed to negate all the supporting evidence that I have provided? Really?

You have to do better than that - it's really quite sad that you seem to have accepted "It's an assumption therefore you are wrong" as your typical debate warcry, seeing as you are clutching to it like your last lifeline in a raging sea.

I have facts and evidence to back it up, whereas you do not with yours.

Why don't you address my factual support, rather than repeated attempts to pass off the impression that I've failed simply because, as you said, it's an 'assumption' as your substitution of a constructive, worthy reply?

You have - only that was really pointless too, because you didn't have anything progressive to offer.
Originally posted by Burning thought
All my points are based around facts, I dont need evidence do I since ime not actually making any claims, ime simply saying what the quote youve given shows, and your assuming that hes got this super reflexes from that quote lol....
We've already established that you have my initial impression misinterpreted wrong, which you've yet to admit.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No youve given me assumptions, then calling them undeniable facts....
No, I've given you assumptions, then supporting them with undeniable facts.

Have you been even following this debate, or are you just flopping like a fish out of water right now?
Originally posted by Burning thought
Ive not got a solid fact apparently yet ime using the single piece of evidence youve given against you,
Silly guesses? all youve done is guessed throughout the entire debate lmao....theres no fact behind your words of saying hes doing something where the quote is concerned which is the only actual evidence you have
Precisely, and oddly enough you think that the fact that I am 'assuming' will save you.

As I said, I can back my arguments up. You're simply trying to bypass the inevitable fact that you really don't have any proper counter-arguments to my backup by desperately making this silly claim that "Hey, it's not 100% clear, that means your arguments are entirely invalid!"

Quite strange on how you seem to believe in a connotation between "not 100% clear" and "wrong".

Accusing of someone for guessing in general in a videogame character vs debate thread, you may as well have called the grass out for being green anyway.
Originally posted by Burning thought
ive got the fact your simply assuming ive got the fact your simply over hyping to the max something that could be a simple dive or roll, ive got the fact the official quote itself AND definitions do not back up your crude view of him doing something irregular and simply not stated in your single shred of a quote.
How am I overhyping? How is that fact?

It's funny how you say that, and then include the speculative word 'could' in the very same sentence. Ridiculous. 'Overhyping' is an opinionated matter, it is not a solid factual matter, yet you're trying to pass it off as an objective point.

The official quote itself? How does that not back it up? You provide one Webster definition that includes both my impression of what happened and yours, which is a rather poorly thought-out generalization.
Originally posted by Burning thought
A) this is worthless, since why would he dodge in the first place if this was even an important point? its not is it, straw man...
Simple - see bottom of page.
Originally posted by Burning thought
B) The same as above, he was surprised, if his decades of training and experience were so effective in this situation he wouldn't have been surprised at all, but he was.

Two straw mans......all you seem to do is assume, then claim your assumptions are better logic when I assume, then you ask irrelevant questions lol
How are they irrelevant? They're pertaining what you are assuming what happened, and you cannot back it up, instead trying to pass them off as irrelevant so you aren't forced to address it.

All you really have to answer to both statements is "Yeah, but he DID do it..."

Sure he did, Burning, we know that....but why? That is the question, the original question that I challenged you with, that you cannot seem to answer. Why would he commit to such an insensible act? You're suggesting that somehow 20 years of experience mysteriously disappeared for an instant of surprise.

Nope, they're not strawmans - not when I've already given my statements and backup beforehand, I'm simply challenging your view since you cannot offer a proper counter argument to my backup and evidence, and you cannot defend yourself either apparently. Learn your linguistics.
Originally posted by Burning thought
As it stands, your simply assuming, youve given one real piece of evidence, a quote which does not back up what your assuming out of it, then your over hyping and committing various fallacies.
I'm not even using the quote itself, at least not directly - but the circumstances and background info behind it.

I've given 'one' real piece of evidence, what happened to the rest of all the overwhelming evidence I gave you? No, you simply refuse to accept that they're evidence.

Overhyping? How?
What fallacies?

You make all these empty claims without backing them up, praying that I don't notice.

Originally posted by Burning thought
ive cleared up your own quote for you by making you realise theres more than one definition and thats an official definition is worth more than your invented ones of "dodge means MC did super neo!"
Dodge means MC avoided bullets - but in this case in consideration of the evidence that I have piled under your nose, yeah he probably did a 'super Neo'. If that's what you want to call it.

It doesn't instantly translate to that, which is what you're attempting to force the impression that I thought that. Really, stop trying to force words into my mouth.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Report me for trolling, ill report you for using novels, that you cannot deny because its throughout, also your trolling me if ime trolling you by spamming your worthless stories.
Go ahead if you really think that will save you from having to somehow form a proper counterargument. I've already linked this thread to both Lana and Kaliero beforehand and discussed with both of them about using the books, remember? They've had ample chance by now. You've had ample chance by now. If you really go so far as to report me for using the books as a last resort, that's a clear sign of forfeit anyway.



You continue to reply in a debate thread, but you're not actually debating; you don't back up your statements with explanations, you don't answer my challenge queries properly at all. You simply just continue to plough on with whatever you can think of just to keep it going, while you focus largely on either insulting me or my arguments without disproving them.

Me, I'm quite comfortable where I stand. I have formed my conclusion. I have given the facts and backup in order to support that conclusion. I have challenged your conclusion and challenged you directly to provide statements that defend your conclusion. I'm debating.
Originally posted by Burning thought
None of that is evidence, ime sorry but youve simply written up a story thats not evidence at all. It seems you need someone to teach you what evidence is, lesson numero 1: evidence is not you simply typing out events, real evidence is a quote or video, something worth using, please try again .
Don't be silly, Burning - evidence is evidence.

Really, and what about all the background info that I have hammered you with again and again with? The facts, the circumstances, that is evidence. Like the fact that he's an experienced and superenhanced soldier (which he is), the fact that he's donning the armor for the first time and putting it through its paces (which he is).

You're attempting to deny my evidence by saying it's not evidence. How predictable. Call it what you like, but it still backs my conclusion up - and that is what matters.

'Real' evidence, indeed. I don't think I even need to stomp that argument down at all by giving you a Webster definition of the word 'evidence'.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Funnily enough, I was going to say the same to you about replying with logical reasoning and facts, but as always youll cop a deafen (or in this case a blinden) to any advice I try and help you with. I can say the same, you saying "ime having to repeat myself!" and crying over it is just as worthless as me saying you are doing the same, youve got no evidence at all that actually backs you unfortunately.
You haven't given me any useful advice, not that I'd need it.

