Ozymandias vs Captain America

Originally posted by dadudemon
Give me an armored glove and, yes, I can catch a bullet, no problem.

😐

So now you concede all points h1anakin?

No you wouldn't. You wouldn't be able to move your hand 1mm before the bullet struck you. This is assuming you moved your hand to catch the bullet AFTER IT WAS FIRED.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Im not even debating here. Im pointing out you are doing nothing but spewing your own narrative and calling it Proof.

You need to learn what Proof is.

If my narrative isn't proof then you need to explain why it isn't. Just saying it isn't isn't helping anyone or contributing to the thread. It's just trolling.
And you should only nitpick someone's argument if you disagree with the spirit of what they are saying (Ozy has superhuman level reactions and speed).

I believe I proved my case. If you or Silent don't then explain why. Dissect my argument and point out flaws or give counterexamples. You need to learn how to debate.

Originally posted by h1a8

If my narrative isn't proof then you need to explain why it isn't. Just saying it isn't isn't helping anyone or contributing to the thread. It's just trolling.
And you should only nitpick someone's argument if you disagree with the spirit of what they are saying (Ozy has superhuman level reactions and speed).

I believe I proved my case. If you or Silent don't then explain why. Dissect my argument and point out flaws or give counterexamples. You need to learn how to debate.

Because you havent posted a single clip or article that directly relates to what Ozy did.

IOW you havent provided any evidence.

Your own narrative of the way you wish to perceive the feat does not class as proof.

Again you need to learn what constitutes evidence. Ive already given you an example of proof of Directors intentions. Hint: Its not whatever you wish it to be.

Originally posted by h1a8
No you wouldn't.

Yes I would. That's how it works. Sorry that these facts hurt your feelings.

Originally posted by h1a8
You wouldn't be able to move your hand 1mm before the bullet struck you. This is assuming you moved your hand to catch the bullet AFTER IT WAS FIRED.

You're right, I would have 10 seconds to prepare and move my hand in the way. Wouldn't require 1mm. 🙂

Unless you're claiming it took .4 seconds for the bullet to travel from the gun to his hand? Because that's the delay from when the gun is fired to when it shows his hand catching the bullet.

Even you, who is extremely mentally slow, should be able to move your Kevlar gloved hand in the way of the bullet in time to catch it.

Go ahead: explain to me you logic of the .4 second delay from when the gun is fired and when he catches. I'll wait.

I told you, there are two feets you haven't even considered yet that totally destroys any points you think you have.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Because you havent posted a single clip or article that directly relates to what Ozy did.

IOW you havent provided any evidence.

Your own narrative of the way you wish to perceive the feat does not class as proof.

Again you need to learn what constitutes evidence. Ive already given you an example of proof of Directors intentions. Hint: Its not whatever you wish it to be.

Proof is based off logic and reasoning and common sense. Proof can come in many forms.
Deductive reasoning counts as proof as well as inductive reasoning as well as math as well as science.

You don't get to determine how you want the proof. Proof is proof. If there is an error in the proof then you must tell why? "narrative" is the wrong word. I gave an argument. I used facts to reach a conclusion. You must point out the faultiness of the argument directly or by giving a counterexample. This is a debate forum. You must actually debate here.

A character being able to perceive and catch a bullet from point blank range after it was fired has superhuman level reactions and perceptions. This is common sense. No proof is needed as everyone knows that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes I would. That's how it works. Sorry that these facts hurt your feelings.

You're right, I would have 10 seconds to prepare and move my hand in the way. Wouldn't require 1mm. 🙂

Unless you're claiming it took .4 seconds for the bullet to travel from the gun to his hand? Because that's the delay from when the gun is fired to when it shows his hand catching the bullet.

Even you, who is extremely mentally slow, should be able to move your Kevlar gloved hand in the way of the bullet in time to catch it.

Go ahead: explain to me you logic of the .4 second delay from when the gun is fired and when he catches. I'll wait.

I told you, there are two feets you haven't even considered yet that totally destroys any points you think you have.

The bullet will reach you in about 0.01 seconds after it is fired from that distance. Human reactions are at a max of about 0.2 seconds (more than 0.1 seconds). In 0.01 seconds you would have moved your hand 0 MM (I was being nice with the 1mm) as your brain wouldn't have processed the information that the gun fired yet.

