Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
SMDH,, h1 still being ignorant
Originally posted by Silent Master
h1 still can't tell the difference between facts and his opinion.
Originally posted by KingD19
No, no, no. It's h1 thinking his opinion is better than facts.
Suddenly everything makes sense.
Edit: Made it to five, I apologise.
Originally posted by TheVaultDwellerYes I am trying to apply RL to a movie. Otherwise, he can't prove anything. If a bullet can hit the joint of a fly without striking the fly or the wing then certainly the bullet can strike the wing square on and knock it off the fly by the joint. Both are equally stupid, but I choose the latter.
Because we visibly see the three flies and their cleanly severed wings in Sloan's palm. And are you actually trying to apply RL dynamics to a movie where people were shooting bullets around corners?
I already told you how it happened. He rode his car onto the hood of Fox's, at an angle, and flipped it over. Cars have been flipped in a similar manner in RL before. Real people can't accelerate their heart to over 400 beats a minute via willpower. So good job presenting absolutely zero proper evidence to support your claim.
I just rewatched the scene. Wesley at that point already was in control of his ability. He was already in amped mode when he first shot at the target at the bulletproof window and driving very fast.
It is either theoretically possible or within the suspension of disbelief. It takes very fast hands to achieve this, assuming it is theoretically possible.
And shooting a guy around a corner, without the aid of a ricochet, literally defies the laws of physics, yet Wesley can do it.
Originally posted by Surtur
So wait, are you saying you feel someone in the real world could pull off that shot if given the same equipment?
No, I'm saying it's possible that someone can. DS most certainly can do it.
Remember Wesley's ability gives him slower perception and super speed, not necessarily super aim. In one scene (after Wesley was able to shoot the wings off the fly) he was training in target practice and his shots were all over the place. He shot the paper target several times and the bullet holes were spread.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Again, you have no proof that DS didn't hit the same target without any deviation of 1mm. You can't say "Because the hole didn't look bigger" because you literally won't be able to see 1mm difference from that distance. This is common sense dude.Also, 40-100 yards is a made up number. If you knew anything about judging distances especially indoors you'd know that those targets were around 30 yards max.
Finally, you know nothing about archery. If you don't hit the back of your arrow at the exact center then your arrow will veer off to the side. For you to actually jam your arrow through another arrow, you have to hit the exact center. So yes, it is possible for normal humans to hit the exact same target more than once.
Now answer me this, give e an example of a person shooting a fly.
The proof is that the hole didn't look any bigger than a single bullet hole and MOST IMPORTANTLY it was the INTENTION OF THE WRITER.
If you don't accept that proof then try this:
If each shot was off 1mm or more then 10 shots would be off 1 cm (which is 2 bullet hole sizes). The fact the DS fired many bullets in the same hole without the hole appearing larger than a single bullet hole proves he had at least 1mm accuracy with most of his shots.
Originally posted by h1a8
Yes I am trying to apply RL to a movie. Otherwise, he can't prove anything. If a bullet can hit the joint of a fly without striking the fly or the wing then certainly the bullet can strike the wing square on and knock it off the fly by the joint. Both are equally stupid, but I choose the latter.
And bullets can curve theoretically (definitely if thrown a certain way). It depends on the spin and the velocity of the bullet. Like a curve ball in baseball.
Bottomline: All that matters is if it is within the suspension of disbelief.
And the key phrase there is "I choose the latter". So, with that, I am fully entitled to choose the former as an explanation. The point of the film was that these guys could do things that are supposedly, "impossible".
Hell, take the heartbeat thing. If your heart actually had to speed up that fast, to over 400 beats a minute, you'd have very serious problems. Not gain abilities.
And throwing things doesn't exactly apply the same way here. When people curve a baseball, the ball doesn't need to travel along a narrow, straight barrel first.
Originally posted by h1a8
I just rewatched the scene. Wesley at that point already was in control of his ability. He was already in amped mode when he first shot at the target at the bulletproof window and driving very fast.
So he was amped because he shot a window while driving? That's not exactly solid evidence. Action stars across a score of different movies have fired at people while driving before, and the vast majority of them did not have superpowers.
Originally posted by h1a8
It is either theoretically possible or within the suspension of disbelief. It takes very fast hands to achieve this, assuming it is theoretically possible.
To shoot around a curve, like they actually did it in the film, would only be possible if we start applying quantum mechanics. And quantum mechanics also says that it is theoretically possible to move right through a brick wall. So not really useful in application here.
