I know that no human can accualy see the bullet moving troguh the air and move out of the way, but of course you can see your opponent moving the gun at you and get out of the line of fire before he or she can shoot. Now this is very nice and all, but unless by some amazing random probability there is a massive amour-plated wall right beside you or your opponent has a huge case of ADD your opponent can shoot you again while your throwing your self to the side because your in the air longer the the recoil is or whatever, but in short you will be dead anyway. But at a certain point when your opponent is squezing the trigger he can't really change his or her mind but you can still move. Now let us say the time between when your opponent can't really change the path of the bullet and when the bullet accully leaves the barrel is caled "x". Nowit is possible if your opponent is inexperienced or if you have insanely amazing reflexes that the time period of "x" is long enough for you to "dodge" the bullet and continously preform this untill your opponent gives up or you charge him or her while he or she is reloading. Do you agree with this? By the way im not talkng about fully automatics. Please elaborate.



Thank you.

I know that no human can accualy see the bullet moving troguh the air and move out of the way, but of course you can see your opponent moving the gun at you and get out of the line of fire before he or she can shoot. Now this is very nice and all, but unless by some amazing random probability there is a massive amour-plated wall right beside you or your opponent has a huge case of ADD your opponent can shoot you again while your throwing your self to the side because your in the air longer the the recoil is or whatever, but in short you will be dead anyway. But at a certain point when your opponent is squezing the trigger he can't really change his or her mind but you can still move. Now let us say the time between when your opponent can't really change the path of the bullet and when the bullet accully leaves the barrel is caled "x". Nowit is possible if your opponent is inexperienced or if you have insanely amazing reflexes that the time period of "x" is long enough for you to "dodge" the bullet and continously preform this untill your opponent gives up or you charge him or her while he or she is reloading. Do you agree with this? By the way im not talkng about fully automatics. Please elaborate.



Thank you.



they modeled the movie matrix after seeing me training, you said no human can see the bullet in the air then move out of the way, well i can,


but im not human, i am shaolin,

its called shaolin iron bulletproof chest, it is an ancient method from 10 thousand years ago, when they used wooden guns, with chi ball bullets etc,

peace,

http://users.skynet.be/neo3225/gif/1.gif
It would be interesting to figure out how fast a person would need to move in order to dodge a bullet. In a scenario where the shooter's aim was correct, I'm thinking the issues to consider would involve the follwing factors:
1. speed at which the bullet moves
2. reaction time of the target (ability to be aware of the incoming bullet, and react).
3. distance from the target
4. Speed at which the target is able to move themselves/the specific body part from the path of the bullet.
5. whether the target was already in motion when the gun was fired, and which way they would need go to change direction.

Ok, so according to google, a normal bullet from a hunting rifle moves at ~2700 feet per second. I think this means that anyone at a range under 2700 feet has less than a second to meet the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and potentially 5th conditions right?
That thing is moving half a mile every second. From the first glance I dunno.... in normal "non matrix" reality doesn't really look too promising.

http://users.skynet.be/neo3225/gif/1.gif
It would be interesting to figure out how fast a person would need to move in order to dodge a bullet. In a scenario where the shooter's aim was correct, I'm thinking the issues to consider would involve the follwing factors:
1. speed at which the bullet moves
2. reaction time of the target (ability to be aware of the incoming bullet, and react).
3. distance from the target
4. Speed at which the target is able to move themselves/the specific body part from the path of the bullet.
5. whether the target was already in motion when the gun was fired, and which way they would need go to change direction.

Ok, so according to google, a normal bullet from a hunting rifle moves at ~2700 feet per second. I think this means that anyone at a range under 2700 feet has less than a second to meet the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and potentially 5th conditions right?
That thing is moving half a mile every second. From the first glance I dunno.... in normal "non matrix" reality doesn't really look too promising.

Yes. Plus the fact that most people would be shooting from distances MUCH less than a half-mile away - say 20 or 30 yards - means you would have only a tiny fraction of a second to see, react, and move out of the way. And even ignoring the reaction time (which is a full 3/4 of a second under best conditions), no human can possibly move that fast.

In short, Chi's claim is... ahhh... ridiculous.

Not only that, but at the ranges where you could potentially dodge the bullet, the bullet would reach your location before the sound from the gun being fired (bullet moves faster than the speed of sound). Seeing as how there is absultely no way to actually visually observe the bullet flying towards you in midflight, sound is the only thing you could possibly use to gain any awareness that it's coming towards you.

Not only that, but at the ranges where you could potentially dodge the bullet, the bullet would reach your location before the sound from the gun being fired (bullet moves faster than the speed of sound). Seeing as how there is absultely no way to actually visually observe the bullet flying towards you in midflight, sound is the only thing you could possibly use to gain any awareness that it's coming towards you.