I'm confident - why? Like I said above, I've given my arguments, clearly marked down facts and figures to back them up - you haven't, not properly anyway. Instead, you attempt to substitute your lack of evidence with silly comments such as how my arguments are mysteriously invalid all of a sudden - about burden of proof, anything that you can use instead of actually submitting a proper counter-argument, backed up with facts/evidence.

The latter really isn't so hard, if you know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Burning thought
mimic is important, ime mocking your posts because their laughable, its like your a toddler having a tantrum, and whether you know it or not, if an adult tantrums when a toddler does, they stand and stare and often realise how ridiculous they seem. Now its obvious that you seem to be younger than I am since your insecurity runs deep with the constant use of "blundering", "blustering" to put my points down with antagonistic wording, while idolising yourself by saying "please keep up", its like youve run out of argument and are trying to convince even yourself that youve actually posted something worth reading.

Please before you post again, try and act your age (ime simply assuming your at least at/over the age limit of KMC forums) and conduct your posts with a little more professionalism rather than trying to rise yourself up over your insecurities. This debate is nothing personal and ime not destroying you as a person, simply your weak arguments.
You're accusing me of tantrums now. Yeah, OK...


Take a very good look at what you just said here, you're ranting without so much as explanation. How am I acting immature? How am I ridiculous? You've gone so far now as to mock my use of the word 'blustering' - well...that's what you've been doing, to be entirely honest. You haven't offered much real argument, or counter argument to my argument, at all - you've just been going on mainly for the sake of it. I think anyone who reads this particular part of your post will see instantly.


You mock me for the use of "Keep up". Yeah, that's what I say and I stand by it - I have long since grown impatient of having to correct you on both minor and major mistakes that, had you been reading my posts properly, you never would have made in the first place. I'm pretty justified on that.


I've asked you time and time again for a counter argument, or at least some backup for your actual claims. Facts, figures, anything....but no, you didn't give me sufficient evidence; you gave me one Webster definition of a word that was generalized to the point where it doesn't actually hold any ground. I'm debating. What are you doing? You've weaselled and dodged any challenges I toss your way, hoping not to have to answer them. If you actually had a proper counter-argument at hand that addressed the issue specifically and answered it directly, you would have given it to me right off instead of trying to slide out of having to present it, which is how I know you don't.

You tell me I lack professionalism in my posts. Take a good look at the way I am conducting my posts, and then look how you are acting in yours.

Your posts are focusing less and less on answering my queries to you, but to simply degrade my posts and myself as a person. Look at the last way you closed off that last post. I told you to not bother posting if it's simply going to be insults or petulant ignorance. I told you to debate properly, or not at all. Either were fair and relevant, since we're supposed to be debating in a debate thread. And what do you do? You blatantly insult that you're not 'destroying' me as a person (what a quaint choice of words) and then, to my amusement, imply that I'm insecure?

I'm confident in my primary and counter arguments, as you will read. Not sure where that came from.


But, seeing how you're at this point not really 'debating' at all, but primarily focused on implied flaming or excuses to not debate formally, I think the time is ripe that I finished this debate off.




So here we have the original quote:
"He stood, and let the bullets deflect off his armor. To his amazement, he actually dodged one or two of the rounds."

Now, I've already formed my conclusion a long time ago when I actually read it. Why? You'll see in a second, but first let's have your primary piece.

Now's about the time that you single out the word "dodge" and post a Webster definition. That includes any action undertaken in an attempt to avoid something, whether it's ducking, shifting, roll, flip, dive, whatever. Point: The word 'dodge' is far too generalized to actually form a conclusion about which action he undertook to avoid said bullets. That means we need more.

Ready? Here we go...

Fact 1.) The Chief has a reaction speed of approximately 20ms (significantly faster in combat situations) prior to MJOLNIR, which is mathematically enough to be able to percieve a travelling bullet and react to it.
Dark-Jaxx brought this up earlier and you did not seem to address it, so I'll elaborate..

According to Fall of Reach, each Spartan underwent numerous surgeries to implant several physical augmentations in order to better make them the best soldiers the UNSC ever had. One of these enhancements was a superconducting material injected into the Spartan's central nervous system which would enhance the electrical signals sent through nerve tissue.

The result of that was a 300% increase in Spartan reflexes.

Now, human reflexes range from 150ms to 300ms as reaction time. Since they are professional trained soldiers that undergo repeated PT and close combat training rather than your typical American Average Joe, we'll be generous and assume a 150ms base reaction time before physical augmentation. After the supposed 300% increase, that shrinks it down to about a 50ms reaction time.

The Spartans recieved MJOLNIR some time in the future, which, with its numerous reactive circuits, multiplied their reflexes.


Fact 2.) The Chief had just recieved the armor, and was due to put it through its paces by running through an obstacle course.

Why this is significant is because he doesn't technically know just how fast, or strong, or whatever the combat armor allows him to be, which is why they've allowed him to go see for himself. It's pretty obvious that he's going to be mindful and try out every last thing he can think of.

Prior to the quote, we see mentioning of him doing various feats like leaping up walls several meters high, shattering concrete dummies with single punches and sprinting right through barbed wire, but none of these so far test his reflexes, which were supposedly doubled with the armor, were not tested.

Fact 3.) When the guns were firing at Chief, he didn't 'need' to avoid them.

This is an obstacle training course, which means that the obstacles themselves weren't meant to be lethal. As Chief found out, they were supposedly designed to show him how much the armor can take in terms of firepower. As we can both see, he let them deflect off just fine. Point being, the bullets aren't lethal to him at all, they were simply included in the obstacle course in order to see what the suit can take..

So why did he dodge, when he wasn't required to?

Your primary counter consists of "But he did dodge it". Yeah, he did, Burning...but why? That is the question, we both know he dodged it. Simple, he was testing his reflexes - there is no other logical reason to attempt to avoid said bullets.


Fact 4.) The Chief was surprised after 'dodging' one or two bullets. The emotion of real surprise is very rare to him, and even more irregular during a training exercise.

The Master Chief John-117 and his Spartans are the most experienced and talented special force that the UNSC has to offer, having garnered every military decoration and having more confirmed killeds than any three division of the next leading marine corp. From the time they were six years old, they have been through intensive training on everything the UNSC had to offer, from ground combat to zero-gravity operations to even piloting orbital ships/platforms.