Originally posted by h1a8
Proof is based off logic and reasoning and common sense. Proof can come in many forms.
Deductive reasoning counts as proof as well as inductive reasoning as well as math as well as science.

Lol no. Otherwise anyone could make anything up (as you do), and call it proof.

No clips, no commentary, just your word and your biased logic, is not proof lmao

Originally posted by h1a8
The bullet will reach you in about 0.01 seconds after it is fired from that distance. Human reactions are at a max of about 0.2 seconds (more than 0.1 seconds). In 0.01 seconds you would have moved your hand 0 MM (I was being nice with the 1mm) as your brain wouldn't have processed the information that the gun fired yet.

So you're admitting that there was some stylization taking place in the movie and time was reversed to show Ozy turning to his right to catch the bullet, right?

Or are you denying that the travel time for a bullet over 3 feet is less than .4 seconds?

Because, keep in mind, my point is that the time elapsed from the gun firing to Ozy catching the bullet is .4 seconds. That's facts seen on screen. So either the director/editor had some stylization added and the bullet didn't take that long to catch OR Ozy had .4 seconds to prepare to catch the bullet. 🙂

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Lol no. Otherwise anyone could make anything up (as you do), and call it proof.

No clips, no commentary, just your word and your biased logic, is not proof lmao

Go learn what deductive reasoning is, math is, inductive reasoning is, etc. Toll then you have no clue of what you are talking about.

Originally posted by h1a8
If my logic is biased and not universal then give an alternative explanation to rebutt my argument. I.e. an counterexample.

Go learn what deductive reasoning is, math is, inductive reasoning is, etc. Toll then you have no clue of what you are talking about.

Easy, Ozy didn't "have to" see the bullet in order to catch it. he could have predicted it's path based on where the gun was pointed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you're admitting that there was some stylization taking place in the movie and time was reversed to show Ozy turning to his right to catch the bullet, right?

Or are you denying that the travel time for a bullet over 3 feet is less than .4 seconds?

Because, keep in mind, my point is that the time elapsed from the gun firing to Ozy catching the bullet is .4 seconds. That's facts seen on screen. So either the director/editor had some stylization added and the bullet didn't take that long to catch OR Ozy had .4 seconds to prepare to catch the bullet. 🙂

Doesn't matter as Ozy moved AFTER the gun was shot, not before.

It takes about 0.01 seconds for the bullet to reach Ozy (not 0.4 seconds).

The scene was obviously shown in slow motion. The characters didn't even see him catch the bullet.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Easy, Ozy didn't "have to" see the bullet in order to catch it. he could have predicted it's path based on where the gun was pointed.

But he moved his hand after the gun was shot, not when she was pulling the trigger. He would have less than 0.01s to react. That means he had to have necessary and, therefore, superhuman reactions. These reactions implies perception of the bullet, due to the processing speed of the brain due to sight.

Also, it's impossible to move your limb faster than your reflexes would allow. This is because your brain is controlling and guiding the limb as it moves. So for Ozy to move his hand from his side to where the bullet was in less than 0.01s implies that his brain can perceive and control his hand moving at that speed.

To translate. Ozy would perceive Cap's attack in less than 0.05s. But the attack is far slower than a bullet so Ozy would need to move a hell of a lot slower to block/parry the attack. This would be unbelievably easy for him.

Originally posted by h1a8
But he moved his hand after the gun was shot, not when she was pulling the trigger. He would have less than 0.01s to react. That means he had to have necessary and, therefore, superhuman reactions. These reactions implies perception of the bullet, due to the processing speed of the brain due to sight.

Also, it's impossible to move your limb faster than your reflexes would allow. This is because your brain is controlling and guiding the limb as it moves. So for Ozy to move his hand from his side to where the bullet was in less than 0.01s implies that his brain can perceive and control his hand moving at that speed.

To translate. Ozy would perceive Cap's attack in less than 0.05s. But the attack is far slower than a bullet so Ozy would need to move a hell of a lot slower to block/parry the attack. This would be unbelievably easy for him.

When he moved his hand doesn't matter, the question we are having is about whether of not he "had to" see the bullet in order to catch it.

Reflexes and your ability to see something aren't the same thing.

IOW, you haven't refuted my example.

Originally posted by h1a8
Doesn't matter as Ozy moved AFTER the gun was shot, not before.