Well, there's still the muzzle flash IF you happen to be looking directly at it. But again, what can any human do with only a fraction of a second warning? The best anyone could hope to do anticipate and guess which way to jump. But keep in mind that the shooter is doing that too and he can change his aiming point MUCH faster than you can change direction! ;) Once you've began to move, you're committed to inertia and can't change directions instantly.

So the whole idea is nothing more than science fiction and Hollywood's version of reality.

I've always wondered if moving that fast would cause friction burns.

I've always wondered if moving that fast would cause friction burns.

HA! :D

Yeah, the wind resistance would burn your clothes (and skin) right off you! ;)

Many times, while shooting many guns, I have seen the bullet as it flew through the air. The first time was when I was about 10 and Daddy was teaching me to shoot a 22 short rifle. The last time, by pure coincidence, was a time that I fired my 44 cap and ball revolver. While I have not had the pleasure ( ? ) of watching a bullet as it came closer rather than receding, I know from my personal experience that bullets can be seen.

While I believe that I have reflexes and eyesight above average, there are definitely many who are far superior to me. Babe Ruth once proved to a reporter that he could read a license plate number so far away that the reporter could not even tell what color it was.

I have no doubt that a gunshot just far enough away could be seen and evaded.

However, if I ever catch a burgler in my house ( not a very big one ), that crook better not depend on being a sufficiently artful dodger. Nobody can move THAT fast.

Many times, while shooting many guns, I have seen the bullet as it flew through the air.

I'm inclined towards utter disbelief.

Perhaps you are too much of a natural born wimp to have very much real physical ability.

A person who is born blind will utterly never, ever be inclined to believe what a color is.

Did "daddy" teach you how to be big and strong and shoot guns? I'm so impressed. Are those forearms from lifting hay bales or jacking men off in bathroom stalls?

Romgirl:

Lifting hay bales, throwing them, and catching them on my uncle's farm and other such real work is how I got large arms. What would a wimp like you know about that?

You are the only one who knows anything about anything else in toilet stalls.

You obviously have many reason to be impressed by anyone you come into contact with.

Thank you for the recognition. And thank you for something else. Before seeing your crap, I did not understand something. I did not know how querilous some people are.
You are really querying me. Tell us, how did you get to be so obsessed with querying?

And, even if one moron refuses to utterly believe it, I have, on numerous occaisions, seen bullets in their flight out of my gun when I have fired them.

Many times, while shooting many guns, I have seen the bullet as it flew through the air. The first time was when I was about 10 and Daddy was teaching me to shoot a 22 short rifle. The last time, by pure coincidence, was a time that I fired my 44 cap and ball revolver. While I have not had the pleasure ( ? ) of watching a bullet as it came closer rather than receding, I know from my personal experience that bullets can be seen.

LOL @ "the pleasure of watching incoming bullets"
I'm thinkin there is a definate difference between low grain/giant BB guns, and the kind of stuff the potential opponent would use to shoot a person with.

Also-- in order to see the shooter's muzzle flash from bullet dodging range (somewhere way over 2700 feet away) it would need to be night time right? Unless they fired a tracer round, how is it possible to see an incoming bullet at night?

they modeled the movie matrix after seeing me training, you said no human can see the bullet in the air then move out of the way, well i can,


but im not human, i am shaolin,

its called shaolin iron bulletproof chest, it is an ancient method from 10 thousand years ago, when they used wooden guns, with chi ball bullets etc,

peace,

You know, if anybody else made this post, I'd think it was tongue in cheek, but having seen what horrendous BS emptyForceofChi spouts elsewhere, this retard probably thinks they can do this.

This kid is full of shit, not Chi!

LOL
I'd say both are.

Many times, while shooting many guns, I have seen the bullet as it flew through the air.

Do you think, just maybe, that this has something to do with your gun sights looking along the line of trajectory of the bullet, kinda?

I mean, that's what sights do! Your eye is already lined up to look at the back of a bullet, and as it moves in a parabola, what you see is it slowly drop in your field of view, and you don't notice how fast it's moving away, it's a small dot that gets smaller real fast.

It's nothing to do with your reactions, just that your eye is lined up dead on to see the back of the bullet. It's easy for slow rounds, .22 rimfire, or light loads.

But if that round were coming from any other angle, there's no chance it could be evaded. Zero, and anyone who thinks they can, I pose a challenge. I'll bet you £100 (I'm in England, so I'm challenging you, EmptyForceofBullshit) you can't dodge a bullet. I'll video it, and link the results on Sciforums. You must agree to not attempt litigation, or call the cops once you've been plugged though, OK? BTW, you'll get shot with a pellet gun at just 400fps, because that's all I have access to.

You know, if anybody else made this post, I'd think it was tongue in cheek, but having seen what horrendous BS emptyForceofChi spouts elsewhere, this retard probably thinks they can do this.

This kid is full of shit, not Chi!


do you people have some kind of humour or sarcasm detection defect?,


not to be rude but from reading my first post on this thread no1 here could tell i was joking?, are you guys serious.

peace.....