They are the elite of the UNSC military, and have been in and out of combat situations all around for upwards of twenty years. So it would be reasonable that they wouldn't be spooked or surprised by little things, such as a few bullets missing him by chance.

So what did surprise him to that extent?

To summarize, we have him on an obstacle course, and he is testing out the capabilities of the new armor. At the time he does possess the physical capability to dodge a bullet - that is, to be able to consciously react to one already in motion and move out of the way, but he doesn't realise this just yet. That's why he likely chose to briefly put his reflexes to the test, amongst other things - and he succeeded.

Therefore, summating the above facts and background info, the most likely and rational answer would be that he was surprised at how much faster his reflexes were due to the suit, after a successful attempt to actually percieve a bullet and react to it to remove himself from its path.

So far you've implied that the possibility that he dove/rolled out of the way as an attempt to avoid the gunshots by pure chance instead of agility is your most likely possibility, which is where we shift now.




You believe that the word 'dodge' in the first quote that I provided pertains to a typical dive or a roll out of the way in order to avoid bullets. Any denial that that is precisely what you were implying would be again weaseling. You likely cannot accept the possibility that the Master Chief can dodge bullets Agent-style - (something that I have proven wrong in #1 above).

I ask: If we assume that the Chief specifically dove/rolled out of the way, why would he dive out of the way when it wasn't necessary or probable, as explained before?

Your response: "He did it anyway, your argument is negated."
(This is about when you reveal that you were, from the start, instantly assuming that the Chief rolled or dove out of the way without any evidence for it.)

Me: Um yes, we already are for your sake assuming that he did do it - but why?

You: " (Insulting, burden of proof fallacy, generalization) - Because maybe he was surprised at how dextrous he is in the suit"

And the call is again on you:

Counter Arguments:

1.) He would NOT have dove out of the way of the bullets because they would have harmed him.

He wouldn't have committed to an action as to remove his body entirely from the gunfire by diving out of the way unless it was something big shooting at him, such as a rocket or much heavier gunfire. However, from what we know of the obstacle course, it was only designed to show him how the armor protects him; as we can see, he took a few rounds off his armor just fine. They would not have harmed him whatsoever.



2.) He would NOT have dove out of the way of the bullets because he was trying to see how well he could move.

Considering they already had him testing his typical movements like walking and running and leaping/climbing up walls, it wouldn't make sense to do that just to test his mobility. Nor would Chief have expected to feel any awkwardness or bulkiness during moving whatsoever. On the contrary...after he was outfitted, he commented on it feeling so comfortable and easy as to be like a second skin, and that "if he closed his eyes, he wouldn't have known that he were encased".


Case in point: Rolling/diving out of the way in that situation would be irrational entirely, let alone unexpected. Therefore it could not have happened in a fictional, ideal setting.


After, I again ask you - "So why did you believe that he dived out of the way?"
And I do not recieve an insightful, thought-out answer, nor do you list any other possibilites as to the specifying action pertaining to the word 'dodge'.



I've at this point put you in a position where you literally no longer can counter my arguments in a logical and mature manner, all you can do now is post with continued petulant ignorance. You have presented your best arguments, and I have denounced the flawed (or lack of) evidence surrounding them.

You've no longer have anything constructive or relevant to contribute pertaining to the current topic, unless it's to simply repeat your points over and over again despite the fact that I have disproved them without the shadow of a doubt. You've already outright refused to debate properly, judging by your response to my last reply, therefore you are trolling. If your next reply is anything like your last, you've basically just openly admitted to trolling anyway.




Game, set, and match. Off you go.

...Get a little obsessive there, DarkC?

Burning Thought, in the future, refrain from personal attacks.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
...Get a little obsessive there, DarkC?

Burning Thought, in the future, refrain from personal attacks.
Lol not really, just thorough.


Eneru and Darkstorm can attest to that.

Originally posted by DarkC
You have factually given me nothing more to work with than before.

For example, look at your response to point A.

"He didn't need to dodge the bullets. Why then would he do an illogical random tuck and roll out of the way?"
Your response: "He did it anyway, this negates your entire point"


No, that doesn't change anything, Burning. Why? Why would he do something random and unexpected like that? Where is your explanation? Where is your logic? Surely you have to have a reasonable explanation as to why he would commit to such a randomized action. But no, thus far you've attempted to try and divert by offering excuses. This is a debate thread, so debate.

Not buying. You gotta do better than a lame pass-off, you have literally provided nothing that reinforces your point, nor refutes mine.

The point still stands.


That single quote was the only relevant line that included the passage with him bullet-dodging. It wasn't meant to be drawn out, he was simply putting tests through the armor, not saving the world. I have provided the necessary quote/reference. Where's yours?

Complaining about it or calling it worthless isn't going to change it. Go figure.


If you really expected the author to stamp out an entire paragraph dedicated to Chief dodging a bullet or two, you are sadly mistaken.

Actually yes it is. The burden of proof has been on you from the get-go.

You were the one attempting to create the impression that Chief did no more than do a typical roll or dive out of the way from automated gunfire. To this point, I have more factual evidence than you do. All you really have to throw back at me is the fact that it's not 100% clear - but seeing how as you don't really have facts or reasoning to back your claims up, that holds no ground whatsoever.

A summary: the book states that he actually "dodged one or two of the rounds". To me, I am taking the words to face value. It doesn't say "he dove under the gunfire and avoided a few bullets", or anything similar to that, it simply says "dodge". Which leaves room open for quite a few possibilities.

Your desperate claim that the word 'dodge' used in that sentence was specifying a roll or dive out of the way is what you're trying to prove, remember? Right now all you've been doing is attempts to dismean my theory, when you have no solid factual or circumstantial backup.

You were the one with the outlandish claim that Master Chief dove/rolled out of the way. I have answered for my conclusions, if anybody has the burden of proof it's now you.

Assumptions with basis in fact and backed up by logical reasoning and explanation.

There's a difference. Thus far you have done nothing to disprove my theory, or prove yours. All you have is "No he could have done this instead" or "no this world could possibly mean this too". That's it, you just speculate, period - you don't do anything to really give me a solid theory.


Yes, and what action does 'dodged' mean? To you, for some reason you instantly take that as a roll or a dive simply because you can't admit that you really have nothing else working.

It's really quite ridiculous to just throw a Webster definition at me because it actually has no solidity in terms of factual backup. Dodging just means 'moving to avoid an incoming projectile'. It doesn't specify action, which is where your instant assumption that it specified rolling or diving crumbles.