Originally posted by h1a8
No, I'm saying it's possible that someone can. DS most certainly can do it.
Remember Wesley's ability gives him slower perception and super speed, not necessarily super aim. In one scene (after Wesley was able to shoot the wings off the fly) he was training in target practice and his shots were all over the place. He shot the paper target several times and the bullet holes were spread..
Hmm okay. So what kind of scientist are you supposed to be?
Originally posted by h1a8The proof is that the hole didn't look any bigger than a single bullet hole and MOST IMPORTANTLY it was the INTENTION OF THE WRITER.
If you don't accept that proof then try this:
If each shot was off 1mm or more then 10 shots would be off 1 cm (which is 2 bullet hole sizes). The fact the DS fired many bullets in the same hole without the hole appearing larger than a single bullet hole proves he had at least 1mm accuracy with most of his shots.
1. Most bullet diameters will be around 1 cm, which means a 1 cm hole is the size of ONE bullet, not 2.
2. If he was hitting his target at not exactly the same spot but say with a 1 mm deviation, whatever the overlapping area of his shots were would be where the hole would be bored through. It wouldn't necessarily be any bigger in size than 1 bullet's diameter worth because you need multiple shots to make the hole and only in the spot where it overlaps will the hole be.
3. You claimed that the targets were between 40 - 100 yards (a number that's completely off mind you) and then you claimed that you can clearly see that he didn't even deviate by 1 mm. Do you hear yourself? You can't see such a tiny measurement from a distance like that.
4. You don't know what writer's intention is. Stop making stuff up.
5. You still haven't addressed my point that people in the real world are able to hit the exact same spot they previously hit as I mentioned in my archery example. Yet no person in the world (that we know of) has ever shot a fly.
Originally posted by FrothByte
1. Most bullet diameters will be around 1 cm, which means a 1 cm hole is the size of ONE bullet, not 2.
No, I said if the shots are within 1cm distance then at worst the size of the hole would be 2cm in length.
2. If he was hitting his target at not exactly the same spot but say with a 1 mm deviation, whatever the overlapping area of his shots were would be where the hole would be bored through. It wouldn't necessarily be any bigger in size than 1 bullet's diameter worth because you need multiple shots to make the hole and only in the spot where it overlaps will the hole be.
3. You claimed that the targets were between 40 - 100 yards (a number that's completely off mind you) and then you claimed that you can clearly see that he didn't even deviate by 1 mm. Do you hear yourself? You can't see such a tiny measurement from a distance like that.
Of course I do. It's common sense. A close up was shown and the hole looked exactly like one bullet went through. The makers of the movie created the SINGLE HOLE in the target. Will Smith obviously didn't shoot the hole in the target. He's just an actor pretending. The hole was created by the set workers. It was a single hole created to APPEAR AS A SINGLE BULLET HOLE.4. You don't know what writer's intention is. Stop making stuff up.
5. You still haven't addressed my point that people in the real world are able to hit the exact same spot they previously hit as I mentioned in my archery example. Yet no person in the world (that we know of) has ever shot a fly.
I did. You didn't read my reply? I rebutted it beautifully.
Originally posted by TheVaultDwellerAgreed. Since Both are reasonable explanations then we can't know for sure.
And the key phrase there is "I choose the latter". So, with that, I am fully entitled to choose the former as an explanation. The point of the film was that these guys could do things that are supposedly, "impossible".
agreed. But we assume they were mutants since it was implied that only a few could do it. Thus we still have the suspension of disbelief.Hell, take the heartbeat thing. If your heart actually had to speed up that fast, to over 400 beats a minute, you'd have very serious problems. Not gain abilities.
irrelevant, since I said THEORETICALLY. A baseball and bullet could theoretically be thrown horizontal to the ground (similar to traveling through a narrow straight barrel) while being spinned.And throwing things doesn't exactly apply the same way here. When people curve a baseball, the ball doesn't need to travel along a narrow, straight barrel first.
So he was amped because he shot a window while driving? That's not exactly solid evidence. Action stars across a score of different movies have fired at people while driving before, and the vast majority of them did not have superpowers.
It was established in the movie that fraternity members are amped when they are shooting at a target. It would make 0 sense not to be.
To shoot around a curve, like they actually did it in the film, would only be possible if we start applying quantum mechanics. And quantum mechanics also says that it is theoretically possible to move right through a brick wall. So not really useful in application here.
If you can spin the bullet with sufficient angular velocity while it is traveling through the barrel then it is possible. Otherwise, it is impossible.