If you wish to pursue this line of reasoning that means the bullet took .4 seconds to reach him. lol

Originally posted by h1a8
The scene was obviously shown in slow motion. The characters didn't even see him catch the bullet.

It was not. I checked framerate references data in Openshot Video Editor (there are digital forensic artifacts created when video is slowed down and additional frames are created or multiple frames are combined making it impossible to hide slowing and speeding of video sequences - this does not hold true in lossless video formats and where the integrity of the video is maintained (meaning, if the video is compressed after all editing has been done to speed and then exported at a specific framerate)) and there is no slowing framerate during that sequence. None.

I did this by comparing the meta data hash values 3 different frames taken .1 seconds apart and they are the same which means nothing was sped up or slowed down. The control frame occurs .2 seconds before the visible blast can be seen from the gun. To ensure I didn't make a control frame reference error, I also took a reference frame from when they are talking at normal speed and there is no difference.

I also took a screenshot of the two feets references in the video to demonstrate that Ozymandias would lose to Captain America. It clearly shows the outcome of their fight and why Ozy's feets result in a loss, not a win.

https://i.imgur.com/TS8UliJ.png

Originally posted by Silent Master
When he moved his hand doesn't matter, the question we are having is about whether of not he "had to" see the bullet in order to catch it.

Reflexes and your ability to see something aren't the same thing.

IOW, you haven't refuted my example.

Reflexes based off sight and your ability to see something are the same.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you wish to pursue this line of reasoning that means the bullet took .4 seconds to reach him. lol

It was not. I checked framerate references data in Openshot Video Editor (there are digital forensic artifacts created when video is slowed down and additional frames are created or multiple frames are combined making it impossible to hide slowing and speeding of video sequences - this does not hold true in lossless video formats and where the integrity of the video is maintained (meaning, if the video is compressed after all editing has been done to speed and then exported at a specific framerate)) and there is no slowing framerate during that sequence. None.

I did this by comparing the meta data hash values 3 different frames taken .1 seconds apart and they are the same which means nothing was sped up or slowed down. The control frame occurs .2 seconds before the visible blast can be seen from the gun. To ensure I didn't make a control frame reference error, I also took a reference frame from when they are talking at normal speed and there is no difference.

I also took a screenshot of the two feets references in the video to demonstrate that Ozymandias would lose to Captain America. It clearly shows the outcome of their fight and why Ozy's feets result in a loss, not a win.

https://i.imgur.com/TS8UliJ.png

Before and after has nothing to do with speedup or slowdown of video.
Before and after is non debatable. The speed of the bullet is non debatable.

Originally posted by h1a8
Reflexes based off sight and your ability to see something are the same.

So now you're changing your argument from reflexes to reflexes based off sight. Where is your proof that he caught it via reflexes based off sight?

Originally posted by h1a8
Before and after has nothing to do with speedup or slowdown of video.
Before and after is non debatable. The speed of the bullet is non debatable.

In other words, you didn't read anything in my post.

So you concede the point. Finally.

Guys, it's over. He finally admitted he's wrong and that Ozy is not a bullet-timer.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So now you're changing your argument from reflexes to reflexes based off sight. Where is your proof that he caught it via reflexes based off sight?

I indirectly argued that based off assuming the opposite (which leads to a contradiction).

In other words, "Proof by Contradiction" is the method I used.

He had to react by sound or sight.
Assuming sound, then by the time sound reached him the bullet would almost have hit him (the bullet will slightly be behind the sound). This contradicts his hand movement. Therefore, Ozy reacted by sight.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In other words, you didn't read anything in my post.

So you concede the point. Finally.

Guys, it's over. He finally admitted he's wrong and that Ozy is not a bullet-timer.

Ozy is an actor. The actor who was filmed never moved with superspeed. Checking his actual actor speed is meaningless. We reference EVERYTHING off the speed of a bullet (what we know for sure). So him moving to catch the bullet in actor's speed is taken as an UNDERSTOOD slowdown in visual as per writer's intent.

Again arguing that Ozy didn't move to catch the bullet after it was fired is trolling. Or that the bullet was far slower (40x to be precise) than an actual bullet is also trolling. Dadudemon I'm not going to argue on that anymore. You can take a lack of response as a concession if you want but in reality I will be avoiding being obviously trolled.