There is not a shred of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he has been doing such, so why would you make that claim?

For me, I've presented my evidence. You have still not offered a viable counter argument.

You're trying to excuse your lack of supporting evidence by attempting to shift the burden of proof on me....typing debate weasel.

I make my claim, I back it up.
You make yours, you don't back it up.

That shouldn't be hard to understand.

Even if you're really trying to 'dismean' my theory, what have you done to disprove it, other than use a Webster's definition? It's far too general to count as actual backup. It just means 'getting out of the way' of something, whether you're just twisting your body to the side or doing spectacular backflips or somersaults.

Lol, and haven't you been doing that either, only without real support or backup?

You took one word and separated it from its entire context, attempting to somehow specify the action when there's really no evidence to suggest your side was correct - good job.

Cut out the last two words and yeah, that would be more correct.

To me 'dodge' doesn't instantly translate to 'perceive and move out of the way of bullets', as I have said in the last post (Once again, if you had been paying attention you would have not made this mistake.)

However - the circumstantial evidence and background information supports my theory that the Chief did manage to do it, that's why I just keep using the word instead of typing 'perceive and move out of the way of bullets', each time. Because I am under the theory that he did manage to do it and do a simple twist or duck out of the way, a la the Matrix analogy.

Precisely. The word 'dodge' can mean any action undertaken to avoid incoming objects.

So why then do you assume that it was a dive or roll out of the way? You still have not explained yourself on this one properly yet.

The quote says MC dodges, and yet you are saying "why would he do that!", well the quote says he did.....

Wheres my what exactly? are you confused on what ime debating for something? ime debating that your assumption on the quote is worthless, by mocking your assumption by making many of my own, so why would I require any more evidence than you when ime doing exactly the same to prove my side of the argument? your not making any sense....

Why am I mistaken? if its some sort of impressive perceive bullet time move where he didnt dive or roll, but actually did an Agent smith then why wouldn't the author draw it out like it is something special. The fact its just a single quick quote outlines the fact he prob did simply do a roll or typical soldiers evasive maneuver and nothing special, since all it gets is a quick statement. If it was actually as impressive as you seem to assume, it would have been in more detail.

erm the burden of proof is on me? ime saying your wrong for making a bold assumption, how is the burden of proof on me exactly? your the one making the assumption/claim...

erm it holds factual ground, the fact is that it does not say anything at all about MC doing some crazy super speed bullet time dodge, it simply says "dodges" a few, and youve not got any fact, youve got a few statements youve come out with, thats not fact, even if its logical to you, or a deduction, its still not fact nor is it any more than assumption.

yes it does, none of which are factually stated make it highly useless as a piece of evidence towards Chief having some kind of bullet speed/time effect.

No, ime trying to prove to you that your assumption is not what makes it fact, and that the evidence is inconclusive and pretty useless. Which is also fact. Your the one making desperate analogies and apparent logical deductions to try and make "dodge" become "super Neo speed!".

Stop at assumptions and youve got the reason why its not good evidence at all....

No ime not making the assumption, my assumptions were as a mockery of your own to try and make you realise assumption is not fact, even if you are delusional enough to think everything you think is both logical and fact. I pointed out the definition because it could easily be many things that the quote meant, your just over hyping it.

Here you go with "you lack evidence" nonsense again when ime using the same quote you are alongside actual definition to play down your idea that your opinion and assumption is fact and actual evidence.

The only time I did it is when i made a mockery of your own assumption, and here we go with more delusions.

So you just admitted your entire argument is based on theory and assumptions...great...yet you continue....ime sorry but theory and assumption does not count as any solid evidence for Chief no matter how enthusiastic a fanboy states it.

Originally posted by DarkC
The real definition you're following includes mine, Burning - it's any action that's used to avoid something, remember? In this case, he can just shift out of the way instead of diving and hoping that he doesn't get hit.

It can mean twisting the body or simply ducking lightning fast, to avoid each bullet - which was what Chief did. That is my theory, and the Webster's definition you have given me does nothing to actually disprove it.

My point is that the Chief can simply duck or shift his upper body to one side to avoid each bullet, instead of diving or rolling to avoid it; this is because he has the reflexes to do so, and every other factor in the circumstances strongly suggests such. The latter action simply is a test of luck, not skill or reflexes. That means simply hoping not to get hit while in motion.


Oh, stop ranting.

Is this supposed to negate all the supporting evidence that I have provided? Really?

You have to do better than that - it's really quite sad that you seem to have accepted "It's an assumption therefore you are wrong" as your typical debate warcry, seeing as you are clutching to it like your last lifeline in a raging sea.

I have facts and evidence to back it up, whereas you do not with yours.

Why don't you address my factual support, rather than repeated attempts to pass off the impression that I've failed simply because, as you said, it's an 'assumption' as your substitution of a constructive, worthy reply?

You have - only that was really pointless too, because you didn't have anything progressive to offer.

We've already established that you have my initial impression misinterpreted wrong, which you've yet to admit.


No, I've given you assumptions, then supporting them with undeniable facts.

Have you been even following this debate, or are you just flopping like a fish out of water right now?

Precisely, and oddly enough you think that the fact that I am 'assuming' will save you.

As I said, I can back my arguments up. You're simply trying to bypass the inevitable fact that you really don't have any proper counter-arguments to my backup by desperately making this silly claim that "Hey, it's not 100% clear, that means your arguments are entirely invalid!"

Quite strange on how you seem to believe in a connotation between "not 100% clear" and "wrong".

Accusing of someone for guessing in general in a videogame character vs debate thread, you may as well have called the grass out for being green anyway.

How am I overhyping? How is that fact?

It's funny how you say that, and then include the speculative word 'could' in the very same sentence. Ridiculous. 'Overhyping' is an opinionated matter, it is not a solid factual matter, yet you're trying to pass it off as an objective point.

The official quote itself? How does that not back it up? You provide one Webster definition that includes both my impression of what happened and yours, which is a rather poorly thought-out generalization.

Simple - see bottom of page.

How are they irrelevant? They're pertaining what you are assuming what happened, and you cannot back it up, instead trying to pass them off as irrelevant so you aren't forced to address it.

All you really have to answer to both statements is "Yeah, but he DID do it..."