The bullet was possibly thrown out of the the gun at an angle with a spin on it. For example, as the bullet is traveling through the barrel the shooter flicks his hand at an incredible speed and causes the bullet to strike the inside of the barrel and come out of the nozzle at an angle with a huge spin.
Originally posted by h1a8
No, I said if the shots are within 1cm distance then at worst the size of the hole would be 2cm in length.But you must understand that if he puts MANY bullets through the same hole then the Vast majority of them were within 1mm of the first shot.
We do not know exact distance. The scene gave a close up to the bullet holes After the demonstration. The hole looked exactly like ONE bullet went through. This was the writer's intention.
Of course I do. It's common sense. A close up was shown and the hole looked exactly like one bullet went through. The makers of the movie created the SINGLE HOLE in the target. Will Smith obviously didn't shoot the hole in the target. He's just an actor pretending. The hole was created by the set workers. It was a single hole created to APPEAR AS A SINGLE BULLET HOLE.
I did. You didn't read my reply? I rebutted it beautifully.
So now you're conceding that DS didn't shoot at exactly the same spot every single time but rather within 1mm distance from his first shots?
And no, you did not rebut my point about the arrow and the fly. I went back through your post and not once did you mention it.
Originally posted by FrothByteNo im not conceding it. Just arguing another point (tangent).
So now you're conceding that DS didn't shoot at exactly the same spot every single time but rather within 1mm distance from his first shots?And no, you did not rebut my point about the arrow and the fly. I went back through your post and not once did you mention it.
I apologize. I had but didn't hit submit on my computer. Don't know why it wasn't there?
I'll just address it now.
An arrow and target are generally larger than 1mm in diameter. So hitting the same target (or shooting the back of an arrow with another arrow) doesn't mean 1mm accuracy. Also hitting a target MANY TIMES IN A Row with a deviation of 1mm or less is astronomically HARDER than hitting it ONCE.
Originally posted by h1a8
No im not conceding it. Just arguing another point (tangent).I apologize. I had but didn't hit submit on my computer. Don't know why it wasn't there?
I'll just address it now.
An arrow and target are generally larger than 1mm in diameter. So hitting the same target (or shooting the back of an arrow with another arrow) doesn't mean 1mm accuracy. Also hitting a target MANY TIMES IN A Row with a deviation of 1mm or less is astronomically HARDER than hitting it ONCE.
Arrow diameters are usually smaller than bullet diameters. And like I mentioned before, you have to hit the arrow at the exact center otherwise your arrow will deflect to the side.
And yes, hitting the same spot multiple times in a row is harder but I'm just showing that DS's feat is at least partially doable in real life. But you won't find anyone who can even approach the feat of shooting a fly let alone it's wings
Originally posted by h1a8
Agreed. Since Both are reasonable explanations then we can't know for sure.
agreed. But we assume they were mutants since it was implied that only a few could do it. Thus we still have the suspension of disbelief.
irrelevant, since I said THEORETICALLY. A baseball and bullet could theoretically be thrown horizontal to the ground (similar to traveling through a narrow straight barrel) while being spinned.
Unless you can post a clip of someone curving a baseball in a circle, and hitting themselves in the temple with it, it is not quite the same. Because that is one of the more extreme examples of a bullet curve we see onscreen.
Originally posted by h1a8
It was established in the movie that fraternity members are amped when they are shooting at a target. It would make 0 sense not to be.
So you are claiming every single shot in the film was done while amped? Okay, prove it.
Originally posted by h1a8
If you can spin the bullet with sufficient angular velocity while it is traveling through the barrel then it is possible. Otherwise, it is impossible.The bullet was possibly thrown out of the the gun at an angle with a spin on it. For example, as the bullet is traveling through the barrel the shooter flicks his hand at an incredible speed and causes the bullet to strike the inside of the barrel and come out of the nozzle at an angle with a huge spin.
The Germans tried to do something similar by making curved barrels to shoot over/around things during WW2. There is a reason the invention did not last until today. It was not very successful. Often the bullets would fragment into tiny pieces, the barrels would break after relatively few shots, and a lot of the energy would be lost because of the bullet hitting and the scraping along the curve as it moved down the barrel.
So there is a much better chance that the bullet would simply fragment as it hit the inside of the barrel, as opposed to flying around a 90 degree corner.
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Unless you can post a clip of someone curving a baseball in a circle, and hitting themselves in the temple with it, it is not quite the same. Because that is one of the more extreme examples of a bullet curve we see onscreen.So you are claiming every single shot in the film was done while amped? Okay, prove it.