Bah! I'm so manly I can slap the bullets out of the way with my massive cock.

Seriously, no.

I suppose if one had instant (not faster than sound, not faster than light, instant) reflexes and balls of steel, you could dodge grazing shots at shorter distances and basically dance through light gunfire at long distances, but beyond that, you need either PhysicsHack.exe or uber ability.

And if you're tough enough to move like an Agent, you probably shouldn't be concerned with most gunfire. It's the rocket launchers you need to watch out for.

do you people have some kind of humour or sarcasm detection defect?,


not to be rude but from reading my first post on this thread no1 here could tell i was joking?, are you guys serious.

peace.....

I said "if anybody else made this post, I'd think it was tongue in cheek",..

...but not from you, because you are a braggard.

Maybe you don't realise that the way you portray yourself comes across as self aggrandising and juvenile? You write in a rather juvenile style as well. I can only assume that English is not your first language, to excuse this.

I said "if anybody else made this post, I'd think it was tongue in cheek",..

...but not from you, because you are a braggard.

Maybe you don't realise that the way you portray yourself comes across as self aggrandising and juvenile? You write in a rather juvenile style as well. I can only assume that English is not your first language, to excuse this.


i dont know why you say i act childish for, i do not insult other members of sciforums like you do, think what you like about me its ok but i dont see what your problem is, maybe you are insecure and feel the need to ridicule others, im not sure,

i will not argue with you and resort to insults on your level.

peace,

I said 'juvenile' not childish. Your prose is badly spelled, incorrectly capitalised, and badly punctuated. I can only assume you are either not academically bright, or that English is not your first language. No insult, just an observation.

Calling you a braggard was not an insult either, it's how you come across.

I prefer your new avatar, btw. I found the one you had of the little girl disturbing.

The last one had 'cumshot' all over it.

do you people have some kind of humour or sarcasm detection defect?,


not to be rude but from reading my first post on this thread no1 here could tell i was joking?, are you guys serious.

peace.....

I figured you were being sarcastic.
.........well, honestly, there was that, and the fact that my windows sarcasm detector that came with "Windows Xp service pack 2' all of a sudden showed a pop up message asking me if I wanted to 'allow the sarcasm to happen'. I figured you were a trusted provider of sarcasm, so I let it in.

If any body else, apart from this wannabe monk made that claim, yes, it could be taken easily as a joke. But considering the volumes of shit this kid spouts, it really is hard to see where the bullshit ends, and the 'humour' begins.

I said 'juvenile' not childish. Your prose is badly spelled, incorrectly capitalised, and badly punctuated. I can only assume you are either not academically bright, or that English is not your first language. No insult, just an observation.

Calling you a braggard was not an insult either, it's how you come across.

I prefer your new avatar, btw. I found the one you had of the little girl disturbing.


say what you please abot my grammer inteligence level and spelling mistakes,
its ok i dont mind, but stcking to the point of the subject would be prefered for me personaly, aslong as you understand and comprehend what i am saying then picking at minor defects should be secondary concern,


and that avatar/photograph was of my wife and she is an adult not a little girl, what is your problem man?.


peace.

If your grammar, spelling and punctuation are bad, and English is your first language, chances are you aren't very bright.

So, this ties in with your self aggrandisement, and gullibility. You aren't clever enough to see that the wool is being pulled over your eyes. I notice your monks take Visa, btw.

If your grammar, spelling and punctuation are bad, and English is your first language, chances are you aren't very bright.

So, this ties in with your self aggrandisement, and gullibility. You aren't clever enough to see that the wool is being pulled over your eyes. I notice your monks take Visa, btw.


i dont pay for lessons, when did i tell you i train open door at the temple. and not closed door?. and who said that is my only source for shaolin and chinese martial arts?


what wool has been pulled over my eyes? explain to me please.


just because you pay for your training dosent mean others do, i also teach people martial arts for no cost atall, but i charge for my standard personal instruction sessions,




peace.

i dont pay for lessons, when did i tell you i train open door at the temple. and not closed door?. and who said that is my only source for shaolin and chinese martial arts?








what wool has been pulled over my eyes? explain to me please.


just because you pay for your training dosent mean others do, i also teach people martial arts for no cost atall, but i charge for my standard personal instruction sessions, and for regular people it is only £5 for sessions, or cheap membership and you can go down to the temple 6-7 days per week if you like, for no charge, just basic pay, but i do not pay for any lessons i take,

mauy thai, at the KO gym in bethnal green globe road east london, its a good gym all your american celebs come to train at this gym, i have seen pink there before, its a good gym, i study taiji for no cost from a master in london if you want details of all of my training classes and gyms i will post them for you in a relavent thread so you can look into it, and see who my masters are, if you know wing chun then you will know my master and my masters master.



peace.