Sure he did, Burning, we know that....but why? That is the question, the original question that I challenged you with, that you cannot seem to answer. Why would he commit to such an insensible act? You're suggesting that somehow 20 years of experience mysteriously disappeared for an instant of surprise.

Nope, they're not strawmans - not when I've already given my statements and backup beforehand, I'm simply challenging your view since you cannot offer a proper counter argument to my backup and evidence, and you cannot defend yourself either apparently. Learn your linguistics.

I'm not even using the quote itself, at least not directly - but the circumstances and background info behind it.

I've given 'one' real piece of evidence, what happened to the rest of all the overwhelming evidence I gave you? No, you simply refuse to accept that they're evidence.

Overhyping? How?
What fallacies?

You make all these empty claims without backing them up, praying that I don't notice.


Yes but it also includes many other more likely things that are more likely due to the lack of actual detail put on the event. MC actually doging bullets because hes just that fast and can percieve them is worth more than the word "dodge" and regardless, as my argument stands, its not about what he actually did, its about tossing away your claim of "my assumptions are fact" that you seem to follow when none of your theories are fact.

Thats very poetic DarkC, raging sea? lol, as i said enough with your insecurities and story making, this is a debate not happy hour in the corner of a libary although your arguments may resemble happy hour . What I said is fact, your assumptions are wild and innacurate, the actual official evidence which is the one quote you provided does not actual say what your assuming which is why you automatically fail in the debate.

its not undeniable until youve actuall supported it with quotes themselves, you writing out the story does not count as evidence in a debate...

ofc its an irrelvent question, both of them are, your asking me why he did it, how is that important when he did indeed do it. If his military training over 20 years is as extensive as you say it was, he would have been in a state of surprise in the first place, but he was.

well their not evidence are they, their you listing things, making a little list is all good and well but if it was a court case, having the killer handing the judge a list he had handwritten of events that would make it impossible for him to have been the murderer does not count for evidence does it...you need quotes, page numers, scans, videos.....thats real undeniable fact.

Originally posted by DarkC
Dodge means MC avoided bullets - but in this case in consideration of the evidence that I have piled under your nose, yeah he probably did a 'super Neo'. If that's what you want to call it.

It doesn't instantly translate to that, which is what you're attempting to force the impression that I thought that. Really, stop trying to force words into my mouth.

Go ahead if you really think that will save you from having to somehow form a proper counterargument. I've already linked this thread to both Lana and Kaliero beforehand and discussed with both of them about using the books, remember? They've had ample chance by now. You've had ample chance by now. If you really go so far as to report me for using the books as a last resort, that's a clear sign of forfeit anyway.



You continue to reply in a debate thread, but you're not actually debating; you don't back up your statements with explanations, you don't answer my challenge queries properly at all. You simply just continue to plough on with whatever you can think of just to keep it going, while you focus largely on either insulting me or my arguments without disproving them.

Me, I'm quite comfortable where I stand. I have formed my conclusion. I have given the facts and backup in order to support that conclusion. I have challenged your conclusion and challenged you directly to provide statements that defend your conclusion. I'm debating.

Don't be silly, Burning - evidence is evidence.

Really, and what about all the background info that I have hammered you with again and again with? The facts, the circumstances, that is evidence. Like the fact that he's an experienced and superenhanced soldier (which he is), the fact that he's donning the armor for the first time and putting it through its paces (which he is).

You're attempting to deny my evidence by saying it's not evidence. How predictable. Call it what you like, but it still backs my conclusion up - and that is what matters.

'Real' evidence, indeed. I don't think I even need to stomp that argument down at all by giving you a Webster definition of the word 'evidence'.

You haven't given me any useful advice, not that I'd need it.

I'm confident - why? Like I said above, I've given my arguments, clearly marked down facts and figures to back them up - you haven't, not properly anyway. Instead, you attempt to substitute your lack of evidence with silly comments such as how my arguments are mysteriously invalid all of a sudden - about burden of proof, anything that you can use instead of actually submitting a proper counter-argument, backed up with facts/evidence.

The latter really isn't so hard, if you know what you're talking about.

your "piled under your nose" rubbish again, all I see under my nose is a load of rubbish youve typed up that is not actual evidence, a load of assumptions and your insecurities.

lol, forfeit? forfeit of what? its funny how you threaten to report me then tell me ime forfeiting for reporting you for something actually worth reporting for.....and unless the rule has changed, your still breaking the rule.

Well me? ime quite comfortable where I stand! ive formed my conclusion that idolising yourself with the old "my assumptions are evidence for MC super speed!" is all I need to realise your not worth debating with at all, why I waste time on you I dont know. I may as well be debating with Gumachis assumptions and gameplay usage.

ime sorry, your little rant did little more than amuse me, your little stories are not real evidence, their worthless.


Ive answered this in the first and second posts. You have no real evidence backing you up and you have even admitted that all youve got is theory and assumption yet you continue your insecure idolising lol, "sigh".

Originally posted by DarkC
You're accusing me of tantrums now. Yeah, OK...


Take a very good look at what you just said here, you're ranting without so much as explanation. How am I acting immature? How am I ridiculous? You've gone so far now as to mock my use of the word 'blustering' - well...that's what you've been doing, to be entirely honest. You haven't offered much real argument, or counter argument to my argument, at all - you've just been going on mainly for the sake of it. I think anyone who reads this particular part of your post will see instantly.


You mock me for the use of "Keep up". Yeah, that's what I say and I stand by it - I have long since grown impatient of having to correct you on both minor and major mistakes that, had you been reading my posts properly, you never would have made in the first place. I'm pretty justified on that.


I've asked you time and time again for a counter argument, or at least some backup for your actual claims. Facts, figures, anything....but no, you didn't give me sufficient evidence; you gave me one Webster definition of a word that was generalized to the point where it doesn't actually hold any ground. I'm debating. What are you doing? You've weaselled and dodged any challenges I toss your way, hoping not to have to answer them. If you actually had a proper counter-argument at hand that addressed the issue specifically and answered it directly, you would have given it to me right off instead of trying to slide out of having to present it, which is how I know you don't.

You tell me I lack professionalism in my posts. Take a good look at the way I am conducting my posts, and then look how you are acting in yours.

Your posts are focusing less and less on answering my queries to you, but to simply degrade my posts and myself as a person. Look at the last way you closed off that last post. I told you to not bother posting if it's simply going to be insults or petulant ignorance. I told you to debate properly, or not at all. Either were fair and relevant, since we're supposed to be debating in a debate thread. And what do you do? You blatantly insult that you're not 'destroying' me as a person (what a quaint choice of words) and then, to my amusement, imply that I'm insecure?