The Germans tried to do something similar by making curved barrels to shoot over/around things during WW2. There is a reason the invention did not last until today. It was not very successful. Often the bullets would fragment into tiny pieces, the barrels would break after relatively few shots, and a lot of the energy would be lost because of the bullet hitting and the scraping along the curve as it moved down the barrel.
So there is a much better chance that the bullet would simply fragment as it hit the inside of the barrel, as opposed to flying around a 90 degree corner.
True, but it would take a tremendous amount of effort to prove that it's impossible. Again it's still within the suspension of disbelief since projectiles can curve in the air.
Every shot from a fraternity member was done amped since
1. It was shown and implied many times.
2. It increases the chance of success WITHOUT COST. Its a free advantage.
3. It literally makes absolutely no sense to go and assassinate someone without being amped, insuring success at the highest possible probability. What would be the logical reason to not be amped? It doesn't cost anything. You increase chance of failure tremendously without being amped.
I'm not sure how hitting the barrel with the bullet will effect the bullet or gun since the bullet is not hitting the barrel head on (like in your curved barrel example. It's more like the barrel is parrying the bullet on the side. That's why it's still within the suspension of disbelief. If there is no proof to why something is false then it can be accepted under the suspension of disbelief in order to precede with the debate.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Arrow diameters are usually smaller than bullet diameters. And like I mentioned before, you have to hit the arrow at the exact center otherwise your arrow will deflect to the side.And yes, hitting the same spot multiple times in a row is harder but I'm just showing that DS's feat is at least partially doable in real life. But you won't find anyone who can even approach the feat of shooting a fly let alone it's wings
I disagree. With enough momentum even an arrow shot slightly off center will penetrate another arrow without being deflected. Also the distance is important too. It's easier to achieve the feat from close than from a distance.
Shooting the wings off a fly is IMPOSSIBLE due to the size of a bullet and a fly. The feat was achieved by the slowing of the perceptions and not the increase of accuracy. In other scenes, Wesley was worst in shooting a still target from a larger distance. DS can't do the fly feat because he has human perceptions. Wesley can't do the DS feat because he doesn't have the consistency of accuracy.
Finally, what DS did is humanly impossible but not impossible.
Originally posted by h1a8
True, but it would take a tremendous amount of effort to prove that it's impossible. Again it's still within the suspension of disbelief since projectiles can curve in the air.
Curve in the air, sure. We've seen football players curve balls with kicks as well. Fly in a complete circle. Not so much.
Originally posted by h1a8
Every shot from a fraternity member was done amped since
1. It was shown and implied many times.
2. It increases the chance of success WITHOUT COST. Its a free advantage.
3. It literally makes absolutely no sense to go and assassinate someone without being amped, insuring success at the highest possible probability. What would be the logical reason to not be amped? It doesn't cost anything. You increase chance of failure tremendously without being amped.
And I can say that given the fluctuations in shot accuracy, not all shots were done while amped. Take that car scene itself. His first two shots are done while driving levelly and, while they are fairly close, there is some space between them. And, based on the trajectory, they actually look like they could have missed. Compare that to the third shot. He is flying through the air in a spinning car, has a very brief moment in which to make the shot, but manages to hit the guy center mass with seemingly casual ease. To me, that implies that he was amped for the third shot, but not the first two.
Because Wesley was rushing jobs sometimes, eager to get to Cross, and was getting frustrated that Sloan kept giving him other hits. And that made him a bit sloppy on a few occasions.
Originally posted by h1a8
I'm not sure how hitting the barrel with the bullet will effect the bullet or gun since the bullet is not hitting the barrel head on (like in your curved barrel example. It's more like the barrel is parrying the bullet on the side. That's why it's still within the suspension of disbelief. If there is no proof to why something is false then it can be accepted under the suspension of disbelief in order to precede with the debate.
The barrels had a gradual curve on those weapons. It was not like the bullet was bouncing off a sharp corner. The fact that the closest RL example of bullets being directed in that way tended to end in failure implies that having a bullet deflecting off the inside of the barrel does more harm than good.
Anyway, we're literally just debating semantics at this point, and have moved somewhat away from the actual topic. So I think we might as well call it quits here. You think Deadshot wins. I think Wesley wins. We both interpret the way in which the adrenaline rush ability works differently. And you don't seem like you are going to budge your stance. And I know I am not going to budge mine. So we can either agree to disagree, or keep debating in circles until we get progressively more annoyed with each other, which doesn't serve any good purpose.