Ozymandias vs Captain America

Originally posted by h1a8
In fiction, many things can not be proved. That's why we use evidence when proof doesn't exist. Silent Master has not proved anything but provided evidence yet you attack me and not him. Funny.

a bullet went through it and it was used as a costume prop, that's my proof.

What's your definition of proof?
Mine is proof=evidence to support

Because your statement of "steel being commonly used as metal during that time" is certainly evidence but not proof (if you define proof as something different). You are providing evidence in your argument yet when I give evidence you demand proof. See the problem with that?

Have you ever heard of either the Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr(WWI) or Panzerbüchse 39(WWII)?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Have you ever heard of either the Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr(WWI) or Panzerbüchse 39(WWII)?

Nope, but googling them I see that they are anti-tank rifles (not machine guns). These guns must be planted to shoot against tanks (only capable of 2.5cm of penetration though).
Are you claiming that such guns were used against CA's shield in the movie? Because we clearly see typical machine guns and not anti-tank guns.

Remember, in fiction, something doesn't exist if it wasn't shown or the writer wasn't try to show it.

Seeing as you're the one claiming that the "bullet-hole" is proof that the shield was made of weak metal, that means the burden is on you.

Especially now that I've shown that Germany had acces to guns that could fire through tank armor since at least 1918.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Seeing as you're the one claiming that the "bullet-hole" is proof that the shield was made of weak metal, that means the burden is on you.

Especially now that I've shown that Germany had acces to guns that could fire through tank armor since at least 1918.

Again you provided evidence (faulty) not proof.

In order for the "bullet-hole" to be proof that the shield was made of weak metal, you have to show that it was made by a gun that can't shoot through armor.

So start providing proof.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Seeing as you're the one claiming that the "bullet-hole" is proof that the shield was made of weak metal, that means the burden is on you.

Especially now that I've shown that Germany had acces to guns that could fire through tank armor since at least 1918.

Howard Stark also had access to flying cars and repulsor lift technology since around 1940. Not to mention he had created the metal used for Cap's real shield, plus a new element that would one day save Tony's life and built his World of Tomorrow fair ground in the same shape.

Why am I saying all this? To apply our real world historical tech tree to a fictional comic book universe is reaching a bit. H1a8 can claim all day that it was a weak metal used in the prop shield - but that would assume the bullets used by the enemy were forged using real world metallurgy techniques, and that they used a light, weak metal in the shield's construction. In a world with mass produced rail guns and flying wing aircraft carriers, to then apply 'logic' to this world is a bit of a red herring, I think.

If it was just thin, light sheet metal would Rogers have carried it into battle and used it to try and defend himself?

Originally posted by h1a8
You never see anti-tank guns in the movie, thus they don't exist in the movie.

I never saw Peggy Carter pooping, therefore toilets do not exist in the movie.

Originally posted by Silent Master
In order for the "bullet-hole" to be proof that the shield was made of weak metal, you have to show that it was made by a gun that can't shoot through armor.

So start providing proof.

You proved it for me, the only guns capable of penetrating through steel were the two you posted. Since these guns wasn't in the movie then by default we have... regular machine guns as shown.

Evidence=/=proof
we are both providing evidence, which, if good enough, is sufficient

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I never saw Peggy Carter pooping, therefore toilets do not exist in the movie.

Originally posted by h1a8
You proved it for me, the only guns capable of penetrating through steel were the two you posted. Since these guns wasn't in the movie then by default we have... regular machine guns as shown.

Evidence=/=proof
we are both providing evidence, which, if good enough, is sufficient

If you want to go that route, We also don't see a bullet go through the shield, therefore you have no proof that the hole was made by a bullet.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Howard Stark also had access to flying cars and repulsor lift technology since around 1940. Not to mention he had created the metal used for Cap's real shield, plus a new element that would one day save Tony's life and built his World of Tomorrow fair ground in the same shape.