I'm confident in my primary and counter arguments, as you will read. Not sure where that came from.


But, seeing how you're at this point not really 'debating' at all, but primarily focused on implied flaming or excuses to not debate formally, I think the time is ripe that I finished this debate off.




So here we have the original quote:
"He stood, and let the bullets deflect off his armor. To his amazement, he actually dodged one or two of the rounds."

Now, I've already formed my conclusion a long time ago when I actually read it. Why? You'll see in a second, but first let's have your primary piece.

Now's about the time that you single out the word "dodge" and post a Webster definition. That includes any action undertaken in an attempt to avoid something, whether it's ducking, shifting, roll, flip, dive, whatever. Point: The word 'dodge' is far too generalized to actually form a conclusion about which action he undertook to avoid said bullets. That means we need more.

Ready? Here we go...

Fact 1.) The Chief has a reaction speed of approximately 20ms (significantly faster in combat situations) prior to MJOLNIR, which is mathematically enough to be able to percieve a travelling bullet and react to it.
Dark-Jaxx brought this up earlier and you did not seem to address it, so I'll elaborate..

According to Fall of Reach, each Spartan underwent numerous surgeries to implant several physical augmentations in order to better make them the best soldiers the UNSC ever had. One of these enhancements was a superconducting material injected into the Spartan's central nervous system which would enhance the electrical signals sent through nerve tissue.

The result of that was a 300% increase in Spartan reflexes.

Now, human reflexes range from 150ms to 300ms as reaction time. Since they are professional trained soldiers that undergo repeated PT and close combat training rather than your typical American Average Joe, we'll be generous and assume a 150ms base reaction time before physical augmentation. After the supposed 300% increase, that shrinks it down to about a 50ms reaction time.

The Spartans recieved MJOLNIR some time in the future, which, with its numerous reactive circuits, multiplied their reflexes.


Fact 2.) The Chief had just recieved the armor, and was due to put it through its paces by running through an obstacle course.

Why this is significant is because he doesn't technically know just how fast, or strong, or whatever the combat armor allows him to be, which is why they've allowed him to go see for himself. It's pretty obvious that he's going to be mindful and try out every last thing he can think of.

Prior to the quote, we see mentioning of him doing various feats like leaping up walls several meters high, shattering concrete dummies with single punches and sprinting right through barbed wire, but none of these so far test his reflexes, which were supposedly doubled with the armor, were not tested.

Fact 3.) When the guns were firing at Chief, he didn't 'need' to avoid them.

This is an obstacle training course, which means that the obstacles themselves weren't meant to be lethal. As Chief found out, they were supposedly designed to show him how much the armor can take in terms of firepower. As we can both see, he let them deflect off just fine. Point being, the bullets aren't lethal to him at all, they were simply included in the obstacle course in order to see what the suit can take..

So why did he dodge, when he wasn't required to?

Your primary counter consists of "But he did dodge it". Yeah, he did, Burning...but why? That is the question, we both know he dodged it. Simple, he was testing his reflexes - there is no other logical reason to attempt to avoid said bullets.


Fact 4.) The Chief was surprised after 'dodging' one or two bullets. The emotion of real surprise is very rare to him, and even more irregular during a training exercise.

The Master Chief John-117 and his Spartans are the most experienced and talented special force that the UNSC has to offer, having garnered every military decoration and having more confirmed killeds than any three division of the next leading marine corp. From the time they were six years old, they have been through intensive training on everything the UNSC had to offer, from ground combat to zero-gravity operations to even piloting orbital ships/platforms.

They are the elite of the UNSC military, and have been in and out of combat situations all around for upwards of twenty years. So it would be reasonable that they wouldn't be spooked or surprised by little things, such as a few bullets missing him by chance.

So what did surprise him to that extent?

To summarize, we have him on an obstacle course, and he is testing out the capabilities of the new armor. At the time he does possess the physical capability to dodge a bullet - that is, to be able to consciously react to one already in motion and move out of the way, but he doesn't realise this just yet. That's why he likely chose to briefly put his reflexes to the test, amongst other things - and he succeeded.

Therefore, summating the above facts and background info, the most likely and rational answer would be that he was surprised at how much faster his reflexes were due to the suit, after a successful attempt to actually percieve a bullet and react to it to remove himself from its path.

This entire post is not part of the debate or argument, as I said before, read that post through carefully and conduct your posts with more professionalism, your requirement for idolising yourself to fight back insecurities is not within my interests.

1) this first point is the only important point youve brought up in this entire debate, if you can give the page number and actual quote from a book or actual evidence that supports his pre-Mjolnir reaction speed is already enough to do the things you say he can.

whats very amusing, is that I talked with Jaxx on MSN last night precisely about how you were foolish not to bring up any evidence that he himself claimed earlier, did he just remind you or something? now youve made a fool of yourself its too late, your assumptions and nonsense were not only not fact, but you continued even though Jaxx who considers himself lesser of Halo intellect than you came up with a worthy point straight off the bat....

but now it seems ive won the previous debate, its pretty much a waste of time is all thats happend if you have the evidence for the 20ms speed.

Originally posted by DarkC
So far you've implied that the possibility that he dove/rolled out of the way as an attempt to avoid the gunshots by pure chance instead of agility is your most likely possibility, which is where we shift now.




You believe that the word 'dodge' in the first quote that I provided pertains to a typical dive or a roll out of the way in order to avoid bullets. Any denial that that is precisely what you were implying would be again weaseling. You likely cannot accept the possibility that the Master Chief can dodge bullets Agent-style - (something that I have proven wrong in #1 above).

I ask: If we assume that the Chief specifically dove/rolled out of the way, why would he dive out of the way when it wasn't necessary or probable, as explained before?

Your response: "He did it anyway, your argument is negated."
(This is about when you reveal that you were, from the start, instantly assuming that the Chief rolled or dove out of the way without any evidence for it.)

Me: Um yes, we already are for your sake assuming that he did do it - but why?

You: " (Insulting, burden of proof fallacy, generalization) - Because maybe he was surprised at how dextrous he is in the suit"

And the call is again on you:

Counter Arguments:

1.) He would NOT have dove out of the way of the bullets because they would have harmed him.

