Yeah ... you and Mando have how many hours in a F4-U or any armed WWII fighter plane ? Let me guess ... 0 hours ... thats what I thought.
Extreme empiricism. Again.
Logically ... he knows more than you and has far more experience on this topic than you could ever garner. Logically ... I choose him and not you.
Nobody forced anyone to choose anything. Listening to reasoning and thinking about it, is not a matter of "choice" but a matter of logic.
What you're saying is basically a McDonald employee who made burgers for years knows more about nutrition and health than people who read about it from Medical books, because he handled more food in real life. Experience gives you absolute knowledge, eh?
When it comes to choosing between him or you ... you lose hands down. His word is far more concrete than you could ever dream of ... he DID fly combat missions ... you DID NOT ... he DID fly an F4-U Corsair ... you HAVE NOT. If the two of you were testifying to a jury as experts ... you would lose hands down.
In your way of thinking perhaps. Since you don't require any thinking, any logic, any analysis, any data, and any proving process.
You're the guy who picks up the Bible, opens a passage, and tells people,
"Here, it says so right here. So I believe this divine authority, not human logic." You'd have made a great inquistor in the medieval ages, I'll give you that.
Tony nor Emmanuel have not weighed in yet on this thread/topic. Until they do, and empirically disprove what this vet says ... you still loose hands down to the vet.
It's a matter of time. Tony probably won't wanna break it to you the hard way or would wanna be involved in this feud you create - as you always do. But hypothetically, if Tony or Emmanuel does intervene, and supports my claim over yours, what are you gonna do? Suck up all your empiricism and suddenly turn sides?
One thing for certain it'd be an interesting thing for the rest of us to watch.
Nice try ... prove the vet wrong.
We already have.
Actually, in terms of logic, you'd probably have to prove that what he mentioned in his interview is 100% literal, and no exaggeration, or figurative speech was used. You first have to prove that when he said "rip a box car in half", he meant not destroying it easily, but in exactly in half in a surgical strike, as you would see .50s ripping off wings cleanly from the root like it does in AH.
But oh wait. You don't like logic.
Besides, don't try to turn this into us vs. him. It never was us vs. him.
It's;
YOUR PERSONAL. SECOND-HAND INTERPRETATION OF WHAT A CERTAIN VET MENTIONED IN THE INTERVIEW vs.
OUR BULLSHI* CALL ON YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE VET SAID.
It's us against you, not us against vet. Don't try to hide behind someone else's authority.
Again, you're showing a typical medieval age attitude. Somebody raises questions to the church and their interpretation of the Bible, and then the church accuses the individual for heresy and burns him at the stake.
And how would you know that I have no knowledge whatsoever in what shooting stuff is like ? You know nothing about me, yet you can make that assumption ... so very much like the assumptions and logic that you have been applying to this discussion ... total conjecture on your part ... not a very scientific approach for one that holds it so high.
You didn't seem to show diddly-squat of a hesitation in assuming that I had no knowledge in firearms.
So ok. Did you ride in 6x .50 armed planes and shoot at a box car? Did they "rip in half"?
You really crack me up ... I never claimed to know what it was like ... that is why I passed on what I heard from someone who did claim to know what it is like ... and has the history to prove it. Something that you drastically lack yet try to get others to believe that you "know what it was like". You have absolutly NOTHING to back your claims ... you never do.
There are ideas and logical doubts presented here in this thread by some people. They certainly did not come from you. Not one piece of original thought. You're every word is based on an interview you saw. And then you go as far as to claim he is the bible in reciting the effects of gun damage to physical objects.
Like always, you say a lot, try to smear someone, and yet have no substance whatsoever.
Let me refresh you ... I am the one that is saying that a 6 gunned .50 cal Corsair can cut a boxcar in half at 800 yards.
Which, is your personal interpretation on some interview. We, who are skeptical of you, interpret it in a different way.
I did say in a previous post that as far as I am concerned ... the jury is still out on the "bouncing" .50 cals as far as I am concerned. I have only read the "urban legend" on this BBS, but I have yet to see anyone, which includes you, produce scientific evidence that it is unequivocably impossible.
Do you really believe this load of horsecrap you're saying? If I were you I'd be either out of my mind, or be pretty embarassed to say something like this, since it's clearly a pathetic bid to keep alive an argument which is in everyway already hopeless.
Dig up the penetration angles and charts which has been mentioned again and again in this forum, and tell me if a AP round that bounces of asphalt can penetrate a tank underbelly with substantial portion of its kinetic energy lost, at an insufficient angle, and with a deformed round due to impact.
So get your Radio Shack scientific calculator out and give us the ... physical object travelling at X miles of speed at Y angles of impact will or will not penetrate Z thickness of metal that proves it completely impossible. Make sure it's indepth and totally complete ... hope you have access to a Cray.
Take out a book and read Slap. It's in the stores.
It's quite amazing you come this far arguing so many stuff, trying to discredit so many people, ideas, and suggestions, with just a single passage of dialogue from a single interview of a single person, without producing a single piece of evidence or logical refutal.
Your entire posting tendency is based on someone else's words. Unless someone does not give you material to tamper and warp, you cannot post anything original, or any idea or suggestion or logical process of thinking of your own.
At least Brenjen has the decency to post about what he thinks, and what he deems to know as true, and then tries to describe to us how and why that is true. He thinks Slap. You don't.
That's why we have no reason to do mud-slinging crap with him. We can discuss this with him, and we can compare our views and ideas with him.
With you, everytime you step up into a discussion it becomes an environmental disaster.
Why?
Because you don't think. You argue before you think, and then you need someone else's words in order to keep the argument going.