Why am I saying all this? To apply our real world historical tech tree to a fictional comic book universe is reaching a bit. H1a8 can claim all day that it was a weak metal used in the prop shield - but that would assume the bullets used by the enemy were forged using real world metallurgy techniques, and that they used a light, weak metal in the shield's construction. In a world with mass produced rail guns and flying wing aircraft carriers, to then apply 'logic' to this world is a bit of a red herring, I think.

If it was just thin, light sheet metal would Rogers have carried it into battle and used it to try and defend himself?

It's all evidence. Mine is stronger though.
It's far more believable to use weak metal in costume prop vs. heavy ass can't carry prop. It's far more believable that they were regular machine guns as writer intentions showed them to be.
If writer wanted them to be armored piercing guns then he would have stated such but he didn't.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you want to go that route, We also don't see a bullet go through the shield, therefore you have no proof that the hole was made by a bullet.

Originally posted by h1a8
Writer's intentions suggest that it was a bullet. That's all we need. Also we can only used the things that were in the movie. That means if nothing else in the movie could put a hole in the shield bullet sized then by default it was a bullet.

According to you, if it's not shown it doesn't exist. So, prove that the hole was made by a bullet.

Originally posted by h1a8
It's all evidence. Mine is stronger though.
It's far more believable to use weak metal in costume prop vs. heavy ass can't carry prop. It's far more believable that they were regular machine guns as writer intentions showed them to be.
If writer wanted them to be armored piercing guns then he would have stated such but he didn't.

Weight doesn't matter when you've got a super strong soldier, and you're using trucks to ferry stuff from one show to another. What's more of a factor, especially during wartime, is cost and availability. Why use aluminium, for example, when you could use it for airplanes.

Also, German WW2 armour penetration tables:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns/mg.asp

Originally posted by h1a8
Writer's intentions suggest that it was a bullet. That's all we need. Also we can only used the things that were in the movie. That means if nothing else in the movie could put a hole in the shield bullet sized then by default it was a bullet.

Hypocrisy..

Originally posted by h1a8
In fiction, many things can not be proved. That's why we use evidence when proof doesn't exist.

You used the word "proof", however. And you cannot base an argument on evidence unless you establish the evidence as conclusive. Otherwise, you're basing your whole argument on purely speculative grounds. W/c is an extreme waste of time.

Originally posted by h1a8
Silent Master has not proved anything but provided evidence yet you attack me and not him. Funny.

Dude, WTF, why do you use the word "attack"? You asked the questions:

Originally posted by h1a8
So I guess a being penetrated by a bullet isn't proof?
So I guess being used for an actual costume isn't proof?

I simply answered. It ISN'T PROOF. Meaning you need to provide more information in order for your argument to have feet to stand on. As it is, it's base speculation supported by the most circumstantial of evidence. Nowhere near "proof". BTW, proof requires that there be sufficient evidence to establish truth. Neither speculative arguments you presented are sufficient. I'm actually trying to help you here.

Hell, a page prior, I tried to provide evidence that would make sense out of YOUR logic to help you out a bit and you accuse me of going after you? :-/

Don't be so overdefensive.

I'd like to point out that this entire tangent started becasue h1a8 claimed that the shield was made of weak metal, so far he hasn't provided any real proof to back this up.

I'm just trying to recap in my head.

So if its a weak metal, then Red Skull is not THAT strong, to be able to dent it, therefore as he took a similar SSS, Cap is also not as strong?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I'm just trying to recap in my head.

So if its a weak metal, then Red Skull is not THAT strong, to be able to dent it, therefore as he took a similar SSS, Cap is also not as strong?

The argument was more about Cap's durability. I think the logic went as follows:

-Cap's best durability "feat" is that he took several punches from the Red Skull.
-Red Skull's best punching "feat" is punching a hand-shaped dent into a metal shield.
-The shield is made up of a weak metal.
-Thus the punches were not that strong and Cap is not that durable.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I'm just trying to recap in my head.

So if its a weak metal, then Red Skull is not THAT strong, to be able to dent it, therefore as he took a similar SSS, Cap is also not as strong?

h1a8 doesn't want the feat to stand, because it lowers Ozy's chances of hurting Cap.