He wouldn't have committed to an action as to remove his body entirely from the gunfire by diving out of the way unless it was something big shooting at him, such as a rocket or much heavier gunfire. However, from what we know of the obstacle course, it was only designed to show him how the armor protects him; as we can see, he took a few rounds off his armor just fine. They would not have harmed him whatsoever.



2.) He would NOT have dove out of the way of the bullets because he was trying to see how well he could move.

Considering they already had him testing his typical movements like walking and running and leaping/climbing up walls, it wouldn't make sense to do that just to test his mobility. Nor would Chief have expected to feel any awkwardness or bulkiness during moving whatsoever. On the contrary...after he was outfitted, he commented on it feeling so comfortable and easy as to be like a second skin, and that "if he closed his eyes, he wouldn't have known that he were encased".


Case in point: Rolling/diving out of the way in that situation would be irrational entirely, let alone unexpected. Therefore it could not have happened in a fictional, ideal setting.


After, I again ask you - "So why did you believe that he dived out of the way?"
And I do not recieve an insightful, thought-out answer, nor do you list any other possibilites as to the specifying action pertaining to the word 'dodge'.



I've at this point put you in a position where you literally no longer can counter my arguments in a logical and mature manner, all you can do now is post with continued petulant ignorance. You have presented your best arguments, and I have denounced the flawed (or lack of) evidence surrounding them.

You've no longer have anything constructive or relevant to contribute pertaining to the current topic, unless it's to simply repeat your points over and over again despite the fact that I have disproved them without the shadow of a doubt. You've already outright refused to debate properly, judging by your response to my last reply, therefore you are trolling. If your next reply is anything like your last, you've basically just openly admitted to trolling anyway.




Game, set, and match. Off you go.

NO, wrong......you see this is prob why this debate has gotten nowhere, my entire argument is against your assumptions and that that quote is not useful evidence for him actually having bullet reaction. I brought up the diving and rolling as examples of other things "dodge" could mean.

These last two paragraphs are pathetic idolising of yourself, your arrogence does not equel fact or logic in your arguments ime afraid, so ill ignore this nonsense.

Game, set and match, indeed.....so as you sit defeated after wasting so much of both our times, "blundered", "blustered" and what was it? holding onto your rafting in a stormy sea? sorry ime not as poetic as you are it seems.....your way through assumption and theory came to the only shred of possible useful evidence for Chief being able to perform bullet reaction feats through Jaxx reminding you because I reminded him. Its just too amusing......

...... blowup Can't believe I just read all that.

Its a waste of time, we debated for so many pages about something irrelvent to the battle itself, as if its important that chief can dodge bullets or not in Doom.....the Doom marine has no super speed and he never required to dodge bullets to survive.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Jaxx reminding you because I reminded him. Its just too amusing...... Excuse me?

Originally posted by Burning thought
The quote says MC dodges, and yet you are saying "why would he do that!", well the quote says he did.....
See below for reasoning.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Wheres my what exactly? are you confused on what ime debating for something? ime debating that your assumption on the quote is worthless

by mocking your assumption by making many of my own, so why would I require any more evidence than you when ime doing exactly the same to prove my side of the argument? your not making any sense....
No, you're simply trying to duck out of having to form a proper counterresponse for a rather hasty statement earlier. If you really had been 'mocking' it the entire way, you would have done so right at the beginning instead of trying to bring it up now as a last resort.

Sorry. Once again, not buying. I made the assumption that he did a Neo-dodge. You made the assumption (quite clearly depicted in the quote I singled out below) that he did a simple dive and/roll akin to James Bond.

It doesn't help when you say that it's meant to be a parody point, then you address it right after and take it seriously. And even if what you say is true - if it was simply meant to mock my point instead of actually contributing to the thread - then you are guilty of trolling. I leave it to you to pick.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Why am I mistaken? if its some sort of impressive perceive bullet time move where he didnt dive or roll, but actually did an Agent smith then why wouldn't the author draw it out like it is something special. The fact its just a single quick quote outlines the fact he prob did simply do a roll or typical soldiers evasive maneuver and nothing special, since all it gets is a quick statement. If it was actually as impressive as you seem to assume, it would have been in more detail.
I would be inclined to agree with you here, but for the following:

Chief went through feats of similar calibre of impressiveness; feats such as obliterating a target dummy made from reinforced concrete in a single punch, or leaping up three meter high walls wearing more than a half ton of hardware - they were arguably as impressive as, but in different ways than, being fast enough to avoid bullets already in motion.

And they were too described very briefly, in little more than a passing manner (just before the 'worthless' quote of mine came up - but in no way negates their degree of impressiveness.
Originally posted by Burning thought
erm the burden of proof is on me? ime saying your wrong for making a bold assumption, how is the burden of proof on me exactly? your the one making the assumption/claim...
Exactly, and I have given you my supporting evidence and backup for said assumption - you have not. Hence, why the call is on you at the time being.

You have made the claim that, despite your hasty attempt to cover it up as a mockery, that it was more likely that the Master Chief executed a tuck and roll dive, something I have long since disproved.
Originally posted by Burning thought
erm it holds factual ground, the fact is that it does not say anything at all about MC doing some crazy super speed bullet time dodge, it simply says "dodges" a few, and youve not got any fact, youve got a few statements youve come out with, thats not fact, even if its logical to you, or a deduction, its still not fact nor is it any more than assumption.
Precisely, and that's the point. I assume it to be, in your words, "super speed bullet time dodge" because of the surrounding circumstances.

You, on the opposing hand, assumed it to be, in your words, "a James Bond style dive/roll out of the way". Remember now?

All you're really doing here is calling the kettle black, and deducting under fallacious logic that:
Assumption = unclear = entirely untrue. I addressed your continued use of "It's an assumption" below.

Yes, I have given you evidence and facts - and you attempt to cop them out predictably, because you cannot find any other way to deny them.

Originally posted by Burning thought
yes it does, none of which are factually stated make it highly useless as a piece of evidence towards Chief having some kind of bullet speed/time effect.

No, ime trying to prove to you that your assumption is not what makes it fact, and that the evidence is inconclusive and pretty useless. Which is also fact. Your the one making desperate analogies and apparent logical deductions to try and make "dodge" become "super Neo speed!".

Stop at assumptions and youve got the reason why its not good evidence at all

No ime not making the assumption, my assumptions were as a mockery of your own to try and make you realise assumption is not fact, even if you are delusional enough to think everything you think is both logical and fact. I pointed out the definition because it could easily be many things that the quote meant, your just over hyping it.

