Assaulted by a paint ball gun...



stevebaby said:
Your entire "argument" is predicated on a bullet fired exactly vertically.
As I have repeatedly pointed out,this is not possible.The best result that could be achieved is an approximation only.
You still can't show how to fire a bullet exactly vertically,can you?
Why not?
While you're at it,show how it can be done with a hand-held weapon.
caca says that bullets fired straight up will fall base first,btw.
:D :D :D
No steve, I said it didnt fall point first. Twisting my words now, huh?:rolleyes:

steve, seriously, get on the sauce, get off this discussion and move on. Youve been proven wrong more times than I can count so far.:rolleyes:

And, your argument about the Army's test was for bullets fired... wait for it... its coming... vertically.:rolleyes: Keep shooting yourself in the foot. Youll run out of ammo sooner or later, right?:rolleyes:
 
cucamelsmd15 said:
What happened steve? Always ballistic trajectory? Base first isnt ballistic trajectory steve.

Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop:rolleyes:
So you think it falls base first...and wobbie says it tumbles...so which of you is right?
:D :D :D
 
stevebaby said:
So you think it falls base first...and wobbie says it tumbles...so which of you is right?
:D :D :D
I didnt say it falls base first steve. Do you even know how to read?:rolleyes:
 
stevebaby said:
Your entire "argument" is predicated on a bullet fired exactly vertically.
As I have repeatedly pointed out,this is not possible.The best result that could be achieved is an approximation only.
You still can't show how to fire a bullet exactly vertically,can you?
Why not?
While you're at it,show how it can be done with a hand-held weapon.
caca says that bullets fired straight up will fall base first,btw.
:D :D :D
Yes, my argument was based on bullets fired vertically, and so was yours when you quoted the 1920's Army study. It is possible, they did it. Are you saying the Army's study is lying because you think its impossible to put it on a stand and fire it vertically? Hell, Mythbusters even did it.

Like I also said before, it doesnt matter if its vertical or not. +/- 20 degrees is close enough to vertical for the bullet to not maintain a ballistic trajectory on its descent because of the altitude reached, and the loss of spin.

By the way, I didnt see you take my challenge a few pages back, and youve continued to post garbage, like I told you not to do. I have also explained, using the laws of physics how a bullet will fall, not how you think it will fall. It doesnt matter what you think, physics is still physics, and they prove my point, and not yours. :D :D :D
 
cucamelsmd15 said:
No steve. Most people call me, Doctor. You need to get back on the sauce steve:rolleyes:

What is it exactly you do steve? Whats your job, if you have one:rolleyes:
So why would they call you "doctor"?
You don't have a PHD and you aren't a medical doctor.
What have you been telling people,that they would address you by a title that you have no entitlement to?
:D :D :D
 
stevebaby said:
So why would they call you "doctor"?
You don't have a PHD and you aren't a medical doctor.
What have you been telling people,that they would address you by a title that you have no entitlement to?
:D :D :D
Pharm D.= Doctor of Pharmacy you idiot. Please steve, just shut up now. And yes, I am entitled to the title of Doctor.:rolleyes:

http://pharmacy.ucsf.edu/pharmd/

Now what steve?:rolleyes: Even a quick google search would have pulled that. Looks like youre wrong, again:rolleyes:
 
stevebaby said:
The "values"? Higher than what?
This is just gibberish.Can't you even write a sentence?
So what you are struggling to write is...the most recent figures are more accurate? This being the case...you agree with me?
Or are you trying to say that the figure from the 1920's is more accurate...in which case you are contradicting yourself...again.
Do you have even a glimmer of what you're trying to say or is it the drugs talking?
And you claim to be doing a PHD? If PHD's are bestowed on idiots whose idea of an argument in support of an assertion is..."You're stupid" and "Shut up" then it can only be concluded that you are attending Hamburger U and getting your qualifications from a roll on the toilet wall.
Just have a look at the absolute drivel you have posted.
:D :D :D
Nope...I asked you if that were the case.
You still haven't replied.
 
stevebaby said:
So why would they call you "doctor"?
You don't have a PHD and you aren't a medical doctor.
What have you been telling people,that they would address you by a title that you have no entitlement to?
:D :D :D
Most pharmacist these days have a Doctor of Pharmacy, otherwise known as the PharmD. That does earn him the title of Doctor.
 
cucamelsmd15 said:
You specifically said the most recent figures are more accurate, and those figures state that (as Rob as said) most experts lean towards 100+ ft/lbs of energy.

Youre so confused steve, you cant figure out if youre coming or going:rolleyes:

Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop:rolleyes:
So the figure of 60ft/lbs that you quoted from hatcher...right or wrong?
:D :D
 
SkinnyRob said:
Most pharmacist these days have a Doctor of Pharmacy, otherwise known as the PharmD. That does earn him the title of Doctor.
How do you fire a bullet exactly vertically?
:D :D :D
 
cucamelsmd15 said:
I quoted the Army study, not hatcher.

Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop. You do more of this than George W and John Kerry, combined steve:rolleyes:
Who conducted the study?
What was hatcher's rank?
 
stevebaby said:
Who conducted the study?
What was hatcher's rank?
Hatcher wrote it in the notebook, that is often cited. The Army conducted the study. Hatcher was a Major. Come on steve, gonna have to do better than this:rolleyes:
 
stevebaby said:
You don't know that either,do you? :D :D :D
steve, you dont have an argument left. Please just spare us all, and drop the subject. Youve been proven wrong at least 10 times now.:rolleyes:
 
cucamelsmd15 said:
I quoted the Army study, not hatcher.

Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop. You do more of this than George W and John Kerry, combined steve:rolleyes:
Which figure is correct...the one that you quoted (60ft/lbs) or the one that wobbie quoted (100 ft/lbs)?
:D :D :D
 

Similar threads

D
Replies
14
Views
675
N
S
Replies
105
Views
3K
UK and Europe
David Martin
D
S
Replies
74
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
L
Replies
0
Views
632
Road Cycling
Lioninoil_a T_n
L