Here you go with "you lack evidence" nonsense again when ime using the same quote you are alongside actual definition to play down your idea that your opinion and assumption is fact and actual evidence.

The only time I did it is when i made a mockery of your own assumption, and here we go with more delusions

So you just admitted your entire argument is based on theory and assumptions...great...yet you continue....ime sorry but theory and assumption does not count as any solid evidence for Chief no matter how enthusiastic a fanboy states it.

Yes but it also includes many other more likely things that are more likely due to the lack of actual detail put on the event. MC actually doging bullets because hes just that fast and can percieve them is worth more than the word "dodge" and regardless, as my argument stands, its not about what he actually did, its about tossing away your claim of "my assumptions are fact" that you seem to follow when none of your theories are fact.
Seeing as how the few paragraphs above were addressing the exact same issue, I may as well reply to them all here.

Precisely. I make an assumption, and have given my supporting evidence accordingly. How many times must we go over this?

I have stated quite clearly in my previous post that my assumption is the 'MOST LIKELY' one to happen, because of the factual support that I have given it. 'Most likely', Burning. That means me attributing it to be a possibility - albeit the most likely one - from surrounding facts and evidence.

And to the best of my knowledge, very likely possibility =/= fact. That single statement from earlier more or less dismisses this entire passage you just wrote as simply noise - again, if you had been paying attention and thinking critically, you would not have made such an enormous error in accusation.

If I make an assumption, I make it clear that it IS an assumption in the first place. If you want, go ahead and show me where I explicitly stated that my theory was total fact - the idea of the two words being in the same sentence is...well, funny, for lack of a better word.

Next time you use the words "It's an assumption!", that's a pretty clear sign that you didn't bother reading this part, or purposefully ignored it as to be able to continue using your "assumption" lifeline.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Thats very poetic DarkC, raging sea? lol, as i said enough with your insecurities and story making, this is a debate not happy hour in the corner of a libary although your arguments may resemble happy hour
Will you stop ranting?
Originally posted by Burning thought
What I said is fact, your assumptions are wild and innacurate,
Care to explain how?

Go ahead, it's part of the debate. Explain why they're 'wild' and 'inaccurate' when I have backed them up, and you have yet to respond relevantly.
Originally posted by Burning thought
the actual official evidence which is the one quote you provided does not actual say what your assuming which is why you automatically fail in the debate.
Sure, if I had made an empty claim and pretended like it's fact the whole time without even bothering to explain myself, nor provide facts/evidence as support. Yeah, you would be correct then.

Are you, right now? No, not nearly.


But, see, this is the latest shield you're hiding behind. It's a pattern.

You: "You're assuming, which means you automatically fail."
Me: "Yes, Burning, but you see...I have given you significant amounts of facts and evidence that my assumption is the correct one."
You: "They're do not count as facts and evidence."
Me: "Of course they are. They're from the book itself and the background information behind it. If you want, go ahead and prove me wrong."
You: "..."
You: "You're assuming, which means you automatically fail."


Repetitiveness at its best.
Originally posted by Burning thought
its not undeniable until youve actuall supported it with quotes themselves, you writing out the story does not count as evidence in a debate...you need quotes, page numers, scans, videos.....thats real undeniable fact.
Moot. They're still evidence. If you had taken the time, to say...go to the library or bookstore and actually get this book, you would have seen that I was correct anyway. Makes little difference either way.

Me not yet citing it in proper format actually does nothing to disrupt their status as 'evidence'. Nice try.

But seeing as how you so firmly believe in quotes and page numbers as action evidence - I will happily oblige. See below.
Originally posted by Burning thought
ofc its an irrelvent question, both of them are, your asking me why he did it, how is that important when he did indeed do it. If his military training over 20 years is as extensive as you say it was, he would have been in a state of surprise in the first place, but he was.
No, he 'dodged', which means no specified action remember? You provided the Webster's definition of that word. Why on Earth am I having to remind you the significance of that definition in this debate, when you were the one who brought it up originally?


You say, "He did it anyways."
I say, "He did what? Did he dive? Roll? Flip? Duck?"

We're trying to attribute a specific action to said quote, in relevance of the circumstances surrounding that event. The fact that you've instantly just made an assumption regarding said action doesn't help at all.


You saying "But he did do it anyways" factually does nothing to topple my argument, because that's still you assuming that it was a specified action, which you've yet to support and/or explain.

You see, I go "IF he did this specified action as included in the 'dodge' definition, he would been surprised by reason A, and undertaken action A." Your claim "But he dived/rolled to the side anyways" is simply lacking logic and rationality.


Originally posted by Burning thought
well their not evidence are they, their you listing things, making a little list is all good and well but if it was a court case, having the killer handing the judge a list he had handwritten of events that would make it impossible for him to have been the murderer does not count for evidence does it...
Listing facts, figures, events that did happen or do exist, in lieu of supporting my first conclusion much earlier.

Yeah, that's 'evidence', Burning.

Tbh, I don't think that anyone actually claimed M could actually pull Neo-like movement to dodge bullets. I see it more like Ryu's bullet dodging "slipping bitween the bullets like they weren't even there." - Chun Li _Street Fighter Alpha Anime.

Neo's moves required an incredible amount of actual speed, the kind that leaves after images, and motion blur. Thats easily multi mach levels of speed, MC really does have very quick reaction times and faster than peak human speed, but nobody claims he's multi mach speed.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Neo's moves required an incredible amount of actual speed, the kind that leaves after images, and motion blur. Thats easily multi mach levels of speed, MC really does have very quick reaction times and faster than peak human speed, but nobody claims he's multi mach speed.
I personally don't know about the speed that leaves afterimages and motion blur - I think that's a fancy notion that the Wachowski brothers tacked up. You'd have to be moving faster than light to give that kind of a perspective; that is to say, being somewhere where you appear to be somewhere else. Kind of like in DBZ.


The way I see it is more simple, both Neo and Chief have fast enough reflexes to percieve a travelling bullet after it has left the gun and to shift aside, hence my willing use of the Matrix allusion.

noone in dbz has moved lightspeed without using IT

Originally posted by MadMel
noone in dbz has moved lightspeed without using IT
That's one of the moves I was thinking of - but basically it's the visual phasing effect they like to use that I'm referring to, when they disappear and instantly appear somewhere later.

They're just moving too fast for normal light to follow where they are at that instant, so they leave a brief afterimage, just like in the Matrix.